Was Slavery secondary reason for Civil War ?
Wiregrass Willie
It seems the preacher at the Old South Church in Massachusetts had
arrived at the idea that the Antebellum South was more feudal than
democratic 150 years ago. If he is right, I suppose we could
honestly say that it was not slavery that caused the war -- but
feudalism. It's hard for a country to stay united when it's half
democracy and half feudal.
--------------------------------------------
Discourse from the Old South Church -- Reading Mass Dec 28, 1862
page 9
There is another cause of the rebellion, lying far deeper than
slavery, and of which indeed slavery is but a fruit. The type of
Southern civilization is feudal and mediaeval, and so is averse to
republicanism. It is in the Colonial blood of the South, being more
Norman than Saxon, to have a government of aristocracy, oligarchy, or
monarchy. The temper and preference of the South do not favor
democracy and the masses.
scott s.
news:omt8565mt5eie2ffq...@4ax.com:
I think the case can be made that the problem of slavery didn't have
to result in war (the irrepressible conflict) but the aristocratic
nature of South Carolina in particular pushed things in that direction.
But you also have to look at what changed between the nullification
crisis, which did not result in war, and the republican election
crisis which did.
scott s.
David
I hear local leaders state this of me, and I'M white.
Slavery was more of a motivator, as not all were beaten as they say. Hell,
I still hear some blacks say how hard their life was, grew up rough and
tumble on the streets, and they look like Michael Jackson with the Digital
Vibe Thriller.
Only the Historians will figure this out, with proclaimed statement.
It's an interesting note that many still hold a grudge, and wish to revamp
the past.
This war, the current Terrorist thing, Past World Wars, and Street Life are
all pressing in again.
"Wiregrass Willie" <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:omt8565mt5eie2ffq...@4ax.com...
Hugh Lawson
> I think the case can be made that the problem of slavery didn't have
> to result in war (the irrepressible conflict) but the aristocratic
> nature of South Carolina in particular pushed things in that direction.
> But you also have to look at what changed between the nullification
> crisis, which did not result in war, and the republican election
> crisis which did.
The desire to protect slavery was the cause of secession. This is made
very clear in the resolutions of the various state secession
conventions.
And Lincoln was determined to maintain US sovereignty over the seceded
states. Contested sovereignty over territory is one of the most common
precipitating causes of wars.
Was slavery threatened by the election of Lincoln? Yes, of
course. Lincoln and his party were committed to excluding slavery from
the territories, as the first step toward the "ultimate extinction" of
the institution. How else could they threaten slavery?
They could increase the size of the supreme court and appoint judges who
believed that slavery had no constitutional protection. They could use
the spoils system to foster the Republican party in the upper south,
encouraging antislavery in those states. They could abolish slavery in
the District of Columbia. They could regulate, even outlaw, interstate
commerce in human beings. (Congress has the clear power to regulate
interstate commerce.) They could figure out some way to tax slaves.
Thus, even lacking the votes to outlaw slavery, they could put the
institution on notice that it's prospects were dimming.
During the 1850s, there had been a sharp increase in slave prices. If
the future of the institution started looking gloomier, this could cause
a crash in the price of slaves. Remember that for slaveowners had more
value in their slaves than in their land. (See Gavin Wright, Political
Economy of the Cotton South, where I learned the ideas in this para.)
HL
Michael Mehaffey
> the future of the institution started looking gloomier, this could cause
> a crash in the price of slaves. Remember that for slaveowners had more
> value in their slaves than in their land. (See Gavin Wright, Political
> Economy of the Cotton South, where I learned the ideas in this para.)
>
> HL
I believe the total value of slaves was about 4 billion dollars, an
astronomical amount of money in those days and certainly the kind of
wealth akin to a modern day Arab sheik, nor would any typical group of
men with these holdings part with them willingly
Michael Mehaffey.
Hugh Lawson
Wright is interesting on this. He argues that slaveholders because of
the fast, recent runup in prices, feared that confidence would be shaken
by Lincoln's administration, and that a sort of sellers' panic might set
in, which would crash the market for slaves. Since slaveowners had more
wealth tied up in slaves than in land, this was a fearful idea.
Busts, like booms, feed on expectation, and especially on expectations
of what other people might do.
One might say, "Well, I'm not fearful about the future, but a lot of
these idiots are, and we need to do something to bolster their
confidence in the future of slavery. If they get too fearful, they will
try to be the first ones to sell before the bottom drops out."
Michael Mehaffey
> There is another cause of the rebellion, lying far deeper than
> slavery, and of which indeed slavery is but a fruit. The type of
> Southern civilization is feudal and mediaeval, and so is averse to
> republicanism. It is in the Colonial blood of the South, being more
> Norman than Saxon, to have a government of aristocracy, oligarchy, or
> monarchy. The temper and preference of the South do not favor
> democracy and the masses.
>
> http://www.archive.org/details/warslaverytheirr00barr
This actually is a different view of the old Southern justification
for slavery. That the 'peculiar institution' also was necessary for a
chivalrous civilization to flourish; i.e., a warrior society does not
do menial labor. Only people with white skin are capable of possessing
the sort of honor and skills to comprise a warrior society, while
menial labor is the duty of the darker races. Southern pro-slavery
intellectuals referred back to European chivalry as a precedent, and
argued that their culture was a keeper of these older, more honorable,
intrinsically greater civilizations.
Of course the problem with this argument is that Western Europe put a
stop to slavery by the end of the 11th Century. Church canon forbade
it, so that European chivalry, since it was based on Christianity,
could not sanction slavery at all. There was serfdom, but serfs had
rights and were not anybody's personal property. Thus, the 'hearkening
back to chivalry', just like racial superiority, is based more on
unreality than reality.
Michael Mehaffey
Michael Mehaffey
> Wright is interesting on this. He argues that slaveholders because of
> the fast, recent runup in prices, feared that confidence would be shaken
> by Lincoln's administration, and that a sort of sellers' panic might set
> in, which would crash the market for slaves. Since slaveowners had more
> wealth tied up in slaves than in land, this was a fearful idea.
So it was market prices?
I've always wondered why the South just didn't pack it in, wait it out
for four years, and try again; after all, Lincoln barely won, and
there were ways to take back both sections of Congress (I think the
Democrats had majorities, or am I wrong?) and wasn't the Supreme
Court stacked in their favor?
How about that.
Michael Mehaffey
Gregory E. Garland
@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, michael....@gmail.com says...
>
> > Wright is interesting on this. He argues that slaveholders because of
> > the fast, recent runup in prices, feared that confidence would be shaken
> > by Lincoln's administration, and that a sort of sellers' panic might set
> > in, which would crash the market for slaves. Since slaveowners had more
> > wealth tied up in slaves than in land, this was a fearful idea.
>
> So it was market prices?
No.
>
> I've always wondered why the South just didn't pack it in, wait it out
> for four years, and try again; after all, Lincoln barely won, and
> there were ways to take back both sections of Congress (I think the
> Democrats had majorities, or am I wrong?)
The southern democrats deliberately broke the party apart on the issue
of slavery in the 1860 convention.
> and wasn't the Supreme
> Court stacked in their favor?
Yes, and the willingness of the southern justices to pervert the law of
the land in favor of slavery as shown in the Dred Scott decision gave a
massive boost to the nascent Republican party.
>
> How about that.
Yes, how about that? You claim that "logic" dictated that they could
merely wait out a current unfavorable bump in the election results. Yet
they repeatedly and explicitly stated that they were leaving right now
(in 1860-61) because of the perceived a threat to their "peculiar
institution". Those are the unassailable facts.
I'm am not willing to call you a liar at this point, but you should be
aware that your refrain is a familiar starting point for a certain
branch of the confederate apologista. The "it was a regrettable
situation of economics that just evolved to no one's plan", "it was a
cultural issue due to the different ethnicities of northern and southern
colonists", and (most glaringly) "my ancestors were poor scots-irish; we
didn't have any slaves so how could we be in favor of slavery?" These
are not logical arguments; these are pathetic whining. The vast majority
of white southerners either jumped in willingly or acquiesced with _no_
public objection to the aims of the secessionists. The historical record
shows _exactly_ what they did before, during, and after the civil war;
there is no room for excuses.
--
Gregory E. Garland - Alive, occupying space, and exerting gravitational
force
Michael Mehaffey
> In article <fa3ce931-527b-4248-b719-8760ca6c4898
Hold on, pal, wait minute.
Try reading the whole thread before rushing to judgment.
Obviously, if I thought that secession was caused by a fear of losing
money because of the dropping in the market of slaves' value as a
commodity, then slavery was the root cause of secession.
Michael Mehaffey
.
