Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
We'll differ on that one. There is some need to assign blame for slavery Edited. It serves the purpose of watchdog for future generations. So assigning blame is relevant, lest bad behavior is excused to re-occur.

If instead you meant that in a different sense: that people today, who had nothing to do with chattel slavery in Virginia, needn't own the blame for it, I'd agree with that.
That is confusing history with philosophy and theology IMHO.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,629
Slavery is not an entity, not a person, it really can't own any blame. If the goal is to assign blame you have to assign it to a person, or a collection of people, active entities. Likewise blame will never belong to a single such entity either. Slavery is just a word assigned to a system that had it's roots grown deep into many many other systems. In many ways it was the foundation of a variety of life styles and cultures and as such if you threaten a foundation those relying on what's on top of that foundation might be concerned.

I challenge the premise of seeking blame though. It's about identifying cause and effect, not blame. No need to play the blame game.
Thanks for a well-considered, thoughtful post.
We study history to learn about our past, not to place blame for ancient misdeeds. This is a point too often overlooked in our discussions, that often take on personal dimensions.
What is done, is done. We can not- and should not- try to change that. Instead, we should attempt to learn and understand.
 

byron ed

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,490
Location
Midwest
...We study history to learn about our past, not to place blame for ancient misdeeds.
Respectfully disagree. If we are to move forward we must assign blame for past misdeeds. There's nothing even remotely inappropriate in doing so. History isn't recorded for robots.

There's a pitfall in "political correctness," that artifact from the "I'm OK, You're OK" generation we were born into.

There were those who were to blame for U.S. chattel slavery, some of them Virginians. To excuse them (via lost cause or this softer way) is equivalent to granting permission for bad behavior going forward.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Respectfully disagree. If we are to move forward we must assign blame for past misdeeds. There's nothing even remotely inappropriate in doing so. History isn't recorded for robots.

There's a pitfall in "political correctness," that artifact of the "I'm OK, You're OK" generation we were born into.

There are those who were to blame for U.S. chattel slavery, some of them Virginians. To excuse them (via lost cause or this softer way) is equivalent to granting permission for bad behavior going forward.
If someone is moralizing, they are not doing history. After all, at the time Slavery was acceptable except where is competed with free whites in the territories and in the free States. Except for a small minority, letting slavery stay where it was was a majority view. How does one judge a society? Sociologists say norms in society are determined by the majority. Slavery was a norm in the slave South. If so, then it is difficult to judge the slave South on moral issues. It is taking an outsiders norm and imposing it on historical context. Do that and understanding the complexity of Southern society and motives can be summed up they were wrong, let's talk about sports.
 

byron ed

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,490
Location
Midwest
If someone is moralizing, they are not doing history.
They are interpreting history, a valid thing to do and an appropriate next step. It's the thing we do with history. Leaving it on the shelf surely serves no purpose.

After all, at the time Slavery was acceptable except where is competed with free whites in the territories and in the free States.
Not from the view of those adversely affected by it, the thousands. We will not ignore the third front in the Civil War.

Except for a small minority, letting slavery stay where it was was a majority view.
That's a quite provincial way of looking at it. Those adversely affected by slavery were, rather, quite a significant portion of the population, hardly a small minority. And they weren't all black.

How does one judge a society? Sociologists say norms in society are determined by the majority. Slavery was a norm in the slave South. If so, then it is difficult to judge the slave South on moral issues.
One judges a society by conscience and an open mind. Sociologists are worriers, that's their profession, and we don't particularly care what they worry about. Slavery may have been a norm in the slave South, but then so were mosquitos. It is not that hard or improper to judge the slave South on moral issues. Who told you that?

It is taking an outsiders norm and imposing it on historical context. Do that and understanding the complexity of Southern society and motives can be summed up they were wrong, let's talk about sports.
We are not outsiders. We're actually discussing our Country and its past, and in the context of our very ancestors. If the worst thing that comes out of a study of slavery is that the Secessionists and Confederates were guilty of extending it (in a way the rest of the Country wasn't) then yes, they were wrong in attempting to extend slavery. Meh. The North was wrong for having slavery for a while itself, and for continuing to enable Southern slavery well up to the Civil War. Meh.

There's nothing inappropriate in facing realities. The Mets will not win the pennant this year either.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
they are interpreting that history, a valid thing to do. Leaving history in a dusty old box serves no useful purpose.



Not from the view of those adversely affected by it, the thousands. We will not ignore the third front in the Civil War.



That's a quite provincial way of looking at it. Those adversely affected by slavery were a significant portion of the population, hardly a small minority.



