It's Confederate History Month in Dixie

[DisruptorX]

I agree that the primary reason for the divergence of the North and the South was the disparity in economic systems, but I think you are putting too much emphasis on the role slavery played in the motivations of those who fought for the South. Slaves were an expensive luxury that most Southerners would never have, especially considering the fact that the South continued the ban on new importation. The vast majority of Southern whites worked their own farms or on those of others. The federal tariffs and other laws which increasingly favored Northern industry at the expense of Southern agriculture hurt these non-slave owning Southerners just as badly, if not more so. For most, the war was about the North dominating the South through the federal government.

That assumes that Slavery was not a system that non slave holders supported or aspired to be part of. But really, as you suggest, non-slave holders were simply fighting for their nation, of which slavery was a fundamental institution. They weren't fighitng for slavery in the abstract, no. But you really can't divorce the South from the institution of slavery.

Do you have examples of letters or whatnot of non slave holders discussing why they fought? I think that would be rather interesting. Certainly all the top level political disputes, conflicts, and even battles leading up to the civil war were directly tied to slavery, but that is different than saying the average footman was fighting for that cause in particular.

[Megas Methuselah]

In that case, we should cancel 4th of July celebrations and American history as a whole should not be commemorated, as the nation was essentially created through aggressive expansionist policies and the destruction of hundreds of other nations.

I know, eh?

[Centurion1]

The civil war occurred because two diametrically opposed economic systems cannot survive together but must either merge or seperate.

In essence the Civil War was a bunch of poor white southern mountain boys fighting for something they could only dream of, plantation lifestyles. Slavery however was only the spark that blew up the US. Sparks within that spark were Harper's Ferry, Dred Scott Case, Republicans Election, Free Soil movement, etc.

I read an article in the Washington Post (hate it) where some guy name Andrez (sp?) Martinez is talking about how he refuses to go down lee street or something and how he doesn't want his kid to go to Washington-Lee high school.

Garbage.

[DisruptorX]

Well, recognizing that Slavery was the central issue of the time and that "states rights" is a euphemism for one right in particular doesn't mean that one should discard his heritage or deny it. No one alive today (or for quite a long time) is responsible for the institution of slavery or involved with it, why feel that you need to pretend that the the war was about something else? No one has any duty to either condemn or disguise the actions of their ancestors. What happened happened, and pretending that it didn't doesn't change that. Apologism seems just as silly as that man you mention. Southerners weren't ashamed at all of their institution of slavery, they strongly believed in it.

Hating on confederates seems to me the same as hating on various American leaders who enacted unjust policies as Indians, such as Jackson. Why bother? To seem edgy? No one denies it happened, or condones it, so why would one waste such effort?

You won't find a single person who is seriously pro-slavery alive today.

[Watchman]

You will, however, find only too many who are seriously racist alive today.
And for some strange reason such people seem to have a taste for the "stars and bars" as a decorative element... funny that.

Just sayin'.

[Strike For The South]

You will, however, find only too many who are seriously racist alive today.
And for some strange reason such people seem to have a taste for the "stars and bars" as a decorative element... funny that.

Just sayin'.

They yearn for a time that never was....Where I live people in schools were taught the justness of the souths cause not because of the more merited states rights reasons but because we were god fearing protestants and they yankees were godless negro appeasers.

And this was all the way up until the 90s in San Antonio, Texas. Which is the very edge of dixie (if one can even consider dixie at all)

In most places the lost cause narritive is still beaten into brains and with much sucsess

[DisruptorX]

The "Lost Cause" mythology is so divorced from fact, that I find it really hard to believe that just because some people actually believe that nonsense, everyone should treat the Confederacy like they were Nazis.

I don't know, though, thats just me. My ancestors were confederates but I don't really feel all that connected with them, and don't consider *myself* a "confederate" or agree with any of their views. I just find that you can go too far in either direction. I see no reason why anyone should vilify their ancestors just because some racists today make up stories about the South's history. Its kind of like this: acceptance of Jim Crow was based on the Lost Cause myth. Racists today cling to it. But the Lost Cause myth is its own thing, invented decades after the fall of the Confederacy. Of course, thats an entirely different discussion.

