| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - American Civil War
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


American Civil War

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: American Civil War
    Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 15:11
Gettysburg pt, 2 has just come on TV (don't believe I've seen the whole thing yet) and I got thinking... I am not particularly well versed on the ACW but since childhood I have been led to believe that it was for the abolition of slavery in the US something which I have always questioned: 19th century white-men killing each other wholesale for the freedom of black men?   Am I then correct in assuming it was a war for political domination of the federal system? 
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 15:24
There's no short answer to this. I like Bruce Catton on the Civil War, but you need more than one book.
 
Anyway, bear in mind that sometimes the 'pure in heart' and the 'industrialist villains' get together for a common purpose, as the major corporations and the human rights campaigners did in fostering better education for blacks in the US in the 1950s and 1960s.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 15:30
Freeing slaves was as much a battle cry for the south as it was for the North. Remember most states had well above +40% of their population under bondage with some (SC if I am not mistaken) having the figure close to 60%.
 
Freeing all these slaves would simply ruin the social and economic status quo (and it did) plus it was an interference by the government in not just state's rights but also people's own private property (i.e. slaves). If the government doesn't respect it what else would it do?
 
Al-Jassas 
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 15:33
Interestingly, one of the Confederate generals said (in the movie I am watching), in conversation with a British officer who stated his desire for Britain to support the South, that he wished they'd freed the slaves before they first opened fire [in order to secure British support given that the British would not ally with a state with sanctioned slavery].

I think I might have just found my answer on wikipedia:

Originally posted by Wikipedia Wikipedia wrote:

On March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as President. In his inaugural address, he argued that the Constitution was a more perfect union than the earlier Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, that it was a binding contract, and called any secession "legally void".[88] He stated he had no intent to invade Southern states, nor did he intend to end slavery where it existed, but that he would use force to maintain possession of federal property. His speech closed with a plea for restoration of the bonds of union.[89]




Edited by Zagros - 19 Dec 2010 at 15:35
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 15:42
Except for a devoted abolitionist, no one who fought the Civil War was dying over anything other than political principles premised upon the limits or scope of national government. Were it otherwise, then what took place in the United States for some 75 years and more after Appomatox makes no sense. There is no word more offensive in the American political vocabulary than the adjective radical
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 15:49
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Freeing slaves was as much a battle cry for the south as it was for the North. Remember most states had well above +40% of their population under bondage with some (SC if I am not mistaken) having the figure close to 60%.
 
Freeing all these slaves would simply ruin the social and economic status quo (and it did) plus it was an interference by the government in not just state's rights but also people's own private property (i.e. slaves). If the government doesn't respect it what else would it do?
 
Al-Jassas 


Yes, I'm questioning whether it was the abolition agenda that sparked the war, or rather was it the secession of the Southern States as quoted above?


Edited by Zagros - 19 Dec 2010 at 15:50
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 16:08
The dissension had been brewing since long before anyone in the US had been working for abolition of slavery. States in which slavery was forbidden weren't driven by any moral agenda, but were committed to an economic system with an extended bourgeoisie, skilled craftsmen, small farming and a widespread dependence on exploitable foreign labour with existing skills. Where slavery was allowed it was mainly because at that time the technology of large-scale farming of cash crops (tobacco, rice, cotton) demanded it, and a skilled, educated workforce was not required.
 
In non-slavery states the aim tended to be to exclude black immigrants from the state: Kansas 'bled' because of the partisanship of two factions, one wanting to allow slavery, and slave-style agriculture, and the other wanting an all-white state based on small farms.
 
It woûld be misleading to think there was ever more than a small minority anywhere wanting to liberate the slaves and at the same time welcome blacks into the community on equal terms.
 
