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 certainly hope this will resolve any doubts, but ..............
Well if i link you to a J Davis scholar, who says the war was only about States rights and not about slavery, you would of course say, well he would say that would he not.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Well if i link you to a J Davis scholar, who says the war was only about States rights and not about slavery, you would of course say, well he would say that would he not.
??? not analagous. If I emailed a Davis scholar and asked him to verify the authenticity of a Davis quote I would expect an honest reply. I believe samgrant would as well.
Methinks you are defending what you want Grant to have said... despite what the evidence points to.
__________________ 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
Odd how when i quote from those books, you disagree with me, only to say your opinions are formed from reading them. Very odd isn't it? Incidently the only title I have seen you mention is Time on the cross... must have missed something.
Every negro after 63 was conscripted, i gave you bthe OR order for the dat, thats over 75% of the 99k you listed earlier, or in other words the number of negros who volunertaily served is very small, from Southern States. Cite your source that EVERY negro after 63 was a conscript as that is serious wishful thinking. I seem to have missed several of your posts.
In then AWI the Uk offered freedom to any slave, and then put them in the army, typically the Uk Army had 10% of ration sytrength made up of negros. More negros fought for the Uk against the colonies than did Southern states negros fight for the Union by choice. I know; what bearing does that have on the current discussion? IIRC more negroes fought for the British army in the revolution than the US. Unless you are somehow trying to make the point that Blacks were unwilling to fight for their own freedom.
I think your quote is one by F Douglas.
You would be right; a former slave who had a pretty good idea what he was talking about.
As I have asked you before and would ask any who would defend slavery as right and proper... again. Would you be willing to deliver yourself or your family into slavery?
__________________ 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
Odd how when i quote from those books, you disagree with me, only to say your opinions are formed from reading them.
Every negro after 63 was conscripted, i gave you bthe OR order for the dat, thats over 75% of the 99k you listed earlier, or in other words the number of negros who volunertaily served is very small, from Southern States.
I think you are playing fun with numbers here. Throughout 1864 and into 1865, perhaps back into 1863, there were agents from Northern states in the southern states recruiting negroes to sign up. Why? Because they could fullfill their quotas by supplying troops, source of enlistment immaterial. Enlisting negroes from SC or TN or LA was just fine.
While we are at it, a bit of trivia: the entire draft of Union soldiers for the war amounts to only 6% of Union troops who served. (It was, however, rising and would have continued to climb if the war had continued in 1865.)
??? not analagous. If I emailed a Davis scholar and asked him to verify the authenticity of a Davis quote I would expect an honest reply. I believe samgrant would as well.
Methinks you are defending what you want Grant to have said... despite what the evidence points to.
Very analagous. Any scholar of Davis will tell you that was his opinion, just as samgrants expert opinoin is not evidence, meerly opinion.
The evidence/facts do not support either posistion to allow a difinative yes or no answer, meerly it mnay or may not be true that grant said it, beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of proof im using, and neither side can prove that.
Ulysses S. Grant wrote to Maj. Gen. Edward R.S. Canby at Mobile to "get all the Negro men we can before the enemy puts them into their ranks."
Now what does that mean?, does it imply that the negro was shoering up the Southern war effort, and to end the conflict the support mechanism of slavery, has become a war measure?, or does it mean that the CSA was arming slaves for use?. Clearly the former and not the latter.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
You would be right; a former slave who had a pretty good idea what he was talking about.
As I have asked you before and would ask any who would defend slavery as right and proper... again. Would you be willing to deliver yourself or your family into slavery?
My source is the officail order for the entire depot of the South and is already posted in the thread, one of the bits you missed methinks.
No i was going for the how many Souther states negros served voluntarily as oposed to conscripted without choice, the Norther free negros served early and in high numbers, the border states are a mixed bag but quite high incidence of serving willingly, but the Southern states negros is another matter, only when the Union occupys the locailty and conscripts them do they serve in meangfull numbers in a combat role, they wanted to labour, but not to soldier.
