slavery

[Hugh Lawson]

Which do you believe?

1. Since slavery must expand or die, the Lincoln program of halting its
expansion was a death sentence.

2. The slaveowners would have been safe in the enjoyment of slaveowning
for generations had they not provoked a crisis by seceding.

3. Or, something else.

[Wiregrass Willie]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 20:08:24 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

From my reading on the subject, I'd suggest that had there been no
secession, slavery would not have been abolished until about 1900.
I suppose even the South would have had to give it up after Brazil did
in 1895. Even the larger planters would have gotten embarrassed
being the only civilized people on Earth that practiced it.

On the other hand, had the secession been successful, I'd guess
slavery in the Southern states would have remained until the early
1930s. At which time the worldwide depression might have taken the
glow off slave ownership.

[Hugh Lawson]

Here's a wikipedia on slavery's ending in Brazil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Brazil#The_end_of_slavery

[Hugh Lawson]

Good speculations, W.W.

What do you think about these?

The Republican formula of antislavery, protective tariff, and homesteads
promotes thinking about how to hobble slavery. This induces pessimism
among slaveowners about the future of slavery, and in turn crashes slave
prices. This in turn makes compensated emancipation more possible.

These developments promote a "take the money and run" spirit among
slaveowners, which further depresses slave prices.

Meanwhile, young antislavery adventurers seeking to one-up John Brown
begin to try different means to promote a rebellion. The advance of
six-shooters and repeating rifles facilitates this. Although a big
rebellion doesn't happen, the richer southerners begin to look for other
ways to stay rich.

Some slave states (Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri) drop out of "the
South" and join "the North". The creaking balance of power in Congress
promotes further pessimism about the future of slavery.

These might make compensated emancipation way cheaper than a war, by say
1885.

[MITO MINISTER]

On Aug 16, 8:28 am, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_willieO...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 20:08:24 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com>

All speculation. It was good that 500,000 White Southerners died and
the South was destroyed in the process that ended slavery. Revenge for
350 years of murder, torture, rape and bondage. The South got what it
deserved and it's lucky in that it really deserved even more in the
way of retribution for its crimes. The federal government today, in
2012, would be justified in prosecuting those Whites who enforced Jim
Crow until 1965 and beyond.

[Garrett]

On 8/28/2012 7:03 AM, MITO MINISTER wrote:
> On Aug 16, 8:28 am, Hugh Lawson<hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Some slave states (Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri) drop out of "the
>> South" and join "the North". The creaking balance of power in Congress
>> promotes further pessimism about the future of slavery.
>>
>> These might make compensated emancipation way cheaper than a war, by say
>> 1885.
>
> All speculation. It was good that 500,000 White Southerners died

Less than 300,000.

>and the South was destroyed in the process that ended slavery.

The South was not destroyed. But it was impoverished for a generation.
By 1900, it had recovered and was doing better than ever.

The good part of the War was that slavery was abolished. The evil
part was the Negro was not returned to his homeland.

>Revenge for 350 years of murder, torture, rape

No doubt there was some slave rape in those days. A lot of it by
Yankees working as overseers. Actually most mulattoes were produced
-- not by rape -- but by prostitution. As in:

"Ol' Massa ! If you give me the day off, I be giving you some...."

> and bondage. The South got what it
> deserved and it's lucky in that it really deserved even more in the
> way of retribution for its crimes. The federal government today, in
> 2012, would be justified in prosecuting those Whites who enforced Jim
> Crow until 1965 and beyond.

How could they punish anybody for enforcing a moral and Constitutional law ?

[MITO MINISTER]

On Aug 29, 1:50 am, Garrett <x...@none.com> wrote:

> > All speculation. It was good that 500,000 White Southerners died
>
> Less than 300,000.
>
> >and the South was destroyed in the process that ended slavery.
>
> The South was not destroyed.  But it was impoverished for a generation.
>    By 1900,  it had recovered and was doing better than ever.
>
> The good part of the War was that slavery was abolished.    The evil
> part was the Negro was not returned to his homeland.
>
> >Revenge for 350 years of murder, torture, rape
>
> No doubt there was some slave rape in those days.     A lot of it by
> Yankees working as overseers.    Actually most mulattoes were produced
> -- not by rape -- but by prostitution.   As in:
>
> "Ol' Massa !  If you give me the day off, I be giving you some...."
>
> > and bondage. The South got what it
> > deserved and it's lucky in that it really deserved even more in the
> > way of retribution for its crimes. The federal government today, in
> > 2012, would be justified in prosecuting those Whites who enforced Jim
> > Crow until 1965 and beyond.
>
> How could they punish anybody for enforcing a moral and Constitutional law ?