Hugh Lawson
>> Wright is interesting on this. He argues that slaveholders because of
>> the fast, recent runup in prices, feared that confidence would be shaken
>> by Lincoln's administration, and that a sort of sellers' panic might set
>> in, which would crash the market for slaves. Since slaveowners had more
>> wealth tied up in slaves than in land, this was a fearful idea.
>
> So it was market prices?
Strictly speaking, the idea is that
1. in the 1850s there was a big rise in slave prices
2. as Wright puts it, in the 1850s a slaveowner had a nice gain in net
worth if he just kept his slaves alive.
3. hence, there was a corresponding perceived threat that something my
panic some slaveowners into selling out, setting off a chain reaction in
which many others would *have* to sell out, due to debts etc.
4. the big threat to slaveholder confidence came from the rise of a
northern antislavery party. Secession is a political cure for the
political threat. Get out of the US and fortify slavery against threats
in the US.
> I've always wondered why the South just didn't pack it in, wait it out
> for four years, and try again; after all, Lincoln barely won, and
> there were ways to take back both sections of Congress (I think the
> Democrats had majorities, or am I wrong?) and wasn't the Supreme
> Court stacked in their favor?
Those are obvious questions. Can you see that Wright's suggestion,
recapped above provides an answer?
The danger they wanted to flee, Wright suggests, was *psychological*, a
decline in confidence in slave-price futures.
The Republicans were not pushing immediate abolition, but Lincoln made
it as clear as could be that his goal was the "ultimate extinction" of
the peculiar institution. Judging from his ante-bellum remarks he
expected that to require a lot of time.
Hugh
Hugh Lawson
> Hold on, pal, wait minute.
>
> Try reading the whole thread before rushing to judgment.
> Obviously, if I thought that secession was caused by a fear of losing
> money because of the dropping in the market of slaves' value as a
> commodity, then slavery was the root cause of secession.
I wish Gregory would tell us more about himself.
Hugh
Gregory E. Garland
@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, michael....@gmail.com says...
Secession wasn't caused by fear of losing money; it was caused by fear
of losing slavery, period. There is no rush to judgment, but there is a
consistent pattern familiar to all of attempting to squirm away from
that simple truth.
slotrot
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Then, you would be right.
Hugh Lawson
Michael writes:
>> Hold on, pal, wait minute.
>>
>> Try reading the whole thread before rushing to judgment.
>> Obviously, if I thought that secession was caused by a fear of losing
>> money because of the dropping in the market of slaves' value as a
>> commodity, then slavery was the root cause of secession.
>>
Gregory declares:
> Secession wasn't caused by fear of losing money; it was caused by fear
> of losing slavery, period.
Hugh replies:
Many argue that slavery was not under immediate threat, which raises the
question, why secede immediately? Why not play for time, securing
slavery for another generation?
A possible answer is that they wanted to save slavery AND the wealth
they had tied up in it right then. Many in the US thought slavery would
last much longer there.
HL
Ray OHara
"Hugh Lawson" <hla...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:87d3tzr...@desktop.xx.yy...
Gregory is right.
and he is also right about the standard " my family didn't own slaves and we
fought blah blah blah."
Hugh Lawson
[ snip of Garland ]
>> Gregory E. Garland - Alive, occupying space, and exerting gravitational
>> force
>
> Hold on, pal, wait minute.
>
> Try reading the whole thread before rushing to judgment.
> Obviously, if I thought that secession was caused by a fear of losing
> money because of the dropping in the market of slaves' value as a
> commodity, then slavery was the root cause of secession.
Don't let Gregory Garland bother you. He's a sort of Titus Oates,
trying to sniff out, and excoriate neoConfederates.
Now and then his accusations are correct.
Hugh
scott s.
>
> Many argue that slavery was not under immediate threat, which raises
> the question, why secede immediately? Why not play for time,
> securing slavery for another generation?
>
> A possible answer is that they wanted to save slavery AND the wealth
> they had tied up in it right then. Many in the US thought slavery
> would last much longer there.
The problem of high slave prices resulted in a net movement of slaves
from the upper south to the cotton belt, because slaves didn't have
nearly the utility in the upper south of the 1850s. The cotton belt
realized that decreasing slavery in the upper south meant that they
were less sympathetic to their problems and this would increase with
time. A seceeded south that did not include the upper south was
seen as unsustainable, which is why when the secession boomlet was
receding in Spring 61 they took military action to force the upper
south into secession.
scott s.
.
Hugh Lawson
Why would bombarding Fort Sumter force the upper south into secession?
HL
Ray OHara
"Hugh Lawson" <hla...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:87hbjbp...@desktop.xx.yy...
read some history and find out how it did.
this isn't a hypothetical Hugh it all happened and there are records.
it's not "how would" it's "how did" a much different thing.
Hugh Lawson
>> Why would bombarding Fort Sumter force the upper south into secession?
>>
>> HL
Ray O.
> read some history and find out how it did.
> this isn't a hypothetical Hugh it all happened and there are records.
> it's not "how would" it's "how did" a much different thing.
How did the firing cause the upper south to secede?
Michael Mehaffey
>
> Secession wasn't caused by fear of losing money; it was caused by fear
> of losing slavery, period. There is no rush to judgment, but there is a
> consistent pattern familiar to all of attempting to squirm away from
> that simple truth.
>
> --
> Gregory E. Garland - Alive, occupying space, and exerting gravitational
> force
So if it owning slaves cost more money than they were worth, the
owners would still want to hold on to them?
How ridiculous.
I've got news for you. It's *always* about money.
Michael Mehaffey
Gregory E. Garland
@l14g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, michael....@gmail.com says...
>
> >
> > Secession wasn't caused by fear of losing money; it was caused by fear
> > of losing slavery, period. There is no rush to judgment, but there is a
> > consistent pattern familiar to all of attempting to squirm away from
> > that simple truth.
> >
>
> owners would still want to hold on to them?
> How ridiculous.
>
> I've got news for you. It's *always* about money.
>
And once again the regrettable truth is revealed; yet another
confederate apologista has come here to peddle his bald-faced lies about
the cause of the civil war. At least the 1860/61 traitors, whatever
their other defects, were honest enough to explicitly state why they
were betraying their country. Your ancestors (and mine) proudly
proclaimed that they were breaking the nation apart solely for the base
reason of protecting the institution of slavery. Every attempt you make
to try and twist away from that simple historical fact defines your
ultimate agenda, which is _not_ justifying the actions of the south in
the civil war. Another racist bigot reveals himself to the world... how
totally unsurprising.
Hugh Lawson
> So if it owning slaves cost more money than they were worth, the
> owners would still want to hold on to them?
> How ridiculous.
>
> I've got news for you. It's *always* about money.
>
> Michael Mehaffey
Gregory is correct that the preservation of slavery was the motive for
secession. He is dogmatic in his assertion that money fears could have
nothing to do with the *timing* of secession.
My view is that the Gavin Wright explanation does not affect the
fundamental motive (preservation of slavery), but rather the motive for
the timing of secession *in 1860-61*.
A thought experiment in historical alternatives may work.
Why didn't the slaveholders stay in the union tentatively, as some of
them suggested, and maneuver politically in Congress. They might have
bargained, e.g. extract concessions in exchange for giving up their
demands for slavery in the territories. They could have blocked things
the Republicans wanted (protective tariff, homestead), until they got
some guarantees.
They could have dropped the fugitive slave law, and agreed to abide by
what the free states would do about runaways. If that happened, then the
underground railroad would have needed no Canadian terminus.
Students of European history may recall the tactics of the various
nationalities in the Hapsburg empire in the pre-WWI period.
Alex. Stephens speech on this point in the Ga. secession convention,
opposing immediate secession, was a pretty good argument, basically,
"Wait and see."
So why didn't they wait a while? The usual answer is, "They were
crazy." Or, "They were members of a blundering generation."
Simply to say, "It was slavery," is not enough. It's already clear that
"it was slavery". But why did concern about slavery require immediate
secession in 1860?
Here's where Wright comes in. If there was a fear of possible near-term
collapse in slave prices, then that would explain why Stephens-type
wait-and-see arguments were ignored. This might also help explain why,
in the wake of secession in the deep south, there was a sudden
relaxation of tension, as if a great threat had been reduced.
Hugh
Michael Mehaffey
> Gregory is correct that the preservation of slavery was the motive for
> secession. He is dogmatic in his assertion that money fears could have
> nothing to do with the *timing* of secession.
I think he's a simpleton who can't see the forest from the trees.
> Simply to say, "It was slavery," is not enough. It's already clear that
> "it was slavery". But why did concern about slavery require immediate
> secession in 1860?
