Slavery and Compromises; was: Re: U.S. GRANT quote
James F. Epperson
On 2 May 1996, Trey Bowman wrote:
[this is JFE:]
> >(b) Robert Toombs served on the compromise committee which Crittenden
> >chaired, and submitted his own compromise proposal, totally centered on
> >slavery;
>
> I agree. That became the point of the committee. It shouldn't have been,
> but it was.
Why shouldn't slavery have become the focal point of the committee? Are
you now trying to substitute your judgement on the issues for that of
the men who actually were there? Maybe it became the point of the
committee because it was the considered judgement of the men involved
that slavery issues were at the root of the crisis. Chuck is right, you
really are into denial.
[snips]
> I agree that slavery was an issue of disagreement, hence a compromise
> was necessary.
But why were no compromises proposed on other issues, if other issues
were more important than slavery, or even as important?
[snip]
> Just as the north abolished slavery when it was no longer
> financially beneficial, the south would have done the same.
When? A large part of your argument has been based on the premise that
slavery would have ended soon without the war, and the Southerners
(including Jeff Davis) knew this. You have submitted no evidence to
support either of these claims. None. Slavery was important in cotton
agriculture because the cotton had to be picked by hand. To actually
pay the field hands would have reduced the profit margins below
acceptable levels. In order to remove this problem some kind of
mechanical cotton picker would have to be developed. As it happened,
according to a friend who works in the cotton industry, the first
mechanical cotton picker was not invented until the 1940's, some eighty
years after the Civil War.
> As for your list of quotes. I have not read the documents you are
> referencing in their entirety but I would be happy to give my opinion
> of your selections.
[Note: for completeness, I am keeping the quotes here; sorry for the
length.]
> >"...we hope to form a slave-holding confederacy that will secure to us and
> >our remotest posterity the great blessings its authors designed in the
> >Federal Union. With the social balance wheel of slavery to regulate its
> >machinery, we may fondly indulge the hope that our Southern government
> >will be perpetual."
> > George Williamson, Louisiana's Commissioner to the Texas Secession
> > Convention.
> >
> >"There is not a respectable system of civilization known to history whose
> >foundations were not laid in the institution of domestic slavery."
> > Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia.
>
> These are politicians. They are saying what they feel their financial
> supporters want to hear, but you must admit; Slavery has at one
> time been a part of most civilizations known to history. Slavery goes as
> far back as biblical times. African slave trade began in the 9th century
> and African slave trade to the European countries began in the mid 1400's.
> The institution of slavery was a part of most civilizations known to
> history.
I will let others argue the presence or absence of slavery in other
civilizations, that is not my point here. These two quotes here
indicate very strongly that neither speaker, especailly Williamson (who
is not speaking to any financial supporters, but who is rather trying to
convince the state of Texas to secede, as his state of Louisiana just
has done), sees the end of slavery in the near future.
> >"We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the
> >South, who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be
> >a social, moral, and political blessing."
> > The Atlanta Confederacy (newspaper), 1860
> >
> >"Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is
> >not possible without slavery."
> > Richmond Enquirer (newspaper), 1856.
> >
>
> I am sure some Southerners believed this to be true. Why do you believe
> these quotes are representative. In 130 years, what would people think
> of Bill Clinton if they read what Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddey, and
> many others had to say? In a free press, a journalist can write what he
> or she wishes. Is this, the writers opinion, or is he quoting someone? What
> kind of circulation did these papers have? If it was primarily plantation
> owners, those types of comments would have been welcomed. "Freedom
> is not possible without slavery."; That doesn't even make sense. Was
> the Richmond Enquirer the predecessor to The Enquirer? Enquiring minds
> want to know. :-)
The Richmond Enquirer was one of the major papers in the South. You
would know this if you were as well read as you claim to be.
> >"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery--
> >the greatest material interest of the world."
> > Mississippi Declaration of Causes
>
> The institution of slavery was very much a part of the economy of
> Mississippi. They obviously were incorrect in stating that it was the
> greatest material interest of the world. That was the position of the
> politicians and lobbyist of the time. It also does't mean they could
> not, or would not, change their position in the future.
But it sure as Hades indicates their position and feelings in 1860-61,
doesn't it? How can you look at that sentence and deny that, at least
for the state of Mississippi, slavery was not the primary cause of
secession? They damn near said so, explicitly: "Our position is
thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery."
> Slavery was actually a social, moral, and political curse with a financial
> benefit to the plantation owners and textile companies. And ultimately,
> the consumer. If slavery was the major cause of the war, it seems the
> north could have easily resolved the issue. Rather than, just declare all
> slave property worthless, why not come to a unilateral agreement between
> the southern plantation owners and the northern/overseas textile companies
> to raise the price of cotton to accommodate a wage earning work-force?
> This agreement was never entertained because it was not in the norths best
> interest to pay more for cotton. With the souths succession, the north
> realized that the south would no longer export through northern ports.
> The south identified New Orleans as an acceptable port. Therefore,
> the north would lose tariffs, commerce, and financial growth. Now this was
> worth fighting for.
As I mentioned earlier, your understanding of the economics is wrong on
a couple of counts. In the first place no portion of the United States
was in a position to dictate to a British textile mill what they should
pay for cotton. Secondly, most Southern cotton was sent to Britain, not
to Northern mills. Third, there were no "export duties." None. Nada.
Not one cent of money was earned for "the North" or the Federal
government by the export of Southern cotton. The tariff issue was
entirely over IMPORTS. Fourth, prior to the war almost all Southern
cotton was exported through Southern ports anyway. So, for two reasons,
there was no loss of income for the North to get worked up over.
Jim Epperson | I would like to see truthful
Department of Mathematical Sciences | history written -- US Grant
University of Alabama in Huntsville +-------------------------------------
eppe...@math.uah.edu URL: http://www.math.uah.edu/~epperson
URL: http://members.aol.com/jfepperson
Tennessee Reb
On May 02, 1996 12:16:10 in article <Slavery and Compromises; was: Re: U.S.
GRANT quote>, '"James F. Epperson" <eppe...@math.uah.edu>' wrote:
<prior stuff snipped>
>When? A large part of your argument has been based on the premise that
>slavery would have ended soon without the war, and the Southerners
>(including Jeff Davis) knew this. You have submitted no evidence to
>support either of these claims. None.
Slavery was important in cotton
>agriculture because the cotton had to be picked by hand. To actually
>pay the field hands would have reduced the profit margins below
>acceptable levels.
*no longer pay for clothing, food, housing, and medical care, etc...*
Slavery was for all intents and purposes a non-profit institution. How
convenient of you to forget that many, many planters were in hock up
to their necks and were otherwise "land poor". How convenient of
you to fail to mention that slave ownership meant life-time care,
including care for those too young, old, or sick to work...
In order to remove this problem some kind of
>mechanical cotton picker would have to be developed. As it happened,
>according to a friend who works in the cotton industry, the first
>mechanical cotton picker was not invented until the 1940's, some eighty
>years after the Civil War.
incentive to mechanize, because the labor pool was so large and cheap.
<snips>
>The Richmond Enquirer was one of the major papers in the South. You
>would know this if you were as well read as you claim to be.
South today. It is also the same sort of bilge pump the Richmond
Enquirer was.
<big snips>
>there was no loss of income for the North to get worked up over.
ports of entry, the one which would have put the Northern ports out
of business, and eventually put whole Yankee Federal govt. on the
financial ropes due to a lack of duties collected....
Take a pill, and try again.
Yr. Svt.,
Tennessee Reb
efr...@cc.memphis.edu
JFE says:
>>When? A large part of your argument has been based on the premise that
>>slavery would have ended soon without the war, and the Southerners
>>(including Jeff Davis) knew this. You have submitted no evidence to
>>support either of these claims. None.
And T-reb retorts:
> Tell me how you provide "evidence" for something that did not occur?
Seems to me that if T-reb's point is applicable then
it fits him as well as Jim. I would suggest that
anyone who holds that slavery was on the way out
soon if not for the Woah should be able to make a
case from the public and private writings of leading
Southerners/Slaveowners, indicating that the peaceful
demise of the system was one of their goals or
ambitions.
> Slavery was important in cotton
>>agriculture because the cotton had to be picked by hand. To actually
>>pay the field hands would have reduced the profit margins below
>>acceptable levels.
>
> Wrong again, Jim. Sure you would pay for the labor, put you would
> *no longer pay for clothing, food, housing, and medical care, etc...*
> Slavery was for all intents and purposes a non-profit institution.
This is rich! Golly, my heart goes out to those noble
folks, giving their all without a thought for their
own well-being. (T-reb should talk to Mr. Shelby
Foote about the non-profit nature of slavery and its
successor regimes.)
> How
> convenient of you to forget that many, many planters were in hock up
> to their necks and were otherwise "land poor". How convenient of
> you to fail to mention that slave ownership meant life-time care,
> including care for those too young, old, or sick to work...
Yes, and many European aristocrats were also in hock.
Didn't prevent them from thinking of themselves as
G*d's favorites and lording it over the peasantry,
though.
Ed "'against human stupidity even the
gods themselves struggle in vain'" Frank
Stephen Schmidt
More economics to discuss :)
>On 2 May 1996, Trey Bowman wrote:
>> Slavery was actually a social, moral, and political curse with a financial
>> benefit to the plantation owners and textile companies.
Ponder. I would agree. Jefferson Davis would not have agreed;
he would have thought it a moral and social blessing. He might
have agreed that it was a political curse, although I think he'd
more likely have considered abolition to be the curse rather than
slavery.
By 1860, the majority of Southern political leaders believed
slavery to be morally and socially good. This was a reaction
to the criticisms raised by the abolitionists in th 1830s and
1840s.
>> If slavery was the major cause of the war, it seems the
>> north could have easily resolved the issue. Rather than, just declare all
>> slave property worthless, why not come to a unilateral agreement between
>> the southern plantation owners and the northern/overseas textile companies
>> to raise the price of cotton to accommodate a wage earning work-force?
Because the South was not willing to make any such compromise.
The South saw slavery as much more than an economic issue; they
saw it as a question of social organization and race relations
(which of course it also was).
The North proposed compensated emancipation several times, and
the South invariably not only rejected it, but refused to
consider it.
>> This agreement was never entertained because it was not in the norths best
>> interest to pay more for cotton.
True enough, although it was not in the North's economic interest to
abolish slavery either. The North chose to fight against slavery
for moral reasons, not economic ones.
>> With the souths succession, the north
>> realized that the south would no longer export through northern ports.
They didn't anyway. Charleston, Savannah, Pensacola, Mobile,
and the one you mentioned, New Orleans, were all prominent
cotton shipping ports in the South, and had been for 40 or 50
years. Almost no cotton was exported through the Northern
ports.
"James F. Epperson" <eppe...@math.uah.edu> writes:
>As I mentioned earlier, [Trey's] understanding of the economics is wrong on
>a couple of counts. In the first place no portion of the United States
>was in a position to dictate to a British textile mill what they should
>pay for cotton.
That's not entirely correct. The South had a near-monopoly on
the supply of cotton for international trade in 1859. While
Southern plantation owners, competing with one another, could
not exploit this market power, the United States by power of
law could easily do so. Also, the Southern cotton owners, if
they wanted, could coordinate on prices and quite effectively
raise them, with only small decreases in demand for their
price. (Conspiracy to fix prices was not illegal in 1860, and
in many ways still isn't illegal in international markets.)
I agree that the South could not completely dictate prices,
but the South had a lot of control over cotton prices if they
chose to work together as a section to use it. Internal
competition between Southern cotton growers prevented them
from effectively exploiting it, although they got rich
enough even without.
>Secondly, most Southern cotton was sent to Britain, not
>to Northern mills.
Correct.
>Third, there were no "export duties." None. Nada.
>Not one cent of money was earned for "the North" or the Federal
>government by the export of Southern cotton.
Yes, but there were British duties on bringing the cotton
into Britain. The money wasn't earned by the North, but was
earned by Britain; either way, though, the South paid it.
(The North paid some too, when it bought clothing from
Britain whose cost had been raised by the British duties.)
>The tariff issue was entirely over IMPORTS.
This, I think, is not true at all, since even in 1860 the
relation between imports and exports was well understood.
The less one imports, the less one can export without
running a current accounts balance, a costly thing to do
in an era when international lending is limited and all
money is gold-backed. Thus, measures which the North took
to limit imports would in turn limit Southern exports to
Europe by a relatively straightforward economic argument.
The South, while not up on the details of the argument,
was certainly aware of the conclusion.
>Fourth, prior to the war almost all Southern
>cotton was exported through Southern ports anyway. So, for two reasons,
>there was no loss of income for the North to get worked up over.
Agreed.
Jim earlier had added, more generally:
>A large part of your argument has been based on the premise that
>slavery would have ended soon without the war, and the Southerners
>(including Jeff Davis) knew this. You have submitted no evidence to
>support either of these claims. None.
It's worse than that. Not only has Trey submitted no evidence
to back up his statements, but he has submitted no other reason
to believe he's correct either. I don't care whether he can
submit firsthand evidence, secondhand evidence, mathematical
proofs, or stone tables from God to convince us he's correct.
But if he wants me to take him seriously he needs to do
_something_ to demonstrate that he's not just making all this
stuff up off the top of his head (as many people on the Internet
do). If he cannot do that, then there is certainly much reason
to take what he says with a large dose of skepticism. I think
the main thing that distinguishes the academics on this group
(historians or otherwise) from the non-academics is that the
academics are all in scientific or semi-scientific fields of
study and are therefore much more likely to insist on a
skeptical treatment of information. Which I think is the
only valid way to get at the truth of matters, historical
or otherwise. It may be that some people have goals other
than getting at the truth, but if that is so then the
discussions will naturally tend to resolve into two camps
not saying much constructive to one another.
Steve
--
Stephen Schmidt Department of Economics
210A Social Sciences Union College
(518) 388-6078 Schenectady NY 12308
Trey Bowman
In <1996May5.0...@unvax.union.edu>, schm...@unvax.union.edu (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
[snip] Pondering...
>By 1860, the majority of Southern political leaders believed
>slavery to be morally and socially good. This was a reaction
>to the criticisms raised by the abolitionists in th 1830s and
>1840s.
Political leaders can start wars but people must fight them. If
"The cause" was for slavery, why didn't this become the battle cry?
CSA <> KKK. If it did, there would have been no reason for the KKK
to create a new organization.
>
>>> If slavery was the major cause of the war, it seems the
>>> north could have easily resolved the issue. Rather than, just declare all
>>> slave property worthless, why not come to a unilateral agreement between
>>> the southern plantation owners and the northern/overseas textile companies
>>> to raise the price of cotton to accommodate a wage earning work-force?
>
>Because the South was not willing to make any such compromise.
>The South saw slavery as much more than an economic issue; they
>saw it as a question of social organization and race relations
>(which of course it also was).
>The North proposed compensated emancipation several times, and
>the South invariably not only rejected it, but refused to
>consider it.
I'm sorry. I missed that. What proposals are you speaking of? Why
don't hold yourself to the same criteria you ask of me? If the proposals
were fair, (and I assume they were, or you would not be bringing them
up) rejecting them only proves my point. They were fighting for
something else. Race relations in the north were not all that great
either, my friend. I agree the social organization was an issue but
the great white north also enjoyed and preferred the social imbalance.
The majority of northern whites did not want to compete with their
black counter parts, for work.
>
>>> This agreement was never entertained because it was not in the norths best
>>> interest to pay more for cotton.
>
>True enough, although it was not in the North's economic interest to
>abolish slavery either. The North chose to fight against slavery
>for moral reasons, not economic ones.
>
>>> With the souths succession, the north
>>> realized that the south would no longer export through northern ports.
>
>They didn't anyway. Charleston, Savannah, Pensacola, Mobile,
>and the one you mentioned, New Orleans, were all prominent
>cotton shipping ports in the South, and had been for 40 or 50
>years. Almost no cotton was exported through the Northern
>ports.
>
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I meant ports controlled by the
(northern) US government. If the south were separate, then cotton
exported through southern ports would not be subject to union tariffs.
Therefor, the US government would lose this source of income.
>"James F. Epperson" <eppe...@math.uah.edu> writes:
>>As I mentioned earlier, [Trey's] understanding of the economics is wrong on
>>a couple of counts. In the first place no portion of the United States
>>was in a position to dictate to a British textile mill what they should
>>pay for cotton.
>
>That's not entirely correct.
Agree.
[snip]
>
>>Third, there were no "export duties." None. Nada.
>>Not one cent of money was earned for "the North" or the Federal
>>government by the export of Southern cotton.
>
>Yes, but there were British duties on bringing the cotton
>into Britain. The money wasn't earned by the North, but was
>earned by Britain; either way, though, the South paid it.
>(The North paid some too, when it bought clothing from
>Britain whose cost had been raised by the British duties.)
>
>>The tariff issue was entirely over IMPORTS.
>
>This, I think, is not true at all, since even in 1860 the
>relation between imports and exports was well understood.
Agree.
[snip] Good import/export knowledge.
>The South, while not up on the details of the argument,
>was certainly aware of the conclusion.
Good Lord. Now your saying the southern people were not
capable of understanding the details of the economics
surrounding their industry. You sir, are hopeless.
>
>>Fourth, prior to the war almost all Southern
>>cotton was exported through Southern ports anyway. So, for two reasons,
>>there was no loss of income for the North to get worked up over.
>
>Agreed.
>
You both missed the point. Before secession, the southern ports
were US ports.
[snip]
>
>It's worse than that. Not only has Trey submitted no evidence
>to back up his statements, but he has submitted no other reason
>to believe he's correct either.
I guess I have been so overwhelmed by the mountain of evidence
you guys have submitted, I haven't had a chance to gather my own. ;-)
>I don't care whether he can
>submit firsthand evidence, secondhand evidence, mathematical
>proofs, or stone tables from God to convince us he's correct.
I'm not trying to convince you. You have already made up your mind.
May I ask then; What is your purpose for participating in the
discussion?
[snip] Agree
>It may be that some people have goals other
>than getting at the truth, but if that is so then the
>discussions will naturally tend to resolve into two camps
>not saying much constructive to one another.
If I didn't care about getting at the truth, I would not be discussing
the issues with others that I consider knowledgeable. If I had other
goals, I would be sharing my knowledge, thoughts, wisdom, and
opinions with those willing to unconditionally accept it.
Secession was already in the works before the compromise ever got
off the ground. Given the relative date of the compromise and the fact
that neither side said they were fighting for/against slavery at the
beginning of the war, it seems ludicrous to say in this day and time that
slavery was the primary issue, when they did not say it in that day and
time. There were other valid differences such as culture and disagreements
such as tariffs and states rights. And, let us not forget the feeling that the
south was not fairly represented in the union. Why do northern supporters
ignore the other issues? Why is so important for the pro-union people to
say the war was fought to abolish slavery or slavery was the only, major,
or primary cause? The embarrassment and atrocities of slavery will not be
forgotten, regardless of "the cause". Why must people who support the
norths actions, 130 years later, try to place the blame for slavery, on
the south? And further exempt themselves from the practice by
pretending to be fighting for the abolishment, from day one. Didn't
Lincoln himself say that he would NOT fight to abolish slavery at the
beginning of the war? Please enlighten me.