[Strike For The South]

I had men fight on both sides, and generally agree that the South was fighting unjustly, however,

The massive amount of casulties combined with utter destruction did lead to a Northern cultural and economic imperialism that lasts until today (of course now the tide is begining to turn)

[Beskar]

What is most hilariously disturbing about the United States, is that they had slaves in the first place. They built the nation on the backbone of Liberty and Freedom, yet, they were the biggest buyers of the slave trade?

[DisruptorX]

What is most hilariously disturbing about the United States, is that they had slaves in the first place. They built the nation on the backbone of Liberty and Freedom, yet, they were the biggest buyers of the slave trade?

Thats an entire different discussion that could go on for quite a while.

John Locke himself was a big player in the American slave trade.

[drone]

What is most hilariously disturbing about the United States, is that they had slaves in the first place. They built the nation on the backbone of Liberty and Freedom, yet, they were the biggest buyers of the slave trade?

Well, after the Revolution, what would you suggest we do with 600-700K slaves already imported when the States were British colonies? Close to 20% of the population, with no money or means to support themselves.

[Beskar]

Well, after the Revolution, what would you suggest we do with 600-700K slaves already imported when the States were British colonies? Close to 20% of the population, with no money or means to support themselves.

Not buy anymore. You could also set them free as well.

[Watchman]

And pretty much take floor away from beneath the entire plantation-owner class ? I think we all know how enthusiastically they took to that idea...

[drone]

Not buy anymore.

Pre-Revolution, several states/colonies tried to ban the importation of slaves, the British Privy Council overruled them. Post-Revolution, all states except Georgia banned importation by 1786, Georgia (which didn't allow slavery from 1735-1750) banned it in 1798.

You could also set them free as well.

And watch them either starve in the wilderness or turn to crime to survive? And watch the newly birthed nation dissolve in economic ruin?

And the States/British North America were not the main buyers in the slave trade. The colonies in Central/South America and the Caribbean bought way more slaves in the Atlantic trade. Climate, disease, and conditions for those plantations and mines chewed through laborers very quickly. The US South catches (rightly so) a lot of grief because they kept slavery legal longer than most, but if we are talking sheer volume (and body count), look no further than the Spanish, Portuguese, French, and English colonies south of the border.

[DisruptorX]

Those are the arguments that gradual abolitionists/slaveholders used back then, yes. I wouldn't say those are actually valid points, though. In reality, when freed, ex-slaves turned to agriculture, business, and politics, and were moderately successful in all before the big crackdown during "redemption".

I mean, they didn't take over the government of the South as pictured in "Birth of a Nation", but they didn't exactly sit around and starve to death like the gradualist/pro-slavery crowd claimed would happen.

[drone]

Those are the arguments that gradual abolitionists/slaveholders used back then, yes. I wouldn't say those are actually valid points, though. In reality, when freed, ex-slaves turned to agriculture, business, and politics, and were moderately successful in all before the big crackdown during "redemption".

I mean, they didn't take over the government of the South as pictured in "Birth of a Nation", but they didn't exactly sit around and starve to death like the gradualist/pro-slavery crowd claimed would happen.

No, they didn't. But the overall situation in North America was different in 1865 than it was in 1788. Of course we won't know for sure, but I'm guessing that westward expansion, industrial revolution/modernization, Reconstruction policies, and the buildup of national infrastructure helped the freed slaves in their new life.

[Megas Methuselah]

And watch them either starve in the wilderness or turn to crime to survive?

Yes. It was for their own good. Just like what you did to those dirty Indians.

And watch the newly birthed nation dissolve in economic ruin?

State or country. Not nation.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Pre-Revolution, several states/colonies tried to ban the importation of slaves, the British Privy Council overruled them. Post-Revolution, all states except Georgia banned importation by 1786, Georgia (which didn't allow slavery from 1735-1750) banned it in 1798.

And watch them either starve in the wilderness or turn to crime to survive? And watch the newly birthed nation dissolve in economic ruin?

