Southern Aristorcracy

Status
Not open for further replies.
There was
way too much racism in this country in 1861-65 to make a convincing argument that southern soldiers in a majority were fighting for slavery.
In effect, they all were fighting for slavery. The percentage of individuals who realized they were and admitted it is quite separate from those who went in knowing what was at stake.

You are looking for a percentage of individuals who denied fighting for the right to keep slaves in their place--not being free and being next door. Such thoughts and commitments changed from month to month, if not week to week, and Channing's book attempts to track the changes more than to prove that X percent could be said to be fighting for slavery and that Y percent were not.

The guy early in the war who said he fought for freedom and returning to the real constitution might be saying, six months later, that he didn't want free blacks sitting by his children in church or school. Ms. Channing's main interest is in tracking the changes--not in proving that the majority fought for this or that reason.
way too much racism in this country in 1861-65
In this, I think you shoot your own foot. Johnny may not have been fighting to maintain slavery for slaveholders. He may not have been fighting for the right to own one or two. But he may well have been fighting to keep the blacks separate, under control, subjugated, away from himself and his family. Sounds like the racism of which there was way too much. And it sounds like the last category was also "fighting for slavery."

I'll submit that early on--during the first months after Sumter--that no one thought of invasion or protecting hearth and home. That no one expected the Yanks to put up much of a fight. That the war would be over after the first battle.

ole
 
ole said:
I'll submit that early on--during the first months after Sumter--that no one thought of invasion or protecting hearth and home. That no one expected the Yanks to put up much of a fight. That the war would be over after the first battle.

Not just that early. In 1862, they were still unsure how long the war would last, with many still thinking one big victory would make it all stop. This attitude was still around as late as September, when initial reports of a great Federal victory at Antietam led to a surge of relief and a very short-lived belief that it would all be over now.

With hindsight, it is pretty obvious the war would be a long one. But few people want to see that at the start, and probably every war in history was sold as a short one to those who would fight it. Even in mid-1862, we can find comments about how US industrial expansion/inestment is being paralyzed by uncertainty over how long the war might last. People simply didn't want to peer through the mist and imagine the horror of Gettysburg and Chickamauga and the Atlanta Campaign and the Overland Campaign and the siege of Petersburg/Richmond and everything that went with that.

The more the war stretched on, the more time and reason to ponder where this was going and why they were fighting. In the words of a song, from the Broadway play Shenandoah, "What was the dying for?".

Regards,
Tim
 
johan_steele said:
Looks pretty fishy to me... ummm trout fried up w/ a touch or worchershire sauce. W/ a Sam Adams on the side to wash it down.


I don't think any self respecting southerner would be caught drinkin Sam Adams :noway:
 
unionblue said:
OzarkIronJohn,
As for 'Yankee 101' did it feel good to get off a cheap shot? Or do they teach that in 'Lost Cause' defense class. "Defend no matter what the truth or the message, defend!"

By-the-way, ever try what I suggested about typing 'slave whippings' into your search engine? Or would that be too much effort to see what that was about?

Unionblue

The Lash

The slave was probably the most common recipient of the lash...but if a free black committed a crime in Ohio or New York he could get it too.
It was a common form of punishment in the 19th century (North and South) and also used on whites- in prisons, the army and navy (into the 20th century), and on petty criminals.
 
Battalion said:
The Lash

The slave was probably the most common recipient of the lash...but if a free black committed a crime in Ohio or New York he could get it too.
It was a common form of punishment in the 19th century (North and South) and also used on whites- in prisons, the army and navy (into the 20th century), and on petty criminals.

Uh-huh. Just to clarify what you mean, how many whites do you think were whipped in a given year in the US between, say 1820 and 1860? How many blacks? How many slaves vs. free men? Do you think there is any significant difference betwen the percentages of each? Do you think it was a far more common punishment for free men or slaves?

How much protection did slaves have under the law against this punishment? How much protection did free men have under the law against this punishment? Do you see any significant difference betwen the two? Or is the situation that slaves had so little protection under the law that they effectively had none, while whites were protected by all the normal procedures of due process under the law? Could a slave be whipped simply because his master said so, while a white could only whipped after being convicted of a crime?

Tim
 
trice said:
Uh-huh. Just to clarify what you mean, how many whites do you think were whipped in a given year in the US between, say 1820 and 1860?

Don't know. Were they keeping stats on that?

trice said:
How many blacks? How many slaves vs. free men? Do you think there is any significant difference betwen the percentages of each? Do you think it was a far more common punishment for free men or slaves?

See first sentence of previous post for answer.

trice said:
How much protection did slaves have under the law against this punishment? How much protection did free men have under the law against this punishment? Do you see any significant difference betwen the two? Or is the situation that slaves had so little protection under the law that they effectively had none while whites were protected by all the normal procedures of due process under the law? Could a slave be whipped simply because his master said so, while a white could only whipped after being convicted of a crime?