And my answer is still the same, we are all using the same word but meaning something different by its use. If a major instition offers you a job for life, health care, and so on, free travel around the nation, your selling yourself into a form of slavery.
Your version of slavery in general, is not one that is contained in the books you listed, none of which describe the condition of slavery as treating slaves as cattle. But perhaps you can specifilcy cite from one that does say that?.
I have no problem with being a slave, every one is to one degree or another, its the degree of choice and reward thats defines the condition as being benign or, as in the case of a cane cutter in LA, a living hell.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
I think you are playing fun with numbers here. Throughout 1864 and into 1865, perhaps back into 1863, there were agents from Northern states in the southern states recruiting negroes to sign up. Why? Because they could fullfill their quotas by supplying troops, source of enlistment immaterial. Enlisting negroes from SC or TN or LA was just fine.
While we are at it, a bit of trivia: the entire draft of Union soldiers for the war amounts to only 6% of Union troops who served. (It was, however, rising and would have continued to climb if the war had continued in 1865.)
Regards,
Tim
Fun with numbers?, well not really, well perhaps a little bit, i wonder if i can convince you Burnside at F-burg was no different than Grant in the 40 days?, using numbers to argue that burnside was as effiecent as Grant at killing, then the logical extention of that, is that Burnside was a better butcher of men and a better general in those terms, which of course would mean he has hada bad press about F-Burg.....see i said it copuld be fun
The point stands though about the time frame of negro service, and the condition of choice abouit service.
Im not so sure the northern states could furnish substantial more manpower, the incidence of service in extremly high in historic terms, higher than the world wars by far, im not sure what the tipping point would be, but of course they also have the vast influx of forgien nationals who more than made up all the war time losses, something the South had nothing to compare with.
Now since free whites payed not to serve, the States still had to fill the quotas, the Gov still needed warm bodies to serve in the armed forces, thats why Europe and the negros were targetted to serve, they saw the bounty system as part of social mobility from haveing no stake in society to haveing one, something the Republican party was very aware of what was needed in american society, when the South run the county, it did so to maintain the situation of most people, they liked it it that way and called it serene, the North with its own problem of lots of poor people comming in, rather than treat them as slaves, sought ways to elevte them, the homstead acts for instance, when the South had the clout they were of parcells of plantation size, and when the Republicans had the cout for the average family instead.
What the south called serene, the North called decadent, stagnant.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Fun with numbers ...
Im not so sure the northern states could furnish substantial more manpower, the incidence of service in extremly high in historic terms, higher than the world wars by far, im not sure what the tipping point would be, but of course they also have the vast influx of forgien nationals who more than made up all the war time losses, something the South had nothing to compare with.
Now since free whites payed not to serve, the States still had to fill the quotas, the Gov still needed warm bodies to serve in the armed forces, thats why Europe and the negros were targetted to serve, they saw the bounty system as part of social mobility from haveing no stake in society to haveing one, something the Republican party was very aware of what was needed in american society, when the South run the county, it did so to maintain the situation of most people, they liked it it that way and called it serene, the North with its own problem of lots of poor people comming in, rather than treat them as slaves, sought ways to elevte them, the homstead acts for instance, when the South had the clout they were of parcells of plantation size, and when the Republicans had the cout for the average family instead.
What the south called serene, the North called decadent, stagnant.
You seem to have a point you want to assert, but no desire to be realistic about it.
When I said only 6% of those who served for the Union were drafted, that is exactly what I meant. This is documentable from the records. What you are saying above is not. So are the reasons for it. The Union went with a carrot-and-stick approach, only using the draft when men could not be supplied for military service by other means (patriotism, incentives & bonuses, etc.) This approach worked better for them than it did in the South because of the larger population in the North.
The South resorted to conscription in 1862 because their attempts to deal with their needs by a volunteer system proved inadequate (i.e., when it came time for the first wave of 1-year volunteers to re-enlist, not enough of them would, and not enough new volunteers were coming forth). A small white military age population was a large part of the population. The failure to meet the need meant they instituted conscription.