And yes, it was the slavery issue (particularly Victoria's reaction to it) that kept Britain out of intervening on the side of the South (the south being a supplier of raw materials: the north being an economic rival). But I don't think anyone at that point had yet worked out anything like the sharecropping system that eventually would replace it.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 17:35
Graham is correct in pointing out that the situation was critical years before the war began. States had emmense powers and people were citizens of their states first before they were US citizen. This is proven by the fact that it was the states that raised regiments during the war not the federal government. The Missouri compromise (which was struck down by the supreme court before the war and was also one of its causes) was seen by many as a direct interference in states affairs by the federal government and particularly the northern states in the affairs of southern states and the people of the South. In principle many southerners despised slavery as much as northerners did but it was a matter of principle for them, if people wanted slavery in their state its their own business. A comprable situation would be if London imposed student fees on Scottish students in Scottish universities. If a Scottish revolution happens it would be under the banner of devolved parliament and powers of London over Scottish affairs not the fees themselves.
 
 
One also must not forget that there was a slow but steady process of industrialisation in the South based on slave labour. This was a direct threat to the Northern industrial interests who had to pay for their workers and indeed many conservative northerns who would have otherwise supported secession supported the war because of that.
 
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 18:18
You puzzle me with the concept of industrialisation in the south (or anywhere) based on slave labour. Slaves are much too expensive to maintain and unmotivated for an incipient industrial economy. Otherwise the northern states would have had slavery all along.
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 18:44
If slaves were too much expensive why use them in plantations in the first place? The cost of maintaining slaves in industry would probably be higher than the farm but in the end much less than low wage workers. As for motivation, the mere fact that slaves would work in factories instead of plantations is enough motive for them to work as hard as they could in the factory.
 
 
As for slaves and industry, here is an interesting piece:
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 20:29
Thaks. I need to think about it.
 
'Why use them in plantations in the first place?' is simple. You coudln't hire free workers to do the work. That's why I mentioned share-cropping, which is the system that replaced agricultural slavery (and included both blacks and whites of course). If share-cropping had been around in 1855 or so, maybe the south would indeed have freed the slaves. Not that it would have done most of them much good.
 
I'm a bit worried here that 'slave' will be automatically taken to mean 'black' and 'free' to mean 'white' in the economic analysis. Race has nothing to do with it.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 22:24
Industrialization and slavery are not as disparate as might appear at first glance, and scholars of the cultivation and production of sugar have long pointed out that by the 1830s this agrarian enterprise could be considered an industrial endeavor fully mechanized in both transportation and processing and extremely profitable premised upon a captive labor force. In the Ante-Bellum South, the true economic elite had the sugar planter at the apex, and the aping of the organizational hierarchy that yielded sugar had already yielded success in the Mississippi delta region for cotton as well. it is no coincidence that the architectural relics of this prosperity can be viewed today in the ostentatious plantation homes of Southern Louisiana and Mississippi. The Greek Revival associated with the Old South in general was but a very localized phenomenom and a direct product of the wealth generated by industrialized agriculture enjoying the security of a captive labor force and taking full advantages of the latest technology both in processing and transportation.
 
Now, as Gcle points out the rise of sharecopping can not be perceived as a racial phenomenon subsequent to the failure of Reconstruction policies vis a vis the freed slaves. Here is a good summation that could serve as a jumping point for further discussion:
 
 
By the way the industrial plantations did have a form of sharecropping for the "hangers on" that made the system perform efficiently (e.g. overseers) because even though they constituted paid labor the pay was a pittance and supplemented by working "leased land". Such was particularly true with sugar and the peculiarities of its season.
 
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Dec 2010 at 23:52
I've always been fascinated by this. Is the abolitionist cause in anyway relevant to the Civil War? Or is solely for political, economic reasons? I find it hard to believe. I like to believe that many in the North firmly believed slavery was a moral evil as well as a terrible economic burden that had to be stamped out. Perhaps I'm still an old romantic at heart.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 00:55
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

I've always been fascinated by this. Is the abolitionist cause in anyway relevant to the Civil War? Or is solely for political, economic reasons? I find it hard to believe. I like to believe that many in the North firmly believed slavery was a moral evil as well as a terrible economic burden that had to be stamped out. Perhaps I'm still an old romantic at heart.


The issue of the abolition of slavery had reached a boiling point among journalists (the media of the time) and those who thought it to be wrong.  Public figures used that as public figures use all issues to their advantage, but there was genuine feeling that the "peculiar institution" had to go.