Tim

What about free blacks in the North? Did they have this protection? Could a free black be whipped for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
 
larry_cockerham said:
I've never claimed brilliance nor a lack of a foolish move occasionally. What I still don't comprehend is why a man with no slaves, a family to feed, his home territory being invaded by an 'alien' army, and his general life in danger would give a hoot about slaves or their condition at the moment. I know you keep trying to tell me and I appreciate that. I just don't believe it. There was way too much racism in this country in 1861-65 to make a convincing argument that southern soldiers in a majority were fighting for slavery.

The book details why. You will continue to fail to comprehend it because you will continue to be willfully ignorant of what's detailed in the book.

Your loss.

Regards,
Cash
 
cash said:
The book details why. You will continue to fail to comprehend it because you will continue to be willfully ignorant of what's detailed in the book.

Your loss.

Regards,
Cash

Ignorance is bliss. While I suspect this lady's work is valuable, there is more to worry about.
 
Battalion said:
Don't know. Were they keeping stats on that? See first sentence of previous post for answer. What about free blacks in the North? Did they have this protection? Could a free black be whipped for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

So basically, you have no idea about anything at all concerning "the lash" as a punishment for whites vs. blacks, yet you posted on it? Why?

Just to get you started:

You said "the lash" was used in "the army and navy (into the 20th century)". In 1812, Congress eliminated flogging in the army, reinstated it for desertion in 1833, and finally abolished it in 1861. In the Navy, flogging was eliminated by Congress in 1850 following a decade-long campaign involving men like Helman Melville (White-Jacket)and Henry Dana (Two Years before the Mast). Melville had served on a notorious "hell ship", the frigate United States where he witnessed the flogging of 163 sailors. Unless you have some further information, you appear to be wrong on this.

The last state law in the US allowing flogging as a punishment was in Delaware, IIRR. That ended in 1960 (some sources say 1972), and was last used in 1952 apparently. In New York, the use of the whip in prisons was banned in 1847. Pennsylvania abolished flogging in 1790, and the last public flogging in Connecticut was in 1828. So where, exactly, were all these whippings you are referring to occurring?

Tim
 
trice said:
So basically, you have no idea about anything at all concerning "the lash" as a punishment for whites vs. blacks,

Like I said...I know of no stats on the subject.
How am I to supply such information when there is no source?

trice said:
yet you posted on it? Why?

The impression that some try to give is that the lash was used exclusively in the South and only on slaves.
This is incorrect.

trice said:
Just to get you started:

You said "the lash" was used in "the army and navy (into the 20th century)". In 1812, Congress eliminated flogging in the army, reinstated it for desertion in 1833, and finally abolished it in 1861. In the Navy, flogging was eliminated by Congress in 1850 following a decade-long campaign involving men like Helman Melville (White-Jacket)and Henry Dana (Two Years before the Mast). Melville had served on a notorious "hell ship", the frigate United States where he witnessed the flogging of 163 sailors. Unless you have some further information, you appear to be wrong on this.

The last state law in the US allowing flogging as a punishment was in Delaware, IIRR. That ended in 1960 (some sources say 1972), and was last used in 1952 apparently. In New York, the use of the whip in prisons was banned in 1847. Pennsylvania abolished flogging in 1790, and the last public flogging in Connecticut was in 1828. So where, exactly, were all these whippings you are referring to occurring?

Tim

I believe you have just described where.

~

I have a report of a public flogging (administered by law) in New York City in 1860. I can probably find more.
 
I'm afraid in posting about flogging outside of slavery, the inevitable impression is that somehow "slavery ain't so bad."
or at least "no worse than elsewhere." Maybe that's not the point Battalion was making, but its certainly the impression the reader gets.

Obviously the status of the slave was degraded next to the status of the free, and the power of the slavemaster was much more arbitrary and absolute than any authority over American free people. It's strange that in 2007, someone would have to make this statement.

Of all the arguments somebody can make about the Civil War or the antebellum South, the "slavery ain't so bad" argument is one whose time has truly passed.
 
Battalion said:
Like I said...I know of no stats on the subject.
How am I to supply such information when there is no source?

Then why did you make your post on "The Lash"? What was it you were trying to say, and why?

Battalion said:
The impression that some try to give is that the lash was used exclusively in the South and only on slaves.
This is incorrect.

Who is "some"? I have seen no one here trying to give that impression. If you have, please post a reference to the message. If you have not, then explain why you made your post.

