The Heritage and the Legacy of the Confederate South

Status
Not open for further replies.
You state in your OP:


for none of those people wanted to go under minority rule, none of them wish to give up their political power in their own state to a group of freed slaves who were being convinced that their freedom had come from the northern invasion rather than from where it had truly come from; the South seceding from the union in the first instance, and condemning slavery as an art form in North America forever.
---------------------------------

Are you stating that slaves owe their freedom from the South seceding from the Union & not from the Union armies destroying the CSA armies & that the South was "condemning slavery as an art form (what ever that means) in North America for ever?
This just baffles my mind…the CSA was primarily formed to keep the slave system in place. I thought I had heard it all.
What is Southern Heritage? I would say it's rebuilding its infrastructure - Jim Crow laws - & in recent years being very successful in reestablishing it's economy & working hard to accept blacks as equal members of Southern society.

Everyone knows that seceding from the Union cost the South the institution of Slavery. The North had to be an active participant in the practice in order to return runaway slaves, or the thing would not work. It is like with children who run away; up to a certain age, they also must be returned to their parents. But with this protection missing from the equation, the Northern states were no longer legally a part of slavery, at all, and would be a possible haven for runaways. Or, at least it would be seen as a possible destination before they were sent on into Canada.

The slaves were always told that it was 'father Abraham' who had made it all possible for them. That would greatly upset the balance of political power in the South, and give this new group of people a controlling interest in politics (the slaves would now be voting with the minority class of Unionists and former Cotton Whigs for a centralized federal government), why you would have a terrible unrest and revolution within the South. It is true of any new group, whether the Chinese coming into California, or any groups of Mexicans fleeing French intervention (May 5, 1862)... these people can not be made into automatic citizens, can not have a vote against the settled order, and even the freed blacks would not want former slaves coming into the job market, and reducing wages across the board.

The CSA was also built to stop unfavorable legislation against Southern interests. The South had been a milch cow for a good many years, but 'abolition' would proceed to conquer the Southern states. Abolition did not consider the needs of the slave owners, nor the 94% number of civilians in that area who would now have to compete for jobs and live in a radically changed nation. It legislated against Southern interests on every point.

The slaves were the South's problem, and they should have been considered as to what to do about them. The North was torn between tariffs and abolition, and neither benefitted the South in any way. None of that money was ever slated for compensated emancipation for those just wishing to liquidate their debts and willingly downsize, The 1860's were apparently not the best times to own slaves, economically, as the slaves were beginning to outnumber the work needing to be done, by some accounts. Because of this, banks would let you borrow less on your property than previously, due to this inflation. Plantation owners borrowed against their ownings every year, and placed a risky bet upon a good crop.
 
Last edited:
The North had to be an active participant in the practice in order to return runaway slaves, or the thing would not work.

Correct. Northern unhappiness about this situation that created tension that led to secession

That would greatly upset the balance of political power in the South, and give this new group of people a controlling interest in politics (the slaves would now be voting with the minority class of Unionists and former Cotton Whigs for a centralized federal government), why you would have a terrible unrest and revolution within the South.

Some people refer to this as Reconstruction


The North was torn between tariffs and abolition, and neither benefitted the South in any way.

This seems to me a collectivist way of looking at it. Saying 'neither benefitted the South in any way' looks at the group to the exclusion of individuals. Did not abolition benefit the enslaved? I think it obviously did. Did not tarrifs benefit the sugar proucer or the iron producers of the south? I think it obviously did.
 
. That would greatly upset the balance of political power in the South, and give any group of people a controlling interest in politics

You mean like the controlling interest the south enjoyed for over 70 years, not just in the south but the entire nation thanks to the over representation given the south because of the slaves? (3/5th compromise)

the slaves would now be voting with the minority class of Unionists and former Cotton Whigs for a centralized federal government)

They wouldn't be slaves anymore would they? And if their votes with those you mentioned create a majority vote then that is simply how it is supposed to work.

