Divided Loyalty

[DanF]

One has to wonder, if slaves were so well treated and cared for, why was it the slave owners were so adamant that they would not themselves be treated as slaves?

They often portrayed anything they didn't like as being equal to the "chains of slavery" as if slavery were a bad thing.

Strange, huh?

 

[DanF]

Slavery is just one form of tyranny. Are you suggesting that it's the only form?

No, I am stating that Factory owners and slave owners were not the same. Nor were factory workers and slaves the same.

 

[Will Carry]

It's hard to imagine that many people in America back then had rarely been further from home than they could walk. The railroads were changing that. Could it be that many people back then considered their state first, as in 'These United States" rather than the federal government first. I really don't know but I am really enjoying reading the posts from people more knowledgeable than I.

I realize that I just said nothing but I want to join in the fun just the same.

 

[Two Eyed Jack]

No, I am stating that Factory owners and slave owners were not the same. Nor were factory workers and slaves the same.

I never mentioned anything about yankee factory workers or owners. I was responding to this:

"No, because the tryanny was in slavery, you don't get more tyrannical than depriving other human beings of even the most basic human rights"

I read that as you were implying that slavery is the only form of tyranny.

 

[Bee]

No, I am stating that Factory owners and slave owners were not the same. Nor were factory workers and slaves the same.

I did not want to risk ruining the thread with too much drift, but I will say this about that, regarding "slavery" as a metaphor: Until I saw the programme "The Atlantic Slave Trade", I had no idea the horrors endured by those imprisoned humans in the deep bowels of the slave ships -- cured me forever of further "generic" views on "slavery".

 

[DanF]

I never mentioned anything about yankee factory workers or owners. I was responding to this:

"No, because the tryanny was in slavery, you don't get more tyrannical than depriving other human beings of even the most basic human rights"

I read that as you were implying that slavery is the only form of tyranny.

And the post was in response to a claim that by fighting for the Union the virginian Thomas was supporting tyranny. But the facts in this instance is that the real tyranny was the tyranny employed by the Slave States. The Tyranny that said you could legally own another human being and have absolute control of their lives.

 

[huskerblitz]

And the post was in response to a claim that by fighting for the Union the virginian Thomas was supporting tyranny. But the facts in this instance is that the real tyranny was the tyranny employed by the Slave States. The Tyranny that said you could legally own another human being and have absolute control of their lives.

No, what you were doing was pigeon holing a definition of a word to attempt to prove your point. Tyranny, 'real' or otherwise, is in the eye of the beholder whether or not you agree with it. And to certain degrees there was plenty of tyranny heaped up Northern workers (look at the controlled lives of the Lowell Mill girls, for example) not to mention horrid working conditions and low pay.

And no one was saying slavery was better than factory work. You brought that in to divert attention away from your previously made point.

 

[DanF]

No, what you were doing was pigeon holing a definition of a word to attempt to prove your point.

What I did was point out that slavery was the ultimate tyranny over another human being.

Tyranny, 'real' or otherwise, is in the eye of the beholder whether or not you agree with it.

Sorry but imaginary tyranny isn't equal to actual tyranny, having absolute power over another by law is not "in the eye of the beholder".

And to certain degrees there was plenty of tyranny heaped up Northern workers (look at the controlled lives of the Lowell Mill

Again please post the relevant documentation on the fugitive factory worker statutes, and cases where factory owners split apart factory workers families selling off family members.

for example) not to mention horrid working conditions and low pay.

And apparently you think this is at least "equal to" horrid working conditions and no pay? The factory worker at least had the ability, if not the inclination to try and change their condition. The slave had no such ability.

And no one was saying slavery was better than factory work.

Post #18 is clearly an attempt to say the factory worker was no better off than the slave. And the slaveholders did try and make that case that the slave was better off than the "wage slave" in their pro slavery arguments.

 

[DanF]

I would suggest if you would like to continue this that it be done in "slavery as a positive good". Rather than this thread.

