You can’t argue about human behavior based on what is logical. Historical records – kept by the slaveowners – show that quite a bit of abuse occurred.
Better, I should think, at least from the point of view of the enslaved.
“The Myth of the Black Confederates is a relatively new phenomenon, arising after the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, (University of Illinois historian Bruce) Levine says. The notion of African Americans fighting in large numbers for the South was never suggested in the immediate aftermath of the war because white veterans would have been still alive to shoot down the idea. “White Confederate soldiers would have taken it as an insult to have served in the same army with the same status as a black soldier,” he says.”
“As evidence that black men fought heroically for the South, neo-Confederates today will sometimes dig up photos of black servants dressed in military uniforms. But according to Levine, “Some servants were dressed in military uniforms because that was the kind of clothing available in the army.” It didn’t mean they were real members of those army units, he says.”
“Levine says that when the Confederacy was on its last legs, in March of 1865, the Confederate congress did pass an eleventh-hour law by a razor-thin margin, allowing for the enlistment of black soldiers. But even that law freed no one.”
“The Southern government invited masters to volunteer their slaves for the army, but first they would have to emancipate them because Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee knew that still-enslaved black men would certainly not fight for the South,” he says. “The overwhelming majority of masters declined that invitation.”
"In the final weeks of the war, the South tried to recruit black soldiers in a handful of states, he says, “but nothing happened anywhere, except Richmond and Petersburg, where they apparently raised about 60 black soldiers in the Confederate army, who then saw virtually no action.”
http://www.las.illinois.edu/news/2013/confederates/
Bottom line: the Union Army had a lot of black soldiers who saw combat. The South, virtually none - and then, only in the very last days of the war.
These conversations always remind me of Apu Nahasapeemapetilon’s immigration exam:
“Here’s your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?”
“Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter…”
“Wait, wait…just say slavery!”
“The Emancipation Proclamation freed every slave that Lincoln had the de jure legal authority to free, effective at the moment de facto advances in Union control made that possible.”
See? Nice one-sentence totally accurate description.
Nonsense. It is uncommon in New England.
[Quote=Shagnasty]
Unlike most Southerners, my family did own slaves in a continuous line that has to be close to a record.
[/quote]
Congratulations?
[QUOTE=Shagnasty]
No matter what you think of slavery, I think you can understand that it isn’t a good idea to cause permanent physical harm let alone death to one even if you view them as livestock because slaves were expensive. Sure, extreme atrocities happened to bad owners but the goal of slavery is to keep a healthy and productive workforce for profit which is not the same as a concentration camp.
[/quote]
The “slavery was not all that bad” argument. That’s novel. “It was in the slave holder’s best interest to not kill the people they treated as property.” You seem to think this pragmatic description of a small element of truth somehow mitigates some aspect of the abject moral wrongness of slavery. It does not. And in response to your opening clause, I personally am very much against slavery.
[Quote=Shagnasty]
Don’t get me wrong, I am not taking up for the system of slavery in general. I just think that people are too quick to judge past systems and circumstances based on their modern worldview rather than the one that was most applicable and easy at the time. I am neither ashamed nor proud of my ancestors. They were a product of their time and the places that they lived just like today. I think it is very unfair to judge every individual that happened to live in a certain region during times of unfortunate conflict.
[/QUOTE]
Well, not taking up for slavery! It’s the least one can do, surely.
In other words “Hey, it was an established legacy system of dehumanizing people, but…they meant well and they took adequate care of their human cattle, so they were A-OK.” :rolleyes:
Congrats: That may be the single most morally diseased argument ever posted on this board, and I include the time that all those Stormfront types showed up.
Does it have an appropriate Bible quote caption?
Sam Houston was governor of Texas in 1860 & fought against Secession. No Abolitionist, he urged Texans to have faith in the Constitution to preserve their rights–even their rights to have slaves–rather than risk a war they would probably lose. Texas voted for Secession; he offered to stay as President of the Republic of Texas–again. But the committee in Austin voted to join the CSA & he was kicked out of office for failing to swear allegiance to the traitorous regime.
Secession was all about slavery. The North initially fought to preserve the Union. Ending slavery helped keep the civilized world from allying with the Confederacy–& ensured there would be one good result from the bloody mess.
A Union General landed in Galveston on June 19, 1860 & informed the slaves of Texas that they were free. The day is celebrated as Juneteenth. it’s not that they hadn’t heard of the Emancipation Proclamation–but there were no Union troops to enforce the new law. Did a few young male slaves from deep in the Confederacy decide that traveling with the Rebel Army might get them closer to the action–where they could more easily desert & become free?