>
> Here's where Wright comes in. If there was a fear of possible near-term
> collapse in slave prices, then that would explain why Stephens-type
> wait-and-see arguments were ignored. This might also help explain why,
> in the wake of secession in the deep south, there was a sudden
> relaxation of tension, as if a great threat had been reduced.
Allright. Well said. I've just finished reading a fine book by a
leading East Tennessee Unionist, Oliver Perry Temple.
The book is _East Tennessee and the Civil War_.
Mr. Temple was one of the main organizers who kept East Tennessee in
favor of staying in the Union. So he was actually there firsthand.
For him, to secede was a serious mistake for a planter who was in
support of slavery. That was his motive for opposing secession; he was
a slaveowner and wanted to remain one; that was the opinion of his
peers, such as Andrew Johnson, or Gannaway Brownlow, editor of _The
Knoxville Whig_.
According to Mr. Temple, most Southern slaveowners agreed with his
point of view, and were generally Whig in political leanings. They
were conservative people who didn't want too much change that would
upset their way of life. Only two states, South Carolina and
Mississippi, had a majority of secessionists. It was a minority
faction, the Fire Eating Secessionists, campaigning continuously for
years, that changed everything. They relentlessly disseminated
propaganda and speakers to all areas of the Southern states, and meted
out disinformation to get the masses to mobilize behind their agenda.
They claimed that Mr. Lincoln would put an end to slavery, which every
thoughtful and informed man knew was not true. But in 1860. it didn't
matter; if a Whig slaveowner voiced his objections, he was howled down
as a coward. Against this he had to then defend himself. Usually, the
Whig would give in to the rabble rousing for fear that he would lose
his standing, business and contacts in the community. In this way,
most Southerners were corralled into secessionism.
It seems that in East Tennessee, which was and is Southern in culture
and temperament, a Whig leadership emerged to counteract against this
trend.
When the first Southern states initially seceded, leaving states in
the Upper South sitting on the fence, there was a tremendous amount of
national sympathy for them, even from Northern states such as New York
and New Jersey. The Abolitionists were actually blamed for the
quandary and despised. It was the firing on Fort Sumter that changed
all of that. The Fort's garrison was short on provisions and not
capable of posing a threat to anyone, and it was only a matter of time
when it would be starved out. But that did not matter, secessionists
were impatient for blood. Had not Fire Eating Edmund Ruffin foolishly
took the honor of pulling the lanyard of the first cannon, there would
have been enough national support for the South to to get the
Republican Party and President Lincoln to make considerable
concessions, even granting the secessionists their ultimate wish.
Instead, out of a sense of wounded honor, the public in the North
turned against the Confederacy, and some states of the Upper South,
apparently out of a sense of kinship, joined the secession. There was
no way that Lincoln would have had the Federal troops fire first. He
knew that such a move would have been political suicide. The initial
overwhelming public opinion was sympathetic to the secessionists.
Gavin Wright apparently argues that secessionists were impatient
because of fear of a threat to market value of slaves; but considering
that with all of the above-mentioned factors, why then push to start a
war? More could have been gained by simply waiting out the skeleton
garrison at Fort Sumter.
Even after war broke out only three Upper South states joined the
Confederacy, and not as complete states. Missouri, Kentucky and
Maryland did not. West Virginia was a creation of Unionist
Southerners. This means that these slaveowners, just like Oliver Perry
Temple felt that their slave property was more threatened by
secession, doesn't it?
If slave market prices were in peril, wouldn't it have been prudent to
adopt their more cautious attitude? Could that be one of the reasons
why they had such caution?
I'm not arguing that preserving slavery wasn't the main reason for
secession, it obviously was, but considering the situation, what sense
did it make for secessionists to act as they did?
Michael Mehaffey
.
> Hugh
Wiregrass Willie
wrote:
>Alex. Stephens speech on this point in the Ga. secession convention,
>opposing immediate secession, was a pretty good argument, basically,
>"Wait and see."
That was the best speech I've read from that era. Too bad it fell on
deaf ears. What I really can't understand is this: Why would
they take an opponent of secession and make him VP of the CSA ?
That's not the way of politics these days. Stevens did seem to be an
intelligent man who was not motivated by greed. Much different than
the average secessionist.
>So why didn't they wait a while? The usual answer is, "They were
>crazy." Or, "They were members of a blundering generation."
>
>Simply to say, "It was slavery," is not enough. It's already clear that
>"it was slavery". But why did concern about slavery require immediate
>secession in 1860?
It seems to me we all agree that it was slavery that was the cause of
the Secession. What we disagree on is what particular part of
slavery -- or it's future -- was it that caused the firebrands to
demand immediate secession.
I've tried to read as much of the periodicals from that era that I can
-- and what jumped out at me was the fact many Planters wanted to
re-open the African slave trade.
I've not read Gavin Wright. And I'm sure his idea is valid. But I
wonder why so little is written on the desire by the Secessionist to
(1) re-open the slave trade and (2) to be able to make treaties (and
profits) with the slave countries of Central and South America.
Hugh Lawson
> But I
> wonder why so little is written on the desire by the Secessionist to
> (1) re-open the slave trade
Because it's a dead end (so far); the reopen movement got nowhere
politically.
Why?
Because importing slaves from Africa would lower the price of
slaves. The slaveowners didn't want that to happen. They had more of
their wealth tied up in slaves than in land.
HL
Hugh Lawson
> They claimed that Mr. Lincoln would put an end to slavery, which every
> thoughtful and informed man knew was not true.
I think this is wrong. My view: if Lincoln could have ended slavery legally and
constitutionally, he would have done so. But when a whig politician, he
didn't think there was power to do it.
The secessionists judged their man right.
As soon as he saw a legal means (the war power) to strike a mortal blow
to slavery, he did it; but that's after the war started.
Yes, I agree that practically speaking, if the southern states had
stayed in, they might have been able to negotiate a peaceful separation,
or failing that, to keep slavery going for 30 more years--or so.
> It was the firing on Fort Sumter that changed
> all of that.
Everybody agrees that the firing had an electrifying effect on northern
public opinion.
> The Fort's garrison was short on provisions and not
> capable of posing a threat to anyone, and it was only a matter of time
> when it would be starved out.
That's the cold-blooded argument. But the presence of the US garrison
was a fundamental denial of of CSA legitimacy.
> Gavin Wright apparently argues that secessionists were impatient
> because of fear of a threat to market value of slaves; but considering
> that with all of the above-mentioned factors, why then push to start a
> war?
This blends together two distinct moments:
The first, being the secessionist movement, and the second, being what
to do about Fort Sumter. The second was the problem of a CSA aspiring
independent government. Could it retain respect in it's back yard?
> I'm not arguing that preserving slavery wasn't the main reason for
> secession, it obviously was, but considering the situation, what sense
> did it make for secessionists to act as they did?
The secessionists had some good arguments: e.g. it would be impossible
to conquer a region as big as the south. Because we know how things
turned out, we see the error here, but it seemed realistic in
1860-61. And other arguments.
(There were equally incorrect arguments on the union side, e.g. that
there was too little solidarity between the slaveowners and the poor
whites to sustain a war effort.)
HL
Ray OHara
"Michael Mehaffey" <michael....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5c6f31bf-ec3a-4d35...@f33g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Michael Mehaffey
.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
what has "what sense did it make " got to do with it?.
or the fact it wasn't a good idea.
Secession wasn't a good idea, it brought about the very result they wished
to avoid the abolition of slavery.
but that doesn't alter the fact that is exactly what that they did do and
they made it clear in all their manifestos and speeches that slavery was
their cause.
to them it made great sense, they very arrogantly thought they'd easily
prevail over the weak "greasy mechanics" of the North.
History is relete with bad decisions.
Hugh Lawson
> what has "what sense did it make " got to do with it?.
> or the fact it wasn't a good idea.
If you don't like the question, then don't discuss it.
HL
Wiregrass Willie
wrote:
>> But I
>> wonder why so little is written on the desire by the Secessionist to
>> (1) re-open the slave trade
>
>Because it's a dead end (so far); the reopen movement got nowhere
>politically.
They did pretty well at the agricultural conventions sponsored by the
planters.
---------------------------------------------------------
Debow's review, Agricultural, commercial, industrial progress and
resources.July 1859,pp. 94-103
The Late Southern Convention, Held at Vicksburg, May 9-13, 1859, Part
(excerpt) --
Resolved, That in the opinion of this Convention, all laws, State or
judicial. prohibiting the African slave trade, ought to be repealed.
That in the opinion of this Convention, all laws, State or judicial.
prohibiting the African slave trade, ought to be repealed.