---
Trey Bowman
Trey Bowman
>> >(b) Robert Toombs served on the compromise committee which Crittenden
>> >chaired, and submitted his own compromise proposal, totally centered on
>> >slavery;
>>
>> I agree. That became the point of the committee. It shouldn't have been,
>> but it was.
>
>Why shouldn't slavery have become the focal point of the committee?
Because, if the legislators were properly representing their constituents,
other issues would been put back on the table. Are you denying there were
other issues? I believe the political climate of the time would not allow
for concessions. This proposal (compromise) came far to late. Much of the
south had already decided to secede.
>Are you now trying to substitute your judgement on the issues for that of
>the men who actually were there?
No. Are you trying to say this compromise represents every possible conflict
and resolution? I seriously doubt it. And I think you know it.
>Maybe it became the point of the
>committee because it was the considered judgement of the men involved
>that slavery issues were at the root of the crisis.
And maybe not. Maybe it was just one more issue. If what you are saying is
true, then please address the question as to why so many Southerners who had
nothing to do with slavery, fought the war? You have done a good job avoiding
this direction, thus far.
>Chuck is right, you really are into denial.
Why can't you and Chuck respond to this issue without saying the opposition
is in denial? If you feel this helps support your claim; I can assure you
it does not.
>
>[snips]
>
>> I agree that slavery was an issue of disagreement, hence a compromise
>> was necessary.
>
>But why were no compromises proposed on other issues, if other issues
>were more important than slavery, or even as important?
Attempts to resolve other issues such as states rights, and tariffs were
now non-negotiable. Neither party was budging from its position. Much
like you and I. The fact is, the South wanted to secede, and I believe
they had that right. Or they did, when the states were part of a
"united" nation.
>
>[snip]
>
>> Just as the north abolished slavery when it was no longer
>> financially beneficial, the south would have done the same.
>
>When?
When economically feasible. Just like the north.
>A large part of your argument has been based on the premise that
>slavery would have ended soon without the war, and the Southerners
>(including Jeff Davis) knew this. You have submitted no evidence to
>support either of these claims. None.
I told you that the Jefferson Davis memoirs said this. You discounted his
writings as BS. Amazing....
>Slavery was important in cotton
>agriculture because the cotton had to be picked by hand. To actually
>pay the field hands would have reduced the profit margins below
>acceptable levels.
So, raise the price of cotton so that profit margins are acceptable.
>In order to remove this problem some kind of
>mechanical cotton picker would have to be developed. As it happened,
>according to a friend who works in the cotton industry, the first
>mechanical cotton picker was not invented until the 1940's, some eighty
>years after the Civil War.
Proof that a profit CAN be made with human labor. Unless the industry lost
money for eighty years. No doubt that the mechanical method would be much
more profitable and most likely reduce the price of cotton.
>
[snip] (the quotes)
>>
>> These are politicians. They are saying what they feel their financial
>> supporters want to hear, but you must admit; Slavery has at one
>> time been a part of most civilizations known to history. Slavery goes as
>> far back as biblical times. African slave trade began in the 9th century
>> and African slave trade to the European countries began in the mid 1400's.
>> The institution of slavery was a part of most civilizations known to
>> history.
>
>I will let others argue the presence or absence of slavery in other
>civilizations, that is not my point here.
My point is that the south did not invent slavery, yet you and many others
speak as though the south is to blame for the institution. If you do not feel
the south is to blame for slavery, please except my apologies and ignore the
above ramblings.
>These two quotes here
>indicate very strongly that neither speaker, especailly Williamson (who
>is not speaking to any financial supporters, but who is rather trying to
>convince the state of Texas to secede, as his state of Louisiana just
>has done), sees the end of slavery in the near future.
They said what they needed to, to get their support. And they did. Of
course, that quote wasn't all they said. Why is this any different than
politicians promising a tax cut, balanced budget, reduced deficit, or smaller
government, when they have no intention of delivering. Possibly, to get
your vote of approval.
>
[snip] (more quotes)
>>
>> I am sure some Southerners believed this to be true. Why do you believe
>> these quotes are representative. In 130 years, what would people think
>> of Bill Clinton if they read what Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddey, and
>> many others had to say? In a free press, a journalist can write what he
>> or she wishes. Is this, the writers opinion, or is he quoting someone? What
>> kind of circulation did these papers have? If it was primarily plantation
>> owners, those types of comments would have been welcomed. "Freedom
>> is not possible without slavery."; That doesn't even make sense. Was
>> the Richmond Enquirer the predecessor to The Enquirer? Enquiring minds
>> want to know. :-)
>
>The Richmond Enquirer was one of the major papers in the South. You
>would know this if you were as well read as you claim to be.
Ouch! Didn't you see the smiley? You do very fine job of avoiding the
questions. Do you have aspirations for a political career? So what kind
of circulation did it have? Are you saying that the mass populous in other
parts of the south such as AL, MS, SC, LA, TN, and FL read this VA and GA
newspaper? What economic class were they apart of? Since you didn't answer
my questions, should I assume you don't know either? Again, was this the
writers opinion, or is he quoting someone?
[snip] (one more quote)
>>
>> The institution of slavery was very much a part of the economy of
>> Mississippi. They obviously were incorrect in stating that it was the
>> greatest material interest of the world. That was the position of the
>> politicians and lobbyist of the time. It also does't mean they could
>> not, or would not, change their position in the future.
>
>But it sure as Hades indicates their position and feelings in 1860-61,
>doesn't it?
The SOUTH? NO. It indicates that the plantation owners had enough political
clout to have this cause included.
>How can you look at that sentence and deny that, at least
>for the state of Mississippi, slavery was not the primary cause of
>secession? They damn near said so, explicitly: "Our position is
>thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery."
I would have thought the Mississippi Declaration of Causes would have
been much more than one sentence. If that was it. I stand corrected.
If not, how can you look at one sentence of the MS Declaration of Causes,
and call it the primary cause?
>
>> Slavery was actually a social, moral, and political curse with a financial
>> benefit to the plantation owners and textile companies. And ultimately,
>> the consumer. If slavery was the major cause of the war, it seems the
>> north could have easily resolved the issue. Rather than, just declare all
>> slave property worthless, why not come to a unilateral agreement between
>> the southern plantation owners and the northern/overseas textile companies
>> to raise the price of cotton to accommodate a wage earning work-force?
>> This agreement was never entertained because it was not in the norths best
>> interest to pay more for cotton. With the souths succession, the north
>> realized that the south would no longer export through northern ports.
>> The south identified New Orleans as an acceptable port. Therefore,
>> the north would lose tariffs, commerce, and financial growth. Now this was
>> worth fighting for.
>
>As I mentioned earlier, your understanding of the economics is wrong on
>a couple of counts. In the first place no portion of the United States
>was in a position to dictate to a British textile mill what they should
>pay for cotton.
Incorrect. It is my understanding that the US held a monopolistic position.
>Secondly, most Southern cotton was sent to Britain, not
>to Northern mills.
Agree. I don't recall saying otherwise.
>Third, there were no "export duties." None. Nada.
>Not one cent of money was earned for "the North" or the Federal
>government by the export of Southern cotton.
Incorrect. Incorrecto. ?Comprenda, amigo?
The south exported more than twice what the north had to offer
in the 1859-186? time frame and southern ports were primarily used.
This would mean there was much more commerce with foreign
governments in the south and The Confederacy established a 10 percent
tariff for imports. Because of the lower tariff and high import/export
activity the North was in fear of losing trade in Western Territories to the
south. In the memoirs of Senator Thomas Benton he states that "Under
Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of
the Federal Revenue." If northern ships transported the Southern
cotton, why would you think they would not make any money ("None.
Nada.") for the Federal government? I believe transportation costs
were significant.
>The tariff issue was entirely over IMPORTS.
True, but unless the ships arriving to export cotton were empty there
would be a significant amount of imports from which to collect tariffs.
There is a parallel relationship between imports and exports.
>Fourth, prior to the war almost all Southern
>cotton was exported through Southern ports anyway.
Correct. But prior to secession, it didn't matter.
>So, for two reasons,
>there was no loss of income for the North to get worked up over.
You stand corrected.
---
Trey Bowman
RStacy2229
In article <4mdd58$o...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>,
tennes...@usa.pipeline.com(Tennessee Reb) writes:
> Slavery was important in cotton
>>agriculture because the cotton had to be picked by hand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It must be said that there is an important point here which some folks who
haven't studied cotton often overlook. Cotton-picking was an extremely
labor-intensive business, and quite ornerous labor, and my own mother,
father, aunts and grandparents have frequently regaled me with tales of
Depression days in rural Alabama.
The McCormick reaper made wheat farming a much less labor-intensive
business, and further development of agricultural implements (combines,
etc.) helped make the Midwest the bread-basket of the world. But no such
machine was developed for cotton until the 1930s -- and STILL, mechanical
cotton-pickers are far less efficient than the old hand-picking methods.
How many times have I heard my elders, upon driving past a machine-picked
field, laughing bitterly at how they'd have gotten a hickory switch for
doing such a sorry job of picking. But the McCormick reaper, by contrast,
was quite as efficient as any scythe, I believe.
It is true that Southern cotton production had, by the 1880s, exceeded its
antebellum peak, but I'm pretty sure that was principally due to more
acreage and improved fertilization techniques. And ONE very important
thing changed with the free labor method of cotton agriculture: The big
money no longer went to the farmer/landowner, but was made by the factors,
brokers and gin owners. Cotton agriculture thus made wealthy men of the
merchant class after the war, while degrading the social status of the
farmer/landowner. And the landowner's relationship to the black laborer
became one of employer-employee, landlord-tenant and merchant-debtor,
rather than master-slave.
By the way, in Rome, Georgia, in the 1870s, the need for field hands
became so desperate that a group of leading citizens hatched a plan to
recruit Chinese coolies to do the work. Don't know what became of that
notion, but there were, within a few years, a number of Lees and Chens in
Rome, operating laundries and bakeries and other small businesses.
The labor-intensive nature of cotton agriculture can seldom be overlooked
when considering the Deep South's attachment to the Peculiar Institution.
Robert Stacy McCain
Rome, GA -- Where the history of King Cotton will be part of Festa Roma, a
cultural celebration during the Olympic Games
RStacy2229
In article <4mdd58$o...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>,
tennes...@usa.pipeline.com(Tennessee Reb) writes:
> Slavery was important in cotton
>>agriculture because the cotton had to be picked by hand. To actually
>>pay the field hands would have reduced the profit margins below
>>acceptable levels
AND might I add, that much of the cotton clothing Americans wear today is
produced from bolls HAND-PICKED by the residents of Third World countries
who live scarcely better (if not worse) than any old-time sharecropper or
tenant farmer. Conditions in certain American and Mexican garment and
textile factories involve child labor, piece-work and other degrading
labor conditions -- sweatshops, in a word.
Politicians will blather on about NAFTA and free-trade, but the fact is,
if you buy a garment marked "made in China," you very well may be buying a
garment produced in Red Chinese SLAVE LABOR camps. Where is the outrage?
I'm still waiting.
Robert Stacy McCain
Rome GA -- Home of Festa Rome -- an Olympic cultural celebration
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4mscvj$b...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>By the way, in Rome, Georgia, in the 1870s, the need for field hands
>became so desperate that a group of leading citizens hatched a plan to
>recruit Chinese coolies to do the work. Don't know what became of that
>notion, but there were, within a few years, a number of Lees and Chens in
>Rome, operating laundries and bakeries and other small businesses.
>The labor-intensive nature of cotton agriculture can seldom be overlooked
>when considering the Deep South's attachment to the Peculiar Institution.
The Chinese coolie phenomenon happened across the South--generally in terms of
discussion, not action--but it was not a shortage of labor per se that caused
that discussion, but the search by plantation owners for a labor source that
was guaranteed to be "docile."
RStacy2229
In article <4msrh2$9...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>The Chinese coolie phenomenon happened across the South--generally in
terms
>of
>discussion, not action--but it was not a shortage of labor per se that
caused
>
>that discussion, but the search by plantation owners for a labor source
that
>was guaranteed to be "docile."
Cite the source for that remark, please, Mark. The contemporary newspaper
articles I read did not ONCE mention any such docility.
RSMcCAIN
System Janitor
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>The Chinese coolie phenomenon happened across the South--generally in terms of
>discussion, not action--but it was not a shortage of labor per se that caused
>that discussion, but the search by plantation owners for a labor source that
>was guaranteed to be "docile."
Docile means ``easily managed''. The mean old Southerners preferred
easily managed laborers to ones that were difficult to manage. That's
the final nail in the coffin for me, where do I sign up to become a
scalawag?!
-Mike
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4mt30m$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4msrh2$9...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>
>>The Chinese coolie phenomenon happened across the South--generally in
>terms
>>of
>>discussion, not action--but it was not a shortage of labor per se that
>caused
>>
>>that discussion, but the search by plantation owners for a labor source
>that
>>was guaranteed to be "docile."
>
>articles I read did not ONCE mention any such docility.
>RSMcCAIN
I have seen many articles in Reconstruction era Tennessee newspapers discussing
the issue, and the idea was that "coolies" could replace the slaves.
A number of Reconstruction historians, including Eric Foner, discuss the issue;
you could easily find their citations.
I also think that Lucy Cohen wrote a book on the subject, titled something like
"Chinese in the Post-Civil War South."
efr...@cc.memphis.edu
[Snipsnip]
Mark said:
> I also think that Lucy Cohen wrote a book on the subject, titled something like
> "Chinese in the Post-Civil War South."
This is right: Lucy M. Cohen _[title as above]:A People Without
A History_ (LSU Press, 1984). It's fully documented (and covers
the pre-war period also, though the sources are scanty for
that).
Italians, Scandinavians, and other folks were also brought
in at various times. These experiments were usually very
short-lived.
Ed "Foreign Demon of the Third Class" Frank
Tennessee Reb
On May 09, 1996 13:21:38 in article <Re: Slavery and Compromises; was: Re:
U.S. GRANT quote>, 'mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage)'
wrote:
>The Chinese coolie phenomenon happened across the South--generally in
terms of
>discussion, not action--but it was not a shortage of labor per se that
caused
>that discussion, but the search by plantation owners for a labor source
that
>was guaranteed to be "docile."
Southerners *and* Chinese folk in one fell swoop.
You are a talented fellow. Ever consider writing
for Don Rickles?
T. Reb
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4mt7jc$k...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>,
I insulted no one. I merely stated the plain truth: after the war, many
Southerners became infatuated with the notion of using Chinese laborers on
the plantations because they perceived them to be more docile than the freedmen
would be. This is an undeniable fact and I don't see why you are getting so
excited about it.
RStacy2229
Mark, thanks for the citations -- I will follow up. RSMcCain
[Moderator: If neccesary to delete flame-bait notes below to gain
approval, please do so, and indicate with "flame-baiting notes SNIPPED".
RSMcCain]
In article <4mt486$b...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>many articles in Reconstruction era Tennessee newspapers discussing
>the issue, and the idea was that "coolies" could replace the slaves.
1. Tennessee papers in Reconstruction were often Radical Republican
propaganda sheets.
>A number of Reconstruction historians, including Eric Foner, discuss the
>issue; you could easily find their citations.
2. To characterize he work of many historians of the period, see 1.
>I also think that Lucy Cohen wrote a book on the subject, titled
something
>like "Chinese in the Post-Civil War South."
3. See 1 & 2 above.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4nh51t$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>Mark, thanks for the citations -- I will follow up. RSMcCain
>[Moderator: If neccesary to delete flame-bait notes below to gain
>approval, please do so, and indicate with "flame-baiting notes SNIPPED".
>RSMcCain]
>
>In article <4mt486$b...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>
>>many articles in Reconstruction era Tennessee newspapers discussing
>>the issue, and the idea was that "coolies" could replace the slaves.
>
>1. Tennessee papers in Reconstruction were often Radical Republican
>propaganda sheets.
These were Democratic papers.
>
>>A number of Reconstruction historians, including Eric Foner, discuss the
>>issue; you could easily find their citations.
>
>2. To characterize he work of many historians of the period, see 1.
>
Not only do you do Eric Foner a disservice (have you read his history of
Reconsruction? Just curious.), but this is basically an ad hominem attack.
>>I also think that Lucy Cohen wrote a book on the subject, titled
>something
>>like "Chinese in the Post-Civil War South."
>
>3. See 1 & 2 above.
Another ad hominem attack.
RStacy2229
In article <4nigh0$i...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>Another ad hominem attack.
Yes, Mark, and if I were to cite any pro-Southern source on the nature of
Reconstruction, you would similarly indict the source as biased toward one
side of the argument. The fact is that when you choose one side of an
argument and then refer me to sources which you say justify your
viewpoint, I must assume that these are sources written from the same
biased viewpoint: That Southerners are, were and always will be the
black-hat villains of American society. I will have to see if my library
has Foney. I know we have Pollard, Jeff Davis and others.
Robert Stacy McCain
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4nl0v2$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Robert, that argument has all sorts of problems in it. First of all, you
assume there is even a "pro-Southern" or "anti-Southern" bias possible in this
discussion. But the discussion revolves around the Southern infatuation with
bringing in Chinese coolie labor to the South during Reconstruction, and why it
existed. That there was such an infatuation is an undeniable fact; the
question is why did it occur. My argument, which is based not only on having
read many of the editorials and discussions on the subject by Southerners but
also on the literature that exists on the (rather obscure) subject, is that
plantation owners assumed that freedmen would not be a reliable or desirable
labor force and that some other source would have to be found in order for the
familiar plantation agriculture structure to be maintained. Some Southerners
looked to importing Chinese labor in order to have a docile work force that
could be worked long, hard hours. Where is a pro- or anti- Southern bias in
this? This is just something that happened, a brief blip before Southerners
discovered that blacks would indeed work on the plantation--or in modified
arrangements such as sharecropping.
You say I "choose one side" of an argument and refer you to sources that
support that side, when in fact I don't think there has ever been "another
side" to that argument. Historians have simply taken the words of those
Southerners at their face value.
Secondly, you assaulted the sources without even having read them, which is a
silly thing to do. If you read something and disagree with it, that is one
thing. If you dismiss the work without having read it, on the basis that the
author is biased, that is another. And since one of the authors I mentioned
was one you had never even heard of before, but whom you nevertheless denounced
as biased, I cannot help but think that you don't even -want- to read or learn
about the issue, but are just making such statements reflexively.
Related to that, let me point out that there are unreliable sources and then
there are biased sources, and that one can only dismiss the former, and even
then one should only do so carefully. For instance, since we are dealing with
Reconstruction, I will point out the most notorious "unreliable" source on the
subject, Claude Bowers' work _The Tragic Era_, which has been shown by many
historians throughout many decades to be full of errors and willful
distortions. Bowers' work was a popularization of the Dunning school of
thought on Reconstruction. But let's take a work of that school of thought
itself: James Garner's _Reconstruction in Mississippi_. This is a work that
is biased--Garner certainly believes many of the Reconstruction canards about
carpetbaggers, redemption, blacks,etc.--but it is still a -reliable- work.