Tim
 
trice said:
Just to get you started:

You said "the lash" was used in "the army and navy (into the 20th century)". In 1812, Congress eliminated flogging in the army, reinstated it for desertion in 1833, and finally abolished it in 1861. In the Navy, flogging was eliminated by Congress in 1850 following a decade-long campaign involving men like Helman Melville (White-Jacket)and Henry Dana (Two Years before the Mast). Melville had served on a notorious "hell ship", the frigate United States where he witnessed the flogging of 163 sailors. Unless you have some further information, you appear to be wrong on this.

The last state law in the US allowing flogging as a punishment was in Delaware, IIRR. That ended in 1960 (some sources say 1972), and was last used in 1952 apparently. In New York, the use of the whip in prisons was banned in 1847. Pennsylvania abolished flogging in 1790, and the last public flogging in Connecticut was in 1828. So where, exactly, were all these whippings you are referring to occurring?
Battalion said:
I believe you have just described where.

OK, you acknowledge that your statement about the military was wrong, that flogging was ended in PA in 1790, and that the last one in CT was in 1828. It seems you are pointing to DE as the example -- a slave state in 1860, right? Any other examples you want to point out at the time of the Civil War?

Tim
 
matthew mckeon said:
I'm afraid in posting about flogging outside of slavery, the inevitable impression is that somehow "slavery ain't so bad."
or at least "no worse than elsewhere." Maybe that's not the point Battalion was making, but its certainly the impression the reader gets.

Obviously the status of the slave was degraded next to the status of the free, and the power of the slavemaster was much more arbitrary and absolute than any authority over American free people. It's strange that in 2007, someone would have to make this statement.

Of all the arguments somebody can make about the Civil War or the antebellum South, the "slavery ain't so bad" argument is one whose time has truly passed.

Again, here we go with the false insinuation game.

The next time you post anything complimentary of Sherman...
I will reply that you must approve of shooting civilians, burning cities and wiping out Indian villages.

Is that a deal?
 
trice said:
Then why did you make your post on "The Lash"? What was it you were trying to say, and why?

The subject was brought up by someone else.

trice said:
btn said:
The impression that some try to give is that the lash was used exclusively in the South and only on slaves. This is incorrect.

Who is "some"? I have seen no one here trying to give that impression. If you have, please post a reference to the message. If you have not, then explain why you made your post.

Tim

This is definitely their intent.
 
unionblue said:
OzarkIronJohn,

It's nice that you are good at catching fish.

If only you could catch a hint at what the late war was all about.

But by fishing in the river of denial or in a constant state thereoff, your hook is bound to always come up empty.

Enjoy the fish you did catch. Neat outfit, by-the-way.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Perhaps it's just as important to remember what the war wasn't about? Nice use of the language, by-the-way.
 
Racism and abolitionism were two completley seperate ideals. The northern sentiment was for abolitionism but they were still of the belief that whites were superior, but that slavery was the ultimate evil that no race should be subjected to. Anybody who does their own research instead of relying on what daddy told them would be aware of this.
 
Good with the bad

Battalion said:
The next time you post anything complimentary of Sherman...
I will reply that you must approve of shooting civilians, burning cities and wiping out Indian villages.
Is that a deal?

Even Hitler, the most evil man in history, came up with the idea for Volkswagen and the autobahn. If we approve of Volkswagen and the autobahns, does that mean we have to approve of Auschwitz too? Of course not!

You see this with quite a few figures in the past, including Sherman, but even look at Jefferson; in 1776 he came up with the idea for the Virginia Constitution that only white men with 50 acres of land could vote!

I wonder to what extent we should judge people by the standards of their day versus the standards of today?
 
trice said:
OK, you acknowledge that your statement about the military was wrong, that flogging was ended in PA in 1790, and that the last one in CT was in 1828. It seems you are pointing to DE as the example -- a slave state in 1860, right? Any other examples you want to point out at the time of the Civil War?

Tim

"...a miserable wretch, who claimed the name of Samuel R. Dann, was caught with three stolen mules, tried and sentenced to receive "twenty-five" upon his back. But about nineteen of these could be administered, the 'limb of the law' having fainted away after applying that number, and no one else being willing to take his place. This shows that our variegated population is not entirely destitute of finer feelings."

New York Times, 3 September 1860

"While here [Cairo, IL], we saw one of the many evidences of radical inconsistency....I saw a brawny-looking specimen of the Puritan race, laying on unmercifully, with a large horse-whip, to several Negroes who were basking in the sunshine; he yelling, cursing, and slashing, alternately....
I never saw a slave, in my years of experience in the South, so brutally beaten, even when convicted of a crime, and it seems strange that such a spectacle attracts so little attention in the free State of Illinois....the slave has merely changed masters."

Capt. Joseph Barbiere, CSA (Prisoner of War)
Scraps from the Prison Table, p.272
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top