The Good Ole South

Cypress said:
Good lord, I had to listen to my Texan mother-in-law lecture me last night that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery; it had to do with seccession.

I had to bite my tongue, to keep from telling her that the reason the south seceeded was because of the fight over expansion of slavery (or lack, thereof) into new states and territories.
Click to expand...

the Civil war did not start over slavery, You MIL is mostly right. It did have more to do with states rights and taxation / tarrifs and such economic issues more than slavery initially. Slavery was added in as a tool to get support in the mostly slave free north for the war.
 
"That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud puddles, or gives me any best place, and ain't I a woman? ... I have plowed, and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me -- and ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man (when I could get it), and bear the lash as well -- and ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children and seen most all sold off to slavery and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me -- and ain't I woman?"
- Sojourner Truth

Dont tell me she did not think a slave was equal to a white person.


Dixie does Sojourner Truth count as a person?
 
You have it backwards here Dixie, as usual. You say, "You can believe that it's not morally right for one man to own another, and still believe that one race is superior of inferior to another, so the two viewpoints are not synonymous." No they are not synonymous. But the ideology of slavery as it was practiced after 1650 or so in the United States was built on the ideology of white supremacy.

Which is why I was clear when I said "the issue of slavery in 1864" was not equivalent to "the issue of racism". We are not discussing the overall issue of the concept of slavery, no doubt, that is indeed rooted in racist belief. It's why you automatically assume that racism and slavery are synonymous. Let us be clear about what I am arguing, it's not that slavery itself wasn't racist, it is that the issue of slavery in 1864 America, was not a racial issue, meaning, it wasn't about the racists vs. the non-racist, it was a largely economic issue for the South. This is why it took another century to pass Civil Rights, if the Civil War had been about racial equality, it would have been settled long before 1964.
 
Jarod said:
"That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud puddles, or gives me any best place, and ain't I a woman? ... I have plowed, and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me -- and ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man (when I could get it), and bear the lash as well -- and ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children and seen most all sold off to slavery and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me -- and ain't I woman?"
- Sojourner Truth

Dont tell me she did not think a slave was equal to a white person.


Dixie does Sojourner Truth count as a person?
Click to expand...


Ignoring me again? I must not have mispelled enough words.
 
uscitizen said:
the Civil war did not start over slavery, You MIL is mostly right. It did have more to do with states rights and taxation / tarrifs and such economic issues more than slavery initially. Slavery was added in as a tool to get support in the mostly slave free north for the war.
Click to expand...

Of course it was a complex issue, and economics played a role.

But, the fundamental issue was whether slavery would be expanded into newly created territories and states. That was what much of the upheavals of the 1850s was about. It was assumed that if slavery was prevented from being expanded into new territories and states, that slavery as an institution would wither since the south would ultimately loose control of the Federal goverment (senate, House, etc).

And, lo and behold, as soon as the South secceede, they wrote their own constition which guaranteed that slavery would be legal in all new states and territories incorporated into the confederacy in the future.

Coincidence that this "right" to slavery was incorporated in the Confederate constitution? I think not.
 
Dixie said:
You have it backwards here Dixie, as usual. You say, "You can believe that it's not morally right for one man to own another, and still believe that one race is superior of inferior to another, so the two viewpoints are not synonymous." No they are not synonymous. But the ideology of slavery as it was practiced after 1650 or so in the United States was built on the ideology of white supremacy.

Which is why I was clear when I said "the issue of slavery in 1864" was not equivalent to "the issue of racism". We are not discussing the overall issue of the concept of slavery, no doubt, that is indeed rooted in racist belief. It's why you automatically assume that racism and slavery are synonymous. Let us be clear about what I am arguing, it's not that slavery itself wasn't racist, it is that the issue of slavery in 1864 America, was not a racial issue, meaning, it wasn't about the racists vs. the non-racist, it was a largely economic issue for the South. This is why it took another century to pass Civil Rights, if the Civil War had been about racial equality, it would have been settled long before 1964.
Click to expand...

