It's Confederate History Month in Dixie

[drone]

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.

You are obviously just trolling now.

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

While such sentiments are admirable, "horrible injustice" is of course subjective. That is why the law exists; and under your scenario, your solution is unconstitutional.

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?

Well, in Mexico after independence from Spain, various groups of people such as the Indians and country peasants were essentially endentured slaves to large land owners. While technically not slaves under the law, "debt slavery" was a common term among the populists of the time. After the Mexican Revolution in 1910, the politicians decided to correct this horrible injustice by simply taking land from the owners and distributing it among the workers through the ejidos system. Naturally, productivity and output collapsed due to the reasons Drone mentioned. (Laborers are not farmers; and it takes more than working on a farm to understand how to farm.) Worse, unlike America's black population after slavery was abolished who were at least mobile and could seek employment/opportunities elsewhere, those Mexican's were tied to their land and lives of subsistence farming. (With the exception of black sharecroppers, who shared much the same fate as the Mexican peasantry.) In a bid to increase productivity, the Mexican government abandoned further land distribution in the 90s.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

You are obviously just trolling now.

Yes, being concerned about the welfare of those held in bondage is trolling. How is giving freed slaves "backpay" a bad idea, nevermind trolling?

While such sentiments are admirable, "horrible injustice" is of course subjective. That is why the law exists; and under your scenario, your solution is unconstitutional.

Slavery isn't a horrible injustice? Fascinating.

Well, in Mexico after independence from Spain, various groups of people such as the Indians and country peasants were essentially endentured slaves to large land owners. While technically not slaves under the law, "debt slavery" was a common term among the populists of the time. After the Mexican Revolution in 1910, the politicians decided to correct this horrible injustice by simply taking land from the owners and distributing it among the workers through the ejidos system. Naturally, productivity and output collapsed due to the reasons Drone mentioned. (Laborers are not farmers; and it takes more than working on a farm to understand how to farm.) Worse, unlike America's black population after slavery was abolished who were at least mobile and could seek employment/opportunities elsewhere, those Mexican's were tied to their land and lives of subsistence farming. (With the exception of black sharecroppers, who shared much the same fate as the Mexican peasantry.) In a bid to increase productivity, the Mexican government abandoned further land distribution in the 90s.

Were the lands given to the people who had worked them, or to peasants in general. And if we must defend slaveowner's plantations in the name of productivity, what do you think of my suggestion that freed slaves be paid the wages they should've earned if they were white laborers? Keep in mind that that is much less than the value the slaveowners received from having those slaves.

[DisruptorX]

Slavery isn't a horrible injustice? Fascinating.

He said that what is an "injustice" is subjective.

As for the other point, Ex post facto law is artibrary and tyrannical, the exact sort of thing a just system of laws is in place to prevent. If you were engaging in a perfectly legal activity today and then heavily penalized for it tomorrow when it was declared illegal, perhaps you would then see why it is not the basis for law. Being in favor of arbitrary government is...well....I don't know. I didn't think anyone is seriously in favor of that.

[drone]

Yes, being concerned about the welfare of those held in bondage is trolling. How is giving freed slaves "backpay" a bad idea, nevermind trolling?

What business do you know of that keeps, say, 10-20 years of back pay for the workforce just lying around?

This solution would lead to these cases:
Worst case, outright murder of slaves before they get freed, just to keep from going bankrupt.
Financial ruin for just about any business that owned slaves, if they pay. Economic collapse in general.
70 year head start to the KKK, throughout the entire country, with resentment towards African Americans lasting for a very long time.

Less than 5 years after it's implementation, the Brits would come back and clean up the mess, and the country would be a failed experiment, footnote to history. It's completely unworkable.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

He said that what is an "injustice" is subjective.

I disagree, but if that is true, the entirety of the law is subjective - how can we rely on it?

As for the other point, Ex post facto law is artibrary and tyrannical, the exact sort of thing a just system of laws is in place to prevent. If you were engaging in a perfectly legal activity today and then heavily penalized for it tomorrow when it was declared illegal, perhaps you would then see why it is not the basis for law. Being in favor of arbitrary government is...well....I don't know. I didn't think anyone is seriously in favor of that.