That is, Garner honestly attempted to tell the story of reconstruction in
Mississippi as he saw it, using the best research methods that he knew of at
the time, and presenting the data accurately. Thus Garner's work, though
nearly a century old at this point, can still be used for what it -does- have
by historians, even though many of his broader concepts about Reconstruction
have in the intervening decades been shown not to be true.
But you seem to be convinced--ahead of time--that there are a) two sides to
this issue, b) those two sides are anti-South and pro-South, c) those people on
the "anti-South" side are so biased that what they say is not merely biased but
unreliable.
Now, from what I know of this issue, I don't think that any of these points--a,
b, or c--are true. And if you want to contend that any of these points -are-
true, you are going to have to do better than condemning a work you have not
read by an author with whom you are unfamiliar.
System Janitor
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>Related to that, let me point out that there are unreliable sources and then
>there are biased sources, and that one can only dismiss the former, and even
>then one should only do so carefully. For instance, since we are dealing with
>Reconstruction, I will point out the most notorious "unreliable" source on the
>subject, Claude Bowers' work _The Tragic Era_, which has been shown by many
>historians throughout many decades to be full of errors and willful
>distortions. Bowers' work was a popularization of the Dunning school of
>thought on Reconstruction.
Bowers relied heavily on Fred Williams, the same source that Mark's
hero Richard Zuczek used so heavily and so poorly in The Last Campaign.
Not having read The Tragic Era (I own it and have browsed it) I can't say
whether he butchered his sources as badly as Zuczek did, but I doubt it.
At any rate, Mark has no leg to stand on when he attacks Bower's sources.
Mark once posted an excerpt from The Tragic Era, which contained
unflattering descriptions of black people but which contained no
historical errors. I wish Mark, and also some credible posters, would
expound on ``the Dunning school'', which, after being accused of being
a member myself for several years, seems to be not much more
than a strawman. I've got a few books that refer to Dr. Dunning,
and it is easy to see their weaknesses. My problem is that some posters
seem to dismiss everything more than 10 years old as ``Dunning trash''.
My guess is that the main reason that Mark dislikes Bowers is that
Bowers is disrespectful to blacks.
-Mike
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <hubcap.832605513@hubcap>,
Mike, you demonstrate a great ignorance when you so characterize Bowers.
Regardless of that, I am flabbergasted that you remember what I did re the
Tragic Era the way you did. I posted an excerpt from The Tragic Era, then I
posted the actual piece of material that the excerpt was based on. Side to
side, one discovers that Bowers freely made up all sorts of stuff. That the
made-up material contained unflattering descriptions of black people is beside
the point; that it had no basis except in Bowers freely roaming imagination is
exactly the point.
And no one here has ever "dismissed everything more than 10 years old as
'Dunning trash.'" And in any case, as I mentioned in my previous post, not all
Dunning school works were trash, anyway. Some were quite good, for their time.
But the broad conclusions of the Dunning school have not held up to the
rigorous analysis of the decades.
Linda Teasley
Mark T Pitcavage (mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
: But the broad conclusions of the Dunning school have not held up to the
: rigorous analysis of the decades.
Baloney. Dunning, Bowers, Fleming, Garner, et al. were and are
excellent historians. They include material that Foner prefers to ignore
because he wants to paint another picture. Foner has a view of heroic
Republicans fighting the evil racists in the South in order to liberate
the downtrodden masses of ex-slaves, who bravely sought to aid their
liberators. He leaves out any detail that doesn't support this.
It is a partial and invalid view.
Linda T.
--
Five pelican bedecked battle flags began to flap. . . three thousand
men stepped off on the left foot. With strict cadence, ninety paces per
minute, a forest of burnished steel paraded up the hill.
Winchester --- 25 May 1862
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4nvf0k$p...@panix2.panix.com>, Linda Teasley <l...@panix.com> wrote:
>Mark T Pitcavage (mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>
>: But the broad conclusions of the Dunning school have not held up to the
>: rigorous analysis of the decades.
>
> Baloney. Dunning, Bowers, Fleming, Garner, et al. were and are
>excellent historians. They include material that Foner prefers to ignore
>because he wants to paint another picture. Foner has a view of heroic
>Republicans fighting the evil racists in the South in order to liberate
>the downtrodden masses of ex-slaves, who bravely sought to aid their
>liberators. He leaves out any detail that doesn't support this.
>It is a partial and invalid view.
Linda, making comments like this will hardly redound to your credit. I doubt
you could find a single historian practicing today willing to call Bowers an
"excellent" historian. And while I think that Dunning, Fleming and Garner all
have their merits--I have praised Garner several times in this newsgroup--they
all have serious flaws that hamper their utility. Most obvious among them is
the explicit or implicit racism.
However, for purposes of this thread, a more serious flaw is that the amount of
research that went into them was basically typical for turn-of-the-century
works: in other words, not very much, compared to what is done today. Their
sources consisted of printed public records, newspapers, secondary sources,
printed collections of letters, public statistics, etc. In other words, their
sources consisted of -virtually no- archival research. And obviously,
virtually no quantitative research, either, a discipline that had not even
really been developed among historians at that time. This is not a flaw simply
of Dunning school works, but among most works of history published at that
time. The exceptions were so rare (such as U.B. Phillips) that the depth of
their research was oft-remarked-upon.
Not only have all these tools been available to historians of the past thirty
years that were not available in 1900, as well as the expectations that
historians should use them, but historians also have developed other, entirely
new sources. For instance, in 1900 virtually the only people who paid
attention to -black sources- were folklorists. Nor had historians learned to
use records like county records, census records, or other unusual sources at
that time.
The basic rule in history is that good research beats poor research and better
research trumps good research. So much more is known about the period now,
over the intervening nine decades, that the obsolescence of the Dunning-era
works was a foregone conclusion. And that doesn't even take into account the
well-known prejudices of the Dunning school historians.
Now you, in your comments, try to paint Foner himself as prejudiced and biased,
but in fact, such comments do not ring true. You seem to be attempting to put
Foner into the revisionist school of Reconstruction history, whereas if his
views can be corraled at all, they would have to fall into the postrevisionist
school, which is quite critical of Republicans. Moreover, your comments about
Foner are not shared by the historical community, which places a high value on
his scholarship.
Moreover, it is enlightening that you would contrast the Dunning school only
with Foner. There are a variety of Reconstruction models from which to choose,
and Foner is only one among them, though it is true that he is an obvious one,
since he has written the most recent comprehensive synthesis of Reconstruction.
Works by John Hope Franklin, Michael "Les" Benedict, and many others all offer
views of Reconstruction that are in some or many ways different from Foner, yet
still represent a considerable advance in terms of research and conception over
the Dunning school historians.
I think it somewhat ironic that while I can appreciate the virtues that a book
like James Garner's _Reconstruction in Mississippi_ -does- have, you seem to be
ideologically constrained in such a way that you cannot admit that a historian
like Eric Foner has -any- virtues, and in fact, you seem to feel that way not
only about Eric Foner, but about almost all historians of Reconstruction since
the 1950s.
Linda Teasley
: Linda, making comments like this will hardly redound to your credit.
Credit from you is the very last thing I think I need.
: they [the Dunning school historians] all have serious flaws that hamper
their
utility. Most obvious among them is : the explicit or implicit racism.
Thank you for specifying the charge that I find erroneous. They were
not racists, explicitly or implicitly. This is a post Civil Rights
frenzy of the 1960s view. The Dunning historians were trying to correct
the 19th century "the Union's cause was holy" view that historians up
until that time had published.
[some analysis of historican methodology snipped]
: Not only have all these tools been available to historians of the past thirty
: years that were not available in 1900, as well as the expectations that
: historians should use them, but historians also have developed other, entirely
: new sources. For instance, in 1900 virtually the only people who paid
: attention to -black sources- were folklorists.
True enough. The newer works about slave history and experiences
of blacks beefore and during the war have been most interesting, when (as
is sometimes the case) they have not been marred by omissions.
Nor had historians learned to
: use records like county records, census records, or other unusual sources at
: that time.
I agree that some historical analysis that is practiced now is not
found in early works, particularly in economics (Fogel and Engermann).
However, the real information has always been available. It is not
improvement in research that makes the differences in Civil War study
now. It is the presentation of evidence in sometimes arcane and
prejudicial ways. I find Foner guilty of that, despite his extensive
research, which makes his omissions all the more glaring. And your own
prejudices, since you are an historian, support my case. You hav e never
met a Confederate argument, whether in economics, military history,
religious history, social history, that you acknowledged to be valid. So
professional historians are just as guilty of prejudice as politicians or
journalists. Improvement of research methods is not the difference
between the older historians and the newer ones.
[some snips]
: Now you, in your comments, try to paint Foner himself as prejudiced and biased,
: but in fact, such comments do not ring true. You seem to be attempting to put
: Foner into the revisionist school of Reconstruction history, whereas if his
: views can be corraled at all, they would have to fall into the postrevisionist
: school, which is quite critical of Republicans.
His criticism of Republicans is only that they were not sufficiently
command-and-control enough to coerce the South for a longer period of time.
Moreover, your comments about
: Foner are not shared by the historical community, which places a high value on
: his scholarship.
Depends on whom you consult. He is egregiously biased.
: . . . There are a variety of Reconstruction models from which to choose,
: and Foner is only one among them, though it is true that he is an obvious one,
: since he has written the most recent comprehensive synthesis of Reconstruction.
: Works by John Hope Franklin, Michael "Les" Benedict, and many others all offer
: views of Reconstruction that are in some or many ways different from Foner, yet
: still represent a considerable advance in terms of research and conception over
: the Dunning school historians.
John Hope Franklin is a distinguished man (I heard him speak recently),
but I don't think he was a particularly good historian. Michael "Les"
Benedict is okay, Dan Carter is better.
: I think it somewhat ironic that while I can appreciate the virtues that a book
: like James Garner's _Reconstruction in Mississippi_ -does- have, you seem to be
: ideologically constrained in such a way that you cannot admit that a historian
: like Eric Foner has -any- virtues, and in fact, you seem to feel that way not
: only about Eric Foner, but about almost all historians of Reconstruction since
: the 1950s.
Not so. I'll be perfectly happy to review some of the others on any
terms you wish.
Linda Teasley
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4o1okf$6...@panix2.panix.com>, Linda Teasley <l...@panix.com> wrote:
>Mark T Pitcavage (mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>: In article <4nvf0k$p...@panix2.panix.com>, Linda Teasley <l...@panix.com> wrot
e:
>: they [the Dunning school historians] all have serious flaws that hamper
>their
>utility. Most obvious among them is : the explicit or implicit racism.
> Thank you for specifying the charge that I find erroneous. They were
>not racists, explicitly or implicitly. This is a post Civil Rights
>frenzy of the 1960s view. The Dunning historians were trying to correct
>the 19th century "the Union's cause was holy" view that historians up
>until that time had published.
On the contrary, they most certainly were. They believed that blacks should
not hold office, or even vote. Sometimes their arguments were couched in terms
of saying that the blacks were "ignorant and illiterate," but they saw no
problems in allowing the large numbers of illiterate whites to vote. This is
just one example. Some are far worse. I've got one book, called "Alabama's
Tragic Decade," which essentially seeks to fill in gaps left by Fleming, which
is full of cartoonish illustrations of blacks with button noses and outlandish
lips, doing things like eating watermelons or resting lazily (while white men
worked). Examples of egregious racism like this are not that hard to find in
Reconstruction works from this period.
<deletia on point of agreement>
>
> Nor had historians learned to
>: use records like county records, census records, or other unusual sources at
>: that time.
>
> I agree that some historical analysis that is practiced now is not
>found in early works, particularly in economics (Fogel and Engermann).
>However, the real information has always been available. It is not
>improvement in research that makes the differences in Civil War study
>now.
Here I would fundamentally disagree. There are few works from the turn of the
century which can match the average work coming off the presses today, in terms
of the quality of research. I don't think this can even be argued.
>It is the presentation of evidence in sometimes arcane and
>prejudicial ways. I find Foner guilty of that, despite his extensive
>research, which makes his omissions all the more glaring. And your own
>prejudices, since you are an historian, support my case. You hav e never
>met a Confederate argument, whether in economics, military history,
>religious history, social history, that you acknowledged to be valid. So
>professional historians are just as guilty of prejudice as politicians or
>journalists. Improvement of research methods is not the difference
>between the older historians and the newer ones.
>
I'm not sure what you mean by "Confederate arguments," and I do not recall ever
discussing "religious history" in this newsgroup, but I'm mightily curious
which economic or military issues you think I'm biased in. I can guess the
social-historical issues you think I'm "biased" in.
>
> Moreover, your comments about
>: Foner are not shared by the historical community, which places a high value
on
>: his scholarship.
>
> Depends on whom you consult. He is egregiously biased.
>
Oh please. "Egregiously biased." Tell me which historians call him
"egregiously biased."
>: . . . There are a variety of Reconstruction models from which to choose,
>: and Foner is only one among them, though it is true that he is an obvious on
e,
>: since he has written the most recent comprehensive synthesis of Reconstructi
on.
>: Works by John Hope Franklin, Michael "Les" Benedict, and many others all of
fer
>: views of Reconstruction that are in some or many ways different from Foner,
yet
>: still represent a considerable advance in terms of research and conception o
ver
>: the Dunning school historians.
>
>
> John Hope Franklin is a distinguished man (I heard him speak recently),
>but I don't think he was a particularly good historian. Michael "Les"
>Benedict is okay, Dan Carter is better.
>
That is all beside the point.
>: I think it somewhat ironic that while I can appreciate the virtues that a bo
ok
>: like James Garner's _Reconstruction in Mississippi_ -does- have, you seem to
be
>: ideologically constrained in such a way that you cannot admit that a histori
an
>: like Eric Foner has -any- virtues, and in fact, you seem to feel that way no
t
>: only about Eric Foner, but about almost all historians of Reconstruction sin
ce
>: the 1950s.
>
> Not so. I'll be perfectly happy to review some of the others on any
>terms you wish.
Given your "review" of Foner, I have no desire to hear you malign yet more
historians.
Linda Teasley
: >[The Dunning historians] were not racists, explicitly or implicitly.
This is a post Civil Rights
: >frenzy of the 1960s view. The Dunning historians were trying to correct
: >the 19th century "the Union's cause was holy" view that historians up
: >until that time had published.
: On the contrary, they most certainly were. They believed that blacks should
: not hold office, or even vote.
That is an insupportable charge. I have never read any article by
these historians, or any book, which said that blacks should not hold
office or vote. You have dreamed this in one of your "all Southerners
were racists" nightmares.
Sometimes their arguments were couched in terms
: of saying that the blacks were "ignorant and illiterate," but they saw no
: problems in allowing the large numbers of illiterate whites to vote. This is
: just one example.
Again, this point of view is your fantasy. The issue of who should be
allowed to vote is not often addressed by these historians, except to
observe that disfranchising all whites who had participated in the war
for the Confederate armies was not a very good idea. The charge that
blacks were ignorant and illiterate was sometimes made (with a good deal
of truth in it, since educating them was illegal in many states) on the
floor of Congress by conservative Republicans as well as Democrats. It
was a widely held view, not restricted to Dunningite Reconstruction
historians.
Some are far worse. I've got one book, called "Alabama's
: Tragic Decade," which essentially seeks to fill in gaps left by Fleming, which
: is full of cartoonish illustrations of blacks with button noses and outlandish
: lips, doing things like eating watermelons or resting lazily (while white men
: worked). Examples of egregious racism like this are not that hard to find in
: Reconstruction works from this period.
This is completely pointless. Are you trying to say that Fleming would
have included racist cartoons in his books and articles if he had dared?
What does "filling in the gaps" mean? That is an analysis unworthy of a
professional historian, which you pretend to be.
: >: I think it somewhat ironic that while I can appreciate the virtues that a bo
: ok
: >: like James Garner's _Reconstruction in Mississippi_ -does- have, you seem to
: be
: >: ideologically constrained in such a way that you cannot admit that a histori
: an
: >: like Eric Foner has -any- virtues, and in fact, you seem to feel that way no
: t
: >: only about Eric Foner, but about almost all historians of Reconstruction sin
: ce
: >: the 1950s.
: >
: > Not so. I'll be perfectly happy to review some of the others on any
: >terms you wish.
: Given your "review" of Foner, I have no desire to hear you malign yet more
: historians.
A typical evasion.
Mark T Pitcavage
>
> Some are far worse. I've got one book, called "Alabama's
>: Tragic Decade," which essentially seeks to fill in gaps left by Fleming, whi
ch
>: is full of cartoonish illustrations of blacks with button noses and outlandi
sh
>: lips, doing things like eating watermelons or resting lazily (while white me
n
>: worked). Examples of egregious racism like this are not that hard to find i
n
>: Reconstruction works from this period.
> This is completely pointless. Are you trying to say that Fleming would
>have included racist cartoons in his books and articles if he had dared?
>What does "filling in the gaps" mean? That is an analysis unworthy of a
>professional historian, which you pretend to be.
I've snipped your other comments; I'll reply to them when I get home. But this
comment I find fascinating. You suggest that the Dunning-school books (and
their popularizations like Bowers') are not racist. I give you a stunning
example of egregious racism in one of them, and you call it completely
pointless.
Let me briefly address your questions: am I suggesting that Fleming would have
included racist cartoons if he had dared? No; don't be silly. I did not come
close to suggesting that. "Filling in the gaps" meant that the author felt
that Fleming covered some subjects very well and so did not choose to retravel
the same ground in those areas; instead, the author spend more time on subjects
he felt needed elaborating. All of this is completely unrelated to the point I
was trying to make, but I mention it to merely to satisfy you.
As to your comment that "that is an analysis unworthy of a professional
historian, which you pretend to be," I'll ignore the personal attack. Instead,
I'll merely note that I did not attempt to provide any analysis at all. You
made your statement that Dunning-type books were not racist. I mentioned the
title of one, noted that it was meant to be complementary to Fleming's account,
and described an irrefutable element of racism in it.
Now, what you did is quite obvious. You ignored the point, instead trying to
find some way to criticize what I said that had nothing to do with racism.
Indeed, it had nothing to do with the whole conversation; I mentioned its
relationship to Fleming merely because I knew you had read Fleming, or
purported to have read it.
So let's get back to question at hand, shall we?
To recap:
1. You say Dunning era works are not racist.
2. I provide an example of one such work with egregious racism in it.
The ball is in your court. As I see it, you have several choices:
1. Admit that you were wrong. You have done this so seldom in this newsgroup
that I shall not hold my breath waiting for such an event.
2. Admit that perhaps there were -some- racist works in this period, but that
they are not representative of the body of literature as a whole. This would
probably be your safest avenue of approach, although in the end it too is
untenable.
3. Try to explain how the cartoons in "Alabama's Tragic Decade" are not
racist. That would be amusing.
4. Try to avoid the issue yet again.
System Janitor
>I doubt
>you could find a single historian practicing today willing to call Bowers an
>"excellent" historian. And while I think that Dunning, Fleming and Garner all
>have their merits--I have praised Garner several times in this newsgroup--they
>all have serious flaws that hamper their utility. Most obvious among them is
>the explicit or implicit racism.
