How Should the Confederacy be Remembered?

[gem]

Not only people aspiring to own slaves, but also people who rented slaves, people whose livelihood depended on the slave system, and people who believed in using slavery as a system of racial control. Indeed, it's highly probable the vast majority of white residents of the confederacy supported the institution of slavery and believed it needed to be protected.

Does that mean that the vast majority of white residents of the confederacy are not worthy of being remembered in an honorable way?

 

[Rebforever]

Did the Union free the slaves and then add a counstutional amendment to outlaw slavery or did the Confederacy do so?
Leftyhunter

Yes. The Confederacy voted for that too under occupation.

 

[Rebforever]

If that is the case then the reason fir the Civil War was slavery since that is what the Ordinances of Secession say it was.
Therefore the Confederacy should logically be remembered as a failed attempt to preserve slavery . The only Southerners that were in fact oppressed were black Southerners and Unionists.
Leftyhunter

Lefty, when are you going to learn the war started over secession? Slavery was not illegal in America at that time.

 

[Andersonh1]

I'll let Anderson speak for himself. The source I found says an average of 32% white families owned slaves. If I understand Cash correctly, he asserts that the number is 33% and involves total families. Neither source tells us how many southern families ASPIRED to owning slaves. Regardless, it seems clear to me that Andersonh1 made a reasonable assertion that the majority of southerners were not represented by the ordinances of secession. Obviously, the politically powerful were well represented.

You've summed up exactly what I was saying, and your statement which I've bolded is key. We know keeping control of slavery was a goal of the secessionists who wrote the ordinances. We know slave owners were a minority in Southern society of the day. Less than 10% of individuals, or around 33% if we count families. So fully two thirds of Southern families were non-slave owners. We have no idea how many of them wanted to be owners. Anyone who says it was most or all of them is just making a guess. I'd like to see some hard numbers to support that type of assertion.

But what we do know is that, as I've said, the rich slaveowners held a disproportionate amount of power in the old South, and it's their priorities that ended up in the ordinances of secession. That some non slave owners shared those priorities is likely, but I'd like to see some hard facts and figures as to exactly how many. I've never seen any provided, just loose assumptions and generalizations.

 

[Andersonh1]

We know that the political elite wanted to secede over the issue of slavery, as they made that clear in the Ordinances of Secession.

So the Confederacy was formed to protect the institution of slavery, I don't think that is deniable.

Some say that the Confederacy should be remembered for that reason and that reason only.

However, since the majority of Southerners did not have a material interest in slavery that view may be overly simplistic.

Agreed, it's absolutely oversimplistic.

 

[Rebforever]

You've summed up exactly what I was saying, and your statement which I've bolded is key. We know keeping control of slavery was a goal of the secessionists who wrote the ordinances. We know slave owners were a minority in Southern society of the day. Less than 10% of individuals, or around 33% if we count families. So fully two thirds of Southern families were non-slave owners. We have no idea how many of them wanted to be owners. Anyone who says it was most or all of them is just making a guess. I'd like to see some hard numbers to support that type of assertion.

But what we do know is that, as I've said, the rich slaveowners held a disproportionate amount of power in the old South, and it's their priorities that ended up in the ordinances of secession. That some non slave owners shared those priorities is likely, but I'd like to see some hard facts and figures as to exactly how many. I've never seen any provided, just loose assumptions and generalizations.

Leading to South Bashing at its best.

 

[Andersonh1]

Leading to South Bashing at its best.

I can't help but believe that is the goal, rather than obtaining an accurate view of history. The South remains a useful scapegoat for America's racial sins to this very day.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Well the south really haven't done anything to help improve their image for the last 150+ years.

But I do agree that racism was not and is not only a thing in the south.
(or in the US for that matter, plenty of that around the world)

And that is sometimes forgotten. Most northerners held opinions that we today would call racist or supporting ****.

 

[leftyhunter]

Lefty, when are you going to learn the war started over secession? Slavery was not illegal in America at that time.

Secession was for the reasons articulated by those who wrote the various Ordinances of Secession. Not all slave owners supported secession i.e. Gen. George Thomas and Brig. General Oden Guitar MSM. Slavery was not illegal but if slavery could not expand and the FSL was flouted it would slowly disapear. In the long term if Republicans could continue to win the Presidency they would replace pro slavery suprem court justices with abolitionists. Therefore secessionists were defending slavery in the long term.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

I can't help but believe that is the goal, rather than obtaining an accurate view of history. The South remains a useful scapegoat for America's racial sins to this very day.

Then Southern white politicians should of then and now lead the way and show how eager they are for full racial equality.
Leftyhunter

 

[CSA Today]

Peace? The loss of 700,000 is hardly any form of "peace". Thanks Gray riders? Indian Relocation Act? Trail of Tears? Perhaps you should check out what JEB Stuart was up to before the Civil War or read one of the complaints listed by Texas regarding the federal government (hint: it had something to do with the Indian problem) The injustice against the Native American had begun long before the Civil War.

Just think

And in the day to get out from the business end of a mule plowing daddy's field and see the world.

You too?

 

[Andersonh1]

Well the south really haven't done anything to help improve their image for the last 150+ years.