Studying the growth of slavery in the colonies & how it affected the young republic is fascinating. Look at the compromises in the Constitution–& how the 3/5 law affected Presidential elections. Many of those patriotic Southerners spoke against slavery–Washington did free his in his will. The others mostly went retrograde. Jefferson, hypocrite supreme, pioneered scientific racism in Notes on the State of Virginia.
Dominion of Memories: Jefferson, Madison & the Decline of Virginia shows how the slaveowners–a rich & influential minority–impeded progress in their state. No canals, few railroads when it came time to railroad, limited industry, little to lure immigration & no public education were all favored by those who counted their wealth in land & human beings. (The West Virginians had different values; breaking off from The Old Dominion had been brewing for a long time.)
John C Calhoun’s speech on the Positive Good of Slavery in 1837 proved the Revolutionary generation’s shilly-shallying about slavery was over. (Sam Houston called South Carolina the “nursery of disunion.”)
I’ve lived in Texas most of my life–most of my people came over after the Civil War. Some had been here longer–mostly settling in Indiana. There are some obscure lines–who knows which side they were on? I don’t care which uniform your GGGGranddaddy’s wearing in that picture; if you wave the Battle Flag, I’ll regard you as white trash.
None of these attributes make a person nonwhite or nonracist:
- Portuguese
- Tattooed
- Lesbian
God, this is why I love this board. Thanks, folks. I’ll return shortly to tell you exactly how wrong he insists you are.
My only point to that was some people use the battle flag as a general symbol of rebellion rather than anything to do with the Confederacy in particular. Yes, even in New England. They aren’t exactly everywhere here but they do exist. I don’t care about the flag at all. It just is just a general white trash symbol to me other people have coopted it for their own reasons that often have nothing to do with the Confederacy or racism like the Swedish and Finnish raggare culture that loves muscle cars, rockabilly music and the battle flag even though they don’t even live in the U.S.
Everything I said was moderate, accurate and supposed to be non offensive but people still work to find a way on certain subjects. I never took up for the institution of slavery or said it was good for the slaves. I simply pointed out that you can look at the situation from a different perspective and start to understand why there were no really good solutions in, say 1850 when the system was still hopelessly entrenched and the number of slaves was so high.
That 1% intellect is quite a thing to behold.
A perfectly justifiable homicide, it should be pointed out.
Do you think the Nazis were killing Jews just for the lulz? They had reasons. Stupid and often horrific ones, but there were reasons. It’s a perfectly accurate comparison: one group subjugating another to preserve their own status.
It probably was.
It may be splitting hairs, but the war was fought over states’ rights. However, the main state rights that precipitated the war, were the right of states to maintain slavery, and the right of new states to be slave or free states.
So in the most technical analysis, it was literally fought over states’ rights, but everyone knows that the “right” in question was the right to own slaves.
And, in a non trivial fashion, the most far-reaching things to come out of the Civil War hasn’t been the abolition of slavery, but rather a fundamental shift in power and prominence of the Federal government vis-a-vis the States.
All that said, I’m sure that the real financial backing behind secession and war was the rich slaveowner class, but I’m sure there were plenty of Southerners whose rationale was more along the lines of “Those Yankees can’t tell us what to do. This is an Alabama/Mississippi/etc… issue to decide, not Washington DC’s.”, instead of “If they abolish slavery, I’ll be financially ruined!”
And the vast, vast majority of the common people who fought for the Confederacy were only doing so because their government asked them to. They weren’t slave owners, or likely even particularly invested on either side of the issue. Georgia asked for volunteers to fight for her, and men responded. Same thing in say… Wisconsin. I kind of doubt that most of the members of the Iron Brigade had any real personal stake in the slavery debate.
[QUOTE=Shagnasty]
Everything I said was moderate, accurate and supposed to be non offensive but people still work to find a way on certain subjects.
[/quote]
It’s funny how people bend over backwards looking to feel outraged over slavery.
You offered a tepid criticism of slavery and an assertion that at least slave owners weren’t well served by killing or damaging their property. You have now repeated twice your defense that you are not taking up for slavery. Is this an achievement of some kind, in your opinion? Do you think it’s difficult in general for people to avoid taking up for slavery?
When so many people around the globe, including neighboring states and territories, were finding perfectly good solutions (e.g., stop doing the morally abhorrent thing you are doing), it’s more than acceptable to judge people for their decisions and behaviors in continuing slavery, and in their efforts to encourage others to do so as well.
But at least you aren’t taking up for slavery, so that’s a good thing.
My only offense is talking about it in a dispassionate tone which is intentional. Of course I think slavery is wrong. That goes without saying. Outrage contests aren’t interesting to me. The history and circumstances that created and sustained such a system are.