Hmmm... let's see... we can choose from accurate history written by
people who would be racists if they were alive today, or we can
choose from purposefully misleading (or heck, what do I know, maybe
it's just sloppy) pap.
>However, for purposes of this thread, a more serious flaw is that the amount of
>research that went into them was basically typical for turn-of-the-century
>works: in other words, not very much, compared to what is done today.
It is probably a lot of work to pore through the evidence looking for
bits an pieces that can be cobbled together to support revisionist
histories. If they (Mark's heros) even do that. It almost seems that
they leave Jarrell, Williams, etc unread, and just use them to
pad their citation lists.
>Moreover, your comments about
>Foner are not shared by the historical community, which...
... is a sad point of commentary.
-Mike
Linda Teasley
: . . . You suggest that the Dunning-school books (and
: their popularizations like Bowers') are not racist. I give you a stunning
: example of egregious racism in one of them, and you call it completely
: pointless.
: Let me briefly address your questions: am I suggesting that Fleming would have
: included racist cartoons if he had dared? No; don't be silly. I did not come
: close to suggesting that. "Filling in the gaps" meant that the author felt
: that Fleming covered some subjects very well and so did not choose to retravel
: the same ground in those areas; instead, the author spend more time on subjects
: he felt needed elaborating. All of this is completely unrelated to the point I
: was trying to make, but I mention it to merely to satisfy you.
Okay, Mark, allow me to begin again. My sarcasm mode is OFF. I have
some honest questions here. You have (as I understand this argument)
presented another book by an author whose name you have not provided as
support for your assertion that Fleming was a (latent?) racist. This
author's book has apparently racist cartoons in it (I'm accepting your
own judgment) and this is something that "fills in the gaps" left by
Fleming. Were this fellow and Fleming collaborators? Friends? Did this
historian think he was following in Fleming's footsteps? Did Fleming
himself approve this other book?
Do you not see the difficulty in saying that this author, whether he
considers himself a follower of Fleming or not, is supplying additional
arguments that Fleming would have supported and that therefore Fleming
was an undercover racist?
: As to your comment that "that is an analysis unworthy of a professional
: historian, which you pretend to be," I'll ignore the personal attack.
My comment was NOT a personal attack; it was an attack on your analysis
for the reasons that I have tried to outline above. I think your
explanation is very murky, but I am really persuaded that you think your
point is valid and that it ought to be clear to one and all, and that
being the case, I will withdraw and apologize for my crack about your
pretending to be an historian if you will clarify your argument in this
discussion.
Linda "sometimes reasonable" Teasley
Mark T Pitcavage
Ok, Linda, thank you for asking these questions. I see now how we are
miscommunicating to each other. Clearly, I should not have mentioned Fleming
at all, because I am not making any assertion about his racism or lack thereof
at this point. I presented another book by an author whose name I have not
provided (because I am typing this from work, as I did yesterday, and do not
have the book--"Alabama's Tragic Decade"--at hand), not to assert that Fleming
was racist, but to assert that the author of the book--also a Dunning era
popularizer, like Bowers--was racist. You said that no Dunning era books were
racist; I was presenting you with an example of one that was (it was the first
to come to my mind, because the cartoons are so vivid). Again, Fleming himself
is irrelevant to the point I was making in my previous post.
> Do you not see the difficulty in saying that this author, whether he
>considers himself a follower of Fleming or not, is supplying additional
>arguments that Fleming would have supported and that therefore Fleming
>was an undercover racist?
Just to make things perfectly clear, in my previous post I was not saying
anything at all about Fleming one way or the other. If I make a judgment about
Fleming, I'll do it from his own text.
Linda Teasley
: . . . You said that no Dunning era books were
: racist; I was presenting you with an example of one that was (it was the first
: to come to my mind, because the cartoons are so vivid). Again, Fleming himself
: is irrelevant to the point I was making in my previous post.
Okay, I think I understand and would be willing to participate in a
discussion about these historians with one caveat: I would not be
willing to say that no Dunning era books were racist. That is an
indefensible position because I don't know ALL of the Dunning era books.
I want to say that recognized Dunning school historians who wrote
articles/books about the CW were not racists. We'll probably have some
difficulty about our definitions of "racism," but nevertheless, I think
we can point out some interesting things.
I hereby tender an apology and ask pardon for issuing a gratuitous
insult that you pretended to be an historian.
Although I know that you are not necessarily charging Fleming with
racist statements, I would like to provide an extract of a discussion of his
about franchising freedmen in Alabama just to make a couple of points.
"One of the north Alabama leaders, L. Pope Walker, after consulting
with other prominent men, went to Montgomery and conferred with General
Swayne in regard to the state of affaiars. Swayne [the head of the
Freedmen's Bureau] gave assurance that a qualified negro suffrage would
be favorably received at the North, would credate a good impression, and
assist, perhaps, in an early restorationn of the state to the Union. He
knew that suffrage for the negro brought about in this way would result
in gaining the black vote for the southern and probably for the
Democratic party. Though a believer in the rights of all men to vote and
a strong Republican, Swayne was not then committed to the Radical
programme and was ready to encourage the movement. . . .The convention
sanctioned this arrangement [for allowing freedmen the vote]. . .
" . . .The state officials, whether willingly or not, were still, at
the time when the movement for negro suffrage began, obliged to obey the
directions of Swayne. The bulk of the people being opposed to the
movement [Fleming is pointing out the resistance of white citizens in
Alabama to allowing this], it was proposed to make an experiment . . .
" . . .Public feelilng became so irritated by the Radical measures in
Congress that nothing was done, the election was not held, and the
Reconstruction Acts, coming soon after, prejudiced the people more
strongly than ever against anything of the kind. footnote: For this
incident my authority is a statement of General Swayne made to me in
1901. He was much interested in the movement, and was positie that in
time the native whites would have given the suffrage to the negro had not
the Reconstruction Actsd and other legislation so alienated the races.
General Swayne gave me full explanations of his policy in Alabama. His
death, a year after the interview, prevented him from verifying some
details. His account, though given thirty-five years after the
occurrences was correct so far as I could compoare it with the printed
matter available. It agreed almost exactly with his reports as printed
in the public documents, though he had not those at hand, and had not
seen them for thirty years. I have several times been told by old
citizens that negroes voted in 1866, in minor elections, by consent of
the whites.)"
Now I know this doesn't prove anything except that Fleming, in showing
something good about Southern whites, is also willing to show that 1)
they were at first very reluctant to grant the vote to freedmen, and 2)
that the whole scheme was partly a political move to keep power out of
the hands of the Radicals by pre-empting their initiative. As you know,
Congress had at this time (January 1866) refused to enfranchise freedmen
in Washington, D.C., on the grounds that they were uneducated and could
not intelligently exercise the franchise. Even Thad Stevens at first
agreed with this.
Fleming makes no derogatory comments here about a very racially charged
issue.
Linda T.
Linda Teasley
: >: . . . There are a variety of Reconstruction models from which to choose,
: >: and Foner is only one among them, though it is true that he is an obvious on
: e,
: >: since he has written the most recent comprehensive synthesis of Reconstructi
: on.
: Given your "review" of Foner, I have no desire to hear you malign yet more
: historians.
I find such an invitation irresistible, and I would like to discuss
Foner again, especially in view of your opinion that he was
"comprehensive." If he was so comprehensive, why did he omit any mention
of John Wallace? Foner talks about every freedman and woman from the
South as well as free blacks from the North who had any impact whatsoever
during the Reconstruction period, major figures as well as minor ones.
Why not John Wallace? I would like to include a paragraph from the
preface of his book and then suggest a reason why Foner excluded this man
from his "comprehensive" work on Reconstruction.
Wallace writes of himself in the third person:
"The author of this work was born in North Carolina and held as a slave
until 1862, when he made his escape while General Burnside was operating
with his army against the Confederacy in that State. He went to
Washington, D.C., after which he entered the United States Army on the
14th of August, 1863, enlisting in the Second United States Colored
Troops raised in that city, and served two years and six months in that
regiment, which was engaged in the operations of the Federal forces in
Florida in the year 1864, and the early part of 1865. Discharged from
the service of the United States at Key West, January 1st, 1866, he
returned to Tallahassee, where he has since resided up to this period.
He had no education while a slave, and never had the benefit of any
school before or since he was discharged from the army, and has acquired
what knowledge he may have of letters from constant study at night, which
studies he was compelled to relax on account of injury to his eyes by the
explosion of a bomb shell, near his face, thrown by the enemy at the
battle Fort Myers, Florida. His physicians advised him that if he
persisted in pursuing his studies it would result in total blindness.
He has acquired the knowledge of facts upon which this work treats by
being constantly in the midst of the actors of the theatre of this
period. He was first appointed a mesenger of the Constitutional
Convention of 1868, and upon the adoption of the Constitution, was
elected Constable for Leon County, the Capital of the State, serving for
two years. Was elected twice to the lower branch of the Legislature,
serving four years; and twice elected to the Senate, where he served for
eight years."
Wallace's book was titled *Carpetbag Rule in Florida*, and as the name
suggests, he was highly critical of the Reconstruction rule by Radicals
in the South. He worked as a teacher in a school established by a white
planter after the war. Allan Nevins edited his book in a centennial
edition for the state of Florida in 1964, and Nevins suggests the reasons
that Wallace's work is looked upon with doubt as to its entire
authenticity. He was indebted to and felt gratitude toward his white
patron William Bloxham, who collaborated with him in writing this.
Bloxham was lieutenant-governor and later governor. He helped foil an
assassination attempt on the governor of Florida in 1868 and constantly
advocated conciliation and harmony. Nevins feels that some parts of
Wallace's book has the hand of Bloxham more than that of Wallace;
however, Nevins thinks that the work was mostly that of Wallace himself.
Nevins closes his introduction by saying, "With all its
shortcomings--its confused organization, its wearisome detail in the
delineation of party and factional struggles, its want of analytical
power, its confulsions in outlook--it stands among the priceless original
narratives of Reconstruction history, fascinating at many points to the
attentive general reader, and indispensable at nearly all to the student."
So why does Foner ignore John Wallace? Because he was a Southern black
Democrat, an "Uncle Tom."
So much for Foner's "comprehensive" study, his analytical power, and
his objectivity.
Linda Teasley
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4o73ge$5...@panix2.panix.com>, Linda Teasley <l...@panix.com> wrote:
>Mark T Pitcavage (mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
e:
>
>: . . . You said that no Dunning era books were
>: racist; I was presenting you with an example of one that was (it was the fir
st
>: to come to my mind, because the cartoons are so vivid). Again, Fleming hims
elf
>: is irrelevant to the point I was making in my previous post.
>
> Okay, I think I understand and would be willing to participate in a
>discussion about these historians with one caveat: I would not be
>willing to say that no Dunning era books were racist. That is an
>indefensible position because I don't know ALL of the Dunning era books.
>I want to say that recognized Dunning school historians who wrote
>articles/books about the CW were not racists. We'll probably have some
>difficulty about our definitions of "racism," but nevertheless, I think
>we can point out some interesting things.
Well, before we could even argue about definitions of "racism," we would have
to find out what you mean by "recognized Dunning school historians." :)
The strictest definition of such would be Dunning and his graduate students; a
less strict and more reasonable definition would be Dunning, his graduate
students, and other scholars who agreed with the same general principles. A
third, even looser definition would include the above as well as those writers
who popularized the Dunningite ideas for a wide audience (such as Bowers). A
fourth, most loose definition of all would also include those early Bourbon
writers who (before Dunning began writing/teaching) set the tone for the
Dunning school.
The first definition is unnecessarily strict; the fourth definition too loose.
I have been assuming you have been using the third definition, since you
included Bowers in your list of writers who were not racist (I sincerely hope
you will retract Bowers from that list).
>
> I hereby tender an apology and ask pardon for issuing a gratuitous
>insult that you pretended to be an historian.
Apology accepted.
>
> Although I know that you are not necessarily charging Fleming with
>racist statements, I would like to provide an extract of a discussion of his
>about franchising freedmen in Alabama just to make a couple of points.
<extracts snipped>
For me to comment on what Fleming says, without having (at the moment) access
to the text, would be irresponsible. I will say that the excerpts you provided
would neither convict or acquit him of a charge of racism.
If I get time this weekend, I am going to post some stuff on the subject, but
you'll have to be patient, for I am in ill health at the moment.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4o7b1a$g...@panix2.panix.com>, Linda Teasley <l...@panix.com> wrote:
>Mark T Pitcavage (mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>
and Foner is only one among them, though it is true that he is an obvious
Reconstruction.
>
>
> I find such an invitation irresistible, and I would like to discuss
>Foner again, especially in view of your opinion that he was
>"comprehensive." If he was so comprehensive, why did he omit any mention
>of John Wallace? Foner talks about every freedman and woman from the
>South as well as free blacks from the North who had any impact whatsoever
>during the Reconstruction period, major figures as well as minor ones.
>Why not John Wallace? I would like to include a paragraph from the
>preface of his book and then suggest a reason why Foner excluded this man
>from his "comprehensive" work on Reconstruction.
>
<deletia; I own a copy of Wallace's book and am familiar with it>
>
> So why does Foner ignore John Wallace? Because he was a Southern black
>Democrat, an "Uncle Tom."
>
> So much for Foner's "comprehensive" study, his analytical power, and
>his objectivity.
Linda, I cannot believe you would even write this: you are criticizing Foner
for writing a comprehensive history of Reconstruction that did not include
comments from -one particular person-? If that person were someone like Andrew
Johnson or Thaddeus Stevens, such a criticism might have merit, but Wallace was
a very minor figure (and contrary to your above statement, there are many such
minor figures Foner does not discuss).
Just to satisfy my curiosity, I decided to look at some of the older general
works on Reconstruction in my possession--those still strongly influenced by
the Dunning school--to see who did and who did not mention Wallace.
Interestingly, I found that of the writers I checked, only one--Robert Selph
Henry--mentioned Wallace (and even then, basically in passing). Indeed, not
even Bowers, author of _The Tragic Era_, has any references to Wallace in the
index of his book. Is that by itself enough to convict the comprehensiveness,
analytical power, and objectivity of his book?
Linda Teasley
: >
: > So why does Foner ignore John Wallace? Because he was a Southern black
: >Democrat, an "Uncle Tom."
: >
: > So much for Foner's "comprehensive" study, his analytical power, and
: >his objectivity.
: Linda, I cannot believe you would even write this: you are criticizing Foner
: for writing a comprehensive history of Reconstruction that did not include
: comments from -one particular person-?
[snip]
: Wallace was a very minor figure (and contrary to your above statement,
there are many such : minor figures Foner does not discuss).
Oh, but he does. He includes every African American who made a
significant sneeze during the Reconstruction period. Many of whom did
not write a lengthy memoir of their lives and their political careers as
did Wallace.
: Just to satisfy my curiosity, I decided to look at some of the older general
: works on Reconstruction in my possession--those still strongly influenced by
: the Dunning school--to see who did and who did not mention Wallace.
: Interestingly, I found that of the writers I checked, only one--Robert Selph
: Henry--mentioned Wallace (and even then, basically in passing). Indeed, not
: even Bowers, author of _The Tragic Era_, has any references to Wallace in the
: index of his book. Is that by itself enough to convict the comprehensiveness,
: analytical power, and objectivity of his book?
You yourself have said that Bowers was a popularizer; as such he would
make no pretension to comprehensiveness. Foner does, and his omission of
Wallace is most curious. Allan Nevins thought he was significant and
Wallace had an unusual career, but Wallace doesn't fit the prototype of
the freedman that Foner wants to celebrate. Foner is pushing the
courageous Marxist underclass who is engaged in the struggle against
its oppressors. Wallace, on the other hand, was a man who wanted to heal
relationships between the races.
Linda T.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4o82f2$9...@panix2.panix.com>, Linda Teasley <l...@panix.com> wrote:
>Mark T Pitcavage (mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>: In article <4o7b1a$g...@panix2.panix.com>, Linda Teasley <l...@panix.com> wrot
e:
>: >
>: > So why does Foner ignore John Wallace? Because he was a Southern black
>: >Democrat, an "Uncle Tom."
>: >
>: > So much for Foner's "comprehensive" study, his analytical power, and
>: >his objectivity.
>
>: Linda, I cannot believe you would even write this: you are criticizing Fone
r
>: for writing a comprehensive history of Reconstruction that did not include
>: comments from -one particular person-?
> [snip]
>: Wallace was a very minor figure (and contrary to your above statement,
>there are many such : minor figures Foner does not discuss).
>
> Oh, but he does. He includes every African American who made a
>significant sneeze during the Reconstruction period. Many of whom did
>not write a lengthy memoir of their lives and their political careers as
>did Wallace.
How many would I need to cite before you would admit this was not true?
>
>: Just to satisfy my curiosity, I decided to look at some of the older general
>: works on Reconstruction in my possession--those still strongly influenced by
>: the Dunning school--to see who did and who did not mention Wallace.
>: Interestingly, I found that of the writers I checked, only one--Robert Selph
>: Henry--mentioned Wallace (and even then, basically in passing). Indeed, not
>: even Bowers, author of _The Tragic Era_, has any references to Wallace in th
>: index of his book. Is that by itself enough to convict the comprehensivenes
>: analytical power, and objectivity of his book?
>
> You yourself have said that Bowers was a popularizer; as such he would
>make no pretension to comprehensiveness. Foner does, and his omission of
>Wallace is most curious. Allan Nevins thought he was significant and
>Wallace had an unusual career, but Wallace doesn't fit the prototype of
>the freedman that Foner wants to celebrate. Foner is pushing the
>courageous Marxist underclass who is engaged in the struggle against
>its oppressors. Wallace, on the other hand, was a man who wanted to heal
>relationships between the races.
That Bowers writes to a different audience than Foner has no relationship
whatsoever to comprehensiveness.
While I am on the subject of Foner, I note that again you try to label his
viewpoint as a Marxist viewpoint. I'm curious if you have read either of the
two -actual- Marxist histories of Reconstruction (those by DuBois and Allen).
If you have, I don't see how you could put Foner in the same category; if you
have not, then you should.
Linda Teasley
: > [snip]
: >: Wallace was a very minor figure (and contrary to your above statement,
: >there are many such : minor figures Foner does not discuss).
: >
: > Oh, but he does. He includes every African American who made a
: >significant sneeze during the Reconstruction period. Many of whom did
: >not write a lengthy memoir of their lives and their political careers as
: >did Wallace.
: How many would I need to cite before you would admit this was not true?
Wallace was important not only because of his military career with the
Union army, but alsohis political career in his state during
Reconstruction, and also his educational contributions in assisting in a
school for freedmen. Foner has chapters in his book on all three areas
of Reconstruction life. He talks about minor figures at great length.
Name a freedmen, or freeman, who wrote a narrative that had been
published, or an autobiography, that Foner does not include.
: That Bowers writes to a different audience than Foner has no relationship
: whatsoever to comprehensiveness.