Not that it was remotely likely to happen, but break up the plantations and divide the land up among the slaves. It would hardly have ruined the United States (especially counting the vast expenses of ending slavery as it did four score and seven years later).

[PanzerJaeger]

Not that it was remotely likely to happen, but break up the plantations and divide the land up among the slaves. It would hardly have ruined the United States (especially counting the vast expenses of ending slavery as it did four score and seven years later).

Land redistribution does indeed have a track record of success... err...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

The slaves already did the work on those plantations, why shouldn't they be entitled to keep what they produced? It's quite a different kettle of fish from taking the land from someone and giving it to someone else who was never involved with the land in the first place.

I think it's quite clear that it is unjust to profit from another's work without contributing to the process, ala plantation owners. The easiest solution to that injustice is to limit the profit of that work to the person doing it.

Can you show me a historical example where what I described happened, and resulted in negative consequences? Because I'm not even sure I can name such a situation at all, nevermind the outcomes.

[PanzerJaeger]

The slaves already did the work on those plantations, why shouldn't they be entitled to keep what they produced?

Because it wasn't theirs.

It is one thing for society to decide that slavery is not right and should be abolished. It is completely different to then simply take land from property owners who legally owned their land and distribute it to other people.

It would be as if the president emancipated your dog, and, despite the fact that owning your dog was legal yesterday, today the government decides to take half of your possessions and give them to the dog. It screams of banana republic politics.

Just because you may happen to believe that the plantation owners were acting immorally does not mean that they were acting illegally, and they should not have been punished ex post facto. The US government quickly came to this conclusion after the war and reversed the "40 acres and a mule" nonesense Sherman enacted.

Can you show me a historical example where what I described happened, and resulted in negative consequences? Because I'm not even sure I can name such a situation at all, nevermind the outcomes.

One only needs to look South of the border.

[Beskar]

Because it wasn't theirs.

It is one thing for society to decide that slavery is not right and should be abolished. It is completely different to then simply take land from property owners who legally owned their land and distribute it to other people.

It would be as if the president emancipated your dog, and, despite the fact that owning your dog was legal yesterday, today the government decides to take half of your possessions and give them to the dog. It screams of banana republic Marxism.

What he said was more like hiring Slaves as paid Workers.

[PanzerJaeger]

What he said was more like hiring Slaves as paid Workers.

He said "Not that it was remotely likely to happen, but break up the plantations and divide the land up among the slaves."

And thanks for the pre-edit correction.

[Beskar]

The slaves already did the work on those plantations, why shouldn't they be entitled to keep what they produced?

I read this statement as Serfdom, basically. The slaves become peasants and they work the lands and they keep what they produce, but they pay/rent or give a certain percentage of the crop to the owner. Another way of doing it would be the employ the slaves as labourers, so they can continue working the land as workers, not as a slave.

And thanks for the pre-edit correction.

Had me confused at first at what you meant, then I remembered I made a comment that it wouldn't be Marxism as the state would just take the land and it wouldn't be owned by anyone.

[drone]

Slavery in the US colonies evolved from indentured servitude (both European and African). Once the debt was paid, the indentured servant was freed but generally did not become prosperous as the best land was already taken. The participation of former indentured servants in uprisings like Bacon's Rebellion led to the switch from indentured servitude to racial slavery. I'm surprised Megas hasn't brought this up, since the presence of the Natives led to the institution of slavery in the US. Slavery didn't become a legal reality in the US colonies until around 1650, about 150 years behind the rest of the Americas.

Politically, the plantations were not going to be broken up when the US was formed since many of the FFs were plantation owners themselves.

Look to Zimbabwe to see what happens when you split up a large working farm and give it to people that don't have the proper knowledge to run it. There is more to farming than dropping seeds in the ground and harvesting the results.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Because it wasn't theirs.

It is one thing for society to decide that slavery is not right and should be abolished. It is completely different to then simply take land from property owners who legally owned their land and distribute it to other people.

It would be as if the president emancipated your dog, and, despite the fact that owning your dog was legal yesterday, today the government decides to take half of your possessions and give them to the dog. It screams of banana republic politics.