It is true of any new group, whether the Chinese coming into California, or any groups of Mexicans fleeing French intervention (May 5, 1862)... these people can not be made into automatic citizens,

Why are you comparing immigrants to native born americans? You do realize that by 1860 the bulk of the slave population had been born in this country?

None of that money was ever slated for compensated emancipation for those just wishing to liquidate their debts and willingly downsize,

There were several compensation plans proposed over the years, all were rejected by the slaveholding states.
 
Last edited:
TheSecretSix,

I notice you had to wait until AFTER I had posted my own reply to this post to add the numerous videos on HK Edgerton, et. al. Why is that?

Unionblue

It must have been the hurry you placed me under, before "my moment" is gone. Does it in any wise change your views? Are my 'rants' any less 'nonsensical' when I show you the proof? Or would you have been less abrasive if you had seen the completed post as it eventually became, rather than the form it took in its original? It does take a few minutes to load those things.

Any editing that I do, or did, should not change your thoughts on the subject, and given the fact of Mr. Edgerton's existence, and the facts of this situation (which I would think would count as a type of research), I don't think it changes your mind any, nor the intensity with which you care to marginalize my viewpoint.
 
By the term "swing paddles" do you mean that the school authorities beat the students?
According to what the kids say, And it is legal in 22 states, today.
Huh, it figures that the very first time Six finally said something even partially accurate it would be to advocate for something that child psychologists consider permanently damaging to academic performance and that is widely considered a human rights abuse...

It's actually only nineteen states where corporal punishment still legal in schools, and only ten of them where any local districts still use it, with thankfully - though gradually - declining rates. They are also some of the lowest academically performing districts in the country, unsurprisingly. Brutality induced "politeness" isn't exactly a recipe for success.

It's also worth noting that as an Hispanic, some of the areas that Six is looking upon so fondly as bastions of racial harmony are places where I've found restaurants that deny me service.
 
You mean like the controlling interest the south enjoyed for over 70 years, not just in the south but the entire nation thanks to the over representation given the south because of the slaves? (3/5th compromise)





Why are you comparing immigrants to native born americans? You do realize that by 1860 the bulk of the slave population had been born in this country?



There were several compensation plans proposed over the years, all were rejected by the slaveholding states.


1). Yes.

2). Because neither are paying their own way, and yet will now have a serious controlling interest in the government.

When voting becomes an act that any one can go and do, the people who are actually paying for the operations of that government then become the victims of those who are not paying anything, and without any more representation than before. It becomes taxation without representation, and the non-paying then vote themselves largesse at the expense of the honest tax payers.

3). Were any of those plans set up to pay the Southern slaveowner an actual true amount for his investment? What were those plans of which you speak? Was the North on board unanimously, because abolition was the small head of the great two-headed dragon... Can you name an instance in history when anyone ever voted to send any money South for any reason, improvement, or anything else?

Were any protections ever offered to control the political power of this newly-emancipated crowd of 'citizens?' Was it even considered what the fall-out from such a freeing might have on the general population? Seems to me that emancipation was always going to be a negative thing for any of the tax-paying South...
 
It's actually only nineteen states where corporal punishment still legal in schools

SS is gonna object that he didnt mention students rank having anything to do with punishment.

It's also worth noting that as an Hispanic, some of the areas that Six is looking upon so fondly as bastions of racial harmony are places where I've found restaurants that deny me service
.

Geez you folks are never satisfied, first you wanna vote, now you wanna eat!

Next I suppose you're gonna want life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness! Where does it end?
 
Correct. Northern unhappiness about this situation that created tension that led to secession



Some people refer to this as Reconstruction




This seems to me a collectivist way of looking at it. Saying 'neither benefitted the South in any way' looks at the group to the exclusion of individuals. Did not abolition benefit the enslaved? I think it obviously did. Did not tarrifs benefit the sugar proucer or the iron producers of the south? I think it obviously did.