Yes, it does. Foner sets out to write a comphrehensive scholarly
account of Reconstruction. (Which he fails to do.) Bowers has an
entirely different objective. His is a Truman Capote-style dramatic
story about the political and social life of REconstruction.
: While I am on the subject of Foner, I note that again you try to label his
: viewpoint as a Marxist viewpoint. I'm curious if you have read either of the
: two -actual- Marxist histories of Reconstruction (those by DuBois and Allen).
: If you have, I don't see how you could put Foner in the same category; if you
: have not, then you should.
I have not read DuBois; I have read extracts of Allen. Foner has some
similarities with classic Marxist historical interpretation, in my
opinion, but there are differences also. My quarrel with Foner is not
fundamentally because of his Marxist proclivities (class struggle, etc.)
but because of his omission of contrary evidence about the motives and
aspirations of Radical Republican rule in the South (such as their
actions in Congress and Union Club activity in the South), the motives
and aspirations of Southern Democrats (who are invariably monsters of
persecution), and the motives and aspirations of freedmen themselves (who
were not always Republicans, always nonviolent, and always being
lynched.) Some of these objections have nothing to do with Foner's
Marxist affinities. I have said before that Marxist analysis is sometimes
useful.
I'm having trouble with this connection, so I'll sign off for now.
Linda Teasley
Linda Teasley
: >
: > Although I know that you are not necessarily charging Fleming with
: >racist statements, I would like to provide an extract of a discussion of his
: >about franchising freedmen in Alabama just to make a couple of points.
: <extracts snipped>
: For me to comment on what Fleming says, without having (at the moment) access
: to the text, would be irresponsible. I will say that the excerpts you provided
: would neither convict or acquit him of a charge of racism.
I already said that this snip doesn't prove anything in a permanent
way. It does, however, indicate a couple of things. First, what an
historian includes and what he omits are always significant. Fleming
included this otherwise minor failed experiment because he thought
obviously that enfranchising freedmen was on the horizon and that it was
not at all a bad thing. His modest defense of Southern efforts to bring
it about means that he thought it important and probably commendable. He
sought out interviews with old-timers who had participated in it.
Second, Fleming made no comment whatsoever that would indicate that he
considered the lack of education of freedmen important. Or that anybody
was raising that as an objection at the time; and that objection was
often raised, even amongst abolitionists when the subject of black
enfranchisement arose.
Third, Fleming's tone is important, too. Missing are the polemics or
pumped up propagandizing, or the subtle applause that Foner inserts when
he reviews the activities of Union Leagues in the South. Fleming strives
for the old-fashioned "objective" stance, and that's the one that seems
most admirable to me. Writing history is always biased; writing truth
requires balance.
Linda T.
RStacy2229
In article <4o7hk0$h...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>a comprehensive history of Reconstruction that did not include
>comments from -one particular person-? If that person were someone like
>Andrew
>Johnson or Thaddeus Stevens, such a criticism might have merit
Bet whatever Stevens had to say would expose the malign vindictiveness of
the man, right? Please, please, quote Stevens!
RSM
RStacy2229
In article <4o1qir$o...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
> I've got one book, called "Alabama's
>Tragic Decade," which essentially seeks to fill in gaps left by Fleming,
>which is full of cartoonish illustrations of blacks with button noses and
>outlandish lips, doing things like eating watermelons or resting lazily
(while white men >>worked). Examples of egregious racism like this are
not that hard to find in
>>Reconstruction works from this period.
Uh, excuse me for even suggesting this, Mark, but is it not possible --
possible -- that having learned as slaves to worked under compulsion, that
the freedmen were somewhat lacking in the old "Protestant work ethic"? The
slaves had been taught that physical labor was the mark of low status and,
now having gained the status of free men, might some slaves have gotten
the idea (with the help of Carpetbagger political activists) that they
didn't need to work to support themselves? And having no farms nor
businesses willing to hire them, is it not then possible that some amount
of idleness was to be expected from the former slaves, especially those
who had left their former masters?
You know, don't you, Mark, that there must be some accounts of the 1860s
and 1870s suggesting that there was a certain amount of this "stereotype"
behavior going on during Reconstruction? Where do stereotypes come from,
Mark?
I realize I'm being completely un-PC here, but a Southern guy called me a
"Yankified liberal" the other day, so I guess I feel the need to prove my
redneck status.
Robert Stacy "Hood? Robe? Cross? What are you talking about?" McCain
Linda Teasley
RStacy2229 (rstac...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <4o1qir$o...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
: Uh, excuse me for even suggesting this, Mark, but is it not possible --
: possible -- that having learned as slaves to worked under compulsion, that
: the freedmen were somewhat lacking in the old "Protestant work ethic"? The
You are absolutely right. It is not a racist point of view to observe
that many reports from the Freedmen's Bureau, which had to adopt strict
back-to-work provisions, complained about the unwillingness of freedmen
to try to earn a living.
Actually, the freedmen were behaving as anybody else would. If the
government has a good "dole" program, why go out and sweat to provide it
yourself?
An ex-governor of Massachusetts -- I think it was John Andrew, but my
source isn't here at the moment -- bought a plantation in Mississippi
during Reconstruction and then sold it a few years later because he
complained that free blacks would not work.
Linda Teasley
RStacy2229 (rstac...@aol.com) wrote:
Mark had said that a historian's omission of
: >Johnson or Thaddeus Stevens, such a criticism might have merit
: Bet whatever Stevens had to say would expose the malign vindictiveness of
: the man, right? Please, please, quote Stevens!
Speaking of Stevens:
After he and the Radical revolutionaries had deprived a representative
in the House of his seat in an illegal and surreptitious manner (because
this man wasn't going to support Radical measures in the South), the
representative, Daniel Voorhees, personally approached Stevens and asked
him why it had happened. He said that his case for retaining his seat
was a very good one, and why did Stevens acquiesce in his dismissal?
Stevens responded, "Oh, no, your case was good enough, but it was that
two-thirds vote that killed you -- that fatal two-thirds . . .""
(Stevens needed two-thirds of the House vote to pass his measures.) Only
Stevens would have been capable of such a public display of cynicism.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <hubcap.832868763@hubcap>,
System Janitor <hub...@hubcap.clemson.edu> wrote:
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
Your comments would have a lot more weight if you weren't so abysmally ignorant
of Reconstruction history.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4obhc4$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
>>Tragic Decade," which essentially seeks to fill in gaps left by Fleming,
>>which is full of cartoonish illustrations of blacks with button noses and
>>outlandish lips, doing things like eating watermelons or resting lazily
>(while white men >>worked). Examples of egregious racism like this are
>not that hard to find in
>>>Reconstruction works from this period.
>
>Uh, excuse me for even suggesting this, Mark, but is it not possible --
>possible -- that having learned as slaves to worked under compulsion, that
>the freedmen were somewhat lacking in the old "Protestant work ethic"? The
>slaves had been taught that physical labor was the mark of low status and,
>now having gained the status of free men, might some slaves have gotten
>the idea (with the help of Carpetbagger political activists) that they
>didn't need to work to support themselves? And having no farms nor
>businesses willing to hire them, is it not then possible that some amount
>of idleness was to be expected from the former slaves, especially those
>who had left their former masters?
Let me first point out that this point is irrelevant to the point I was making,
which was the presentation of crude racial stereotypes in cartoon form in a
particular book.
Having said that, let me address your point. It is a myth that I thought would
long ago have vanished, even among neo-confederates, but apparently it still
holds on here or there.
You wonder if perhaps the freedmen were "somewhat lacking" in the Protestant
work ethic, suggesting that they had been taught that physical labor was the
mark of low status. Well, actually, what they were "taught," if we call what
their masters tried to instil in them as "teaching", was that physical labor on
the part of slaves was highly praised, and that indeed, it was the hardest
workers under slavery who reaped what few rewards the system had to offer. In
fact, if we look at the different social groups in the South, we find that the
social group which had been most "taught" that physical labor was demoralizing
and of low value was that of white men, who learned to treat manual labor as
labor fit only for slaves.
But forget about attitudes, and look what happened in the South. Where did
whites get the impression that blacks were lazy and would not work? Much of it
was simple prejudice and racism, and the postwar accounts by Northern
journalists who went South in 1865-66 and saw many examples of blacks showing a
great deal of entrepeneurship and willingness to work tend to illustrate this
point.
But there are kernals of truth in every myth and this one is no exception.
Some southerners found blacks very unwilling to work, and in some cases
crowding the towns of the South, being lazy and insolent. Of course, blacks
-were- willing to work, but not necessarily on the plantation for a white
plantation owner. Many blacks crowded the towns after Appomattox because they
desired to get away from plantations that they disliked, and where they had
often been mistreated. It is not surprising that they could not all find
employment.
And what blacks particularly did not want to do was to work in gangs on the
plantation. In fact, they did not want to engage in plantation agriculture in
general; what they wanted (and given a chance, as in the Sea Islands, what they
tried to do) was to revert to subsistence agriculture, where they would farm
for themselves and their families, and not so that a plantation owner could
sell commercial crops to a faraway market. They also did not want their wives
and children to have to work in the fields, not surprisingly. In all these
ways, their labor goals conflicted with those of their former owners, and it is
not a very big leap to imagine that white Southerners, when confronted with
people who did not want to work exactly as the white Southerners wanted them
to, would think that those people simply did not want to work.
In any case, the notion that blacks would not work, predicted many times by
pessimistic Southerners, was never borne up by the facts. After the immediate
chaos caused by the Civil War had ended, blacks were once again the laboring
mainstay of plantation agriculture--largely because they had been denied land
of their own.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4ocghj$t...@panix2.panix.com>, Linda Teasley <l...@panix.com> wrote:>: Uh, excuse me for even suggesting this, Mark, but is it not possible --
>: possible -- that having learned as slaves to worked under compulsion, that
>: the freedmen were somewhat lacking in the old "Protestant work ethic"? The
>
>that many reports from the Freedmen's Bureau, which had to adopt strict
>back-to-work provisions, complained about the unwillingness of freedmen
>to try to earn a living.
>
> Actually, the freedmen were behaving as anybody else would. If the
>government has a good "dole" program, why go out and sweat to provide it
>yourself?
I assume, then, that you would make the same claim for Southern whites, since
about 1/4 of all "dole" provided by the Freedmen's Bureau went to white
families? Let's talk about how Southern whites were unwilling to work.
Rick Veal
In article <4ocghj$t...@panix2.panix.com>, Linda Teasley <l...@panix.com> wrote:
>RStacy2229 (rstac...@aol.com) wrote:
>: In article <4o1qir$o...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>
>: Uh, excuse me for even suggesting this, Mark, but is it not possible --
>: possible -- that having learned as slaves to worked under compulsion, that
>: the freedmen were somewhat lacking in the old "Protestant work ethic"? The
>
> You are absolutely right. It is not a racist point of view to observe
>that many reports from the Freedmen's Bureau, which had to adopt strict
>back-to-work provisions, complained about the unwillingness of freedmen
>to try to earn a living.
>
> Actually, the freedmen were behaving as anybody else would. If the
>government has a good "dole" program, why go out and sweat to provide it
>yourself?
>
operation today. All you have to do to see proof is go to the local
Department of Social Services and presto -- the modern Legacy of Lincoln!
--
Rick H. Veal Commander: Brig. General Samuel McGowan
Deo Vindice Camp #40 Sons of Confederate Veterans
22 February 1862 113 McGowan Street
<rv...@cs1.presby.edu> Laurens, South Carolina 29360
System Janitor
None. You need to cite all the ardent black democrats covered by
Foner, or give some kind of reason that you can characterize
Foner as ``objective'', knowing that he ignored or misrepresented
details whenever it suited him.
-Mike
System Janitor
>of Reconstruction history.
Actually, you'll be sad to learn, my comments do have weight with many
people in this forum. It has something to do with my *not* being
ignorant of Reconstruction history, and having proved it. I notice
you said not a word about my Reply to Richard Zuczek. I'm afraid
the ball is in your court, and you don't know what to do with it.
-Mike
System Janitor
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>In all these
>ways, their labor goals conflicted with those of their former owners, and it is
>not a very big leap to imagine that white Southerners, when confronted with
>people who did not want to work exactly as the white Southerners wanted them
>to, would think that those people simply did not want to work.
In other words, they no longer wanted to work as before, their former masters
could see that they no longer wanted to work, and history has recorded
that they no longer wanted to work. It is irrelevant that you have
discounted the work ethic taught to the slaves by their masters by
putting quotes around the word ``taught''. It is also irrelevant that
many share croppers still worked, although at a much reduced subsistence
level, since this thread was spawned from Alabama's_Tragic_Decade's
pictures, which you probably described accurately. I expect (you may
have to do more than glance at the book to be sure) you'll find that
they were caricatures of the many freedmen who flooded the towns and
cities of the South and lived off federal government handouts, and not
subsistence farmers.
* After the immediate chaos caused by the Civil War had ended, blacks were
* once again the laboring mainstay of plantation agriculture--largely
* because they had been denied land of their own.
So, you're saying that they quit living off of government handouts
after the disinterested government focused its attention elsewhere and
the handouts dried up? And that the idea of land redistribution was so
unacceptable that it never came to much?
-Mike
System Janitor
Hmmm. You are outraged by the implication that some blacks were unwilling
to work, but are ready to jump on some kind of ``lazy white southerner
stereotype'' bandwagon.
Which bias-free paragon of Modern Historical Re-research did you
learn that from?
-Mike
REB 4 LIFE
In article <4ock5c$2...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>> Actually, the freedmen were behaving as anybody else would. If the
>>government has a good "dole" program, why go out and sweat to provide it
>>yourself?
>
>I assume, then, that you would make the same claim for Southern whites,
since
>about 1/4 of all "dole" provided by the Freedmen's Bureau went to white
>families? Let's talk about how Southern whites were unwilling to work.
>
Yes, let us talk about those Southern whites. Does your impecable
source tell how many of these white folk were the widows and orphans
of Confederate soldiers, with no means of support? Does your source
detail how many of these white "dole" recipients were those who would
be most happy to support themselves if their properties had not been
stolen and/or destoyed by yankee soldiers or carpetbaggers?
R4L
Linda Teasley
: I assume, then, that you would make the same claim for Southern whites, since
: about 1/4 of all "dole" provided by the Freedmen's Bureau went to white
: families? Let's talk about how Southern whites were unwilling to work.
Okay. If you want me to say that a percentage of both black and white
population was lazy or unwilling to work, of course they were. The
difference here is that the poorer whites owned their land already and
had more incentive to try a comeback, and the black population did not
have that advantage. Are you aware that some white families were boiling
the dirt from under their smokehouses in order to get salt?
The point is that nobody had a Plan, and the FB was working, in some
cases at least, to try to relieve everybody's destitution. But the
reports of freedmen being unwilling to work were not the invention of
racist whites in the South. The reports may even not have been true, but
they still originated largely from the Freedmen's Bureau and Northern
plantation buyers like Andrews.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4oe5p3$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
REB 4 LIFE <reb4...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4ock5c$2...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>
>>> Actually, the freedmen were behaving as anybody else would. If the
>>>government has a good "dole" program, why go out and sweat to provide it
>>>yourself?
>>
>since
>>about 1/4 of all "dole" provided by the Freedmen's Bureau went to white
>>families? Let's talk about how Southern whites were unwilling to work.
>>
>source tell how many of these white folk were the widows and orphans
>of Confederate soldiers, with no means of support? Does your source
>detail how many of these white "dole" recipients were those who would
>be most happy to support themselves if their properties had not been
>stolen and/or destoyed by yankee soldiers or carpetbaggers?
What does that matter? Do you think that none of the blacks who received
rations were widows or orphans, or who had been cruelly separated from their
families and sold? Do -your- sources detail how many of those black "dole"
recipients were those who would be most happy to support themselves if they had
not been deprived of the right to their own labor for generations?
Face it: if blacks were lazy because they accepted rations from the
government, then whites were, too.
Linda Teasley
Mark T Pitcavage (mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
[snip of our discussion of Foner's omission of Wallace]
: While I am on the subject of Foner, I note that again you try to label his
: viewpoint as a Marxist viewpoint. I'm curious if you have read either of the
: two -actual- Marxist histories of Reconstruction (those by DuBois and Allen).
: If you have, I don't see how you could put Foner in the same category; if you
: have not, then you should.
Foner clearly belongs with the Marxists. James Allen, the Marxist
historian, said of Reconstruction in 1937, "Dictatorship it was, and only
Philistines can deny it. But it was the kind of dictatorship which
arises in every revolutionary epoch as the weapon of the new class in
power; the weapon wielded against the former ruling class and against
every attempt at restoration."
Eric Foner says, "For the nation as a whole, the collapse of
Reconstruction was a tragedy . . ." p. 604
Foner accepts the revolutionary impetus of the Radicals during
Reconstruction and only mourns that the command-and-control Marxists were
tossed out by the American people. He think that was a "tragedy." That
thesis is the whole thrust of his book.
Linda "the clue phone's ringing; I think it's for you" Teasley
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4oet3t$k...@panix2.panix.com>, Linda Teasley <l...@panix.com> wrote:
>Mark T Pitcavage (mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
e
>: about 1/4 of all "dole" provided by the Freedmen's Bureau went to white
>: families? Let's talk about how Southern whites were unwilling to work.
>
>population was lazy or unwilling to work, of course they were. The
>difference here is that the poorer whites owned their land already and
>had more incentive to try a comeback, and the black population did not
>have that advantage. Are you aware that some white families were boiling
>the dirt from under their smokehouses in order to get salt?
>
> The point is that nobody had a Plan, and the FB was working, in some
>cases at least, to try to relieve everybody's destitution. But the
>reports of freedmen being unwilling to work were not the invention of
>racist whites in the South. The reports may even not have been true, but
>they still originated largely from the Freedmen's Bureau and Northern
>plantation buyers like Andrews.
I did not say there were no such reports; rather, I argued that the people who
made those reports generally misunderstood the position of the freedmen and
interpreted an unwillingness on the part of some freedmen to do certain types
of work as an unwillingness on the part of all freedmen to work, period.
While no doubt there were lazy freedmen, they existed in no greater numbers
than lazy whites, and my opinion is that to assume otherwise would be ignorant,
racist or both. You can pick and choose among those to describe Andrews,
Southern plantation owners, or modern day people who believe that the freedmen
were lazy.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4ofa6e$j...@panix2.panix.com>, Linda Teasley <l...@panix.com> wrote:
>Mark T Pitcavage (mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>
>
>: While I am on the subject of Foner, I note that again you try to label his
>: viewpoint as a Marxist viewpoint. I'm curious if you have read either of th
e
>: two -actual- Marxist histories of Reconstruction (those by DuBois and Allen)
.
>: If you have, I don't see how you could put Foner in the same category; if yo
u
>: have not, then you should.
>
> Foner clearly belongs with the Marxists. James Allen, the Marxist
>historian, said of Reconstruction in 1937, "Dictatorship it was, and only
>Philistines can deny it. But it was the kind of dictatorship which
>arises in every revolutionary epoch as the weapon of the new class in
>power; the weapon wielded against the former ruling class and against
>every attempt at restoration."