The Convention then took a recess of thirty minutes. The thirty
minutes having expired, the President then called the Convention to
order, when the vote was taken on the main question, which resulted as
follows:
For repealing the laws of Congress prohibiting the African slave trade
Alabama, 5 votes;
Arkansas, 4 votes;
South Carolina (divided), 4 votes;
Louisiania, 6 votes;
Texas, 4 votes;
Georgia, 10 votes;
Mississippi, 7.
Total, 40 votes.
Against the repeal of the slave trade laws-
Tennessee, 12 votes;
Florida, 3 votes;
South Carolina (divided), 4 votes.
Total, 19 votes.
The Convention adjourned.
Hugh Lawson
> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 18:50:33 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hla...@triad.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> But I
>>> wonder why so little is written on the desire by the Secessionist to
>>> (1) re-open the slave trade
>>
>>Because it's a dead end (so far); the reopen movement got nowhere
>>politically.
>
> They did pretty well at the agricultural conventions sponsored by the
> planters.
Why is a failed political movement so important? What does it prove?
I'm baffled by your persistence.
HL
Ray OHara
Sometimes you are clueless Hugh.
His rational for thinking slavery wasn't the cause of secession was it was
to his source a bad idea.
and again so what? his source wasn't a secessionist he was a Southern
Unionist who saw things a bit more clearly than his secessionist peers.
so his sources views don't matter.
Michael Mehaffey
> Sometimes you are clueless Hugh.
>
> His rational for thinking slavery wasn't the cause of secession was it was
> to his source a bad idea.
> and again so what? his source wasn't a secessionist he was a Southern
> Unionist who saw things a bit more clearly than his secessionist peers.
> so his sources views don't matter.
What are you talking about?
Go back and reread the post. You would see that my question was why
the secessionists started the war, when it was far more advantageous
to wait it out and allow the Federal government to make the first
move.
Mentioning Southern Unionists demonstrates that the same rationale for
secession was also true for many slaveowners to stay in the Union.
Contradictory positions based on the same motives lead to more
questions. Hugh's knowledge of economist Gavin Wrights research on
this topic might help clear some of this up.
If you can't keep up, stay out of the discussion.
Michael Mehaffey
Hugh Lawson
That distorts Mehaffey.
Here's what Mehaffey said:
"I'm not arguing that preserving slavery wasn't the main reason for
secession, it obviously was, but considering the situation, what sense
did it make for secessionists to act as they did?"
Q. What does Mehaffey say was the "main reason for secession"?
A. Slavery.
Hugh
Hugh Lawson
to Ray O'Hara:
> What are you talking about?
> Go back and reread the post. You would see that my question was why
> the secessionists started the war, when it was far more advantageous
> to wait it out and allow the Federal government to make the first
> move.
Ray misunderstood you, MM.
> Mentioning Southern Unionists demonstrates that the same rationale for
> secession was also true for many slaveowners to stay in the Union.
> Contradictory positions based on the same motives lead to more
> questions. Hugh's knowledge of economist Gavin Wrights research on
> this topic might help clear some of this up.
Wright is trying to find an economic cause for secession in
1860-61. That's what led him to the fear of a crash in slave prices.
I don't know what he thinks about slaveowners who didn't fear such a
crash. I don't have an answer either, except the cliche that for every
bear there is a bull.
HL
Michael Mehaffey
> Wright is trying to find an economic cause for secession in
> 1860-61. That's what led him to the fear of a crash in slave prices.
>
> I don't know what he thinks about slaveowners who didn't fear such a
> crash. I don't have an answer either, except the cliche that for every
> bear there is a bull.
I've read the argument somewhere that it was in the better interests
of a border slave state to remain in the Union so that escaped
Northbound slaves would be subject to Federal law enforcement and
returned to their owner(s), whereas if the border slave states had
seceded, they would not receive such protection from the free states.
But I think that argument still leaves a lot of explaining to do.
Perhaps one of us will write the next book, figure all of this stuff
out and win great acclaim!
Michael Mehaffey
> HL
Hugh Lawson
> I've read the argument somewhere that it was in the better interests
> of a border slave state to remain in the Union
In northernmost South the population was growing whiter; I believe it is
Wm Freehling who has developed this idea most fully. These states were
in a process that might lead to emancipation and to their becoming free
states, casting their lot with the North.
Part of the fear of the secessionists, in this view, is that the
Republicans using the patronage power, might tip some or all of the four
northernmost slave states to the northern side, stacking the deck even
worse against the Slave Power.
Hence--to view with alarm from the secessionist pov--there was no
guarantee that the slave-state lineup would not lose members.
Don't forget John Brown. Would there be others? Would they learn how to
trigger a slave rebellion?
The slaveowners could build up quite a load of anxiety fretting about
these things.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Wiregrass Willie
wrote:
>Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 18:50:33 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hla...@triad.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> But I
>>>> wonder why so little is written on the desire by the Secessionist to
>>>> (1) re-open the slave trade
>>>
>>>Because it's a dead end (so far); the reopen movement got nowhere
>>>politically.
>>
>> They did pretty well at the agricultural conventions sponsored by the
>> planters.
>
>Why is a failed political movement so important? What does it prove?
>
>I'm baffled by your persistence.
>
>HL
Does it show ? Let me try to explain. As I said, we all seem to
agree that it was slavery that caused the South to secede. Your
recent observation is they seceded because they feared a drop in slave
prices should Lincoln take office , which they claimed would cause
them to lose their investment. That could very well be true. It
could also be true that they feared slavery in the South would be
abolished -- which would have caused them to lose their investment.
In other words -- all I read indicate that Southern slave owners
feared a "LOSS".
There is certainly nothing evil in trying to avoid a financial loss.
I'm trying to look at this from the viewpoint of the Southern plain
folk. I know why the large planters wanted to secede. Now I want
to know why the plain folk supported them.
If the plain folk was convinced his neighbors were going to suffer a
loss due to the actions of the Federal government, then it is
understandable that they would support him and help him to avoid a
loss. It's the neighborly thing to do. Most of us would try to
support our neighbors against an outside threat.
Ah, but what if our neighbor had a scheme which would render him
enormous profits, but would harm us ? Let's say he wanted to
install a meth lab on the property line. Would we then support him
against the government ? Not likely.
What did the Southern plain folk hate and fear worse than anything
else ? The thought of free Africans in their community. Would it
have helped them to sleep nights knowing the rich wanted to import
about 50% more slaves ?
Had the plain folk realized it was not a loss the planters feared,
but an enormous profit in the slave trade they looked to gain
-- would the yeoman have helped them secede ? Not likely.
Which is why you never heard the subject discussed except in
periodicals of the very rich.
Both the future president and vice president of the future CSA were
strong supporters of re-opening the African slave trade. Had that
fact been common knowledge among the plain folk of 1861 -- or their
grandchildren of today -- would there have ever been any support for
the CSA ?
Which is why, Hugh, I am so persistent in my effort to get people to
think about the ramifications. I wonder if re-opening the African
slave trade was -- not as you say -- "a failed political movement",
but merely a postponed goal. One put off until they had their
government set up and would then be able to amend their constitution
to allow it. Was the only reason it never happened because the war
was lost ?
Would there be any "neo-confederates" today if they had ever thought
about the real purpose behind the founding of the CSA ? Was that
reason not to prevent a loss by the many -- but to give a profit to
the few ?
As you can see -- I don't have many answers. But I do have a l ot of
questions.
Hugh Lawson
[ snip ]
Here is the text of the confederate constitution:
It contains this passage:
"Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any
foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the
United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required
to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same."
Does this passage affect your thinking?
HL
Wiregrass Willie
wrote:
>Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:
I broached that subject in the post. I had expected them to change
their Constitution as soon as they got everything like they wanted.
They needed the Plain Folk and the "breeding" states to get started.
So they had to pretend to oppose the slave trade.
>>not "a failed political movement", but merely a postponed goal.
Ray OHara
Michael Mehaffey
===============================================================
In the Border States Slavery wasn't the ruling interest so the Slavers were
unable to scam the voters into secede.
Hugh Lawson
> On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:31:53 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hla...@triad.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>[ snip ]
>>
>>Here is the text of the confederate constitution:
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/d3groo
>>
>>It contains this passage:
>>
>>"Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any
>>foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the
>>United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required
>>to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same."
>>
>>Does this passage affect your thinking?
>>
>>HL
>
> I broached that subject in the post. I had expected them to change
> their Constitution as soon as they got everything like they wanted.
> They needed the Plain Folk and the "breeding" states to get started.
> So they had to pretend to oppose the slave trade.
So, as you see it, writing it into the csa constitution was part of a
ruse?