The broader issue was preservation of the Union as a necessity to realize the nation's potential, and also to prevent powerful European states from making inroads in the Hemisphere.  France was already taking advantage of the American turmoil in Mexico.  Every European advance in the Western hemisphere was seen as potentially embroiling the US in European power politics as America had been in the 17th and 18th centuries.

I would also mention that there were substantial numbers of southerners who were "Union men" in western Virginia, in eastern Tennessee, in Kentucky, west of the Mississippi River and in port towns all along the seaboard and the Mississippi Valley - people who had nothing in the issue of slavery or even of "states' rights."  Their economic well being had little or nothing to do with the plantation interests and the landed aristocracy that predated the founding of the Republic.

As Sherman marched to the sea..."Yes, and there were Union men who wept with joyful tears

To see the honored banner that they had not seem for years.

Hardly could they be restrained from bursting forth in cheers..."








Edited by pikeshot1600 - 20 Dec 2010 at 00:57
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 02:48
Some years ago there was a study of newspaper editorials leading up to and after the war. As I recall, the majority of editorials prior to hostilities were related to slavery, either in condemnation or its defense. Editorials after the war tended to argue the preservation of the nation versus states rights. Based upon that, I would assume that the majority of those toting rifles in the Union (some of whom were Southerners) articulated their reason for doing so as freeing the Negro Race from slavery, while those doing so for the South believed that in defending their states right to maintain slavery, they were defending their right to govern themselves as free White men. Certainly, the institutions that came after slavery, particularly the rabid anti-Black racism that resulted in the Klu Klux Klan and Jim Crow laws, suggests that whatever the newspapers said, the common White folk were holding the Blacks directly responsible for the South's suffering in the Civil War and Reconstruction. Which in itself, reinforces the argument that the crux of the War was slavery.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 14:12
Interestingly, much of this material was covered visually by Ken Burns in that photographic film essay, The Civil War, several years back in which Shelby Foote provided very salient points many of which warned against monolithic views of public opinion in both the North and South. However, it would be a mistake to premise the American Civil War as the direct consequence of institutionalized slavery and the root cause of secession since the latter principle--as with the former--is much older than the rhetoric that pushed to the fore subsequent to the rise of the Abolitionist Press in the 1830s. To borrow a Jeffersonian phrase there was as much fear North of the Ohio River over "the firebell in the night" as existed South of that divide and during the decades subsequent to the Missouri Compromise it was the North not the South that was home for the urban anti-abolitionist riots! We also need to understand that the triumph of Jacksonian democracy was the product of the political cohesion between the South and the then West and that such did not begin to weaken until after the 1830s as encapsulized by Henry Clay and his "American System". This weakening came about not because of slavery but instead was the direct product of diverging interpretations on the role of government in economic development. Sound familiar?
 
Can the matter be settled conclusively? Rather than iterate a dictat--after all many a standing forest has given its pulp for books on just this topic--perhaps amplifications of all the variables would prove informative both in terms of contemporary exigencies and the actual thought patterns prevailing in the fledgling United States between 1790 and 1855. Itiis not by coincidence that the national history of the United States is periodized as a function of Appomattox. And here, one can take the opportunity to remind all that a voice from that past exists within the framework of classical historiography written by none other than Woodrow Wilson. In his magnum opus as an academic he wrote at the beginning of the 5th volume of A History of the American People: "Wisdom of no common order was called for in the tasks immediately before him [Andrew Johnson]. What effect had the war wrought upon the Federal system? What was now the status of the States which had attempted secession and been brought to terms only by two million armed men sent into the field and the pouring out of blood and treasure beyond all reckoning." (op. cit. 5:1).
 
