Discussion Fact vs Interpretation, What We Have to Unlearn.

Status
Not open for further replies.

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
I'm just curious. If the Civil War wasn't about slavery, then why didn't the South free the slaves to prove it wasn't about slavery? It seems to me that the war would have been over with, in about fifteen minutes.

You're from California and you know of Skid Row, and that would have been the south's fate if they would have released the slaves.
 

mkyzzzrdet

Corporal
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
I'm just curious. If the Civil War wasn't about slavery, then why didn't the South free the slaves to prove it wasn't about slavery? It seems to me that the war would have been over with, in about fifteen minutes.
The north went to war to preserve the Union. The immediate cause of the war was secession. Yes - the root cause of the war was (IMHO) slavery - if there had NOT been a slavery issue, I doubt the south would have gone so far as seceding. But if the south seceded, and then freed the slaves (very unlikely they would have done that) the north would have still "invaded" the south to restore the Union. Lincoln had no intention of letting the south go.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
You're from California and you know of Skid Row, and that would have been the south's fate if they would have released the slaves.
Based on what historical evidence? Slaves have been freed throughout the Nineteenth Century in both North, Central and South America without any major of homelessness. Poverty yes but the ex slaves throughout the new world still had a roof over there heads.
Leftyhunter
 

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Based on what historical evidence? Slaves have been freed throughout the Nineteenth Century in both North, Central and South America without any major of homelessness. Poverty yes but the ex slaves throughout the new world still had a roof over there heads.
Leftyhunter

I wasn't talking about the slaves, they would have gotten by alright.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
DI's hate everybody :roflmao:

God's truth!

I have multiple sons who have been through Parris Island recently. The last in 2017. That aspect hasn't changed.

I remember a story about Drill Sergeants from the book, Starship Troopers, where a recruit was wondering how a mother could give birth to such a miserable human being. A corporal nearby heard the recruit's lament and replied, "Soldier! Don't you know about sergeants? They aren't born. They reproduce by fission, like all bacteria."
 
Last edited:

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
The north went to war to preserve the Union. The immediate cause of the war was secession. Yes - the root cause of the war was (IMHO) slavery - if there had NOT been a slavery issue, I doubt the south would have gone so far as seceding. But if the south seceded, and then freed the slaves (very unlikely they would have done that) the north would have still "invaded" the south to restore the Union. Lincoln had no intention of letting the south go.

That's because Lincoln knew that the south's departure meant it dissolved the Monroe Doctrine forcing the New World back to the Old World. I look at the Confederacy as a 19th century version of East Germany, they would have needed walls to keep people in. It's hard tell if some containment policy would have worked, but the south would have imploded eventually in Cold War with the north considering they wouldn't been able to compete and their natural disposition to trample on natural rights and to maintain class hegemony wouldn't helped their cause.
 

Lost Cause

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
If you're going to point fingers at the US Military for not having a fully intergrated and equal military by 1863 that's fine but it's also very relevant to as what other country did as well. Pro Confederate posters have constantly argued that we should never critize any Confederate because we are using a 21st Century perspective to critize people from the Nineteenth Century.
Therefore if we are going to condem the US military for not being fully intergrated and equal during the ACW then show what army was.
That's more then fair and I even suggested the only two possibilities circa mid Nineteenth Century would be Venezuela and Coloumbia since both nations had significant amounts of African ancestry as well has European ancestry has well as mixed
ancestry. As far as Brazil see the "Revolt of the Lash".
Yes during the ARW And the War of 1812 there was actually intergrated milita that saw combat but milita is not the same as a full time army . Once the fighting was over the milita went home. Milita did not win the ARW it was full time US,French and Spanish forces.
Leftyhunter
I am not sure what point you are making in your post.
 

Lost Cause

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
The Republican Party was nearly eliminated in the region for decades, and the Democrats established one-party control throughout the southern states(Valelly, Richard M.; The Two Reconstructions: The Struggle for Black Enfranchisement University of Chicago Press, 2009, pp. 134-139). Disenfranchisement had far-reaching effects in Congress, where the Democratic "solid south" enjoyed "about 25 extra seats in Congress for each decade between 1903 and 1953" (Valelly, Richard M.; The Two Reconstructions: The Struggle for Black Enfranchisement University of Chicago Press, 2009, pp. 134-139).

Also, the Democratic dominance in the South meant that southern Senators and Representatives became entrenched in Congress. They favored seniority privileges in Congress, which became the standard by 1920, and Southerners controlled chairmanships of important, as well as leadership of the national Democratic Party. The southern bloc Sen. James K. Vardaman (D-Mississippi) and Sen. Benjamin (D-South Carolina) decried the loudest against military de-segregation during WWI.