 

[huskerblitz]

Sorry but imaginary tyranny isn't equal to actual tyranny, having absolute power over another by law is not "in the eye of the beholder".

Again please post the relevant documentation on the fugitive factory worker statutes, and cases where factory owners split apart factory workers families selling off family members.

And apparently you think this is at least "equal to" horrid working conditions and no pay? The factory worker at least had the ability, if not the inclination to try and change their condition. The slave had no such ability.

There was plenty of tyranny forced upon Northern workers in regards to living conditions, working conditions, wages. I recommend you read up on the subject before you dismiss their conditions as 'imaginary'.

Post #18 is clearly an attempt to say the factory worker was no better off than the slave. And the slaveholders did try and make that case that the slave was better off than the "wage slave" in their pro slavery arguments.

No the focus of my post was on your extremely limited use of the word 'tyranny'. And it wasn't just slaveholders that made the case for Northern workers. There were plenty of people who made that charge against Northern factory owners.

I would suggest if you would like to continue this that it be done in "slavery as a positive good". Rather than this thread.

Perhaps the focus on your limited use of the dictionary on particular words is better suited for another thread, but not the one you suggested because yet again, no one made that argument slavery was better/worse than the plight of Northern factory workers regardless of how much you want that argument to be.

 

[brass napoleon]

Pretty sure those that signed up to fight for the Union after the attack on Sumter were signing up to fight for their Country.

Well, it was an easy choice because there was no choice to be made. Their state and their country were on the same side. But imagine what would have happened if say Breckenridge had won the 1860 Presidential election. (I know it's impossible, but bear with me on this). It would have meant at least four more years of a pro-slavery administration like those of Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan over the past 12. Ohio and Wisconsin were already in near open rebellion against the Federal government. Wisconsin was openly defying the Supreme Court and Ohio had openly defied the Supreme Court the year before. Ohio's Governor pledged to throw the full weight of the state of Ohio behind the Ohio Supreme Court if they ruled against the U.S. Supreme Court again. Two years earlier, in 1857, Ohio sheriffs led posses of angry citizens against a United States Marshal and his entourage who had arrested four Ohio men for violating the Fugitive Slave Law. The Marshal was arrested after a violent confrontation and released only after the Governor worked out a deal with President Buchanan.

It's very easy for me to imagine that if the policies of Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan had continued much longer, Ohio and other Northern states would have openly rebelled against the federal government. And if that happened, the divided loyalties would have been reversed. Northerners would have had to choose between state and country, while Southerners wouldn't have to face that dilemma. And I'm inclined to believe that if I had lived in Ohio at the time, I would have sided with Ohio - not the government of Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan and Breckenridge.

 

[DanF]

Well, it was an easy choice because there was no choice to be made. Their state and their country were on the same side

That was not true off everyone that enlisted to fight for the Union. Many Southerners from slave States signed up to fight on the side of the Union.

 

[brass napoleon]

That was not true off everyone that enlisted to fight for the Union. Many Southerners from slave States signed up to fight on the side of the Union.

Absolutely. And some people from free states signed up to fight for the Confederacy. There are always exceptions. But the vast majority of Civil War soldiers, North and South, fought on the side of their state. And I have little doubt that if it had been a case of the Northern states rebelling against a pro-slavery federal government, the result would have been the same.

 

[Two Eyed Jack]

And the post was in response to a claim that by fighting for the Union the virginian Thomas was supporting tyranny. But the facts in this instance is that the real tyranny was the tyranny employed by the Slave States. The Tyranny that said you could legally own another human being and have absolute control of their lives.

So the Founders, many of who owned slaves and/or engaged in the slave trade, didn't have a leg to stand on when proclaiming British tyranny. In other words, the country was founded by hypocrites claiming a false injustice.

 

[cash]

In other words, the country was founded by hypocrites claiming a false injustice.

Only those who held slaves.