1). Yes.

2). yes

3). How about the Cotton, Rice, and Indigo crowd? I don't know of a lot about the iron or sugar being produced...
Some say that abolition starved a number of the slaves - up to half of them - to death. I would not call that a benefit.
Northern conscience (whig) clearing is rather expensive, especially upon those who must pay it. In Rise and Fall, Davis says that it was the continual (Northern) anti-Southern legislation which caused the 'intolerable grievance.' Based on that, I can only think that the South never benefitted at any time from its union with the North after the 3/5's clause. Northern industry was everyone's responsibility to pay, but only the North's from which to benefit from improvements and federal welfare.
 
- naming an instance money sent south by the feds is easy. Just look up appropriations on river improvements before the war or after the war.

- some of the newly emancipated were tax paying.

- freedom is a negative to the oppressor, so in that regard i can see why you find emancipation a negative

1). Yes.

2). Because neither are paying their own way, and yet will now have a serious controlling interest in the government.

When voting becomes an act that any one can go and do, the people who are actually paying for the operations of that government then become the victims of those who are not paying anything, and without any more representation than before. It becomes taxation without representation, and the non-paying then vote themselves largesse at the expense of the honest tax payers.

3). Were any of those plans set up to pay the Southern slaveowner an actual true amount for his investment? What were those plans of which you speak? Was the North on board unanimously, because abolition was the small head of the great two-headed dragon... Can you name an instance in history when anyone ever voted to send any money South for any reason, improvement, or anything else?

Were any protections ever offered to control the political power of this newly-emancipated crowd of 'citizens?' Was it even considered what the fall-out from such a freeing might have on the general population? Seems to me that emancipation was always going to be a negative thing for any of the tax-paying South...
 
When voting becomes an act that any one can go and do, the people who are actually paying for the operations of that government then become the victims of those who are not paying anything, and without any more representation than before. It becomes taxation without representation, and the non-paying then vote themselves largesse at the expense of the honest tax payers
.

By "honest tax payer" you mean the class of citizen that was profiting from the labor of those they enslaved. Denying them the fruits of their own labor.

And this you long for? Obviously you see yourself only as as potentially the elite class and not the slave class. Or you might have a different opinion.

3
). Were any of those plans set up to pay the Southern slaveowner an actual true amount for his investment? What were those plans of which you speak? Was the North on board unanimously, because abolition was the small head of the great two-headed dragon... Can you name an instance in history when anyone ever voted to send any money South for any reason, improvement, or anything else?

They all included more money than what the slaveholders ended up with by refusing. Because doing it their way they ended up with nothing.
 
Last edited:
In Rise and Fall, Davis says that it was the continual (Northern) anti-Southern legislation which caused the 'intolerable grievance.' Based on that, I can only think that the South never benefitted at any time from its union with the North after the 3/5's clause. Northern industry was everyone's responsibility to pay, but only the North's from which to benefit from improvements and federal welfare.
You can surely name a few examples?
 
Huh, it figures that the very first time Six finally said something even partially accurate it would be to advocate for something that child psychologists consider permanently damaging to academic performance and that is widely considered a human rights abuse...

It's actually only nineteen states where corporal punishment still legal in schools, and only ten of them where any local districts still use it, with thankfully - though gradually - declining rates. They are also some of the lowest academically performing districts in the country, unsurprisingly. Brutality induced "politeness" isn't exactly a recipe for success.

It's also worth noting that as an Hispanic, some of the areas that Six is looking upon so fondly as bastions of racial harmony are places where I've found restaurants that deny me service.


A teacher from NC (who was now teaching in a non-paddling state) struck up a conversation with me on that very subject. I explained to her that I had been raised in the system when paddling was used upon the students, had in fact received such correction my self, and was, as an adult, a proponent of the system in schools against the most incorrigible, as a way to keep them in the system as a last chance scenario before kicking them out for good.