So if a country made a law saying that it was legal to murder members of a minority group, and you did so, and for whatever reason people realized how terrible that was, we shouldn't at least have you and other murders make restitution to the victim's families?

What business do you know of that keeps, say, 10-20 years of back pay for the workforce just lying around?

What kind of business do you know of that keeps slaves?

This solution would lead to these cases:
Worst case, outright murder of slaves before they get freed, just to keep from going bankrupt.

Slave owners were wonderful people, weren't they.

Financial ruin for just about any business that owned slaves, if they pay. Economic collapse in general.

Honest question, how much of business in America was dependent on slavery?

70 year head start to the KKK, throughout the entire country, with resentment towards African Americans lasting for a very long time.

So, we get a 70 year head start on the civil rights movement.

Less than 5 years after it's implementation, the Brits would come back and clean up the mess, and the country would be a failed experiment, footnote to history. It's completely unworkable.

A common enemy to unite against. Didn't the British offer freedom to slaves who fought for them in the War for Independence? Who knows, they might've been sympathetic.

[drone]

Alright, multi-quote time!

So if a country made a law saying that it was legal to murder members of a minority group, and you did so, and for whatever reason people realized how terrible that was, we shouldn't at least have you and other murders make restitution to the victim's families?

No. Look at why ex post facto laws are illegal. The time to realize how terrible a law is, is before it gets passed.

What kind of business do you know of that keeps slaves?

Your reply/question has no bearing on the argument, since none exist in the country today. What business do you know that has the cash reserves for 10-20 years of back pay?

Slave owners were wonderful people, weren't they.

No, they were people living within the law and with what was culturally acceptable at the time. Some were decent, some weren't. When faced with financial ruin, those that weren't decent would probably just kill their slaves to remove that financial obligation. Since slaves were considered property, this would be legal. Don't forget that slave owners paid for the slaves originally, fed them, housed them, clothed them. Slaves were an investment for the owners. Simple emancipation would cost the owners enough. Tacking on back pay and education costs would break them.

Honest question, how much of business in America was dependent on slavery?

An honest question, does this make the rest rhetoric? I have no idea of the percentages of GDP relied on it. There were almost 700K slaves in what became the US in 1788, roughly 20% of the total population. Mostly concentrated in Virgina, Maryland, and the Carolinas (~600K), with the rest spread out through the other states.

So, we get a 70 year head start on the civil rights movement.

There would be no civil rights movement. A pogrom maybe.

A common enemy to unite against. Didn't the British offer freedom to slaves who fought for them in the War for Independence? Who knows, they might've been sympathetic.

The British, the slaves, or the colonies? I honestly don't get what you are saying here.

[PanzerJaeger]

Slavery isn't a horrible injustice? Fascinating.

That's not exactly what I said...

Certainly by today's standards slavery is an injustice; but by the standards of 1861, things get a bit murkier. Taking things all the way back to 1776, it becomes even more difficult for me to justify land redistribution and reparations without completely ignoring the historical context in which slavery was practiced. As I said, it become subjective.

That’s just me though. You obviously feel differently. That's why the law is important, and why the framers specifically wrote ex post facto language into the Constitution. You're arguing from an emotional level - essentially "the evil slave owners deserved to be punished". However, the question isn't about the morality of slavery - that was decided with the emancipation, but with the legality of retroactively punishing formerly legal behavior - that was decided in the Constitution.

Were the lands given to the people who had worked them, or to peasants in general.

They were given the land on which they lived and worked.

And if we must defend slaveowner's plantations in the name of productivity, what do you think of my suggestion that freed slaves be paid the wages they should've earned if they were white laborers? Keep in mind that that is much less than the value the slaveowners received from having those slaves.

I think that would be equivalent to cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. Damaging the Southern economy more than it already had been during the war in the name of retribution would end up helping no one. Further, as can be seen in the Mexican example, land distribution schemes can have negative repercussions far beyond the immediate generation effected by them. I would venture to say that even after the North abandoned Southern blacks after Reconstruction, they still fared better than most of the Mexican peasantry during the land reform period. Their progeny certainly have.

If we’re looking to give the former slaves a boost after coming out of such conditions, may I suggest looking westward? America in 1865 still had vast tracts of rich, arable land that the government was literally paying people to settle. Aiding the former slaves in homesteading this land could have been the basis of strong and productive communities.