>
> Eric Foner says, "For the nation as a whole, the collapse of
>Reconstruction was a tragedy . . ." p. 604
>
> Foner accepts the revolutionary impetus of the Radicals during
>Reconstruction and only mourns that the command-and-control Marxists were
>tossed out by the American people. He think that was a "tragedy." That
>thesis is the whole thrust of his book.
Linda, the two statements you quote above are not even talking about the same
thing. One characterizes Reconstruction in a certain way; the other says that
the end of Reconstruction was a tragedy.
Moreover, I doubt that Foner believes that the Radicals represented a "new
class," or even that the Radicals were in charge of Reconstruction (as most
scholarship shows, the Republicans who were most firmly in control were the
moderate blocs, which had much more power than people like Thaddeus Stevens).
Furthermore, for someone to think that the end of Reconstruction was a tragedy
does NOT by any remote stretch of the imagination necessarily mean they are a
Marxist, for crying out loud. There are a lot of historians who believe that
Reconstruction should have gone on longer; surely you are not seriously
suggesting that this means they are all Marxists?
As for myself, I am no Marxist, but I believe that Reconstruction should have
gone on longer (and should have been "harsher" in certain ways). Of course,
you probably believe that I am a frothing at the mouth communist, rather than
an Al Gore democrat.
Linda Teasley
: >
: > Foner accepts the revolutionary impetus of the Radicals during
: >Reconstruction and only mourns that the command-and-control Marxists were
: >tossed out by the American people. He think that was a "tragedy." That
: >thesis is the whole thrust of his book.
: Linda, the two statements you quote above are not even talking about the same
: thing. One characterizes Reconstruction in a certain way; the other says that
: the end of Reconstruction was a tragedy.
They both see that radical policies like land confiscation,
disenfranchisement of former Confederates, implementing equality
from the central power of the federal government, control of black
Republican
voters, would have been consistent with the virtuous aims of Radical
Reconstruction. Foner is sorry that those policies did not get
implemented; and the fact that they are command-and-control socialist
policies doesn't worry him because that kind of exercise of power never
worries Marxists. "Power to the people!" etc.
: Moreover, I doubt that Foner believes that the Radicals represented a "new
: class," or even that the Radicals were in charge of Reconstruction (as most
: scholarship shows, the Republicans who were most firmly in control were the
: moderate blocs, which had much more power than people like Thaddeus Stevens).
Foner would have liked for the Radicals to have held power longer.
That they ultimately failed is a cause of regret to him. He says that
the moderates backed down and thus divided the party from Stevens'
admirable agenda. For instance, he says that after the elections of
1867, "The results had a major impact on the balance of power within the
party, convincing moderates that issues like disenfranchisement, black
voting in the North, and impeachment must be avoided at all costs."
Foner clearly thinks that these policies should have prevailed.
: Furthermore, for someone to think that the end of Reconstruction was a tragedy
: does NOT by any remote stretch of the imagination necessarily mean they are a
: Marxist, for crying out loud.
In this case, it does.
: As for myself, I am no Marxist, but I believe that Reconstruction should have
: gone on longer (and should have been "harsher" in certain ways). Of course,
: you probably believe that I am a frothing at the mouth communist, rather than
: an Al Gore democrat.
No, I am not a modern-day McCarthyite. Although I reject some central
tenets of Marxist thought, like their definition of Man and their
analysis of significant historical change, I think Marxist analysis is
sometimes very illuminating. For instance, societies are far more
subject to cultural manipulation by the Powers That Be than people
think. My acquaintance of Marxist analysis has more to do with literary
criticism in the Renaissance than European or American history, but I
think I understand enough to read Allen and Foner and see
the similarities. Actually, I am interested in why you think Foner isn't
a Marxist.
Linda Teasley
Brian Blakistone
rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) wrote:
>In article <4o7hk0$h...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>>a comprehensive history of Reconstruction that did not include
>>comments from -one particular person-? If that person were someone like
>>Andrew Johnson or Thaddeus Stevens, such a criticism might have merit
>Bet whatever Stevens had to say would expose the malign vindictiveness of
>the man, right? Please, please, quote Stevens!
"This is not a 'white man's government, to say so is political
blasphemy, for it violates the fundamental principles of our gospel of
liberty. This is man's government; the government of all men alike."
"Every man, no matter what his race or color has an equal right to
justice, honesty, and fair play with every other man; and the law
should secure him those rights. The same law which condems or acquits
an African should condemn or acquit a white man. the same law which
gives a verdict in a white man's favor should give a verdict in a
black man's favor on the same state of facts. Such is the law of God
and such ought to be the law of man."
Brian
Brian Blakistone
rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) wrote:
>Uh, excuse me for even suggesting this, Mark, but is it not possible --
>possible -- that having learned as slaves to worked under compulsion, that
>the freedmen were somewhat lacking in the old "Protestant work ethic"? The
>slaves had been taught that physical labor was the mark of low status and,
>now having gained the status of free men, might some slaves have gotten
>the idea (with the help of Carpetbagger political activists) that they
>didn't need to work to support themselves?
I am reading E. Genovese's _Roll, Jordan, Roll_, I thought you might
find him convincing as you cited him in an earlier thread:
"The charge of laziness has missed the mark. But they resisted that
regularity and routine which became the sine qua non for industrial
society and which the planters, despite their own rejection of so much
of the bourgeois work ethic, tried to impose upon them."
pg 309
"The slaves' willingness to work extraordinarily hard and yet resist
the discipline of regularity accompanied certain desires and
expectations. During Reconstruction the blacks sought their own land;
worked it conscientiously when they could get it; resisted being
forced back into anything resembling gang labor for the white man; and
had to be terrorized, swindled, and murdered to prevent their working
for themselves."
pg.313
Genovese devotes two chapters to the topic, but basically comes to
conclusions similar to those Mark posted, they resisted gang labor,
but worked very hard when allowed to work their own land. They
frequently gardened, hunted and fished to supplement their families
diet on their days off.
Brian
RStacy2229
In article <4oet3t$k...@panix2.panix.com>, l...@panix.com (Linda Teasley)
writes:
>reports of freedmen being unwilling to work were not the invention of
>racist whites in the South.
Linda: Racist whites IN the South, not OF the South: The damned
carpetbagger trash were generally WHITE and RACIST and IN THE SOUTH.
> The reports may even not have been true, but
>they still originated largely from the Freedmen's Bureau and Northern
>plantation buyers like Andrews.
See? Proved my point!! And now I wait for Pitcavage to come back with
quotes relevant to the "racially enlightened" views of Mssrs. Seward and
Blair.
Robert Stacy McCain
RStacy2229
Supposing that first-person narrative is the best history:
"We tried to impose the civilization, the idea of the North, upon the
South at a moment's warning. We presumed that, by the supression of the
rebellion, the Southern white man had become identical with the Caucasian
of the North in thought and sentiment; and that the slave, by
emancipation, had becme a saint and a Solomon at once. So we tried to
build up communities there which should be identical in thought,
sentiment, growth, and development, with those of the North. It was a
fool's errand."
-- from "A Fool's Errand,"
by Albion W. Tourgee, Ohio-born carpetbagger
RStacy2229
"The whole fabric of southern society must be changed ... Without this,
this Government can never be, as it has never been, a true republic.
Heretofore, it had more the features of aristocracy than of democracy. The
Southern States have been despotisms, not governments of the people. It is
impossible that any practical equality of rights can exist where a few
thousand men monopolize the whole landed property. ... If the South is
ever to be made a safe republic let her lands be cultivated by the toil of
the owners or the free labor of intelligent citizens. This must be done
though it drive her nobility into exile. If they go, all the better."
-- Speech of Thad Stevens, 1865
Some thoughts upon this:
1. According to Stevens, such men as Washington, Jefferson and Madison had
been neither republicans nor democrats, but were "despots" and
"aristocrats." Stevens thus became the father of Revisionist History.
2. Stevens -- as befits a Northern politician -- associates wealth and
political power: The plutocracy which Jefferson had so feared and one
which, judging from recent news on the Potomac, has descended upon us with
such a vengeance as even Stevens would applaud.
3. It is clear to even the most laggard student of psychology that Stevens
seethed with a resentment of "aristocrats." Whether or not he would kill
half a million men to free the slaves, he would count this a light cost if
it ruined the fortunes of the planter class Stevens so obviously envied.
4. We Southrons should take up a collection to memorialize Jubal Early,
who I believe had something to do with the destruction of an ironworks in
Pennsylvania belonging to this same Stevens.
Robert Stacy McCain
Tennessee Reb
On May 28, 1996 14:02:16 in article <Re: Reconstruction Historians>,
'mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage)' wrote:
>>Yes, let us talk about those Southern whites. Does your impecable
>>source tell how many of these white folk were the widows and orphans
>>of Confederate soldiers, with no means of support? Does your source
>>detail how many of these white "dole" recipients were those who would
>>be most happy to support themselves if their properties had not been
>>stolen and/or destoyed by yankee soldiers or carpetbaggers?
>
>What does that matter?
Otherwise
this whole thread would have petered out days ago.
> Do you think that none of the blacks who received
>rations were widows or orphans,
the South are quite capable of looking out for our own. The FMB
was a "control" program, disguised as benevolence.
> or who had been cruelly separated from their
>families and sold?
sell puppies? Just asking.
Do -your- sources detail how many of those black "dole"
>recipients were those who would be most happy to support themselves if
they
>had not been deprived of the right to their own labor for generations?
>Face it: if blacks were lazy because they accepted rations from the
>government, then whites were, too.
Irish/Celtic culture, which was/is the predominant ethnic background of
Crackers like myself and those "dole" recipients, and then report back.
And don't give me any crapola about education or work ethic. Tell me
about "self-reliance".
Tennessee Reb
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4og0j9$6...@panix2.panix.com>, Linda Teasley <l...@panix.com> wrote:
>Mark T Pitcavage (mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>: In article <4ofa6e$j...@panix2.panix.com>, Linda Teasley <l...@panix.com> wrot
e:
>: >
>: > Foner accepts the revolutionary impetus of the Radicals during
>: >Reconstruction and only mourns that the command-and-control Marxists were
>: >tossed out by the American people. He think that was a "tragedy." That
>: >thesis is the whole thrust of his book.
>
>: Linda, the two statements you quote above are not even talking about the sam
e
>: thing. One characterizes Reconstruction in a certain way; the other says th
at
>: the end of Reconstruction was a tragedy.
>
> They both see that radical policies like land confiscation,
>disenfranchisement of former Confederates, implementing equality
>from the central power of the federal government, control of black
>Republican
>voters, would have been consistent with the virtuous aims of Radical
>Reconstruction. Foner is sorry that those policies did not get
>implemented; and the fact that they are command-and-control socialist
>policies doesn't worry him because that kind of exercise of power never
>worries Marxists. "Power to the people!" etc.
In the first place, I think that you are mischaracterizing Foner, above, using
words like "sorry" and "worry" that the text does not seem to support. Then,
too, land confiscation was never a "radical policy" (since it only had a few
supporters), and none of the other elements you mention have anything to do
with Marxism.
Moreover, I think it is very funny that you would equate any of these items
with "command-and-control socialist policies" because even some of the land
confiscation schemes were -clearly- capitalist in nature (and openly declared
as such), but simply anti-oligarchical.
>
>: Moreover, I doubt that Foner believes that the Radicals represented a "new
>: class," or even that the Radicals were in charge of Reconstruction (as most
>: scholarship shows, the Republicans who were most firmly in control were the
>: moderate blocs, which had much more power than people like Thaddeus Stevens)
.
>
> Foner would have liked for the Radicals to have held power longer.
>That they ultimately failed is a cause of regret to him. He says that
>the moderates backed down and thus divided the party from Stevens'
>admirable agenda. For instance, he says that after the elections of
>1867, "The results had a major impact on the balance of power within the
>party, convincing moderates that issues like disenfranchisement, black
>voting in the North, and impeachment must be avoided at all costs."
I don't recall offhand where he labels Stevens' agenda as "admirable." But I'm
glad you have backed down from your original assertion.
>
> Foner clearly thinks that these policies should have prevailed.
So do I; but they have nothing to do with Marxism.
>
>: Furthermore, for someone to think that the end of Reconstruction was a trage
dy
>: does NOT by any remote stretch of the imagination necessarily mean they are
a
>: Marxist, for crying out loud.
>
> In this case, it does.
>
You have presented no evidence that even slightly suggests that this is the
case.
>: As for myself, I am no Marxist, but I believe that Reconstruction should hav
e
>: gone on longer (and should have been "harsher" in certain ways). Of course,
>: you probably believe that I am a frothing at the mouth communist, rather tha
n
>: an Al Gore democrat.
>
> No, I am not a modern-day McCarthyite. Although I reject some central
>tenets of Marxist thought, like their definition of Man and their
>analysis of significant historical change, I think Marxist analysis is
>sometimes very illuminating. For instance, societies are far more
>subject to cultural manipulation by the Powers That Be than people
>think. My acquaintance of Marxist analysis has more to do with literary
>criticism in the Renaissance than European or American history, but I
>think I understand enough to read Allen and Foner and see
>the similarities. Actually, I am interested in why you think Foner isn't
>a Marxist.
I have not said that Foner "isn't a Marxist." I think it is clear that his
Reconstruction book is a study that, when compared to the classic Marxist works
on Reconstruction by Allen and DuBois, displays a Marxist orientation weakly at
best.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4og928$1...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>,
Tennessee Reb <tennes...@usa.pipeline.com> wrote:
(This thread has been about racist accusations about blacks being "lazy" during
Reconstruction. One "argument" evinced in support of this notion was the fact
that many blacks received rations and support from the Freedmen's bureau. I
pointed out that about 25% of such rations went to white families, yet no one
called the whites lazy. Someone indignantly suggested that there were many
orphans and widows among the whites. I asked whether or not there were no
orphans or widows among the blacks, too...)
>Probably so. But they didn't need the FMB to look after them. We in
>the South are quite capable of looking out for our own. The FMB
>was a "control" program, disguised as benevolence.
This is strange; it seems to suggest that it was okay for white families to
receive rations from the Freedman's Bureau, but not for black families. But it
is also pathetic: the people who applied for rations from the Freedmen's
Bureau, white and black, were people who needed food and shelter. They were
lucky to have an agency there to provide it. You say that "we in the South"
(as if you were there at the time) are "quite capable of looking our for our
own." Well, in 1865, "you in the South" were not capable of looking after
white people, and "we in the twentieth century" know full well how capable you
were of looking out for black people, don't we? What could we call
slavery--perhaps a "control" program, disguised as benevolence?
>> or who had been cruelly separated from their
>>families and sold?
>
>Those bad old Massas... Do you, or anyone you know, raise and
>sell puppies? Just asking.
Yes, I suppose the slaves were just dogs to you. Nineteenth century Southern
whites considered them little better than animals; I guess it is not surprising
that you would do so as well. It is depressing that you would so blatantly
display such disgusting racism, but it is not surprising.
>
> Do -your- sources detail how many of those black "dole"
>>recipients were those who would be most happy to support themselves if
>they
>>had not been deprived of the right to their own labor for generations?
>
>They had *no* right to their labor. They were slaves.
So if I enslave you, you have no rights? I seemed to recall America being
founded upon ideals of certain inalienable rights, but perhaps I was mistaken.
>
>>Face it: if blacks were lazy because they accepted rations from the
>>government, then whites were, too.
>
>Undoubtedly some were. I suggest you take a crash course in Scotch/
>Irish/Celtic culture, which was/is the predominant ethnic background of
>Crackers like myself and those "dole" recipients, and then report back.
>And don't give me any crapola about education or work ethic. Tell me
>about "self-reliance".
I suggest you take a crash course in the dangers of racist reasoning.
Linda Teasley
: >
: > They both see that radical policies like land confiscation,
: >disenfranchisement of former Confederates, implementing equality
: >from the central power of the federal government, control of black
: >Republican
: >voters, would have been consistent with the virtuous aims of Radical
: >Reconstruction. Foner is sorry that those policies did not get
: >implemented; and the fact that they are command-and-control socialist
: >policies doesn't worry him because that kind of exercise of power never
: >worries Marxists. "Power to the people!" etc.
: In the first place, I think that you are mischaracterizing Foner, above, using
: words like "sorry" and "worry" that the text does not seem to support. Then,
: too, land confiscation was never a "radical policy" (since it only had a few
: supporters), and none of the other elements you mention have anything to do
: with Marxism.
Mandating equality is most certainly an objective of Marxists.
: Moreover, I think it is very funny that you would equate any of these items
: with "command-and-control socialist policies" because even some of the land
: confiscation schemes were -clearly- capitalist in nature (and openly declared
: as such), but simply anti-oligarchical.
"Anti-oligarchical?" Gimme a break.
: I don't recall offhand where he labels Stevens' agenda as "admirable." But I'm
: glad you have backed down from your original assertion.
You are really grasping at straws here. I have backed down from nothing.
And you, so far at least, have nothing to be "glad" about.
Don't be embarrassed about losing an argument occasionally.
Linda T.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4ohp1c$p...@panix2.panix.com>, Linda Teasley <l...@panix.com> wrote:
>Mark T Pitcavage (mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>: In article <4og0j9$6...@panix2.panix.com>, Linda Teasley <l...@panix.com> wrot
e:
>: >
>: > They both see that radical policies like land confiscation,
>: >disenfranchisement of former Confederates, implementing equality
>: >from the central power of the federal government, control of black
>: >Republican
>: >voters, would have been consistent with the virtuous aims of Radical
>: >Reconstruction. Foner is sorry that those policies did not get
>: >implemented; and the fact that they are command-and-control socialist
>: >policies doesn't worry him because that kind of exercise of power never
>: >worries Marxists. "Power to the people!" etc.
>
>: In the first place, I think that you are mischaracterizing Foner, above, usi
ng
>: words like "sorry" and "worry" that the text does not seem to support. Then
,
>: too, land confiscation was never a "radical policy" (since it only had a few
>: supporters), and none of the other elements you mention have anything to do
>: with Marxism.
>
> Mandating equality is most certainly an objective of Marxists.
It is not by any means exclusively an objective of Marxists.
>
>: Moreover, I think it is very funny that you would equate any of these items
>: with "command-and-control socialist policies" because even some of the land
>: confiscation schemes were -clearly- capitalist in nature (and openly declare
d
>: as such), but simply anti-oligarchical.
>
> "Anti-oligarchical?" Gimme a break.
I'm as serious as a heart attack. Several of the land confiscation proponents
(including those who wanted land given to whites as well) argued their claims
from the viewpoint of promoting the economic aims of the small farmer, as well
as the general economic welfare of the country that would result from promoting
those aims.
>: I don't recall offhand where he labels Stevens' agenda as "admirable." But
I'm
>: glad you have backed down from your original assertion.
>
> You are really grasping at straws here. I have backed down from nothing.
> And you, so far at least, have nothing to be "glad" about.
> Don't be embarrassed about losing an argument occasionally.
Linda, you have failed to prove a single one of your assertions.
