Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
I also think the black slaves of the island nation of Hatti might disagree with the idea that slavery everywhere else was abolished peacefully.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
"Inflaming" is, perhaps, a bit too strong a word for her intentions.
Inflaming was not her intention.
Perhaps. But, as we agree, Mrs. Stowe was an Abolitionist. Maybe she was a peaceful Abolitionist, in that she would never resort to violence, personally. However, she did have a political agenda and I can't help but believe her object was to inflame the public. She originally wrote the book in a series. She knew the effect it was having yet she kept it going.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
Your last sentence-- I believe it could have been peacefully abolished in the U.S., too. -- highlights the center of my interest in the period. That is, why wasn't it?
Because the North had given up slavery in most of it's states it seemed to give them some sort of sense of moral superiority over the South. It made them feel that the Constitution that allowed slavery was second to the "higher power" that they answered to. So they determined the time had come for the South to end slavery. The South believed they were capable of determining that for themselves, just as the North had done in their own states.
Slavery wasn't abolished worldwide when the North decided it should be done. Some abolished slavery before the North did, some after. My simple answer would be that the North didn't respect the rights of the Southern states as equals, therefore slavery didn't have a chance to be abolished in a natural manner. The North wanted it to be done on her schedule and what was Constitutionally legal or how sudden emancipation would effect the slaves be d***ed.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
Would that this were true. Tragically, there are countless individuals living out their lives in slavery today. National Geographic has an excellent article on this subject at http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0309/feature1/
They state: "There are more slaves today than were seized from Africa in four centuries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. The modern commerce in humans rivals illegal drug trafficking in its global reach—and in the destruction of lives."
Yes, I'm aware of today's slavery. It's very unfortunate that it still exists today.
The slavery I spoke of was where slavery had been abolished, usually happened without a war.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
Marc, It's been many, many years since I read "Uncle Tom's Cabin", but I contend that none of it is accurate, because none of it happened. It is fiction written from the perspective of an Abolitionist woman. There is nothing in the novel that is out of the realm of possibility, but that would be the extreme possibility, not the norm. In reality there were few "Simon Legrees". When you come across a man that was cruel to his slaves, usually you have found a man that was simply mean natured. He treats not only slaves but family, animals and others badly. There was no inherent hatred for blacks in the South.
Family splitting as depicted in Mrs. Stowe's book was rare. Mainly it happened on huge plantations that owned dozens of slaves which were rarities and house servants were almost never sold, unless they were problematic, ie. stealing, insolent, unhappy, etc.. There are more instances of owners buying his slave's spouse from another owner than there are of selling one to split up the couple.
Mrs. Stowe knew she was inflaming her Northern audience and that was her intent. Slavery was abolished in every other country, except one, without war. I believe it could have been peacefully abolished in the U.S., too.
Regards,
Rose
Rose,
Have you read Kenneth Stampp's The Peculiar Institution? Slave families were subject to the vicissitudes of fate, and no control over their lives. Stampp documents the destructive effects on the black family under slavery. The removal of children and the breakup of marriages was not at all a rare event. Hard times, the temptation of profit, the death of an owner, all of these were events that could, and often did, lead to the breaking up of families and whole communities. As for whipping, while every slave was not whipped every day, that is not the point. It was a common punishment for many different infractions, and according to Stampp almost every slave experienced this during his lifetime. Perhaps more importantly, the threat of being whipped was a form of terror that hung over the slaves and served to keep them in line. Stowe's novel is indeed fiction, and melodramatic, but it provides very real insight into the institution of slavery as practiced in America before the Civil War.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
I also think the black slaves of the island nation of Hatti might disagree with the idea that slavery everywhere else was abolished peacefully.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
Apparently I didn't make myself clear. I didn't intend to say that slavery had been abolished in every other country. I meant that in every other country where slavery had been abolished, it was mostly without having to resort to war and it could have been without war in the U.S. also.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
Marc, It's been many, many years since I read "Uncle Tom's Cabin", but I contend that none of it is accurate, because none of it happened. It is fiction written from the perspective of an Abolitionist woman. There is nothing in the novel that is out of the realm of possibility, but that would be the extreme possibility, not the norm. In reality there were few "Simon Legrees". When you come across a man that was cruel to his slaves, usually you have found a man that was simply mean natured. He treats not only slaves but family, animals and others badly. There was no inherent hatred for blacks in the South.
Family splitting as depicted in Mrs. Stowe's book was rare. Mainly it happened on huge plantations that owned dozens of slaves which were rarities and house servants were almost never sold, unless they were problematic, ie. stealing, insolent, unhappy, etc.. There are more instances of owners buying his slave's spouse from another owner than there are of selling one to split up the couple.
Mrs. Stowe knew she was inflaming her Northern audience and that was her intent. Slavery was abolished in every other country, except one, without war. I believe it could have been peacefully abolished in the U.S., too.
Regards,
Rose
Family splitting was not rare if for no other reason than a slave held no rights whatsoever. After having read through quite a many slave auction bills. Family splitting happened when finances dictated. There was certainly no provision in any that I read that stipulated that families should be kept together. I agree whole heartedly that the owners who mistreated their property were a minority; but they were minority w/ absolute power over the life & death of human beings.