She quietly explained that her present job was a nightmare of unruly and disobedient kids, many of whom were trying to impress the really bad ones upon whom that particular shock to the system might have been well applied. It is a type of non-medical shock therapy, and it is rather effective in controlling behavior.

She said that in her former job, there was an air of calm and control that, while lost upon maybe one or two, was usually followed and observed by the whole. That the rest of the kids really supported the control that the administration had though none would have ever owned up to it, for fear of ostracism from the pack. But we forget what it is like to be a student; the fear of being incarcerated, if only for the day, with other students; we really wanted a teacher who could 'jerk a knot in someone's butt' if they got out of hand.
 
Some say that abolition starved a number of the slaves - up to half of them - to death. I would not call that a benefit.

Source?

Given your previously expressed views on the horrors of "slaves" voting I would have thought of half of them perishing would be seen by you as not just a benefit but a blessing.

In Rise and Fall, Davis says that it was the continual (Northern) anti-Southern legislation which caused the 'intolerable grievance

Isn't it odd then that these supposed "intolerable grievances" we not mentioned in their speeches pre war or listed in their articles of secession. For some odd reason they focused on the protection of slavery as their motivation.
 
3). How about the Cotton, Rice, and Indigo crowd? I don't know of a lot about the iron or sugar being produced...
Some say that abolition starved a number of the slaves - up to half of them - to death. I would not call that a benefit.
Northern conscience (whig) clearing is rather expensive, especially upon those who must pay it. In Rise and Fall, Davis says that it was the continual (Northern) anti-Southern legislation which caused the 'intolerable grievance.' Based on that, I can only think that the South never benefitted at any time from its union with the North after the 3/5's clause. Northern industry was everyone's responsibility to pay, but only the North's from which to benefit from improvements and federal welfare.

Rice producers also benefitted from the tariff.

What is your source on the number of slaves who starved to death after being freed?

Which anti-Southern legislation was Davis referring to?

The South was getting no benefit from federal money for improvements? Tell that to all the engineers that worked on all those lighthouses along the Atlantic coast and on the Mississippi so that New Orleans could be a reliable destination for Northern goods to be exported and for foreign goods to move north.

R
 
Rather than continue to reflect on TSS's personal view of the Heritage and Legacy of the Confederate South, perhaps we should offer alternate view points. Because in reality that heritage and its legacy is the heritage and legacy of all Americans and still deeply affects every person living in the United States today.

Whether it fills your heart with rapture, or your gut with a slight queasiness, sight of the Confederate Battle Flag has an emotional kick for almost everybody. That's because as a universally recognized symbol it has personal meaning. Thus, like the Nazi swastika you can count on a divisive debate on every occasion it is displayed. Certainly that counts as a legacy.

Following "the recent unpleasantness" the first order of business in the re-United States was to get back to business as usual. The war produced tremendous social and economic disruptions throughout the United States. Northern businessmen in finance, shipping and textiles were extremely eager for The South to Rise Again. But with the labor system banned, the labor force needed to make that happen unavailable, and most of those who had owned and operated those cash crop factories dead, or living in dire poverty, it would take some clever assistance to circumvent those radicals in Congress who wanted to punish the South's old guard for leaving the Union. As a result the first task was to get rid of those in Congress who negated Johnson's soft readmission process with 'radical Reconstruction.' By the time Grant entered office in 1869, the more famous parts of Reconstruction like the Freedman's Bureau (which among other things taught reading and writing to all comers) were 'defunded' or defunct. Vagrancy laws were in place specifically to round up work crews for the plantations (where convicted vagrants were sentenced to work a year or more for their crime of being an unemployed black ) and the practice of share-cropping meant that former slaves now worked as hard as before without having their food, clothing, medicine and shelter provided, which their share of "non-existent profits" now had to cover. So there we have a legacy that whatever those well meaning pin-heads in Washington come up with to improve opportunity for all Americans, with the judicious application of money in the political process they can be gotten rid of.