Wow! You answer a post where I say that racism and slavery are "not synonymous," a statement you even quoted, by claiming "you automatically assume that racism and slavery are synonymous." Get a grip Dixie. I thought you were arguing that the Civil war wasn't about "slavery" not that it wasn't about "racial equality." I don't recall anyone arguing that the civil war was about racial equality. Could you show me where someone argued that the civil war was about racial equality, please?

And could you please go back and also answer my questions about the "solid south" while you are at it, please?
 
Last edited:
That was an issue, but economics is what started it all.
I did extensive research on this at one point in time, and got an A+ on a research paper. Only darned a+ I ever got ;)
 
uscitizen said:
That was an issue, but economics is what started it all.
I did extensive research on this at one point in time, and got an A+ on a research paper. Only darned a+ I ever got ;)
Click to expand...

;)

Well yeah, but "economics" was tied into the slavery issue.

The south had "free" labor, and an enslaved cotton harvesting population, and that cotton had to be traded on the international markets. What capitalist wouldn't want to have "free" labor? It all ties into economics and tarrifs.
 
Well in that respect yes....
But the issue of freeing the slaves was added in later to gain support for ther north and to incite the slaves in the south to run off or revolt.
 
uscitizen said:
Well in that respect yes....
But the issue of freeing the slaves was added in later to gain support for ther north and to incite the slaves in the south to run off or revolt.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, agreed.

The actual emacipation of southern slaves wasn't an issue until 1863.

I'm just saying that the institution of slavery in principle, and its expansion into the western territories, was the driving factor of the succession.
 
Cypress said:
;)

Well yeah, but "economics" was tied into the slavery issue.

The south had "free" labor, and an enslaved cotton harvesting population, and that cotton had to be traded on the international markets. What capitalist wouldn't want to have "free" labor? It all ties into economics and tarrifs.
Click to expand...

It's really pretty funny, for years southerners argued that the Black slave work force was so lazy and so worthless that they never did enough work to make their food and keep let alone earn wages. Then after the groundbreaking research of Eric Williams in the early forties published as Capitalism and Slavery (1944) showed the profits that were generated by slavery, the South began claiming that slavery was an economic issue. The certainly wanted it both ways didn't they. I'm glad Dixie is here to remind me of all this history that I had partially forgotten. Thanks Dixie.

Hey do you want to tell me what the term the "Solid South" refers to or means?? And how that solid south primary system worked?? Please!!!!
 
Prakosh said:
It's really pretty funny, for years southerners argued that the Black slave work force was so lazy and so worthless that they never did enough work to make their food and keep let alone earn wages. Then after the groundbreaking research of Eric Williams in the early forties published as Capitalism and Slavery (1944) showed the profits that were generated by slavery, the South began claiming that slavery was an economic issue. The certainly wanted it both ways didn't they. I'm glad Dixie is here to remind me of all this history that I had partially forgotten. Thanks Dixie.

Hey do you want to tell me what the term the "Solid South" refers to or means?? And how that solid south primary system worked?? Please!!!!
Click to expand...

Prak,

Having lived in the South myself, I can tell you that southerners are taught by their parents, grandparent, and schools, a mythological revised version of civil war history.

i.e., it "wasn't about slavery", and it was the North that were the aggressors.
 
uscitizen said:
Well it actually was, to prevent the south from succeeding from the Union.
Click to expand...
Well, if you happen to be seceding, you simply attempt to leave and wait it out. I can see no scenario where you just go and attack the other side unless you are attempting a revolution.
 
uscitizen said:
Well it actually was, to prevent the south from succeeding from the Union.
Click to expand...

Ordering Federal troops to surrender, and firing on Fort Sumter is basically an insurrection and rebelion. Of course the american government is going to be provoked in responding to an insurrection.
 
Well umm yes that does sort of go along with succession. And the north had taken no action against the south prior to the souths actions at sumpter ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top