 


Edited by drgonzaga - 20 Dec 2010 at 16:29
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 14:22
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Some years ago there was a study of newspaper editorials leading up to and after the war. As I recall, the majority of editorials prior to hostilities were related to slavery, either in condemnation or its defense. Editorials after the war tended to argue the preservation of the nation versus states rights. Based upon that, I would assume that the majority of those toting rifles in the Union (some of whom were Southerners) articulated their reason for doing so as freeing the Negro Race from slavery, while those doing so for the South believed that in defending their states right to maintain slavery, they were defending their right to govern themselves as free White men. Certainly, the institutions that came after slavery, particularly the rabid anti-Black racism that resulted in the Klu Klux Klan and Jim Crow laws, suggests that whatever the newspapers said, the common White folk were holding the Blacks directly responsible for the South's suffering in the Civil War and Reconstruction. Which in itself, reinforces the argument that the crux of the War was slavery.


Obviously slavery (and its abolition) was an emotive casus beli, but whether it was the crux of the War for the political elites is my question.  I mean, if you study newspapers from 2001 - 2003 in 200 years time you might be forgiven for thinking that the crux of the Iraq war really was WMD.  A ridiculous proposition given the facts as they have been known since 1997/8.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 2659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 14:24
I always considered the "battle cry for freedom" to be way too convenient for the Yanks to be genuine. In the eyes of many it provided them with a moral upper hand and they must have know full well that for the south to do anything about it they'd have to undermine their entire economy, which would've resulted in an easier victory for the North. Well played. As I see it, freeing the slaves was nothing more than a consequence of political convenience.
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 14:58
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

I always considered the "battle cry for freedom" to be way too convenient for the Yanks to be genuine. In the eyes of many it provided them with a moral upper hand and they must have know full well that for the south to do anything about it they'd have to undermine their entire economy, which would've resulted in an easier victory for the North. Well played. As I see it, freeing the slaves was nothing more than a consequence of political convenience.
 
Actually abolition was more of the spoils of victory than a political convenience. Remember that not even Lincoln himself advocated total abolition until 1863. Before that troops in the South actually returned slaves to their owners because they were private property.
 
After so much death and destruction northerners simply would have never accepted a return of the status quo. The south had to pay and one way was to free the slaves.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 15:02
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

I always considered the "battle cry for freedom" to be way too convenient for the Yanks to be genuine. In the eyes of many it provided them with a moral upper hand and they must have know full well that for the south to do anything about it they'd have to undermine their entire economy, which would've resulted in an easier victory for the North. Well played. As I see it, freeing the slaves was nothing more than a consequence of political convenience.


As for "freeing the slaves," the 1862 Emancipation Proclamation," and "effective" Jan. 1, 1863, freed no slaves in territory not under the control of the US army.  There were all kinds of exemptions for border states that had not seceded, and for Tennessee which was pretty well controlled by the Union.  There were even exemptions for dozens of counties in Virginia.

Yes, the E.P. was propaganda and meant to place Great Britain in a more difficult position in re CSA recognition.

The moral factor was still important however.  Everyone wants to be the good guy, and God is always on everybody's side, so yes emancipation factored in.  Few whites saw Blacks as equals, but it was wicked for them to be enslaved.  It was an important reason for so many re-enlistments in 1864 when the first year's soldiers could start to return home.


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 20 Dec 2010 at 15:06
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 18:24

The New York Times is running an editorial on this subject:

…….But a look through the declaration of causes written by South Carolina and four of the 10 states that followed it out of the Union — which, taken together, paint a kind of self-portrait of the Confederacy — reveals a different story. From Georgia to Texas, each state said the reason it was getting out was that the awful Northern states were threatening to do away with slavey…...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/opinion/19Ball.html?src=me&ref=general

 

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 19:51
Thank you CV for highlighting in formidable fashion why the topic remains au courant and why, among some, the assertion that the Civil War was caused by slavery is an essential element in today's PC Wars! What the Op-Ed piece fails to note is the nature of the internal debates within the various states that later composed the Confederacy and is also rather free-and-loose with the historical document known as The Declaration of the Immediate Causes.
 
Thankfully a transcription of that document is available on the Internet, towit:
 
 
If you care to note its tenor lies entirely upon a strict-interpretation of the charter for Federal Government, the U. S. Constitution. Further, as the document itself makes clear, the attude was nearly a decade old, and therein the crux was and remained not only what constituted property but the integrity of the original compromises that dotted the constitutional charter. Frankly, in this instance the NYT is not appealing to history but entering the world of agiprop much as Horace Greeley's New York Herald some 150 yers ago.
 