===========

Jim Crow was not moral. You fail. Go to jail.

And what is this bullshit about "Yankee overseers"? White Southerners
buy and abuse slaves, and you blame them thar Yankees? That dog won't
hunt.

The evil is that the Southern White man was not deported to Europe or
denied citizenship or imprisoned. Millions of them.

It would be justifiable if today, in 2012, the federal gub'ment were
to round up 50,000 White Boys and try them for a host of offenses.
Damn straight!

White Southerners are traitors to Humanity.

[Joel Edge]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 00:52:06 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article
<8787124f-6ee2-46d6...@wm7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):

> On Aug 29, 1:50ï¿œam, Garrett <x...@none.com> wrote:
>
>>> All speculation. It was good that 500,000 White Southerners died
>>
>> Less than 300,000.
>>
>>> and the South was destroyed in the process that ended slavery.
>>

>> The South was not destroyed. ï¿œBut it was impoverished for a generation.
>> ￜ ￜBy 1900, ￜit had recovered and was doing better than ever.
>>
>> The good part of the War was that slavery was abolished. ￜ ￜThe evil

>> part was the Negro was not returned to his homeland.
>>
>>> Revenge for 350 years of murder, torture, rape
>>

>> No doubt there was some slave rape in those days. ￜ ￜ A lot of it by
>> Yankees working as overseers. ￜ ￜActually most mulattoes were produced
>> -- not by rape -- but by prostitution. ￜ As in:
>>
>> "Ol' Massa ! ï¿œIf you give me the day off, I be giving you some...."

>>
>>> and bondage. The South got what it
>>> deserved and it's lucky in that it really deserved even more in the
>>> way of retribution for its crimes. The federal government today, in
>>> 2012, would be justified in prosecuting those Whites who enforced Jim
>>> Crow until 1965 and beyond.
>>
>> How could they punish anybody for enforcing a moral and Constitutional law ?
>
> ===========
>
> Jim Crow was not moral. You fail. Go to jail.
>
> And what is this bullshit about "Yankee overseers"? White Southerners
> buy and abuse slaves, and you blame them thar Yankees? That dog won't
> hunt.
>
> The evil is that the Southern White man was not deported to Europe or
> denied citizenship or imprisoned. Millions of them.
>
> It would be justifiable if today, in 2012, the federal gub'ment were
> to round up 50,000 White Boys and try them for a host of offenses.
> Damn straight!
>
> White Southerners are traitors to Humanity.

So this where you go to blather. Are you having an easier time of it here?
Probably not.
Good to see the group is still operating.

[MITO MINISTER]

On Sep 1, 7:48 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 00:52:06 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
> (in article

> <8787124f-6ee2-46d6-8918-444c0db93...@wm7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 29, 1:50 am, Garrett <x...@none.com> wrote:
>
> >>> All speculation. It was good that 500,000 White Southerners died
>
> >> Less than 300,000.
>
> >>> and the South was destroyed in the process that ended slavery.
>

> >> The South was not destroyed.  But it was impoverished for a generation.
> >>    By 1900,  it had recovered and was doing better than ever.
>
> >> The good part of the War was that slavery was abolished.    The evil

> >> part was the Negro was not returned to his homeland.
>
> >>> Revenge for 350 years of murder, torture, rape
>

> >> No doubt there was some slave rape in those days.     A lot of it by
> >> Yankees working as overseers.    Actually most mulattoes were produced
> >> -- not by rape -- but by prostitution.   As in:
>
> >> "Ol' Massa !  If you give me the day off, I be giving you some...."