HL
Ray OHara
it's a question meant to question of was slavery the cause.
in that I mean it isn't looking for an answer, it's looking to question the
accepted orthodoxy.
it's a bullshit backdoor way of trying to say it wasn't slavery that caused
the war because he feels it didn't make sense.
and again. I say so what it doesn't make sense.to him. it made sense to
them.
Ray OHara
"Wiregrass Willie" <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f4dl5691i0fo132o5...@4ax.com...
the Slave prices is a canard, it was paper value not real value and the
vast majority of slaves were long paid for
and not recently bought. as before the real value was the product the
plantation grew against the cost of growing it.
a phony paper value was not an issue and other than in post war revisionist
history it is never brought up.
Gregory E. Garland
wiregrass_...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
> Does it show ? Let me try to explain. As I said, we all seem to
> agree that it was slavery that caused the South to secede. Your
> recent observation is they seceded because they feared a drop in slave
> prices should Lincoln take office , which they claimed would cause
> them to lose their investment. That could very well be true. It
> could also be true that they feared slavery in the South would be
> abolished -- which would have caused them to lose their investment.
> In other words -- all I read indicate that Southern slave owners
> feared a "LOSS".
>
> There is certainly nothing evil in trying to avoid a financial loss.
>
If your avoidance means continuing the practice of chattel slavery
forever, then it is indeed evil. Furthermore, it was considered evil by
the majority of Western civilization at the time; the southern slave
owners were the reactionary minority.
> I'm trying to look at this from the viewpoint of the Southern plain
> folk. I know why the large planters wanted to secede. Now I want
> to know why the plain folk supported them.
The "plain folk" supported them because they also wanted to continue the
practice of slavery forever. Thirty percent of the households of the
states that formed the CSA owned slaves; the vast majority of them were
not "planters". Unless you lived in an area where there was virtually no
slavery, then you were without a doubt closely related to someone who
did own slaves. Some of the areas where slavery was almost nonexistent
did in fact rise up to oppose secession, and their slavery-defending
neighbors descended upon them with torches in their hands and murder in
their hearts.
Hugh Lawson
> the Slave prices is a canard, it was paper value not real value and the
> vast majority of slaves were long paid for
> and not recently bought. as before the real value was the product the
> plantation grew against the cost of growing it.
> a phony paper value was not an issue and other than in post war revisionist
> history it is never brought up.
To see a different view, read Gavin Wright, The Political Economy of the
Cotton South.
HL
Hugh Lawson
> it's a question meant to question of was slavery the cause. in that
> I mean it isn't looking for an answer, it's looking to question the
> accepted orthodoxy. it's a bullshit backdoor way of trying to say it
> wasn't slavery that caused the war because he feels it didn't make
> sense.
So it isn't Mehaffey's words that you react to. You believe Michael
secretly wants to cast doubt on "it-was-slavery". You claim to know
Michael's inner state of mind.
But you, Ray, present yourself as an virtuous truth-teller who sees
everything just as it is, and tells it just as it is.
Ray, is this what you want others to believe about you, and about
Mehaffey?
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Ray OHara
I pointed out the questions true intent
spare me the psychobabble.
Michael Mehaffey
> "Hugh Lawson" <hlaw...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
All that you've 'pointed out' is that profound discussion is way
beyond your comprehension.
Why don't you run along and find somewhere else to play, since this
thread is obviously over your head.
Michael Mehaffey
Michael Mehaffey
>
> In northernmost South the population was growing whiter; I believe it is
> Wm Freehling who has developed this idea most fully. These states were
> in a process that might lead to emancipation and to their becoming free
> states, casting their lot with the North.
I am going to have to really read William Freehling. Thanks for the
recommendation. The paltry amount of his stuff I've read seem to
indicate that slavery was gradually being discarded in favor of free
enterprise; at least that was the case in Maryland.
>
> The slaveowners could build up quite a load of anxiety fretting about
> these things.
According to Oliver Temple Perry, Maryland, Missouri and West
Virginia, having been occupied by Federal troops, were protected from
the machinations, political campaigning and proselytizing of the
secessionist conspiracy. Thus, their Whig sympathizers could maneuver
these state governments out of the way of Confederate control.
Kentucky was at first pro-Union, but in time became a breeding ground
for Confederate recruitment.
Michael Mehaffey
> --
> Hugh Lawson
> hlaw...@triad.rr.com
Wiregrass Willie
wrote:
Ruse, if you like. I'd call it practical politics. VA and TN did
not want the slave trade. SC was split on the matter. The other
states did. It would have been crazy of the secessionists not to
have considered that they needed TN and VA.
Had there been no war, or had they won the war, I think they would
have amended their constitution and began the importation of more
slaves.
But then .... you may be right ... and I am probably wrong. I'm
not trying to prove anything - nor am I advocating. I'm simply trying
to gain insight as to how the people of 150 years ago looked at
things. It's not an easy thing.
Paul Oman
> I ran across this while reading an ebook downloaded from archive.org.
>
> It seems the preacher at the Old South Church in Massachusetts had
> arrived at the idea that the Antebellum South was more feudal than
> democratic 150 years ago. If he is right, I suppose we could
> honestly say that it was not slavery that caused the war -- but
> feudalism. It's hard for a country to stay united when it's half
> democracy and half feudal.
> --------------------------------------------
>
at the beginning of the war southern leaders proclaimed it was all about
slavery. By the end of the war and after the war, they changed their
tune. Both sides felt God was on their side so when the south lost, lots
of excuses.
Ray OHara
Michael Mehaffey
============================================================
the Union vastly out recruited the CSA in Kentucky
see here.
http://www.kdla.ky.gov/resources/civilwar.htm
Kentucky even when invaded by the CSA under Bragg remained firmly Unionist.
The border states with slaves that didn't secede didn't do so because the
Slavers didn't control the States economy like they did in the South.
Ky,De,Md had slaves but they were comparatively few and they didn't depend
on a plantation economy.
Ray OHara
Michael Mehaffey
===========================================================
what you've posted is revisionist,
The quote about "it didn't make sense" is a back door way of trying to
remove slavery as the driving force of secession.
if you can say "it didn't make sense" then you will then try to find a
reason you do think makes sense to you.
and somehow I doubt you'll come up with the answer history has provided in
the many statements, declarations and manifestos the secessionists left
behind.
it's hardly a new tactic.
Ray OHara
"Paul Oman" <paul...@pauloman.com> wrote in message
news:HbGdnStPzpbYwsHR...@earthlink.com...
after the war the defeated secessionists had the good form to shut up.
its the post-war generations that are trying to revise things.
Wiregrass Willie
That's true. To a degree. My figures (from the 1860 census) show
there were 306,000 slave holders in the 11 CSA states. I wonder
if those families holding no more than three slaves might have been
doing so for other than economic reasons.
If not to make profits - then why own them ? I'd suggest it could
have been because they bought older slaves from planters (at bargain
prices) and kept them for three reasons (1) as household and field
help (2) companionship and (3) out of affection.
I'll admit that owning over three is hard to explain.
>Unless you lived in an area where there was virtually no
>slavery, then you were without a doubt closely related to someone who
>did own slaves. Some of the areas where slavery was almost nonexistent
>did in fact rise up to oppose secession, and their slavery-defending
>neighbors descended upon them with torches in their hands and murder in
>their hearts.
I have read enough to know that was very, very true. Freedom of
speech was not a respected right in the Old South.
PS -- post addition --
After I composed the above post, I thought my idea of holders of
three or less slaves may be a good one. So I went the below site to
check out a couple slave schedules for Georgia counties I'm familiar
with. My thought was I'd find many older slaves owned by holders of
one, two or three slaves. Wrong !
http://ftp.us-census.org/pub/usgenweb/census/ga/carroll/1850/slave.txt
There was one guy how owned one slave ... and she was 96. Outside of
him, my theory does not seem all that good. These guys seem to
specialize in young females. But then --- this is only one county.
Another thought --
I really am surprised. I see very few old slaves. Could
Frederick Douglass have been right when he said they use to retire the
old slaves by sending them out in the woods to fend for themselves ?
For Carroll county, I counted 22 slaves age 50 and over -- in a
population of 555 slaves. That's less than 4%. Today the 65 and
over group make up about 14% of the U.S. population.
Michael Mehaffey
wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:08:53 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hlaw...@triad.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_willieO...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:31:53 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hlaw...@triad.rr.com>
> >> wrote:
Hi, Willie, how are you?
You brought up some very interesting questions. I would like to know
the attitude of South Carolina's upcountry yeoman farmers regarding
slavery and secession as well.
If you don't mind, I have a hypothesis:
Seaboard state slaveowners, especially in the Upper South, were making
huge profits selling slaves born in their states to new planters as
the country expanded westward. My guess is that a continued ban on
importation would maintain their control over this market. I could be
wrong, but that is my impression of the situation.