Linda Teasley
Brian Blakistone (cbla...@sdcc13.ucsd.edu) wrote:
[Thad Stevens said:]
: "This is not a 'white man's government, to say so is political
: blasphemy, for it violates the fundamental principles of our gospel of
: liberty. This is man's government; the government of all men alike."
: "Every man, no matter what his race or color has an equal right to
: justice, honesty, and fair play with every other man; and the law
: should secure him those rights. The same law which condems or acquits
: an African should condemn or acquit a white man. the same law which
: gives a verdict in a white man's favor should give a verdict in a
: black man's favor on the same state of facts. Such is the law of God
: and such ought to be the law of man."
A much more judicious comment than when he yelled at a colleague:
"Conscience, indeed! Throw conscience to the devil and stand by your party."
(from the *Philadelphia Ledger*; quoted in *Lancaster Intelligencer*,
January 17, 1866)
Linda Teasley
Mark T Pitcavage (mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
: Linda, you have failed to prove a single one of your assertions.
You have lost this one. My assertions have been that 1) Reconstruction
was a radical revolutionary period, checked by 1876 by moderate forces
within the U.S. and the Republican party, and 2) Foner, as a Marxist
historian, deplores the check on the radical program. There is nothing
that you have said that disproves any of that.
Linda T.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4oi7mr$o...@panix2.panix.com>, Linda Teasley <l...@panix.com> wrote:
>Mark T Pitcavage (mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>
>: Linda, you have failed to prove a single one of your assertions.
>
> You have lost this one. My assertions have been that 1) Reconstruction
>was a radical revolutionary period, checked by 1876 by moderate forces
>within the U.S. and the Republican party, and 2) Foner, as a Marxist
>historian, deplores the check on the radical program. There is nothing
>that you have said that disproves any of that.
Linda, come on, get real.
First of all, what you asserted was that Reconstruction was dominated by the
radicals, and it was only after I pointed out that it was moderates who were in
control did you admit to it.
Secondly, you asserted much more about Foner than "as a Marxist historian" he
"deplores the check on the radical program." Nor, even there, did you manage
to make any sort of connection whatsoever between any Marxist views he may or
may not have had and any opinions he may have had on the views of the radicals.
Linda Teasley
: First of all, what you asserted was that Reconstruction was dominated by the
: radicals, and it was only after I pointed out that it was moderates who were in
: control did you admit to it.
Nothing of the sort. Reconstruction was wholly dominated by the
Radicals in Congress and their Committee on Reconstruction, which was
composed mostly of radicals and radicals dominated all the committees.
Moderates succeeded only very late in 1) not voting to impeach Johnson,
which infuriated the radicals, and 2) FINALLY, in 1876, because popular
support for their military control of the South was flagging, radicals
got largely voted out of office.
: Secondly, you asserted much more about Foner than "as a Marxist historian" he
: "deplores the check on the radical program." Nor, even there, did you manage
: to make any sort of connection whatsoever between any Marxist views he may or
: may not have had and any opinions he may have had on the views of the radicals.
I have chronicled the Marxist views of Foner, but I will number the
posts in this thread and refer you to the correct one if you will specify
what you want to know. The Marxist version of the Civil War and
Reconstruction is the most prevalent view now, so Foner is hardly alone.
I'm surprised you haven't encountered this great truth before now.
Linda "He comes, he comes, the Judge severe . . ." Teasley
System Janitor
>So if I enslave you, you have no rights? I seemed to recall America being
>founded upon ideals of certain inalienable rights, but perhaps I was mistaken.
Certainly you were mistaken. I challenge you to enumerate the rights of
the slaves. Not the ones you wish they had, or the ones they deserved,
but the ones that they had.
-Mike
Brian Blakistone
rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) wrote:
>"The whole fabric of southern society must be changed ... Without this,
>this Government can never be, as it has never been, a true republic.
>Heretofore, it had more the features of aristocracy than of democracy. The
>Southern States have been despotisms, not governments of the people. It is
>impossible that any practical equality of rights can exist where a few
>thousand men monopolize the whole landed property. ... If the South is
>ever to be made a safe republic let her lands be cultivated by the toil of
>the owners or the free labor of intelligent citizens. This must be done
>though it drive her nobility into exile. If they go, all the better."
>-- Speech of Thad Stevens, 1865
>Some thoughts upon this:
>1. According to Stevens, such men as Washington, Jefferson and Madison had
>been neither republicans nor democrats, but were "despots" and
>"aristocrats." Stevens thus became the father of Revisionist History.
States frequently had property requirements to vote, in some ways they
did have the features of an aristocracy. The slogan 'Rich man's war,
poor man's fight' resulted from the political domination by the
planter class. Stevens also considered blacks as people having the
same rights as a white men, surely slaveholders were despots in that
context.
>2. Stevens -- as befits a Northern politician -- associates wealth and
>political power: The plutocracy which Jefferson had so feared and one
>which, judging from recent news on the Potomac, has descended upon us with
>such a vengeance as even Stevens would applaud.
Stevens was known as the commoner, on the ways & means committee he
went to great lengths to assure that taxes for the war did not fall on
the poor, but on the wealthy, who would be better able to bear the
costs. He was also a strong supporter of Public schooling, which was
never popular with the wealthy. If he truly supported a plutocracy he
would have supported property tests for voting rather than universal
suffrage.
>3. It is clear to even the most laggard student of psychology that Stevens
>seethed with a resentment of "aristocrats." Whether or not he would kill
>half a million men to free the slaves, he would count this a light cost if
>it ruined the fortunes of the planter class Stevens so obviously envied.
This probably has an element of truth in it, I suspect he resented
inherited wealth, after he had to work so hard for his. I believe you
have it backwards though, he did not want to destroy slavery because
he hated the planters, he hated the planters because they were the
proponents of slavery. Your argument is also reversible, so I could
say that you obviously envy Stevens because he was a wealthy
successful politician, but then I might be rightfully accused of
making a superficial psychological assessment on scant evidence.
>4. We Southrons should take up a collection to memorialize Jubal Early,
>who I believe had something to do with the destruction of an ironworks in
>Pennsylvania belonging to this same Stevens.
There was a collection taken up on his behalf that raised over
$100,000 to compensate him for his loss, but he refused it and set up
a fund for the poor instead. I suspect Stevens would be hugely amused
by your memorial.
Brian
Brian Blakistone
> [Thad Stevens said:]
>: "This is not a 'white man's government, to say so is political
>: blasphemy, for it violates the fundamental principles of our gospel of
>: liberty. This is man's government; the government of all men alike."
>: "Every man, no matter what his race or color has an equal right to
>: justice, honesty, and fair play with every other man; and the law
>: should secure him those rights. The same law which condems or acquits
>: an African should condemn or acquit a white man. the same law which
>: gives a verdict in a white man's favor should give a verdict in a
>: black man's favor on the same state of facts. Such is the law of God
>: and such ought to be the law of man."
> A much more judicious comment than when he yelled at a colleague:
>"Conscience, indeed! Throw conscience to the devil and stand by your party."
He was an autocratic leader in the house, no doubt, the original post
seemed to indicate that any quote would show his malign vindictive
qualities. Actually he did deviate from the party line on occasions,
he once threatened to quit the Republicans party over a plan to raid
the treasury. There was also an incident early in his career when he
voted for a Democrat and people were demanding to know why. He passed
a note to the House clerk to read after which he would make a few
comments on the topic. The confused clerk said he could not read it
as it was in German. "Then I postpone my remarks until the Clerk can
read it." said Stevens as the House broke out in laughter.
Brian
REB 4 LIFE
In article <4ohkr4$p...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>In article <4og928$1...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>,
>Tennessee Reb <tennes...@usa.pipeline.com> wrote:
>(This thread has been about racist accusations about blacks being "lazy"
during
>Reconstruction. One "argument" evinced in support of this notion was the
fact
>that many blacks received rations and support from the Freedmen's bureau.
I
>pointed out that about 25% of such rations went to white families, yet no
one
>called the whites lazy. Someone indignantly suggested that there were
many
>orphans and widows among the whites. I asked whether or not there were
no
>orphans or widows among the blacks, too...)
(T. Reb/R4L writes)
>>Probably so. But they didn't need the FMB to look after them. We in
>>the South are quite capable of looking out for our own. The FMB
>>was a "control" program, disguised as benevolence.
>This is strange; it seems to suggest that it was okay for white families
to
>receive rations from the Freedman's Bureau, but not for black families.
But it
>is also pathetic: the people who applied for rations from the Freedmen's
>Bureau, white and black, were people who needed food and shelter.
I suggest to you that the "needy" have always been and always will be
with us. However, the tremendous amount of people who received
assistance from the FMB would most definately *not* have needed it
had the North not imposed the conditions that were prevailing through
unecessary and malicious destruction of Southern private property and
the casting adrift of a dependent black population.
>They were lucky to have an agency there to provide it.
How generous of the conquerors to do something nice for the
indigent conquered. Too bad there were so many strings
attached--"Here, poor man, take this assistance, and come
election day we know you will remember where it came from
and vote Republican..."
> You say that "we in the South"
>(as if you were there at the time) are "quite capable of looking our for
our
>own." Well, in 1865, "you in the South" were not capable of looking
after
>white people,
And just exactly why was that, I wonder?
> and "we in the twentieth century" know full well how capable you
>were of looking out for black people, don't we? What could we call
>slavery--perhaps a "control" program, disguised as benevolence?
No, we couldn't call it that. We could call it a legal status. That
would be correct.
(Mark here:)
>>> or who had been cruelly separated from their
>>>families and sold?
>
>>Those bad old Massas... Do you, or anyone you know, raise and
>>sell puppies? Just asking.
>Yes, I suppose the slaves were just dogs to you.
No, not really. You could sell a dog without a bill of sale, and you
paid no taxes for possessing one. BTW, just what makes you
jump to the conclusion that I was comparing slaves with dogs?
Is it my grammar or punctuation? Or do you just link unrelated
thoughts together this way as a matter of course? Ooops!
Now I see... I should have started a new paragraph. Sorry.
> Nineteenth century Southern
>whites considered them little better than animals; I guess it is not
surprising
>that you would do so as well. It is depressing that you would so
blatantly
>display such disgusting racism, but it is not surprising.
What an amazing few sentences. No less than *three* completely
gratuitous assertions. Here's one of my own: You appear to be a
racist yourself. Any statement by anyone not politically correct enough,
regardless of its factual content, concerning our black brethren is enough
for you to brand someone a racist. You must hate white folk. It would
follow that you are one of my black brothers yourself, or you're just some
pitiful white guy with a *really* guilty conscience. I hear the Southern
Baptists are accepting members. Join up, and you too can apologize
for something you had no part in, and for which you had no responsibility.
BTW, what makes you so sure I'm white?
>>> Do -your- sources detail how many of those black "dole"
>>>recipients were those who would be most happy to support themselves if
>>>they
>>>had not been deprived of the right to their own labor for generations?
>>They had *no* right to their labor. They were slaves.
>So if I enslave you, you have no rights?
Right you are. Legally speaking.
> I seemed to recall America being
>founded upon ideals of certain inalienable rights, but perhaps I was
mistaken.
Seem that some were left out, doesn't it?
>>>Face it: if blacks were lazy because they accepted rations from the
>>>government, then whites were, too.
>>Undoubtedly some were. I suggest you take a crash course in Scotch/
>>Irish/Celtic culture, which was/is the predominant ethnic background of
>>Crackers like myself and those "dole" recipients, and then report back.
>>And don't give me any crapola about education or work ethic. Tell me
>>about "self-reliance".
>I suggest you take a crash course in the dangers of racist reasoning.
I suggest that you respond to the statement. I also suggest that
you should follow your own advice. You seem to have a problem
with "racist reasoning" yourself.
R4L/T. Reb
RStacy2229
In article <4ohkr4$p...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>Well, in 1865, "you in the South" were not capable of looking after
>white people
Seems like maybe the reason for that disability is included in the name of
this newsgroup. But I can't afford one of those high-class Yankee
educations, so don't take my word for it.
RS "Really Southern" McCAIN
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4oilro$l...@panix2.panix.com>, Linda Teasley <l...@panix.com> wrote:
>Mark T Pitcavage (mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>: In article <4oi7mr$o...@panix2.panix.com>, Linda Teasley <l...@panix.com> wrot
e:
>
>: First of all, what you asserted was that Reconstruction was dominated by the
>: radicals, and it was only after I pointed out that it was moderates who were
in
>: control did you admit to it.
>
> Nothing of the sort. Reconstruction was wholly dominated by the
>Radicals in Congress and their Committee on Reconstruction, which was
>composed mostly of radicals and radicals dominated all the committees.
>Moderates succeeded only very late in 1) not voting to impeach Johnson,
>which infuriated the radicals, and 2) FINALLY, in 1876, because popular
>support for their military control of the South was flagging, radicals
>got largely voted out of office.
That is completely wrong.
>
>: Secondly, you asserted much more about Foner than "as a Marxist historian" h
e
>: "deplores the check on the radical program." Nor, even there, did you manag
e
>: to make any sort of connection whatsoever between any Marxist views he may o
r
>: may not have had and any opinions he may have had on the views of the radica
ls.
>
> I have chronicled the Marxist views of Foner, but I will number the
>posts in this thread and refer you to the correct one if you will specify
>what you want to know. The Marxist version of the Civil War and
>Reconstruction is the most prevalent view now, so Foner is hardly alone.
>I'm surprised you haven't encountered this great truth before now.
You have yet to explain the great differences between Allen and DuBois, two
versions of Reconstruction history which are quite clearly Marxist, and Foner.
Nor have you suggested a -single- element of Foner's thesis which is clearly
Marxist.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <hubcap.833215865@hubcap>,
System Janitor <hub...@hubcap.clemson.edu> wrote:
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
nt
>>of Reconstruction history.
>
>Actually, you'll be sad to learn, my comments do have weight with many
>people in this forum. It has something to do with my *not* being
>ignorant of Reconstruction history, and having proved it. I notice
>you said not a word about my Reply to Richard Zuczek. I'm afraid
>the ball is in your court, and you don't know what to do with it.
Your "Reply to Richard Zuczek" was simply sad; it did not even deserve a
response.
As for your having "proved" you were not ignorant of Reconstruction
history--well, I can only laugh.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <hubcap.833216850@hubcap>,
System Janitor <hub...@hubcap.clemson.edu> wrote:
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>>ways, their labor goals conflicted with those of their former owners, and it
is
>>not a very big leap to imagine that white Southerners, when confronted with
>>people who did not want to work exactly as the white Southerners wanted them
>>to, would think that those people simply did not want to work.
>
>In other words, they no longer wanted to work as before, their former masters
>could see that they no longer wanted to work, and history has recorded
>that they no longer wanted to work. It is irrelevant that you have
>discounted the work ethic taught to the slaves by their masters by
>putting quotes around the word ``taught''. It is also irrelevant that
>many share croppers still worked, although at a much reduced subsistence
>level, since this thread was spawned from Alabama's_Tragic_Decade's
>pictures, which you probably described accurately. I expect (you may
>have to do more than glance at the book to be sure) you'll find that
>they were caricatures of the many freedmen who flooded the towns and
>cities of the South and lived off federal government handouts, and not
>subsistence farmers.
I don't even know what to make of the first part of this paragraph, because you
clearly seem to misunderstood what I was saying completely. Re your last
point, you are incorrect.
>
> * After the immediate chaos caused by the Civil War had ended, blacks were
> * once again the laboring mainstay of plantation agriculture--largely
> * because they had been denied land of their own.
>
>So, you're saying that they quit living off of government handouts
>after the disinterested government focused its attention elsewhere and
>the handouts dried up?
You are something else. You honestly seem to resent the fact that the federal
government gave food to starving blacks and whites. I have news for you: in
the summer of 1865 the South was not a good place to be in. The transportation
infrastructure was largely destroyed, food was in short supply, and there was a
great deal of social chaos. The federal government recognized that it had an
obligation to provide food for those who had none (it also helped refugees find
their way home, set up hospitals, and provided similar acts of charity).
This aid provided to whites and blacks by the federal government--and it was
only a minority of both whites and blacks who ever received aid--was phased out
not "after the disinterested government focused its attention elsewhere" but
rather pretty early on, once it was no longer needed. It was a short-term,
much-appreciated bit of emergency management. That you would retroactively
grumble at this demonstration of humanity and compassion surprises even me.
And that the idea of land redistribution was so
>unacceptable that it never came to much?
>
>-Mike
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <hubcap.833218487@hubcap>,
System Janitor <hub...@hubcap.clemson.edu> wrote:
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>
>to work, but are ready to jump on some kind of ``lazy white southerner
>stereotype'' bandwagon.
>
>Which bias-free paragon of Modern Historical Re-research did you
>learn that from?
As usual, you fail to comprehend the point. My point was NOT that I wanted to
jump on any sort of "lazy white southerner stereotype" bandwagon, but rather
just the opposite: that I did not want anybody to jump on ANY stereotype
bandwagon. What my post did was to point out how the previous poster was
willing to talk about how lazy blacks were, but conveniently ignored the whites
in the exact same situation. Surely if those blacks were lazy, then those
whites were, too? But the poster didn't want to talk about them. I merely
wanted the poster to be consistent, and not to harp on asserted deficiencies
that ostensibly belonged only to those Southerners with a dark complexion.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4ojspq$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4ohkr4$p...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>>white people
>
>Seems like maybe the reason for that disability is included in the name of
>this newsgroup.
Duh.
Tennessee Reb
On May 29, 1996 02:26:05 in article <Re: Foner>, 'cbla...@sdcc13.ucsd.edu
(Brian Blakistone)' wrote:
>"This is not a 'white man's government, to say so is political
>blasphemy, for it violates the fundamental principles of our gospel of
>liberty. This is man's government; the government of all men alike."
>
>"Every man, no matter what his race or color has an equal right to
>justice, honesty, and fair play with every other man; and the law
>should secure him those rights. The same law which condems or acquits
>an African should condemn or acquit a white man. the same law which
>gives a verdict in a white man's favor should give a verdict in a
>black man's favor on the same state of facts. Such is the law of God
>and such ought to be the law of man."
Wait til Pat Schroeder hears this one....
T. Reb
System Janitor
>response.
>As for your having "proved" you were not ignorant of Reconstruction
>history--well, I can only laugh.
Have a good pompous belly laugh. The people who read this group, and
who read the moderated group, who did comment on my reply, and who have
their own ideas on its worth, all know who you're laughing at.
You appear to be unable to formulate a coherent response (oops,
plagiarism alert, that's what Foner said about Wade Hampton) to
any kind of scrutiny of your weary theorys, and you appear to
lack the attention span to support them... unless I missed parts
two and three of your Elliot ``essay''. You must have been
distracted by the need to repackage chapter one of Foner in your
recent description of how modern historians endeavor to ret-con the
past.
-Mike
System Janitor
>government gave food to starving blacks and whites.
I'd say this is another good example of the warped perspective
that accompanies most of your communications... and is also
an example of the same kind of intentional misrepresentation
that I attribute to Foner and Zuczek.
Of course, if some *credible* posters agreed with you that they
thought I resented aid given to the shattered inhabitants of the
South after the war, then I promise to spend some time in
introspection...