One judges a society by conscience and an open mind. Sociologists are worriers, that's their profession, and we don't particularly care what they worry about. Slavery may have been a norm in the slave South, but then so were mosquitos. It is not that hard or improper to judge the slave South on moral issues. Who told you that?

We are not outsiders. We're actually discussing our Country and its past, and in the context of our very ancestors. If the worst thing that comes out of a study of slavery is that the Secessionists and Confederates were guilty of extending it (in a way the rest of the Country wasn't) then yes, they were wrong in attempting to extend slavery. Meh. The North was wrong for having slavery for a while itself, and for continuing to enable Southern slavery well up to the Civil War. Meh.

There's nothing inappropriate in facing realities. The Mets will not win the pennant this year either.
Thanks for your comments.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,629
Respectfully disagree. If we are to move forward we must assign blame for past misdeeds. There's nothing even remotely inappropriate in doing so. History isn't recorded for robots. We can and we should be learning from history. It's more than just shelf maintenance.

There's a pitfall in "political correctness," that artifact from the "I'm OK, You're OK" generation we were born into.

There were those who were to blame for U.S. chattel slavery, some of them Virginians. To excuse them (via lost cause or this softer way) is equivalent to granting permission for bad behavior going forward.
Thanks for your response.
I can't- and won't speak for your generation. I speak only for myself, and we appear to differ in our opinions of why we are here. In my view, nothing is gained by blaming my own or another's ancestors for something I find offensive today: I can't change the past, I can only learn from it. That's enough for me.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
You know Arizona secede from the union too... but it was not about slavery directly... maybe states rights? well, future state?

Are some snippets...

Since 1856, settlers in southern New Mexico Territory had sought to split off and organize their own territorial government. Their aspiration got caught up in the growing sectional tensions of the late 1850s and the belief in the U.S. Congress that the impetus to divide New Mexico Territory into two separate northern and southern territories was that the settlers hoped to expand slavery into the southern portion.

The Ordinance of Secession, creating the Arizona Territory and announcing its intention to join the Confederacy, passed in a convention in Mesilla on March 16, 1861, and a second convention at Tucson on March 28, 1861.

Unique among the secession justifications, slavery was not an explicit issue in this document. Despite a statement complaining of the rise of the Republican party in the North and how it “has disregarded the Constitution of the United States, violated the rights of the Southern States, and heaped wrongs and indignities upon their people,” the Arizona Ordinance of Secession never once mentioned the word “slave” or its variations and its specific reasons for secession instead reflect the problems of settlers in a region in which the American imprint was growing but still limited.

Yet except for language expressing solidarity with the slave states, the specific grievances of the Arizona Ordinance of Secession instead reflected the complaints of frontier settlers–not slaveholders. Congress recently had halted mail service along the stage line linking southern New Mexico territory with the rest of the country. The Arizona Ordinance stated, “That the recent enactment of the Federal Congress, removing the mail service from the Atlantic to the Pacific States from the Southern to the Central or Northern route, is another powerful reason for us to ask the Southern Confederate States of America for a continuation of the postal service over the Butterfield or El Paso route, at the earliest period.” The settlers also were angry at the failure of federal troops to halt Apache Indian raids directed at them. The Ordinance exclaimed, “the Government of the United States has heretofore failed to give us adequate protection against the savages within our midst and has denied us an administration of the laws, and that security for life, liberty, and property which is due from all governments to the people

https://cwemancipation.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/sometimes-the-civilwar-wasnt-about-slavery/
Interesting.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Thanks for your response.
I can't- and won't speak for your generation. I speak only for myself, and we appear to differ in our opinions of why we are here. In my view, nothing is gained by blaming my own or another's ancestors for something I find offensive today: I can't change the past, I can only learn from it. That's enough for me.
Agree. Good points.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Continuing on.

Volume 5, Issue Number 4 (May, 2002) of North & South Magazine (pages 80-89) VIRGINIA’S RELUCTANT SECESSION
PP 86

The rhetorical back and forth aggravated the situation. Southerners had massed together as maligned brothers, in defense of their equality, their self-esteem, their self-respect, and their honor, decades before Virginians had to choose between firing rifles at the insulters or the insulted.

Less extreme northern antislavery men than Garrison concurred that "the entire white population of the slave States" combined "the conceit of the peacock with the ferocity of the tiger." Such mainstream Northern Republicans as Abraham Lincoln blamed not just the slaveholders but all Southerners for sustaining a Slave Power that supposedly tyrannized over American republicanism. That Yankee assault on southern character and reputation, especially when it came up close and personal in Congress, with U.S. Senator Charles Summer screaming the insults, impelled more southern folks than Preston Brooks to wish to bash the insulter's skull. No wonder, then, that Southerners had massed together as maligned brothers, in defense of their equality, their self-esteem, their self-respect, and their honor, decades before Virginians had to choose between firing rifles at the insulters or the insulted.​
Key sentence Most Virginians' inclination to reenlist in ancient wars for honor and fame against Yankee defamers, whatever their distrust of Lower South scaremongers, particularly well illuminates how slavery caused the Civil War. Slavery, it's complicated.