Michael Mehaffey
Hugh Lawson
> If not to make profits - then why own them ? I'd suggest it could
> have been because they bought older slaves from planters (at bargain
> prices) and kept them for three reasons (1) as household and field
> help (2) companionship and (3) out of affection.
>
> I'll admit that owning over three is hard to explain.
WW, the economic history of slavery has developed considerably in the
years since about 1970.
Slavery was efficient and profitable to the owners--AFAIK there is no
opposition to this nowadays among historians.
Slave prices were rising in the 1850s.
HL
Hugh Lawson
>>
>> In northernmost South the population was growing whiter; I believe it is
>> Wm Freehling who has developed this idea most fully. These states were
>> in a process that might lead to emancipation and to their becoming free
>> states, casting their lot with the North.
>
> I am going to have to really read William Freehling. Thanks for the
> recommendation. The paltry amount of his stuff I've read seem to
> indicate that slavery was gradually being discarded in favor of free
> enterprise; at least that was the case in Maryland.
That sounds like Freehling. He pictures a situation in which the upper
south was "whitening up" (his expression), with a possble movement
toward joining the North.
Hence, although slavery was doing fine economically, there was
definitely a perceived political threat to it, from the growth of the
free states, and the rise of the Republican party, and from the
possibility that some slave states might tip over.
HL
Hugh Lawson
> I pointed out the questions true intent
> spare me the psychobabble.
But you didn't quote anything. That wears your credibility down to a
frazzle.
HL
Hugh Lawson
> Seaboard state slaveowners, especially in the Upper South, were making
> huge profits selling slaves born in their states to new planters as
> the country expanded westward. My guess is that a continued ban on
> importation would maintain their control over this market. I could be
> wrong, but that is my impression of the situation.
Gavin Wright has an extensive summary of the movement to reopen, which
he considers a losing political movement, because reopen would undermine
the prices of slaves. That's in The Political Economy of the Cotton
South, which I highly recommend.
HL
Michael Mehaffey
> what you've posted is revisionist,
> The quote about "it didn't make sense" is a back door way of trying to
> remove slavery as the driving force of secession.
> if you can say "it didn't make sense" then you will then try to find a
> reason you do think makes sense to you.
> and somehow I doubt you'll come up with the answer history has provided in
> the many statements, declarations and manifestos the secessionists left
> behind.
>
> it's hardly a new tactic.
Are you trying to joke, or to be deliberately obtuse?
Instead of actually reading and understanding what I've been saying,
you choose to prattle on with this unfounded nonsense of some 'back
door way' of 'removing slavery' from secession or something, to
paraphrase your incoherent babble.
What I'm trying to discover, Ray, is why, if it is possible, the
secessionist conspiracy :
1. Existed in the first place, if enough constitutional and legal
powers (3/4 rule in Congress and all that) were in place to give the
slave states an enormous advantage in creating national policy.
2. Since these secessionist blokes did exist, how did they convince
Southern Whig planters, whose conservative outlook meant sticking it
out until the next election, that instead, breaking off from the
country was the way to go.
They really had no political grounds. John Calhoun, the pro-slavery
philosopher of States' Rights, strongly opposed any hint of secession.
He called it 'revolution.' And of course, Henry Clay and Andrew
Jackson were examples for pro-Unionist Southerners. As for the problem
with returning fugitive slaves, that applied more to the border
states, and very little at that.
The thing is, they seemed to have created an issue where there was
none. It doesn't appear to me that slavery was as under threat as they
kept insisting, and their canvassing didn't begin with Lincoln's
election, it went back to at least 1850. It seems that they were
trying to create a slave empire at the expense of the Constitution,
and Lincoln's election provided their opportunity.
Of course this is about slavery. To say that these issues aren't about
slavery, is like saying a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is about
everything except peanut butter, jelly and two pieces of bread.
Michael Mehaffey
Michael Mehaffey
>
> Gavin Wright has an extensive summary of the movement to reopen, which
> he considers a losing political movement, because reopen would undermine
> the prices of slaves. That's in The Political Economy of the Cotton
> South, which I highly recommend.
>
> HL
Gavin Wright, William Freehling and Ira Berlin. Three authors I'll be
purchasing from next week; two of whom you alerted me to. Thanks,
Hugh.
Michael Mehaffey
slotrot
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I believe Ray was saving everybody time and effort. You can talk
around "the cause" of the Civil War, but simply, the prime cause of
the Civil War was slavery.
Profound discussion, as you put it, is meaningless if you(global you)
are trying to claim alternate causes, ie states rights, which boils
down to the maintaining of that
peculiar institution of slavery. Why create an opus when a jingle
will do the job?
You might like Drew's "Apostles of Disunion".
Ray OHara
they didn't have to "whiten up" as they were never "black" to start with.
Slavery was legal under the British, every colony had some slaves. in the
deep south slavery went beyond a few servents to a plantation economy with
millions.
In Mass or NY when slavery was legal a blacksmith or merchant might have one
as a helper.
but the farmers and such didn't.
the border states on the cusp of both had some plantations but were mostly
family {free} farms.
Ray OHara
I quoted in the first post I made.
that was enough.
Hugh Lawson
> Are you trying to joke, or to be deliberately obtuse?
[ snip ]
A little historical background on this newsgroup. When I started reading
it about 2000, it was much busier.
There were three main factions, two of them more or less stable: the
Sectarian Unionists, the Battles-and-Leaders Men, and a less stable
group I called the Rebel Raiders.
Ray is one of the few Sectarian Unionists left. Their main interest was
to expose and if possible humiliate the Rebel Raiders when they
appeared. The Rebel Raiders were defenders of the Lost Cause. From time
to time, a RR would appear, give the appearance of a disinterested
hobbyist, and pose some "questions".
This tactic filled the emotional Sectarian Unionists with rage. So they
constantly vied to see who would be first to expose another Rebel
Raider, call him a liar, etc. Most of the emotional display here has
always been on the unionist side.
Hugh
Hugh Lawson
> they didn't have to "whiten up" as they were never "black" to start with.
Read Freeling.
Hugh Lawson
> I believe Ray was saving everybody time and effort. You can talk
> around "the cause" of the Civil War, but simply, the prime cause of
> the Civil War was slavery.
> Profound discussion, as you put it, is meaningless if you(global you)
> are trying to claim alternate causes, ie states rights, which boils
> down to the maintaining of that
> peculiar institution of slavery. Why create an opus when a jingle
> will do the job?
>
> You might like Drew's "Apostles of Disunion".
Tell us about it.
HL
Michael Mehaffey
> I believe Ray was saving everybody time and effort.
He can just as easily move on if he thinks we're wasting our time.
You can talk
> around "the cause" of the Civil War, but simply, the prime cause of
> the Civil War was slavery.
> Profound discussion, as you put it, is meaningless if you(global you)
> are trying to claim alternate causes, ie states rights, which boils
> down to the maintaining of that
> peculiar institution of slavery. Why create an opus when a jingle
> will do the job?
I never said that there was any other cause but slavery, so that point
is moot.
Now that I've restated it for the fourth time, does that mean all
discussion thereon should cease?
Who are you or anyone else to tell me what I can discuss?
> You might like Drew's "Apostles of Disunion".
I'll look into it, thank you.
Michael Mehaffey
Wiregrass Willie
wrote:
>On Aug 6, 10:37 am, Michael Mehaffey <michael.mehaf...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> All that you've 'pointed out' is that profound discussion is way
>> beyond your comprehension.
>>
>> Why don't you run along and find somewhere else to play, since this
>> thread is obviously over your head.
>>
>> Michael Mehaffey- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I believe Ray was saving everybody time and effort. You can talk
>around "the cause" of the Civil War, but simply, the prime cause of
>the Civil War was slavery.
>Profound discussion, as you put it, is meaningless if you(global you)
>are trying to claim alternate causes, ie states rights, which boils
>down to the maintaining of that
>peculiar institution of slavery. Why create an opus when a jingle
>will do the job?
>
>You might like Drew's "Apostles of Disunion".
That was the most eye-opening book I have ever read. I am a lover
of the South. But after reading that book, I cannot understand how
anybody can say that slavery was not the cause of the CW.
Before "Apostles" I was still trying to find some merit in the excuse
I had heard as a youngster. ie That the South seceded because of
tariffs. You cannot read Charles B. Dew -- with an open mind --
and still believe that.
But having said that -- we can still disagree on just what it was
about slavery that caused the secession. Was it hopes of
increasing slave imports ? Or was it fear of abolishing slavery ? Or
was it anger because slavery could not be taken into the territories ?