Many recognized the hypocrisy. It was a major factor in Northern states abolishing slavery.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

As far as the loyalty to one's place of birth goes, that's a toughie for me. I have to think about it when someone asks where I'm "from." The place of my birth was in Texas, but my parents weren't Texans; Dad was stationed at Fort Hood at the time. Both parents are Ohio-born, as were their own parents, so I can feel safe in pointing to Ohio as my native state, but where in Ohio? Mom was from Toledo and Dad was born in Cambridge and grew up in Canton; they met at Ohio State and settled in the Columbus area.

So where am I "from," really? I usually cautiously say, "I grew up in central Ohio."

(For that matter, Abraham Lincoln was born in Kentucky, but is most strongly associated with Illinois, as is Grant, who was born in Ohio-- Grant is even noted as Illinoisan at that state's Vicksburg monument... and then of course North Carolina likes to "borrow" the non-North Carolinian Wright Brothers, one of whom was born in Ohio and one in Indiana!)

 

[huskerblitz]

Yeah, I understand that. I was born in Indiana and lived there until I was 10. But I completely identify myself as a Nebraskan. My loyalty lies with Nebraska where I have lived since about the age of 12 or 13.

 

[brass napoleon]

In other words, the country was founded by hypocrites claiming a false injustice.

Well the injustice was very real. But yeah, so was the hypocrisy. I think Luther Martin, one of Maryland's delegates to the Constitutional Convention, summed it up nicely (and note that when he talks about the "eastern states" here, he's referring to the New England states):

'I found the eastern States, notwithstanding their aversion to slavery, were very willing to indulge the southern States, at least with a temporary liberty to prosecute the slave trade, provided the southern States would in their turn gratify them, by laying no restriction on navigation acts; and after a very little time, the committee by a great majority, agreed on a report, by which the general government was to be prohibited from preventing the importation of slaves for a limited time, and the restrictive clause relative to navigation acts was to be omitted.

This report was adopted by a majority of the convention, but not without considerable opposition.--It was said, that we had but just assumed a place among independent nations, in consequence of our opposition to the attempts of Great-Britain to enslave us; that this opposition was grounded upon the preservation of those rights, to which God and Nature had entitled us, not in particular, but in common with all the rest of mankind--That we had appealed to the Supreme being for his assistance, as the God of freedom, who could not but approve our efforts to preserve the rights which he had thus imparted to his creatures; that now, when we scarcely had risen from our knees, from supplicating his aid and protection--in forming our government over a free people, a government formed pretendedly on the principles of liberty and for its preservation,--in that government to have a provision, not only putting it out of its power to restrain and prevent the slave trade, but even encouraging that most infamous traffic, by giving the States power and influence in the union, in proportion as they cruelly and wantonly sport with the rights of their fellow creatures, ought to be considered as a solemn mockery of, and insult to, that God whose protection we had then implored, and could not fail to hold us up in detestation, and render us contemptible to every true friend of liberty in the world. It was said, it ought to be considered that national crimes can only be, and frequently are, punished in this world by national punishments, and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him, who is equal Lord of all, and who views with equal eye, the poor African slave and his American master!'

- Luther Martin, 1788

Source: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_9_1s8.html​

 

[DanF]

So the Founders, many of who owned slaves and/or engaged in the slave trade, didn't have a leg to stand on when proclaiming British tyranny. In other words, the country was founded by hypocrites claiming a false injustice.

Of course those who owned slaves or engaged in the slave trade were hypocrites. And in rebelling against the King they were traitors as well. (at least to the british).

Robert E. Lee's Father protested English taxation by marching thru the street with banners equating english taxes as the "chains of slavery". The banners were held by his slaves.

At the time of the revolution A wry commentator observed,

"How is it that the yelps for liberty are coming from the slave drivers? "

 

[leftyhunter]

I believe Lee chose Virginia not slavery or even the Confederacy.

What is the exact cause that Lee is fighting for if not slavery?Lee was a Confederate Commander not a Virginian Army Commander. We know exactly what the Confederacy was fighting for because we have countless quotes from their leaders.
Leftyhunter