The interesting point here, and one realized long ago, really revolves around the startling fact that most of the truly wealthy slave-holders--the owners of efficient and productive plantations--were aghast at the thought of secession and war. A close look at the internal politics of South Carolina between 1840 and 1860 would illustrate that dysfunction, and in Louisiana the grand planters and commercial enrepeneurs in the sugar and cotton market fought hard against the rhetoric of secession and consented only after the action appeared a fait accomplis at the convention! The violent defense of Slavery, as with the violent assertion of Abolition, constituted the radical element in the national political life.
 
So as to pursue the topic further here are the other Declarations of Secession linked to a historical web site:
 
 
Only four states of the future Confederacy issued Declaration of Causes, and these can be found here:
 
 
Now since the op-ed piece mentioned Texas and its current governor, how is this for deja vu
 
From the Texas Declaration of Causes:

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

 


Edited by drgonzaga - 20 Dec 2010 at 19:57
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 22:14
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

If slaves were too much expensive why use them in plantations in the first place? The cost of maintaining slaves in industry would probably be higher than the farm but in the end much less than low wage workers. As for motivation, the mere fact that slaves would work in factories instead of plantations is enough motive for them to work as hard as they could in the factory.
 
If you see the map of the Americas you will see the plantation system worked mainly in the Caribbean and in the sourrounding coasts of the Caribbean. In the rest of the Americas, slaves was not so intensive as in the tropics and black peoples are a lot less numerous and even absent, according to the distance from the Caribbean.
 
Why it is so?
 
Because the only places where suggar, tobbaco, cotton and other products, can be mass produced is precisely in the tropics.
 
Now, the suggar-tobbaco-cotton business were productive enough to pay the cost of slaves and still generate surplus. There you needed large number of people in inhuman conditions, that should produce and produce. Conditions that lead natives in the Caribbean to extinction, and that weren't accepted by Europeans. Blacks died continuosly in the Caribbean at an alarming rate, but they were continuosly replaced by newcommers from Africa. The business was profitable enough to pay for the new slaves.
 
In other places of the Americas, the regular European farmers settled the land.
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 20 Dec 2010 at 22:15
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 23:05
Sorry but last time I checked the country that had the largest slave population was Brazil in its rubber plantations. Slavery in the caribbean lost its appeal as early as the early 1800s and sharecropping model was prevalent.
 
In Mexico and the rest of south America a semi-feudal system prevailed due to the large native/mixed race population that provided cheap labour.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Dec 2010 at 23:49
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Sorry but last time I checked the country that had the largest slave population was Brazil in its rubber plantations. Slavery in the caribbean lost its appeal as early as the early 1800s and sharecropping model was prevalent.
 
In Mexico and the rest of south America a semi-feudal system prevailed due to the large native/mixed race population that provided cheap labour.
 
Al-Jassas
 
You are correct with reference to Brazil, Al Jassas, but not with regard to rubber that was a phenomenon of the late 19th and early 20th century and where seringueiros came principally from Amerindian and caboclo populations. Both sugar and coffee employed slaves, the former as the principal enterprise of the colonial economy, and the latter the cash crop of the Brazilian Empire from 1826 until the advent of emancipation in 1889. Interestingly, it was the latter that brings an interesting parallel with the economy of the Cotton South not only in the need for abundant labor but also as the catalyst for technological efficiency. Further by mid-century domestic pressures in Brazil (along with the growing fervor against the slave trade) did create political conflict. And yes, the largest slave population in the Americas was to be found in Brazil and it was not a regionalized phenomenon as with the United States. Further, during the 18th century African slaves were used for the cultivation of tobacco (a royal monopoly) in Maranhao and Para and a similar model was employed for the cultivation of cacao.
 