Or was it a social fear of slaves being freed ?
Michael Mehaffey
>
> Ray is one of the few Sectarian Unionists left. Their main interest was
> to expose and if possible humiliate the Rebel Raiders when they
> appeared. The Rebel Raiders were defenders of the Lost Cause. From time
> to time, a RR would appear, give the appearance of a disinterested
> hobbyist, and pose some "questions".
Ah ha. That explains Ray and Gregory Garland. They think I'm just
another apologist for the Lost Cause.
> This tactic filled the emotional Sectarian Unionists with rage. So they
> constantly vied to see who would be first to expose another Rebel
> Raider, call him a liar, etc. Most of the emotional display here has
> always been on the unionist side.
>
> Hugh
Perhaps I should work on controlling my temper; it is just annoying to
have these Sectarian Unionists, as you put it, buzzing around like
little fruitflies instead of contributing something constructive or
thoughtful to the conversation. So all they're doing is trying to bait
me into admitting I'm a neo-confederate.
If any of them had bothered to read my posts in other threads, they
would realize that one does not have to support the millstones of
slavery or the Old Confederacy to be a proud Southerner. All I want to
do is figure out my people's history. The difficulty is that one has
to pick through so much crap: neo-confederate 'histories', biased
anti- South diatribes and, now, the latest trend, the Usenet Truth
Police.
You understand what I mean. I appreciate the reality check.
Michael Mehaffey
Ray OHara
>
> Ray is one of the few Sectarian Unionists left. Their main interest was
> to expose and if possible humiliate the Rebel Raiders when they
> appeared. The Rebel Raiders were defenders of the Lost Cause. From time
> to time, a RR would appear, give the appearance of a disinterested
> hobbyist, and pose some "questions".
Ah ha. That explains Ray and Gregory Garland. They think I'm just
another apologist for the Lost Cause.
=======================================================
your posts give that away.
as for Hugh, he never actually says what he believes or takes a stand.
Wiregrass Willie
<michael....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 6, 3:14 pm, Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_willieO...@yahoo.com>
>> But then .... you may be right ... and I am probably wrong. I'm
>> not trying to prove anything - nor am I advocating. I'm simply trying
>> to gain insight as to how the people of 150 years ago looked at
>> things. It's not an easy thing.
>
>Hi, Willie, how are you?
>
>You brought up some very interesting questions. I would like to know
>the attitude of South Carolina's upcountry yeoman farmers regarding
>slavery and secession as well.
>
>If you don't mind, I have a hypothesis:
>
>Seaboard state slaveowners, especially in the Upper South, were making
>huge profits selling slaves born in their states to new planters as
>the country expanded westward. My guess is that a continued ban on
>importation would maintain their control over this market. I could be
>wrong, but that is my impression of the situation.
>
>Michael Mehaffey
Yes, I finally see where I put too much emphasis on what a few fire
eaters said and not enough on what some reliable historians have
concluded. I shall try to modulate my (written) rhetoric in the
future. Please see my note to Hugh.
Wiregrass Willie
They are all good. But I especially enjoyed Ira Berlin.
Wiregrass Willie
wrote:
>Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:
I owe you an apology, Hugh. I was scanning through my copy of "The
Impending Crisis 1848-1861" by Potter. After re-reading the pages
about the slave trade, I recalled that you had pointed that out to me
some weeks/months back. For some reason I had forgotten it and
not read that at the time.
I suppose I am just hard headed about that issue of re-opening the
slave trade. But you see, I had never read that thought before in
my life. The only reason I found it was access to the internet. I
read some online issues of DeBows and it was quite popular with them.
I then found two thoughts by Davis and Stephens -- before the war --
and they both supported it.
Let me give my two quotes --- and then I shall refrain from bringing
that subject up again. It does appear to be as you said.
Re-opening the slave trade was a goal of some fire eaters that was
abandoned by the CSA.
-------------------------------------------------------
An article that quotes Alexander Stephens
July 2, 1859
As he saw it, "Fanaticism might be spreading at the North, but Slavery
is getting stronger, and will continue to get stronger, whether in the
Union or out of it." He continued:
".. . there is very little prospect of the South settling any
territory outside of Texas; in fact, little or no prospect at all,
unless we increase our African stock."
---------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson Davis is quoted about the slave trade
Harper's new monthly magazine. / Volume 19, Issue 109
Publisher: Harper & Bros. Publication Date: October 1859
page 694-- 695
Mr.Davis discusses at length, and in various aspects, the
question of the re-opening of the African Slave-trade.
In respect to the law of 1820, which pronounces the
trade to be piracy, he says that, while he does not
deny that considerations of safety and public interest
might have warranted the prohibition of the traffic,
"they could not justify the Government in brand-
ing as infamous the source from which the chief
part of the laboring population of the South is
derived." Upon this ground, and also because it
has greatly increased the horrors of the "middle
passage," he urges the repeal of this law;
---------------------------------------------
Hugh Lawson
>>
>> Ray is one of the few Sectarian Unionists left. Their main interest was
>> to expose and if possible humiliate the Rebel Raiders when they
>> appeared. The Rebel Raiders were defenders of the Lost Cause. From time
>> to time, a RR would appear, give the appearance of a disinterested
>> hobbyist, and pose some "questions".
>
>
> Ah ha. That explains Ray and Gregory Garland. They think I'm just
> another apologist for the Lost Cause.
That's it. If you deny that you are a LC defender, they may well call
you a liar, and then put the burden of proof on you to prove that you
are NOT a liar.
Trying to change them is futile. ;-)
[ snip ]
> So all they're doing is trying to bait me into admitting I'm a
> neo-confederate.
They may accept this sentence as a confession that you are.
But no, they don't care whether you admit it; once they classify a
person as a LC defender, then it becomes a fixed and certain fact for
them.
On a certain level they are sincere, and stomping on suspected LC
defenders is really emotionally signficant to them.
Since you are interested in these questions from a southern point of
view, that makes them deeply suspicious of you.
HL
Hugh Lawson
> I owe you an apology, Hugh. I was scanning through my copy of "The
> Impending Crisis 1848-1861" by Potter. After re-reading the pages
> about the slave trade, I recalled that you had pointed that out to me
> some weeks/months back. For some reason I had forgotten it and
> not read that at the time.
No problem. You are not the only hard-headed person here; I can be
persistent myself.
I am tremendously impressed with Potter.
HL
Michael Mehaffey
> your posts give that away.
With your jaundiced eyes, you'll see whatever you want to see.
>
> as for Hugh, he never actually says what he believes or takes a stand.
Or more likely, you're too thick to understand.
Michael Mehaffey
Michael Mehaffey
> They may accept this sentence as a confession that you are.
Who knows? <gasp>
Oh my God! Could they be right about me? Might they know my deepest,
innermost soulfeelings, better than I could ever hope to begin to know
myself?
Oh cruel commentators!
> On a certain level they are sincere, and stomping on suspected LC
> defenders is really emotionally signficant to them.
(The irony of it is, I'm probably just as contemptuous of the LC crowd
as they are. I left a few sarcastic posts on a League of the South
blog. That whole bunch is a serious detriment to Southern culture)
> Since you are interested in these questions from a southern point of
> view, that makes them deeply suspicious of you.
(Allright, great. Why don't I just have a little fun with them?)
(Michael Mehaffey)
> HL
Ray OHara
you've done nothing to dispel the assessment of your views.
talking to you is like talking to a creationist, you want to create a
discussion about a controversy that doesn't exist.
and by talking about you think you've created that controversy.
it's not like this conversation hasn't happened hundreds of times here
before.
maybe its your first go'round but not oura.
Ray OHara
"Wiregrass Willie" <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2e9p56h512c4jn007...@4ax.com...
reopening the Slave trade was a pointless exercise as the Royal Navy and
the USN wouldn't allow it.
So beside generating bad international PR it wouldn't have any effect.
Hugh Lawson
> (The irony of it is, I'm probably just as contemptuous of the LC crowd
> as they are. I left a few sarcastic posts on a League of the South
> blog. That whole bunch is a serious detriment to Southern culture)
You are expressing a viewpoint I try to downplay. Southern
culture is what it is. Nobody needs to defend it or apologize for it;
and it's unseemly to brag about it.
Let the northerners do the sectionalistic fault-finding; it helps them
to feel good about themselves.
HL
Hugh Lawson
> reopening the Slave trade was a pointless exercise as the Royal Navy and
> the USN wouldn't allow it.
> So beside generating bad international PR it wouldn't have any effect.
More importantly to the slaveholders, if it worked, it would reduce the
wealth of slaveholders by reducing the prices of their slaves.