Stowes work was banned throughout the South... by the very slaveowners she critiqued. Nor was Stowe unique in having her work banned. Look up Elijah Lovejoy.
Stowe took the extreme worst case and described it. She exaggerated and embelished a fictional tale; kind of like the Lost Cause had/has a tendency to do.
The idea that there was no inherant idea of hatred towards blacks in the South flies in the face of reality... and things like Jim Crow. People fear and hate what they do not understand... It was no different south of the Mason Dixon than north of it.
Who started it? I no longer really care. Whose fault was it? I no longer really care as there is ample evidence to spread the blame around and the blame game grows old.
Fix the problem, not the blame.
Honor the men who served something greater than themselves, both North & South. The men who served, not the men who sent them there. The men who chewed the same mud & dirt and suffered through the same hell of a Civil War. Men of Flesh and Blood full of folly and of brilliance just as we are today.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Because the North had given up slavery in most of it's states it seemed to give them some sort of sense of moral superiority over the South.
No quarrel there. Nothing more overbearing than someone who has quit smoking or drinking, has been born again, or has otherwise seen the light.
Quote:
It made them feel that the Constitution that allowed slavery was second to the "higher power" that they answered to.
That's bordering on hypebole.
Quote:
So they determined the time had come for the South to end slavery. The South believed they were capable of determining that for themselves, just as the North had done in their own states.
And many of them tried to persuade slaveowners as they themselves had been persuaded.
One thing I wish we could stop doing is perpetuating that north/south schism. The real quarrel was between abolitionists (of all intensities) and slaveowners. There were slaveowners in the northern states and abolitionists in the southern. The average citizen couldn't have cared less. Oh, to be sure, there would be a tut, tut, from either belief and then it was business as usual. It would seem the problem developed around some overblown abolitionist hyperbole and the overreaction of slaveowners to it. What had been a social movement became political. The normal clannishness of a discrete group living in similar circumstances toward another discrete group in other circumstances (the yeoman vs the plantation vs the manufacturer vs the merchand vs the sailor vs the laborer ......) became warped with the added antagonism of two relatively insignificant (well, they were, at least in population terms) "clans."
But I digress. Stowe's work unintentionally picked the scab off a sore. Of such, history is born.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Who started it? I no longer really care. Whose fault was it? I no longer really care as there is ample evidence to spread the blame around and the blame game grows old.
Fix the problem, not the blame.
Honor the men who served something greater than themselves, both North & South. The men who served, not the men who sent them there. The men who chewed the same mud & dirt and suffered through the same hell of a Civil War. Men of Flesh and Blood full of folly and of brilliance just as we are today.
I could not agree more. I can easily do just that until someone insults my ancestors and all my good intentions fly south, so to speak. I don't know if it's the irish in me or the blood of my Confederate ancestors or if perhaps it's just some flaw in my character, but loyalty to my ancestors is something I can't get rid of any more than the color of my eyes or skin. If I dishonor them, I feel I've dishonored myself. Corny as that may sound, I was raised that way. And while I can see their faults, I know their virtues and they aren't here to defend themselves.
You are right that people fear and hate what they do not understand.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
I don't know if it's the irish in me or the blood of my Confederate ancestors or if perhaps it's just some flaw in my character, but loyalty to my ancestors is something I can't get rid of any more than the color of my eyes or skin. Rose
It's not the 'Irish', we've had enough troubles with overseers, must be something else.
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
Rose: "It made them feel that the Constitution that allowed slavery was second to the "higher power" that they answered to."
That's bordering on hypebole.
No, really, that is what was said, first by Seward and then it was picked up by some of the Abolitionists.
"There is a higher law than the Constitution which regulates our authority over the domain. Slavery must be abolished, and we must do it."--Wm. H. Seward.
From the Texas Declaration of Causes: “They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
And many of them tried to persuade slaveowners as they themselves had been persuaded.
They are lucky they didn't have John Brown and Mrs. Stowe to help persuade them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
There were slaveowners in the northern states and abolitionists in the southern. The average citizen couldn't have cared less. Oh, to be sure, there would be a tut, tut, from either belief and then it was business as usual. It would seem the problem developed around some overblown abolitionist hyperbole and the overreaction of slaveowners to it. What had been a social movement became political. The normal clannishness of a discrete group living in similar circumstances toward another discrete group in other circumstances (the yeoman vs the plantation vs the manufacturer vs the merchand vs the sailor vs the laborer ......) became warped with the added antagonism of two relatively insignificant (well, they were, at least in population terms) "clans."
Ole, that was so well put and you nailed it presicely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
But I digress. Stowe's work unintentionally picked the scab off a sore. Of such, history is born.
Ole
You may be right, but I have doubts. I know she had a political agenda. Beyond that I can't really say for certain what her expectations were in writing the novel.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
I don't know if it's the irish in me or the blood of my Confederate ancestors or if perhaps it's just some flaw in my character, but loyalty to my ancestors is something I can't get rid of any more than the color of my eyes or skin. If I dishonor them, I feel I've dishonored myself. Corny as that may sound, I was raised that way. And while I can see their faults, I know their virtues and they aren't here to defend themselves.
Linear Mode