That's a really creepy analogy to try to draw, as that's exactly the attitude the slave owners had to their "possessions", but your analogy wouldn't even be close to correct unless the dog was sapient and provided the labor that amounted for half of your possessions.

I'm aiming for precisely the analogy Beskar mentioned - the slavery situation was just a really cruel version of serfdom. The solution to serfdom is to grant full ownership to the land the serfs were already working. Why can't we do that for slaves? It is obvious that those who kept slaves should release them and be on the hook for providing for them, as the slaves provided for their masters previously.

One only needs to look South of the border.

Care to elaborate, because I don't know what you are referring to.

Look to Zimbabwe to see what happens when you split up a large working farm and give it to people that don't have the proper knowledge to run it. There is more to farming than dropping seeds in the ground and harvesting the results.

The situation there is quite different, as the confiscated farms were not given to people who had previously been working that land as slaves.

[drone]

The situation there is quite different, as the confiscated farms were not given to people who had previously been working that land as slaves.

I don't think the results would be any different, at least for the big plantations. What happens to the livestock and farm equipment? Is that confiscated as well? How is it divvied up? Small farmers with 1 or 2 slaves probably imparted more knowledge, and had to trust their slaves more (and probably treated them better overall), so these slaves would have more success on their own. The big plantations? A few bad harvests and then dead soil.

Since we are talking 1788 in this little hypothetical and not 1850s deep South, what would happen to slaves working as blacksmith help, or as a dockworker, or any other non-plantation related work throughout the 13 colonies? Would the freed slaves get the business? What about the slave labor gangs that weren't tied to a plantation, but rented out across several?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

They should be at least paid the wages they would've received had they been white laborers while they were slaves, maybe throw in the cost for some remedial education, and any physical damages received beyond normal labor such as rape or the lash.

Then the freed slaves could purchase their own land/means of production.

[PanzerJaeger]

That's a really creepy analogy to try to draw, as that's exactly the attitude the slave owners had to their "possessions"

That is because they were possessions under the law.

but your analogy wouldn't even be close to correct unless the dog was sapient and provided the labor that amounted for half of your possessions.

Then make it your plowing horse. The type of animal is not really important to the point I was making. Slaves were animals... property... under the law. It's great that the law changed, but punishing those who acted within the old law is in itself illegal.

I'm aiming for precisely the analogy Beskar mentioned - the slavery situation was just a really cruel version of serfdom. The solution to serfdom is to grant full ownership to the land the serfs were already working. Why can't we do that for slaves?

I feel like I made my point earlier, but I'll take a stab at it from another angle.

The land legally belonged to the owners, not the slaves. Neither morality nor the ability of the slaves to succeed on their own has any real bearing on the situation. In owning slaves, the owners were not violating any laws. Retroactively punishing the owners for acting in a completely legal fashion violates Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution.

It is obvious that those who kept slaves should release them and be on the hook for providing for them, as the slaves provided for their masters previously.

Not really. While a perfect example of such a situation does not present itself, ex post facto case law suggests that the owners would not be oh the hook for providing for them, which is aligned with the historical outcome.

Care to elaborate, because I don't know what you are referring to.

Mexico.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

That is because they were possessions under the law.

Then make it your plowing horse. The type of animal is not really important to the point I was making. Slaves were animals... property... under the law. It's great that the law changed, but punishing those who acted within the old law is in itself illegal.

I feel like I made my point earlier, but I'll take a stab at it from another angle.

The land legally belonged to the owners, not the slaves. Neither morality nor the ability of the slaves to succeed on their own has any real bearing on the situation. In owning slaves, the owners were not violating any laws. Retroactively punishing the owners for acting in a completely legal fashion violates Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution.

Not really. While a perfect example of such a situation does not present itself, ex post facto case law suggests that the owners would not be oh the hook for providing for them, which is aligned with the historical outcome.

I don't have a problem with punishing people who were committing horrible injustices even if it was legal all the time, as such a legal protection would be unjust and thus no valid law at all.

Mexico.

Could you actually elaborate for those of us who don't know Mexican history very much? Was there a situation in Mexico where freed slaves were given the land they worked as recompense for being held as slaves?