>
> >>> and bondage. The South got what it
> >>> deserved and it's lucky in that it really deserved even more in the
> >>> way of retribution for its crimes. The federal government today, in
> >>> 2012, would be justified in prosecuting those Whites who enforced Jim
> >>> Crow until 1965 and beyond.
>
> >> How could they punish anybody for enforcing a moral and Constitutional law ?
>
> > ===========
>
> > Jim Crow was not moral. You fail. Go to jail.
>
> > And what is this bullshit about "Yankee overseers"? White Southerners
> > buy and abuse slaves, and you blame them thar Yankees? That dog won't
> > hunt.
>
> > The evil is that the Southern White man was not deported to Europe or
> > denied citizenship or imprisoned. Millions of them.
>
> > It would be justifiable if today, in 2012, the federal gub'ment were
> > to round up 50,000 White Boys and try them for a host of offenses.
> > Damn straight!
>
> > White Southerners are traitors to Humanity.
>
> So this where you go to blather. Are you having an easier time of it here?
> Probably not.
> Good to see the group is still operating.

You' re an internet stalker as well. Figures. This group is as absurd
as the other one. Unrepentant neo-confederates, although here they
pretend to be progressive. You're just an out-and-out old-time
segregationist.

Southern Whites - the most despised group of Humanity!

[HankC]

The upper south was rapidly losing slaves and slaveholders and gaining
immigrants.

The ratio of slave-holders (political power) was decreasing.
Eventually, these states would abolish slavery.

As slave states became fewer, they became more desperate.

one could project that, without Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and
Virginia in their corner, slave-holders would cross a tipping point
from which there was no recovery.

In fact, the key to secession was having the more populous upper south
states secede with the lower south...


HankC

[Hugh Lawson]

In general this seems right. Maybe unintentionally, it locates the
cause entirely within "the South". But there were non-southern causes
of secession: the Republicans.

Republicans believed that slavery should be placed on the road to its
ultimate extinction. They had no set timetable, but they had lots of
ideas about how to do this.

Hence they could encourage the developments in the upper south HankC
describes. Eventually, they might make the future of slavery so
uncertain that in some states compensated emancipation might start
looking good to owners ready to "take the money and run", as the West
Indian owners did when politics made the future of slavery there
uncertain.

These considerations explain why I'm intrigued by Gavin Wright's
proposal of an economic cause of secession in 1860: the underlying fear
that "agitation against slavery" might pop the slave-price bubble of the
1850s, and destabilize the slave regimes.

[HankC]

> 1850s, and destabilize the slave regimes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

as President, Lincoln would be appointing many Republicans to
patronage positions: US Marshal, postmaster and customs agents for
example. They'd be entering a previously Democratic, overwhelmingly
pro-slavery, civil infrastructure.

This scared the pro-slave oligarchy tremendously.

these thoughts are best explained in 'road to disunion' whose author
slips my memory: Freehling?

[Hugh Lawson]

HankC <cla...@missouri.edu> writes:

[ snip ]

> as President, Lincoln would be appointing many Republicans to
> patronage positions: US Marshal, postmaster and customs agents for
> example. They'd be entering a previously Democratic, overwhelmingly
> pro-slavery, civil infrastructure.
>
> This scared the pro-slave oligarchy tremendously.
>
> these thoughts are best explained in 'road to disunion' whose author
> slips my memory: Freehling?

That's the author, Wm Freehling.

Add to that Eric Foner, Free Soil Free Laor Free Men. This is an
exposition of the ideological quest of the Republicans and earlier
free-soilers, antislavery types, and so on. They had lots of ideas on
how to put slavery on the road to "ultimate extinction".

Many want to make out the slaveowners as not only wrong on the moral
question, but also irrational to fear for the future of slavery. If one
assumes that there was no threat to slavery, then one may not take
seriously enough Republican ideology and goals.

Then when you add in the unmatched invective of Charles Sumner, with his
devastating speeches excoriating the "slave power".

This brings up a question, how to accommodate the fact that there was
opposition to secession even in the deep south?

[MITO MINISTER]

Or: answer your own questions, Perfesser. Class ended a long time ago.