BTW, for comparison purposes, in the years before WWI, roughly 50% of the German males entering the military age group were conscripted for active duty, followed by service in the reserves and then the Landwehr up to age 45. France, with a smaller population, needed to conscript a larger percentage to field an Army to oppose this, and conscripted 86% of the men entering the male military age group for service for active service, followed by reserve duty. This was in time of peace. Confederate levels were high, but they are skewed by ignoring the available slave manpower in the calculation.
My source is the officail order for the entire depot of the South and is already posted in the thread, one of the bits you missed methinks. Maybe; I looked this morn & apparently missed it.
No i was going for the how many Souther states negros served voluntarily as oposed to conscripted without choice, the Norther free negros served early and in high numbers, the border states are a mixed bag but quite high incidence of serving willingly, but the Southern states negros is another matter, only when the Union occupys the locailty and conscripts them do they serve in meangfull numbers in a combat role, they wanted to labour, but not to soldier. I believe the proper English reply would be... Bullocks
And my answer is still the same, we are all using the same word but meaning something different by its use. If a major instition offers you a job for life, health care, and so on, free travel around the nation, your selling yourself into a form of slavery. Again... a load of bullocks; I am no more a slave than you. Either of us can quit upon a whim or in the military the end of an enlistment. Claiming such as an equivelant of slavery is a purposeful cheapening of what a slave in 1860's US went through in a transparent attempt to lessen the impact of slavery.
Your version of slavery in general, is not one that is contained in the books you listed, none of which describe the condition of slavery as treating slaves as cattle. But perhaps you can specifilcy cite from one that does say that?. Bought & sold, w/ little or no consideration of famly structure... kind of like cattle don't you think? Yes, I believe slaves were treated as cattle and any study of the life of a slave bears such out. Any reference to the forcible breakup of families, brutal beatings, etc... is enough for any 3rd grader to figure out that slavery was not all peaches & cream.
I have no problem with being a slave, every one is to one degree or another, its the degree of choice and reward thats defines the condition as being benign or, as in the case of a cane cutter in LA, a living hell. I doubt very much you would say such a thing if you had done research into places like Cobbs plantation or any of the breeding plantations. Well the only thing you have right there is "living hell." So would you willingly sell your child into 1860's US slavery? I doubt it.
The very idea that a modern employee of say Tyco or Wal Mart in any way has a life similar to a slave is comical... no it is farce and it cheapens what slaves suffered. It is tantamount to saying slavery wasn't that bad, in fact it is saying slavery was a great career.
Read the slave narratives as a start; then go to SC and start picking cotton, start at dawn and finish at sundown w/ a bit of food brough to you about midday and some water a couple of times throughout the day. Then forget about any kind of payment for your labor... get back to your shack to find your wife and children sold by your benevolant master as he needs a bit of capital. Oh by the way, you are denied the right to read or even to learn to read and you have to ask permission to marry. Do you recall King Edward's rules about marriage in Scotland? Same applied in the South... if you are up for such a life for your wife & daughters... Again I doubt it.
__________________ 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
I chose the life that I lead. I chose to go to college for over 5 years to become a teacher. The school I work for pays me pretty well, I love the job and there are some great benefits to being a teacher. They actually give me most of the summer off, Christmas break, Easter break, holidays and I didn't even have to ask. They just gave them to me. Now I'm tenured and they can't get rid of me. I'm far from a slave.
Bart
__________________ "Thank You....Noooo."
Major Charles Emerson Winchester III M.A.S.H. 4077th
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
, i wonder if i can convince you Burnside at F-burg was no different than Grant in the 40 days?, using numbers to argue that burnside was as effiecent as Grant at killing, then the logical extention of that, is that Burnside was a better butcher of men and a better general in those terms, which of course would mean he has hada bad press about F-Burg.....see i said it copuld be fun
Linear Mode