Regarding the "150+ years", things have changed a lot since the 1960s, which are now over 50 years ago. I wasn't alive for the Civil Rights movement, but I know a number of people who are old enough to have lived through those years and seen the changes, and they would tell you that South is a much different place. A lot of progress has been made. But the old stereotypes and prejudices against the South remain strongly embedded in the broader US culture, sadly.

 

[CSA Today]

You've summed up exactly what I was saying, and your statement which I've bolded is key. We know keeping control of slavery was a goal of the secessionists who wrote the ordinances. We know slave owners were a minority in Southern society of the day. Less than 10% of individuals, or around 33% if we count families. So fully two thirds of Southern families were non-slave owners. We have no idea how many of them wanted to be owners. Anyone who says it was most or all of them is just making a guess. I'd like to see some hard numbers to support that type of assertion.

But what we do know is that, as I've said, the rich slaveowners held a disproportionate amount of power in the old South, and it's their priorities that ended up in the ordinances of secession. That some non slave owners shared those priorities is likely, but I'd like to see some hard facts and figures as to exactly how many. I've never seen any provided, just loose assumptions and generalizations.

The wealthy held a disproportionate amount of power pretty much everywhere in history including the North.

 

[Patrick H]

That some non slave owners shared those priorities is likely, but I'd like to see some hard facts and figures as to exactly how many.

I think it's likely, too, but devilishly hard to dig out numbers. Probably impossible to know that figure. Cash made a reasonable point that this goes beyond the aspiration to slave ownership. Some livelihoods depended on the slave economy regardless. Those who did depend on it were probably well represented. An economist could probably extrapolate some figures about that, but I can't do it. Regardless, some assumptions have to be made, and assumptions open the door to
faulty reasoning.

I still think that huge numbers of people probably didn't trouble themselves trying to analyze the economics or the politics of the thing. I think a lot of them were willing to fight just because their friends or relatives were willing to fight. I think it was very much a "you can't tell me what to do" sort of motivation.

 

[Bee]

Just think

You too?

I honestly have no idea what you are saying, here.

 

[Patrick H]

Not only people aspiring to own slaves, but also people who rented slaves, people whose livelihood depended on the slave system, and people who believed in using slavery as a system of racial control. Indeed, it's highly probable the vast majority of white residents of the confederacy supported the institution of slavery and believed it needed to be protected.

Cash, you make some good points here and I agree about all these other economic probabilities. However, this still requires an assumption. Either argument requires an assumption. See my post number 195 for more detail on my thoughts.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Regarding the "150+ years", things have changed a lot since the 1960s, which are now over 50 years ago.(...)But the old stereotypes and prejudices against the South remain strongly embedded in the broader US culture, sadly.

yep, that is why I wrote "image"...

I have two points.
I do think the south got an image problem.
Because Seen from the outside I do question if things have changed that much culturally. Sure Blacks can sit where they want in a bus but there are still plenty of areas where it looks to me like prejudices are still the same when it come to anything that is not white, christian and straight... (But this is obviously getting into modern politics. and that is really not my goal)

But How much of my idea about the south is actually true and how much is just based how media (even if I do read the fox news and other conservative website from time to time) show the south? Also how often do we get to hear about when good things happen? I live in Denmark, but how much better/worse would my media exposure be if I lived in California or Wisconsin?

Anyway, That image makes is very very easy to just blame the south (and the confederacy) for every bad thing in the US.
And that is not fair at all.

 

[CSA Today]

I honestly have no idea what you are saying, here.

A reply to the goodguy -- see post 192

 

[libraryguy]

I think it's likely, too, but devilishly hard to dig out numbers. Probably impossible to know that figure. Cash made a reasonable point that this goes beyond the aspiration to slave ownership. Some livelihoods depended on the slave economy regardless. Those who did depend on it were probably well represented. An economist could probably extrapolate some figures about that, but I can't do it. Regardless, some assumptions have to be made, and assumptions open the door to
faulty reasoning.

I still think that huge numbers of people probably didn't trouble themselves trying to analyze the economics or the politics of the thing. I think a lot of them were willing to fight just because their friends or relatives were willing to fight. I think it was very much a "you can't tell me what to do" sort of motivation.

I tend to agree with that, just by imagining myself a simple farmer someplace with NO slaves and I find Yankee armies are invading my "country" as the states were thought of back then. Now really, what would y'all do? Personally I would try to avoid it at all costs, but..

 

[uaskme]

I think it's likely, too, but devilishly hard to dig out numbers. Probably impossible to know that figure. Cash made a reasonable point that this goes beyond the aspiration to slave ownership. Some livelihoods depended on the slave economy regardless. Those who did depend on it were probably well represented. An economist could probably extrapolate some figures about that, but I can't do it. Regardless, some assumptions have to be made, and assumptions open the door to
faulty reasoning.

I still think that huge numbers of people probably didn't trouble themselves trying to analyze the economics or the politics of the thing. I think a lot of them were willing to fight just because their friends or relatives were willing to fight. I think it was very much a "you can't tell me what to do" sort of motivation.

A lot of the People and Interest who Profited from Slavery were in the Free States.