Now the other major Southern legacy and heritage we as Americans proudly share is music. Minstrel Shows and Stephen Foster, Rag Time, Jazz, Blues, Swing, R&B, Rock & Roll, Hip Hop, or Country & Western would not have been....America's gift to the world without the crucible of the Confederacy to give it its heart and soul.
 

Chapter VII - Rise and Fall


The effects of discriminating duties upon imports have been referred to in a former chapter—favoring the manufacturing region, which was the North; burdening the exporting region, which was the South; and so imposing upon the latter a double tax: one, by the increased price of articles of consumption, which, so far as they were of home production, went into the pockets of the manufacturer; the other, by the diminished value of articles of export, which was so much withheld from the pockets of the agriculturist. In like manner the power of the majority section was employed to appropriate to itself an unequal share of the public disbursements. These combined causes—the possession of more territory, more money, and a wider field for the employment of special labor—all served to attract immigration; and, with increasing population, the greed grew by what it fed on.
This became distinctly manifest when the so-called "Republican" Convention assembled in Chicago, on May 16, 1860, to nominate a candidate for the Presidency. It was a purely sectional body.


Chapter X - Rise and Fall


These facts prove incontestably that the sectional hostility... ...was not slavery that threatened a rupture in 1832, but the unjust and unequal operation of a protective tariff. End Davis quotes.

______________

In 1816, Tariffs begin to be raised for unconstitutional reasons, namely Northern industrial protectionism. Up until that time, the tariff's true purpose was to run the general government. But the North was about to change all of that, forever.
The Tariff of 1816 was given great support at the South because it was a temporary three year bill (to end in 1819) that was done in the interest of national defense (We are still in the era of Southern-run federal government, an Era of Good Feelings 1816-1825 - (Some say the Jeffersonian Era to the very start of the Jacksonian Kill the Bank era).

The Thirty Year tariff War from 1816 to 1838 obviously was seen by the South as having no benefit of what ever to their cause.

The Panic of 1819 was caused by the Second National Bank contracting the money supply "from $21.8 million in June 1818 to $11.5 only a year later. The money supply contributed by the BUS was thereby contracted by no less than 47.2 percent in one year." - 2nd National Bank.

The Bank was saved, the People ruined.

"By 1820, the support for higher tariffs was less an argument for government revenue, than an effort by Western and Northern interests to establish protection as a principal of economic national well-being." end quote.
http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States







 
It must have been the hurry you placed me under, before "my moment" is gone.

Yeah, right.

Does it in any wise change your views? Are my 'rants' any less 'nonsensical' when I show you the proof?

What proof?

Or would you have been less abrasive if you had seen the completed post as it eventually became, rather than the form it took in its original? It does take a few minutes to load those things.

No, I would not, but the sheer act of desperation posting such drivel simply increases my disgust.

Any editing that I do, or did, should not change your thoughts on the subject, and given the fact of Mr. Edgerton's existence, and the facts of this situation (which I would think would count as a type of research),

It doesn't. If anything (if it is possible) lowers my expectation of your capability to post anything of worth or of a historical nature.

I don't think it changes your mind any, nor the intensity with which you care to marginalize my viewpoint.

I merely offer comments on how you marginalize yourself and actual history. A good look in a mirror would reveal that to you.

I'm done here.

Unionblue
 
...These facts prove

Davis is an excellent propagandist.



incontestably that the sectional hostility... ...was not slavery that threatened a rupture in 1832, but the unjust and unequal operation of a protective tariff. End Davis quotes.

Right after that Davis wrote "It happened, however, on all these occasions, that the line of demarkation of sectional interests coincided exactly or very nearly with that dividing the states in which negro servitude existed from those in which it had been abolished."

Coincidence? I think not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top