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 first heard the term Wage Slave in reference to yankee treatment of freed white men in the North before the war.
They did whip them. They did beat them. They did other things.
About the only thing such an employee who leaves the employer gets is, well, his 'freedom'. He is now free to look for other servitude elsewhere, and the first thing he gets to talk about is... why did you leave? (The Un-asked
Bit is, of course... "What do you think will be any different here?").
I was a wage slave, once. I am now self-employed, and
would have it no other way. (I 'escaped' from my masters!) They thought I would get hungry and come back to the plantation; they were wrong.
I have actually worked at several places who paid for your 'schooling' and where you signed on to work so many years to pay them back for that... or else you had to buy 'yourself' back out of servitude in a lump sum!
I am just appalled that, as friends of mine who stayed tell me, things just only get worse. RIGHT TO WORK states.
The need for Unions... You know the score...
So, yeah, I see the similarities!
Beowulf
And you are right about one other thing. It is not the South who has such problems; it is the Southerners working for Transplants!
And yet you would have us believe that the above tirade is anything like chattel slavery in the pre and Civil War years.
'Wage slave' compares to nothing to the slavery of the period.
Again, simply misdirection on your part to somehow give the Southern leadership of the time a free pass on why they seceded from the Union.
Hence threads like this one, to flash in the eyes, to drone in the ears and to avoid true history at all costs.
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
Great story JohnTaylor told. Fugitive slave is hauled before one of the federal commissioners. The Commissioner questions the runaway. Were you whipped? No. Were you starved? No. Did you have adequate shelter? Yes. Were you overworked? Not really. "Well then," concluded the commissioner, "it seems you ran from a very comfortable situation."
"If you're interested, your honor," replied the prisoner, "I believe the position is still open."
Priceless!
"F-R-E-E-D-O-M paint me a picture, where are you F-R-E-E-D-O-M?"
__________________ "Those who forget to remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana.
And yet you would have us believe that the above tirade is anything like chattel slavery in the pre and Civil War years.
'Wage slave' compares to nothing to the slavery of the period.
Again, simply misdirection on your part to somehow give the Southern leadership of the time a free pass on why they seceded from the Union.
Hence threads like this one, to flash in the eyes, to drone in the ears and to avoid true history at all costs.
Unionblue
I would have you believe, sir, that I was describing wage slavery, as he inquired about it.
I was not talking about SLAVERY as an institution, nor the Southern need to keep a tight rein upon it, and the political hyenas who sought to vote themselves largesse from the common treasury through the problems of the day, one of which was most assuredly the issue of Slavery.
No one gets a free pass, anywhere, except your people's prior involvement, and refusal to do anything about it during their own compensated self-righteous 'emancipation'... or RE-SALE OF HUMAN PROPERTY and then the political and military CONVERSION to 'Abolition' during the war...
I note that your 'Union' has an historical lack of care about Southern White People at all, whether slave-owning or non-slave-owning, either before, of during the war, when it comes to allowing freed and uncontrolled emancipation of a potentially dangerous human force of people...
(Yet, with Sherman, we get back on track with the Indians out West!).
Your microscopic viewpoint is as unreliable and fish-bowl in its magnification as anything in fiction I have ever read!
You reenact. You have to know and understand that SLAVERY, and the owning of slaves as an art form, was not a big deal to these people, all the way around, except for the Abolitionists of the day, who now give us our own moral codes of today, because the North has no better excuse to offer for its invasion! The real problem with Slavery was seen as the fact that there were too many Slaves for the work to be done, and the common knowledge that plantations would one day not be able to hold all of them...
So while we have this dilemma, added to the civilizing of them as a people, and the freed population themselves, many of whom, had actually bought their own freedom, who were looking at their own freedom being cheapened by this governmental action, to say nothing of their own jobs being threatened by any governmental intrusions... and now, we get a mouthy bunch of Abolitionists who want to tear into a volatile social problem and make it... well, as bad as it got after the war.
You have to go back in time... All the way back. Women running around in blue jean shorts and halter tops would have been a much greater social dilemma to the 1800's crowd! And the way people of today act in society?
One day, your people of today will be known for their unreasoning look at the Southern Confederacy through the one word 'lens' of SLAVERY! Films like Ken Burns made will
be the quaint measuring stick of this era!
You have to know and understand that SLAVERY, and the owning of slaves as an art form, was not a big deal to these people, all the way around, except for the Abolitionists of the day, who now give us our own moral codes of today, because the North has no better excuse to offer for its invasion! The real problem with Slavery was seen as the fact that there were too many Slaves for the work to be done, and the common knowledge that plantations would one day not be able to hold all of them... I bet owning slaves was no big deal to slave owners, except if a slave ran away.
So while we have this dilemma, added to the civilizing of them as a people, and the freed population themselves, many of whom, had actually bought their own freedom, who were looking at their own freedom being cheapened by this governmental action, to say nothing of their own jobs being threatened by any governmental intrusions... and now, we get a mouthy bunch of Abolitionists who want to tear into a volatile social problem and make it... well, as bad as it got after the war. There were more than 4 million slaves in 1860. Do you have any evidence of how many slaves bought their freedom?
One day, your people of today will be known for their unreasoning look at the Southern Confederacy through the one word 'lens' of SLAVERY! Films like Ken Burns made will be the quaint measuring stick of this era!
Beowulf
I can think of several words for the Confederacy: treason and rebellion.
__________________ "Those who forget to remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana.
NO we have history, history calls it a rebellion no matter how much you try to distort that.
__________________ 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
What do you make of this? Cash says it is propaganda. Yet he does not elaborate.
Anyone care to tackle this? It is pretty d a m n i n g stuff!
Yankee Rebuttals, please! I know the guy is, like, talking to his Blade, or something... but between all the period flowery
gush is a lot of (gulp!) and 'oh,really?!'
I'd be interested to get the Dark Blue Side's analysis!
Beowulf
Your link just freezes my computer.
-
__________________ -
"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
NO we have history, history calls it a rebellion no matter how much you try to distort that.
The Winners write something they call history. The Victims like to call what they write indictments...
A police report, on the other hand, is an actual neutral writ, and would detail a domestic disturbance and would record S1's side, and V1's side, and then most likely separate the disputants, and call social services for V1, and most likely arrest S1 for domestic battery, a felony, and transport S1 downtown to post a bond, and then have a restraining order issued to prevent further contact between the two, arrange for the care of the children, and do a 10-40 and supplement.
In the narrative, S1 would clearly be seen as the aggressor, and despite the marriage covenant, would recommend separation of the pair until such time as counseling could be obtained for the pair.
10-8, one 10-40, supplement, one SR761, and Restraining Order.
Well. I'm feeling a bit peckish. So maybe I'll (unofficially) join in.
Froze mine as well.
"My Mac" says volumes.
Sorry, guys. I'm still bummed out at Bill's passing. That's a hard thing to have. I argued with him and I hated him and I miss him.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
They thought I would get hungry and come back to the plantation; they were wrong. 
Linear Mode