I said it on this site before: I remember back in 1989 at Paris Island, white and black southerners were treated so bad that I remember somewhat that I actually felt sorry for them. I mean those DI's dogged them out in the worse way. So, it's not all north and south over here, I'm just trying to get to the gist of it all. I'm sure there was northern opposition to segregating the military and other things but we have nothing on record.
No doubt congressional representatives had powerful political and economic influence over decisions that were made, in the case of desegregating the military, decisions that were not made. Indifference is a powerful tool.
 

Rhea Cole

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
Yankeedom wanted labor too as long as they were white.
I realize quips of this kind are not meant to be taken seriously Edited. However, since this is supposed to be a history forum, it was the exodus of labor from the South to the North that characterized the late 19th & early 20th Centuries. There were incidents where virtually every black family in a county would all leave during one night. This was done in secret. "The white folks woke up one morning & all the black folks were gone!"
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rhea Cole

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
Finally looked on the internet for the source?

So, according to your observations, Rhode Island slave-traffickers were model citizens who performed a great service for the New England business community. Interesting, but the slaves groaning in agony below deck would have had, I think, a very different opinion.
I confess that I don't get your point. What ever the number was, what difference did it make that Rhode Islanders owned slave ships? The African slave trade was legal until the Constitutional ban took effect. During the time it was legal, 12.5 million Africans were taken & 10.7 million of them arrived in the New World. Of that number, about 338,000 were delivered to North America. The best estimate is that 60-70,000 slaves were imported to North America from the Caribbean. The accepted number of slaves imported is approximately 450,000. By the time of the Civil War all but a tiny fraction of the 4,000,000 slaves in the U.S. were entirely home grown.

For that reason, there was no reason for the Confederacy to reopen the African slave trade. The border states, as was stated explicitly over & over again, provided a pool of excess human beings for the constant need to replace the labor pool in the Lower South. Plantations in Virginia, in particular, had stopped being profitable due to soil depletion & other factors. They became, in effect, farms that raised human beings for sale. That is the reality that was exploited by the firm of Franklin & Armfield. The cash crop of the Old Virginia plantation culture that R.E. Lee & company were so loyal to was funded by human trafficking.

Based in Alexandria VA & New Orleans, Isaac Franklin became one of the richest men in America. He was the Bill Gates of the slave trade. Unlike the vagaries of the Rhode Island thread, F&A's HQ is a National Park site & their business records are in the National Archive. You can google away to your heart's content.

The flow of excess labor from Virginia & Maryland was driven down the Natchez Trace to the Forks in the Road Slave Market. The systematic sexual assault by the drovers during the passage is documented in the private correspondence between Franklin & Armfield. They had a rating system that indicated the playability of individuals not only for the purpose of personal pleasure, but to provide stock for the extremely lucrative Fancy Girl sex slave market in New Orleans. There is nothing about the slave trade that wouldn't gag a buzzard. However, the homegrown version involved a level of callous brutality & sexual abuse that is hard for the modern person to comprehend.

If we are going to discuss slavery, why not concentrate on aspects that actually had something to do with the lead up to & how the Civil War was fought? It was, after all, "the God given right to own other human beings as property" that the seceding states went to war to guarantee forever.
 
Last edited:

Rhea Cole

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
Let's not, unless it's in the appropriate forum (Slavery Talk). Thanks.
Thanks, that one gave me good laugh. This whole thread has been about almost nothing but slavery in one form or another. It certainly wasn't what I was interested in when I started it, but that is what it morphed into. I don't see much point in continuing a string of what aboutisms & moral equivalencies that leads nowhere. My interest is history, pure & simple. So, if the slave trade has become the topic, I am willing to contribute. How else are we ever going to have actual historical discussions on this forum?
 
Last edited:

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
Thanks, that one gave me good laugh. This whole thread been about almost nothing but slavery in one form or another.
Moderators have been pretty lenient in this thread so far. I realize multiple posts have gone there. However, the post I quoted goes there completely, & in depth. Surely to take the conversation to a place that is more appropriate in the SlaveryTalk forum. I made my suggestion, in an effort to save your thread from additional red ink.
 

Stone in the wall

Sergeant Major
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Location
Blue Ridge Mountains, Jefferson County WV
It was very common for men from one state to join an out of state regiment.
No doubt some men from Delaware joined the Confederate Army.
Leftyhunter
lefty, since yesterday I found a listing For Delaware Confederates, on the SCV sight and it's pretty long. Also camp #2068 is the "Delaware Grays". When time allows I'll look into it more. There may have have been in fact a Delaware unit in the ANV.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top