Likewise, the assertion that slavery in the Americas was localized to the Circum-Caribbean is both misleading and downright wrong. Colonial records provide not only ample proof of large numbers of slaves that disappeared  into the mines of Chuquisaca (now Bolivia), but almost all major ports of the colonial period relied entirely upon slave labor to handle the backbreaking work of storing and lading cargo. This phenomenon was obvious even on the fringes of empire such as Valparaiso (Chile), which replicated the long established pattern at Callao (the port city for Lima), where slave labor was employed to run the port. The records are all there if anyone is curious enough to look. It is also erroneous to look upon the Amerindian populations as a source for stable cheap labor. In terms of profit-making enterprises they were not by the advent of the 18th century. And such was even less so during the 17th century when the full brunt of epidemics made even the encomiendas a dubious affair. Here is an interesting and accurate revelation straight from the Spanish Archives:
 


Edited by drgonzaga - 21 Dec 2010 at 19:17
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2010 at 18:59
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Sorry but last time I checked the country that had the largest slave population was Brazil in its rubber plantations. Slavery in the caribbean lost its appeal as early as the early 1800s and sharecropping model was prevalent.


Check it out where the Black population lives in Brazil.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2010 at 19:18
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

[
Likewise, the assertion that slavery in the Americas was localized to the Circum-Caribbean is both misleading and downright wrong. Colonial records provide not only ample proof of large numbers of slaves that disappeared  into the mines of Chuquisaca (now Bolivia), but almost all major ports of the colonial period relied entirely upon slave labor to handle the backbreaking work of storing and lading cargo. This phenomenon was obvious even on the fringes of empire such as Valparaiso (Chile), which replicated the long established pattern at Callao (the port city for Lima), where slave labor was employed to run the port. The records are all there if anyone is curious enough to look.
...

It is a matter of scale. You can't compare the presense of a few domestic blacks in the southern regions, with the millions that lived in the Caribbean. In fact, Jamaica looks quite different today from Buenos Aires or from Quebec.



Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2010 at 19:48
Here we go again another attempt at inching toward racist malarkey! As everyone knows IBGE, which in Brazil is in charge of the census classifies people with African ancestry as pardo and includes them under the sobriquet Afro-Brazilian! To be called Black requires a personal assertion, jut as the qualifier African denotes one with national origins in that country. We will not go into the phenomenon of "reevaluation" that even the IBGE now admits. Buth then such is an internal Brazilian social problem and not a topic for those with personal agendas that are intent on "muddying" the waters of analysis. The narrative on historically discriminated ethnic groups is a valid topic in-and-of itself, but as sought here with the introduction of the term "Black" as employed politically in Brazil for generations, it becomes little more than a racist allusion, which against the background of Brazil, becomes nothing more than poppycock. Simply stated, the African roots are watered down by the shaping of what was long ago called the Law of Major Descent (which is what one finds under the census classification labeled Brazilian). All of us already know what the Pinguin thinks of Africa and Africans, hence rest assured that he is more than willing to falsify by appealing to the social hypocrisies of Brazil so as to maintain his line.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2010 at 20:00
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Here we go again another attempt at inching toward racist malarkey!.


Confused

I am only pointing out the historical fact blacks were concentrated around the Caribbean. That's why you see more Blacks in New Orleans than in Calgary, and more Blacks in the Havana than in Cordoba.
This is just ethno-geography.



Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2010 at 20:11
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

It is a matter of scale. You can't compare the presense of a few domestic blacks in the southern regions, with the millions that lived in the Caribbean. In fact, Jamaica looks quite different today from Buenos Aires or from Quebec.
 
That myopic statement richly merits the full contempt it would receive, if spoken before serious researchers of the Americas (and which I now tend) and can be easily negated by a simple review of the historical record. That San Martin himself requisitioned the slaves of the Mendoza region before crossing the Andes to complement his forces should suffice as rebuttal to your absurdity. He was not looking for "house servants"! That you chose not to discuss the assertions documented by the source cited represent more than ample proof that once again you are simply projecting your own foibles. The Americas, yes the Americas and not your ridiculous particularisms, have many common historical threads that provide ample ground for juxtaposition and comparison that amplify similar reactions and conclusions raised by common problems.


Edited by drgonzaga - 21 Dec 2010 at 20:19
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.