-Mike
jada...@counsel.com
tennes...@usa.pipeline.com(Tennessee Reb) wrote:
>> or who had been cruelly separated from their
>>families and sold?
>
>Those bad old Massas... Do you, or anyone you know, raise and
>sell puppies? Just asking.
>
with selling of _human beings_ away from their families? If so, we have
reached a new low on this ng.
Jeff Adams
jada...@counsel.com
Mark Pitcavage
In article <4oainr$8...@panix2.panix.com>, Linda Teasley <l...@panix.com> wrote:
> Third, Fleming's tone is important, too. Missing are the polemics or
>pumped up propagandizing, or the subtle applause that Foner inserts when
>he reviews the activities of Union Leagues in the South. Fleming strives
>for the old-fashioned "objective" stance, and that's the one that seems
>most admirable to me. Writing history is always biased; writing truth
>requires balance.
Having now read Fleming, I can say that he is an extremely biased writer,
and that his sections, for instance, on the Union leagues, contain no
objectivity whatsoever.
Linda Teasley
Mark Pitcavage (pitm...@zeus.netset.com) wrote:
: Having now read Fleming, I can say that he is an extremely biased writer,
: and that his sections, for instance, on the Union leagues, contain no
: objectivity whatsoever.
You obviously haven't checked out John Wallace, who says much the same
thing. Oops, I forgot, he's a black Democrat and therefore not credible.
Linda T.
RStacy2229
In article <4ok8a8$7...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
> I have news for you: in the summer of 1865 the South was not a good
place to be in. >>
The preposition is redundant.
>>>
>The transportation infrastructure was largely destroyed,>
Destroyed by Yankees
>>food was in short supply>>
Stolen or destroyed by Yankees
>>and there was a great deal of social chaos.>>
Caused by Yankees
>> The federal government>>
Which of course, had caused all this trouble to begin with ...
>>recognized that it had an obligation to provide food for those who had
none>>
People who had no food because of -- who else -- the Yankees.
I wonder why Pitcavage has suddenly decided to begin defending the South,
seeing as how he has written this scathing denunciation of the Northern
radicals who had seized control of the federal government, trampled upon
the constitution and waged a war of conquest against people who never
meant them any harm.
RSMcCain
RStacy2229
In article <4oj92b$f...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
cbla...@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Brian Blakistone) writes:
> I believe you
>have it backwards though, he did not want to destroy slavery because
>he hated the planters, he hated the planters because they were the
>proponents of slavery.
NO! Think about it -- how many politicians TODAY are you will to concede
such altruism to? Stevens was an egalitarian by nature, granted, but that
he wished to DESTROY the planter class, in a very personal sense, is
evidenced by the quote cited: Stevens has already done everything in his
power to deprive the planters of their chattel, now he wishes to disposess
them entirely and drive them into exile. This is AFTER the slaves have
been freed, so he can't use that as an excuse anymore. Are these the
desires of the altruistic humanitarian, to bankrupt several thousand
people and drive them into penniless exile?
In thinking of Stevens, I cannot help but recall the Southerner who
greeted news of his death by remarking that Stevens' experience in
ironworking would come in handy ... when he was stoking the fires of the
inferno.
RSMc
Brian Blakistone
rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) wrote:
>In article <4oj92b$f...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>cbla...@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Brian Blakistone) writes:
>> I believe you
>>have it backwards though, he did not want to destroy slavery because
>>he hated the planters, he hated the planters because they were the
>>proponents of slavery.
>NO! Think about it -- how many politicians TODAY are you will to concede
>such altruism to?
His record is altruistic, before he went into politics and before
anti-slavery was popular. He worked for free on fugitive slave cases,
refused work for slaveholders, it is hard to imagine he was prescient
enough to know it would do him good some day. When he was just
getting started as a lawyer, and a rocky start at that, he went to go
buy 300$ worth of law books for his practice. On the way he ran
across a woman crying, her owner was selling her son down South,
Stevens' bought the slave for 300$ and promptly manumitted him. He
once faced down an angry mob of his constituents who violently ran off
an abolitionist, and forced them to allow him to speak in peace. He
died with about $100,000 of IOU's from people who could not afford to
repay him, and that he had not pressed.
>Stevens was an egalitarian by nature, granted, but that
>he wished to DESTROY the planter class, in a very personal sense, is
>evidenced by the quote cited: Stevens has already done everything in his
>power to deprive the planters of their chattel, now he wishes to disposess
>them entirely and drive them into exile. This is AFTER the slaves have
>been freed, so he can't use that as an excuse anymore.
While the 13th did presumably end slavery, the States did not have to
live up to the bill of rights, it was well within their power to
trample on the civil rights of their citizens. Given the black codes,
many thought it was possible to bring back slavery in all but name,
with the state taking over the management of the freedmen from the
slaveholders. You only need to think about what was done with the
15th amendment to see that legal intent and reality can easily
diverge. Here is the last line of his speech you did not quote:
"It is easier and more beneficial to exile seventy thousand proud,
bloated and defiant rebels than to expatriate four million laborers,
native to the soil and loyal to the government."
He did not believe blacks would be safe in areas were the planters
still held most of the economic and political power. He thought the
war provided a unique opportunity to reshape Southern society with a
more equal footing for all. As a model he noted that the Czar forced
land reform on his nobility when the serfs were freed.
> Are these the
>desires of the altruistic humanitarian, to bankrupt several thousand
>people and drive them into penniless exile?
He considered them guilty of a crime, and that the freedmen had helped
prevent that crime. It was a simple solution, serving to punish the
slaveholders, and make sure that the freedmen were not kept in a
penniless peonage. If you look at his legislative record after the
confiscation, there were included several proposals to give the
freedmen _unoccupied_ land in the South, he was much more persistent
in that goal than he was in attempting to confiscate from the former
slaveholders, and he never advocated executions. Here is another
quote:
"Homesteads to them [the freedmen] are much more valuable than the
right of suffrage.... The guardianship of the Freedmen's Bureau, that
benevolent institution, cannot be expected long to protect them....
Make them independent of their old masters, so that they may not be
compelled to work for them upon unfair terms....Nothing is so likely
to make a man a good citizen as to make him a freeholder."
>In thinking of Stevens, I cannot help but recall the Southerner who
>greeted news of his death by remarking that Stevens' experience in
>ironworking would come in handy ... when he was stoking the fires of the
>inferno.
No doubt he worked gleefully to get J. Davis' chair just the right
temperature. :->
Brian
Steven F. Miller
In article <4opmkq$p...@panix2.panix.com>, l...@panix.com (Linda Teasley) wrote:
>Mark Pitcavage (pitm...@zeus.netset.com) wrote:
>
>: Having now read Fleming, I can say that he is an extremely biased writer,
>: and that his sections, for instance, on the Union leagues, contain no
>: objectivity whatsoever.
>
> You obviously haven't checked out John Wallace, who says much the same
>thing. Oops, I forgot, he's a black Democrat and therefore not credible.
>
>Linda T.
I came late to this thread, and the server here seems to be missing some posts
in it, so apologies if this repeats points already made.
First, Walter L. Fleming's work
has not held up as well as other history written by members of the
so-called Dunning school. He did prodigious research, but was far more
overtly Southern-partisan and racist than Dunning himself (who was from New
Jersey, I believe) and many of his students (like James W. Garner, whose
harshest critics were conservative Mississippians who were disgusted that a
native son would write such pro-Yankee garbage). And that's not just my
judgment. In 1907, *Dunning* characterized Fleming's book on Alabama as
"presenting a great mass of social and economic as well as political facts,
with a marked Southern bias in their interpretation." (Dunning,
_Reconstruction: Political and Economic, 1865-1877_, p. 353.) Read Fleming
alongside Sarah Wiggins's book on Alabama scalawags or Michael Fitzgerald's
book on the Union League for much-needed revisions. (Wiggins is very much a
Southern lady, for those keeping score; Fitzgerald is, uh, not.)
As to John Wallace, he's had a longstanding credibility problem, even among
people who share his disdain for Radical Reconstruction. For one thing,
it's not clear that he, rather than his white patron, was the author of
_Carpet-Bag Rule in Florida_. For another, the book is full of errors.
Dunning himself dismissed it as "a crude and untrustworthy review of its
subject." (Ibid, p. 354).
Cordially,
Steven F. Miller
Mark Pitcavage
In article <hubcap.833213038@hubcap>,
System Janitor <hub...@hubcap.clemson.edu> wrote:
>None. You need to cite all the ardent black democrats covered by
>Foner, or give some kind of reason that you can characterize
>Foner as ``objective'', knowing that he ignored or misrepresented
>details whenever it suited him.
.
.
Oh yes, all those ardent black democrats. They must have been the same
people as all those black Confederate soldiers the neo-rebs always talk
about. I think I saw some just the other day, hanging out at the 7-11
with Jim Morrison.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <hubcap.833385742@hubcap>,
System Janitor <hub...@hubcap.clemson.edu> wrote:
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>
>>founded upon ideals of certain inalienable rights, but perhaps I was mistaken
.
>
>the slaves. Not the ones you wish they had, or the ones they deserved,
>but the ones that they had.
They were entitled to all the natural rights that we say belong to human
beings. They had every right to their labor, their freedom, etc. Those rights
were denied. All human beings possess certain natural rights. Whether they
are allowed to exercise those rights by their fellow humans depends upon the
civilization level of those fellow humans.
REB 4 LIFE
In article <4p1hm5$c...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>>>So if I enslave you, you have no rights? I seemed to recall America
being
>>>founded upon ideals of certain inalienable rights, but perhaps I was
>>>mistaken
"System Janitor" replies:
>>Certainly you were mistaken. I challenge you to enumerate the rights of
>>the slaves. Not the ones you wish they had, or the ones they deserved,
>>but the ones that they had.
Then Mark responds:
>They were entitled to all the natural rights that we say belong to human
>beings. They had every right to their labor, their freedom, etc. Those
>rights
>were denied. All human beings possess certain natural rights. Whether
they
>are allowed to exercise those rights by their fellow humans depends upon
the
>civilization level of those fellow humans.
HELLO?? ANYBODY HOME??? That's legal rights, Mark. Surely even
you have heard that term? Not some abstraction like "natural rights".
R4L
System Janitor
pitm...@zeus.netset.com (Mark Pitcavage) writes:
>In article <hubcap.833213038@hubcap>,
>System Janitor <hub...@hubcap.clemson.edu> wrote:
>>None. You need to cite all the ardent black democrats covered by
>>Foner, or give some kind of reason that you can characterize
>>Foner as ``objective'', knowing that he ignored or misrepresented
>>details whenever it suited him.
>people as all those black Confederate soldiers the neo-rebs always talk
>about. I think I saw some just the other day, hanging out at the 7-11
>with Jim Morrison.
I believe you were mistaken, I think it was Martin Delany, maybe he
looks a lot like Jim Morrison.
Since you can't find where Foner discusses black democrats, I'll help you.
It is, after all, difficult, since Foner tends to purposely underplay
important details. On page 574 he mentions that ``Throughout the state,
black Democrats found themselves ostracized...''. Foner doesn't
say ``the'' black Democrat, or ``Both'' black Democrats, but he
says ``Throughout the state, black Democrats''.
Foner doesn't really delve into this, prefering instead to zing off
into the flights of fancy he is so much more comfortable with, so
you'll have to search out some more well rounded sources to learn more
about the hunderds of black Red Shirts and the thousands of
black Hampton supporters.
-Mike
System Janitor
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>>Certainly you were mistaken. I challenge you to enumerate the rights of
>>the slaves. Not the ones you wish they had, or the ones they deserved,
>>but the ones that they had.
>beings. They had every right to their labor, their freedom, etc. Those rights
>were denied. All human beings possess certain natural rights. Whether they
>are allowed to exercise those rights by their fellow humans depends upon the
>civilization level of those fellow humans.
Bzzzzt. My challenge specifically disallows you from foaming at the
mouth about the rights you wish they had...
Heck, I didn't think you could do it anyway...
Worked any more on your Elliot manifesto?
-Mike
Stephen Schmidt
Someone, I think Mike:
>>>>They had *no* right to their labor. They were slaves.
Mark:
>>>So if I enslave you, you have no rights? I seemed to recall America being
>>>founded upon ideals of certain inalienable rights, but perhaps I was
>>> mistaken.
System Janitor <hub...@hubcap.clemson.edu> wrote:
>>Certainly you were mistaken. I challenge you to enumerate the rights of
>>the slaves. Not the ones you wish they had, or the ones they deserved,
>>but the ones that they had.
And again mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>They were entitled to all the natural rights that we say belong to human
>beings. They had every right to their labor, their freedom, etc. Those
>rights were denied. All human beings possess certain natural rights.
>Whether they are allowed to exercise those rights by their fellow humans
>depends upon the civilization level of those fellow humans.
Strikes me that Mark has contradicted himself. If the certain
rights are inalienable, then the slaves had them. Inalienable
means they can't be taken away. If those rights are not inalienable,
then it is quite difficult to understand why Mark cited a document
which says they are. If they are inalienable, it becomes even more
difficult to explain 19th century history.
The real problem is the doublethink of the Declaration. I don't
know what Thomas Jefferson was smoking, but you can't claim that
your right to self-government is "inalienable" and then claim
that the King of England has taken it away from you.
What Jefferson clearly meant is something along the concept of
natural rights (although I confess I find it odd to see such a
neo-conservative concept as "natural" rights emerging from
Mark's keyboard). But natural rights, even assuming they exist
(I would deny that they do), are clearly alienable, as is obvious
from reading the history of pretty much any country or era of
world history.
Mike's position is, however, a rather uncomfortable one. If all
rights are given by law, and if the law simultaneously asserts
that some men are slaves, then by definition it is not a violation
of anyone's rights to enslave them, as long as they are legally
subject to enslavement. Why, then, should we not re-establish
slavery, if we do it within the legal structure of the
Constitution? I would ask Mike to provide an answer that
explains why re-establishing slavery (say, by repeal of the
13th Amendment) would be morally wrong, but having slavery in 1859
was not morally wrong. (Unless he's willing to agree that slavery
was morally wrong in 1859: I can't recall enough of the upthread
discussion to remember whether that's his position or not. But
if slavery was wrong in 1859, then surely the slaves had _some_
rights that were being violated?)
ObCivilWar: Two days ago, June 2, was the 131st anniversary
of E. Kirby Smith's surrender of the last major body of
Confederate troops.
Steve
--
Stephen Schmidt Department of Economics
210A Social Sciences Union College
(518) 388-6078 Schenectady NY 12308
Justin M Sanders
Stephen Schmidt (schm...@unvax.union.edu) wrote:
> Strikes me that Mark has contradicted himself. If the certain
> rights are inalienable, then the slaves had them. Inalienable
> means they can't be taken away. If those rights are not inalienable,
> then it is quite difficult to understand why Mark cited a document
> which says they are. If they are inalienable, it becomes even more
> difficult to explain 19th century history.
Actually, "inalienable" means that one cannot sell, give away, or
otherwise transfer something. In Natural Rights theory (a la Locke or
Rousseau), one cannot voluntarily agree to be someone else's slave.
Steve's paradox is cleared up when one realizes that one can have the
right to something without actually having the thing. Steve has a right
to his own liberty, but that does not prevent someone from enslaving him.
It means rather, that the person doing the enslaving is morally culpable
for the act.
The slaves in antebellum America had the right to freedom-- that they
were held in bondage by the superior force of others does not detract
from that right.
--
Justin M. Sanders "I will listen to any hypothesis on
Dept. of Physics but one condition-- that you show me
Univ. of South Alabama a method by which it can be tested."
jsan...@jaguar1.usouthal.edu --August Wilhelm von Hofmann
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <1996Jun5.0...@unvax.union.edu>,
Stephen Schmidt <schm...@unvax.union.edu> wrote:
>Someone, I think Mike:
>>>>>They had *no* right to their labor. They were slaves.
>
>Mark:
>>>>So if I enslave you, you have no rights? I seemed to recall America being
>>>>founded upon ideals of certain inalienable rights, but perhaps I was
>>>> mistaken.
>
>System Janitor <hub...@hubcap.clemson.edu> wrote:
>>>Certainly you were mistaken. I challenge you to enumerate the rights of
>>>the slaves. Not the ones you wish they had, or the ones they deserved,
>>>but the ones that they had.
>
>And again mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>>They were entitled to all the natural rights that we say belong to human
>>beings. They had every right to their labor, their freedom, etc. Those
>>rights were denied. All human beings possess certain natural rights.
>>Whether they are allowed to exercise those rights by their fellow humans
>>depends upon the civilization level of those fellow humans.
>
>rights are inalienable, then the slaves had them. Inalienable
>means they can't be taken away. If those rights are not inalienable,
>then it is quite difficult to understand why Mark cited a document
>which says they are. If they are inalienable, it becomes even more
>difficult to explain 19th century history.
Inalienable means they cannot be given or transferred away. It does not mean
that tyrants cannot attempt to suppress them.
>The real problem is the doublethink of the Declaration. I don't
>know what Thomas Jefferson was smoking, but you can't claim that
>your right to self-government is "inalienable" and then claim
>that the King of England has taken it away from you.
Actually, one can claim exactly that, with no contradiction at all.
System Janitor
schm...@unvax.union.edu (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>Someone, I think Mike:
>>>>>They had *no* right to their labor. They were slaves.
>System Janitor <hub...@hubcap.clemson.edu> wrote:
>>>Certainly you were mistaken. I challenge you to enumerate the rights of
>>>the slaves. Not the ones you wish they had, or the ones they deserved,
>>>but the ones that they had.
>Mike's position is, however, a rather uncomfortable one.
The position that history provides us is uncomfortable. I don't
claim it as my own, but I think you can look back and see that I've
never tried to sweep it under the rug...
>I would ask Mike to provide an answer that
>explains why re-establishing slavery (say, by repeal of the
>13th Amendment) would be morally wrong, but having slavery in 1859
>was not morally wrong. (Unless he's willing to agree that slavery
>was morally wrong in 1859: I can't recall enough of the upthread
>discussion to remember whether that's his position or not. But
>if slavery was wrong in 1859, then surely the slaves had _some_
>rights that were being violated?)
We can't reinstitute slavery, because all that philosophical crap
that Mark was spouting is basically true, and we mostly all know it.
Most of what Mark has to say has nothing to do with history, but it is true,
and we know it.
What are morals? I think they are a sometimes written, sometimes
unwritten, definition of the fundamental difference between
right and wrong agreed upon by society. Don't tell me the H man
thought he was right, nobody agreed with him. Society
generally accepted slavery in 1800, by 1859 society was
sectionalized by the issue. We have now progressed to a point where
society's view of slavery is 180 degrees from where it was 200 years
ago. I don't feel compelled to look down my nose at the Southerners, and
I don't have a lot of patience for those who self righteously do.
Slaves had rights that were being violated. Some were treated poorly.
Some were ditched after they were too old or too ill to work. There
were written and unwritten guidelines on their proper care.
But, other than philosophically, they didn't have the rights Mark
wishes they had.
-Mike