HL
Hugh Lawson
> you've done nothing to dispel the assessment of your views. talking
> to you is like talking to a creationist, you want to create a
> discussion about a controversy that doesn't exist. and by talking
> about you think you've created that controversy. it's not like this
> conversation hasn't happened hundreds of times here before. maybe its
> your first go'round but not oura.
Ray wants you to care more about what he says about you than he cares
about the truth of what he says.
It's a pathetic game. But there are those who can't stop playing it.
HL
Michael Mehaffey
> Michael Mehaffey <michael.mehaf...@gmail.com> writes:
> > (The irony of it is, I'm probably just as contemptuous of the LC crowd
> > as they are. I left a few sarcastic posts on a League of the South
> > blog. That whole bunch is a serious detriment to Southern culture)
>
> You are expressing a viewpoint I try to downplay. Southern
> culture is what it is. Nobody needs to defend it or apologize for it;
> and it's unseemly to brag about it.
You are correct. What I meant was that any organization that appoints
itself as representative of Southern culture should not go
unchallenged. I deem it harmful for them to continue to distort
history.and dredge up the old shibboleths that have held us back for
so many generations.
I certainly do not view the Northern culture as worse, or better than
any other, and you'll never see me play that game.
> Let the northerners do the sectionalistic fault-finding; it helps them
> to feel good about themselves.
But of course.
Michael Mehaffey
> HL
Michael Mehaffey
> "Michael Mehaffey" <michael.mehaf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Congratulations, Ray. Your constant, obsessive replies to my posts are
very endearing.
Michael Mehaffey
Gregory E. Garland
@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, michael....@gmail.com says...
>
>
> I never said that there was any other cause but slavery, so that point
> is moot.
Wrong, as usual.
> Now that I've restated it for the fourth time, does that mean all
> discussion thereon should cease?
No. You have repeatedly tried to express the idea that slavery was
merely a manifestation of other more deeply rooted cultural and economic
differences between the north and south, and, while you give lip service
to the idea that slavery was the proximate cause of the civil war, you
claim (in some strange logic) that those underlying cultural economic
reasons mean either the south was justified in seceding or that the
north had no justification to oppose secession. You are not
acknowledging that slavery was the cause of the civil war; you are doing
everything you can to trivialize it as the cause. It was not trivial; it
was everything.
--
Gregory E. Garland - Alive, occupying space, and exerting gravitational
force
Michael Mehaffey
>
> But having said that -- we can still disagree on just what it was
> about slavery that caused the secession. Was it hopes of
> increasing slave imports ? Or was it fear of abolishing slavery ? Or
> was it anger because slavery could not be taken into the territories ?
> Or was it a social fear of slaves being freed ?
Excellent post, Willie. Just because we know that slavery caused
secession, doesn't mean we shouldn't investigate the details therein.
Michael Mehaffey
Michael Mehaffey
> No. You have repeatedly tried to express the idea that slavery was
> merely a manifestation of other more deeply rooted cultural and economic
> differences between the north and south, and, while you give lip service
> to the idea that slavery was the proximate cause of the civil war, you
> claim (in some strange logic) that those underlying cultural economic
> reasons mean either the south was justified in seceding or that the
> north had no justification to oppose secession.
You are not
> acknowledging that slavery was the cause of the civil war; you are doing
> everything you can to trivialize it as the cause. It was not trivial; it
> was everything.
>
<laugh>
More grand, sweeping prevarications of my words.
Hey, great, more congratulations in order. You're just as much of a
charlatan as Ray.
Michael Mehaffey
Gregory E. Garland
14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, michael....@gmail.com says...
> More grand, sweeping prevarications of my words.
No child, it is a precise identification of which branch of the
confederate apologista you currently are espousing. You are just one in
hundreds of bigots who have come here with this particular line of
racist bullshit. Ninety percent of the time when you scratch the surface
of those making this type of argument you find a racist asshole. The
other ten percent are those who are trying to pretend they aren't racist
assholes.
Michael Mehaffey
> In article <b7a0f447-b08c-4eae-b30e-eb9c98c4eacb@
>
> > More grand, sweeping prevarications of my words.
>
> No child, it is a precise identification of which branch of the
> confederate apologista you currently are espousing. You are just one in
> hundreds of bigots who have come here with this particular line of
> racist bullshit. Ninety percent of the time when you scratch the surface
> of those making this type of argument you find a racist asshole. The
> other ten percent are those who are trying to pretend they aren't racist
> assholes.
>
> --
> Gregory E. Garland - Alive, occupying space, and exerting gravitational
> force
Such witty phraseology!
Predictable, intellectually bankrupt, shoddy ad hominen abuse.
You are a crashing bore.
Michael Mehaffey
Gregory E. Garland
@t26g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>, michael....@gmail.com says...
>
> Predictable, intellectually bankrupt, shoddy ad hominen abuse.
>
It is only ad hominem if it isn't true. After literally years of seeing
clowns like you come here and try to spread this bullshit argument not
only in substance but to the point of regurgitating the _exact_ _same_
_phrases_ you all copied off of neo-confederate websites... then
everyone knows that it is _always_ true.
Hugh Lawson
> But having said that -- we can still disagree on just what it was
> about slavery that caused the secession. Was it hopes of
> increasing slave imports ? Or was it fear of abolishing slavery ? Or
> was it anger because slavery could not be taken into the territories ?
> Or was it a social fear of slaves being freed ?
The slaveowners had a huge financial stake in slavery. The poor whites
wanted to keep slavery, because slavery was the ante-bellum form of
white supremacy--for the slave states.
Slavery kept the blacks out of the way, and out of competition with the
poor whites for land and jobs. And the slaveowners were also
white-supremacists. The determination of keep the black man in a humble
place, if he couldn't be excluded altogether, was the glue that bound
poor whites with slaveowners.
They judged that the only threat slavery was political, so secession was
the means of neutralizing this threat.
What's hard about this?
HL
Hugh Lawson
> It is only ad hominem if it isn't true. After literally years of seeing
> clowns like you come here and try to spread this bullshit argument not
> only in substance but to the point of regurgitating the _exact_ _same_
> _phrases_ you all copied off of neo-confederate websites... then
> everyone knows that it is _always_ true.
How about posting some examples, Gregory, of the "exact same phrases"
that you refer to.
It would be nice to have an Index of Forbidden Neo-Confederate Phrases.
HL
Michael Mehaffey
Say Hugh, would you have any recommendations for reading on the
Southern anti-slavery movement?
The thing is, I'm currently reading some biographies of Fire Eaters,
to get a handle of why they felt it was necessary to leave the country
in order to preserve slavery.
The next task is, what happened to the anti-slavery movement, why did
it just evaporate in the 1830's?
Michael Mehaffey
Michael Mehaffey
> In article <7994b706-b9e0-4e7a-9722-a3056fe896b3
>
>
>
> > Predictable, intellectually bankrupt, shoddy ad hominen abuse.
>
> It is only ad hominem if it isn't true. After literally years of seeing
> clowns like you come here and try to spread this bullshit argument not
> only in substance but to the point of regurgitating the _exact_ _same_
> _phrases_ you all copied off of neo-confederate websites... then
> everyone knows that it is _always_ true.
>
> --
> Gregory E. Garland - Alive, occupying space, and exerting gravitational
> force
Gosh, dude, you've been sitting around, writing up these vapid
imbecilities for literally years!
Now, *that's* what an astounding achievement is all about.
Michael Mehaffey
Hugh Lawson
> The next task is, what happened to the anti-slavery movement, why did
> it just evaporate in the 1830's?
For a long time the academic historical consensus has been that the
1830s were a turning point: nullification controversy, the Nat Turner
revolt, and so on.
I suggest you start Wm Freehling's Road to Disunion,
vol. 1. Secessionists at Bay.
David Potter, The Impending Crisis, comes along after the Mexican war of
the 1840s.
If these are too detailed for the beginning, then start with the
appropriate chapters of a college survey textbook on American
history. Typically they have chapter bibliographies.
HL
Michael Mehaffey
> Michael Mehaffey <michael.mehaf...@gmail.com> writes:
> > The next task is, what happened to the anti-slavery movement, why did
> > it just evaporate in the 1830's?
>
> For a long time the academic historical consensus has been that the
> 1830s were a turning point: nullification controversy, the Nat Turner
> revolt, and so on.
I was taught in college History of Tennessee class that it was the Nat
Turner Rebellion.
There's got to be more to it than that.
> I suggest you start Wm Freehling's Road to Disunion,
> vol. 1. Secessionists at Bay.
>
> David Potter, The Impending Crisis, comes along after the Mexican war of
> the 1840s.
>
These will do fine. Thanks.
Michael Mehaffey