To some extent, VA paid the price for secession for the first secessionists.
Most Virginians' inclination to reenlist in ancient wars for honor and fame against Yankee defamers, whatever their distrust of Lower South scaremongers, particularly well illuminates how slavery caused the Civil War. That casual relationship could easily be understood if most Northerners had elected Lincoln to abolish slavery in the South and most Southerners had seceded to save slavery from Lincoln's abolitionism. But neither occurred. So too, Virginia decision to secede would be easily explained if most Virginians had thought that Lincoln immediately menaced slavery. They didn't. So why did procrastinating Virginians secede anyway-and secede with sufficient love of comrades and hatred of the enemy to be passionate Confederates throughout four years of brutal war, more brutal in Virginia than anywhere else?


 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Volume 5, Issue Number 4 (May, 2002) of North & South Magazine (pages 80-89) VIRGINIA’S RELUCTANT SECESSION
PP 87

Peace was out the window and there was only the question of who to shoot at.

The answers start with the fact that Lincoln's supposed peacetime menace sufficed to provoke the Lower South, but not the Upper South, to secede. The answers end with the fact that Lincoln's armed showdown with the South's seceding fragment destroyed the issue of peacetime menace in the (as yet) unseceding fragment. Virginians now faced only one relevant question: Who would you rather kill? And for most folk who inhabited the middle tier of the South's highly familial civilization, the Southerners farther down were blood cousins, the Yankees way above the despised outsiders.

Still they could not come to a decision.

When one adds together most Virginians' repugnance for shamefully firing on even erring southern brothers, plus their post-April 15 sense of heightened menace to slavery, plus their new sense of menace to state rights, no wonder that Lincoln's call for Federal riflemen propelled many previous Virginia doubters of disunion to seek the Union's exit doors. The illuminating surprise is that Virginia's epic of indecision had not yet reached its climax. After news of Fort Sumter, after tidings of Lincoln's April l5 proclamation, after aso-called Spontaneous Popular Convention of citizens met in Richmond and demanded immediate secession, after citizens paraded angrily in the Richmond streets, chanting for disunion now, the official convention of the state still wished to talk- about delaying the decision for secession. Robert Scott, leader of the delayers, still fought after April 15 for a convention resolution that would ask the Virginia people thirty days hence, in mid-May, to choose between two options: either "separate and immediate secession" or "cooperation among the slaveholding States yet remaining in the Union'" To secure his own preference, cooperation with nonseceding states, Scott would go ahead with a border state conference near the end of May.​
However, Virginians did not have confidence with the Border States whose alliance with slavery was doubtful.
Scott had previously hoped that a border conference would secure a reconstructed Union. He now hoped that cooperation with the Border South would secure unanimous secession. He now feared that if Virginia seceded without a border conference, the border states would feel ignored, oppressed, unwilling to follow tyrannical secessionists like slaves. He would instead make them masters of their fate, cooperating in an Upper-South-wide rush for disunion. Scott thus celebrated his proposed delay as "a straight road to secession," for "I cannot doubt that all the Border States will act together...with the Southern States."2o But over half his supporters, unreconstructable Unionists, liked his delay because they did not doubt that the border states would act together with the northern states. As the secessionist George Randolph saw Robert Scott, "the gentleman proposes to get out" not by seceding but "by getting the States, that everybody knows will not secede, to join with Virginia in a consultation."2r On April 17, a Virginia convention majority still almost approved Scott's delay. Scott lost by only 79-64. A swing of eight votes would have given the delayer his triumph.​
With things in a precarious balance, Henry Wise makes his move and secession wins the day.
 

John S. Carter

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
1,339
Good points. Clearly shows that 4 States seceded after Lincoln’s call for Troops. Lincoln’s failure to negotiate caused these states to leave. Lincoln had clearly decided it was to be War! Even after being attacked, Northern conspiracy involving Brown, VA still refused to leave. Lincoln had to coerce VA to leave. VA had previously rejected the extension of the Slave Trade. Tobacco production had been on the downfall since the Revolution. Slaves and Masters were constantly migrating from VA to the Lower South. VA also had long Debates concerning Abolition. So we can clearly see, Slavery was not the future for VA.

Wise was correct. Who should VA dance with. The North who had viciously attacked VA with John Browns Raid, and who’s people had ridiculed VA for 30 years, or her Southern Brothers? Lincoln had made his decision, VA had to make Hers!
Wise was a radical Southern Congressman who would defend his Gentleman's honor and thus defend his state's honor.when attacked by Northern Whigs,esp. when these attacks were by the anti slavery section and by abolishist .These defences were not just verbal some were physical .May I suggest a book"THE FIELD OF BLOOD,Violence in Congress and the Road to the CIVIL WAR" Joanne B.Freeman.The Congress was a rehearsal for the war where the states would actually encourage there Congressmen to defend against any attacks on key issues involving the expansion of slavery. As to Wise he had long known of were he was in regards to the issue of secession, when the sisters voted ,Va. would follow with WISE be right in lock step
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,629
Location
los angeles ca
You know Arizona secede from the union too... but it was not about slavery directly... maybe states rights? well, future state?

Are some snippets...

Since 1856, settlers in southern New Mexico Territory had sought to split off and organize their own territorial government. Their aspiration got caught up in the growing sectional tensions of the late 1850s and the belief in the U.S. Congress that the impetus to divide New Mexico Territory into two separate northern and southern territories was that the settlers hoped to expand slavery into the southern portion.

The Ordinance of Secession, creating the Arizona Territory and announcing its intention to join the Confederacy, passed in a convention in Mesilla on March 16, 1861, and a second convention at Tucson on March 28, 1861.

Unique among the secession justifications, slavery was not an explicit issue in this document. Despite a statement complaining of the rise of the Republican party in the North and how it “has disregarded the Constitution of the United States, violated the rights of the Southern States, and heaped wrongs and indignities upon their people,” the Arizona Ordinance of Secession never once mentioned the word “slave” or its variations and its specific reasons for secession instead reflect the problems of settlers in a region in which the American imprint was growing but still limited.

Yet except for language expressing solidarity with the slave states, the specific grievances of the Arizona Ordinance of Secession instead reflected the complaints of frontier settlers–not slaveholders. Congress recently had halted mail service along the stage line linking southern New Mexico territory with the rest of the country. The Arizona Ordinance stated, “That the recent enactment of the Federal Congress, removing the mail service from the Atlantic to the Pacific States from the Southern to the Central or Northern route, is another powerful reason for us to ask the Southern Confederate States of America for a continuation of the postal service over the Butterfield or El Paso route, at the earliest period.” The settlers also were angry at the failure of federal troops to halt Apache Indian raids directed at them. The Ordinance exclaimed, “the Government of the United States has heretofore failed to give us adequate protection against the savages within our midst and has denied us an administration of the laws, and that security for life, liberty, and property which is due from all governments to the people

https://cwemancipation.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/sometimes-the-civilwar-wasnt-about-slavery/
The problem for the Arizona secessionists is with what army are they going to use to gain Secession? After the Confederate debacle at Glorieta Pass their simply is no way that the Confederate Army is going to liberate the Southwest. California has much more people and other then the 86 men if the Los Angeles Mounted Rifles who left for Texas early in the war there's just no hope for the Secessionists. Ordinances of Secession are great but they need some muscle behind them.
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited:

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,629
***Posted as Moderator***
The original intent was to discuss attributes common to both North and South from 1850-1860.
Some have provided lists, others detailed discussion points including contrasting differences.

Please keep in mind the original intent when joining the discussion.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Messages
919
Location
Dixie
I thought that a legitimate answer to what do they have in common would be , “not very much”. I was trying to point out their commonalities by emphasizing what i consider a larger proportion of differences. If i have erred [and having just re-read the op i discovered that i am in error. honestly I did not read it at first and was only responding to the title. Then i got into separate discussions] again let me try it this way...
Both groups of states sought political and economic dominance.
Both groups of states [i will call them sections ] thought the other group was using underhanded techniques to achieve this dominance.
Both sections sought same type new states from new territories.
Populations in both sections desired to be free to pursue their own interests and endeavors at the expense of others if necessary, and at the same time be safe and secure in their homes and in these endeavors.
Both sections were diverse and had regional differences within their sections.
Both sections had extensive acreage under cultivation.
Both sections sought access to ports for their exports.
Both sections gained from French, Mexican, and Native American lands.
Both sections spoke English, rode horses, ate food, and visited the little brown shack outback.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,333
Slavery in Az. would be a moot point, after its secession. All one has to do is read the Confederate Constitution about any new states or territories.

Almost all Ante-Bellum Americans, interested in American history or politics, knew exactly, what 'State Rights' referred to.

Classic example of of the old saying that 'All Politics is Local' .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top