With proper government support in things such as capital investment, social organization, protection from the natives, and education in farming techniques, such a plan could have worked out well.

[Horatius]

I really think the perspective should be kept that the South was fighting for slavery, now I got all of this information from the BBC, but isn't it true that after the war was over the returning confederates with local support waged war against the freed slaves and often killed white supporters? Wasn't that violence even against the expressed instructions of Robert E Lee?

On the same documentary I also learned that the massacre was a favorite tool of the ex rebels, and that local police would massacre political allies of the North during their rallies as long as the military wasn't around in force.

For more see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalawag
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger

If slavery wasn't the cause of the civil war, why didn't the South just agree to radical reconstruction, and to step forward?

That said I freely agree and admit I know nothing at all about the American Civil War, it is not a field I have touched very much if at all, and I also know the BBC is not unbiased, and wikipedia shouldn't be relied on, so I invite anyone who disagrees with what I said to say why, I'm not trying to start a fight.

[Fisherking]

As for the causes of the war, slavery was not the primary reason. The reasons were economic. Slavery was the heated issue used to stoke the fires in the north for an otherwise unpopular war.

It was not much more popular in the south by the way. There were riots in both places.

As to compensation. Any former slave who asked for it received 40 acres and a mule to start a farm.

Lincoln had proposed sending them all back to their homelands, though no one was sure exactly where that was. Those few who chose to return to Africa founded the nation of Liberia.

I am not going to touch the aftermath of the war nor the causes of racism. But it should be sufficient to say that the people, mostly nonslave holders saw the former slaves as being placed above them for the purpose of retribution and political control.

[Strike For The South]

As for the causes of the war, slavery was not the primary reason. The reasons were economic. Slavery was the heated issue used to stoke the fires in the north for an otherwise unpopular war.
.

Slavery and the Antebellum economy are hand in hand.

The secession speechs bear themselves out, Slavery was the primary reason.

[Fisherking]

Slavery was the emotional issue. Just as abortion takes center stage in arguments over states’ rights today.

But only 10% or less of the population owned slaves. Why was it that South Carolina fired on Ft. Sumter? I don’t think slaves were involved in that.

[Strike For The South]

Slavery was the emotional issue. Just as abortion takes center stage in arguments over states’ rights today.

But only 10% or less of the population owned slaves. Why was it that South Carolina fired on Ft. Sumter? I don’t think slaves were involved in that.

Those 10% were the most powerful people though, and the most powerful people tend to get there way...

I was always under the impression the taking of Ft.Summter was for the weapons cache there....The CSA plea for surrender was ignored and the rest is history.

The point is you can not talk about states rights nor the south economy without talking about the slavery issue because those areguments stemmed out of things like the fugtive slave act (commonly reffered to in the ordinances of secesion) and tariffs (which really only hurt the south because they had created a false market by using slave labor)

[Fisherking]

No. They attacked Ft. Sumter because Lincoln would not with draw the troops from there.

They saw it as foreign occupation. The Union was sending reinforcements.

It was still a dumb thing to do. I am from one of the 4 states that didn’t join in until after the crises.

It also caused a civil war among the Cherokee but most of the tribes of what is now Oklahoma were friendly to the Confederacy.

I would agree that it was all about slavery as far as South Carolina was concerned but the causes run far deeper and farther back than 1861.

The rank and file were not concerned with slavery which was a rich mans problem but joined and fought for different reasons.

Even is the 7 deep south states there was lots of anti war sentiment from the beginning.

It is much more complicated than slave and free. It has been an issue of division for almost 200 years and there have been no slaves for more than 147 of those.

[Strike For The South]

No. They attacked Ft. Sumter because Lincoln would not with draw the troops from there.

They saw it as foreign occupation. The Union was sending reinforcements.

It was still a dumb thing to do. I am from one of the 4 states that didn’t join in until after the crises.

It also caused a civil war among the Cherokee but most of the tribes of what is now Oklahoma were friendly to the Confederacy.

I would agree that it was all about slavery as far as South Carolina was concerned but the causes run far deeper and farther back than 1861.

The rank and file were not concerned with slavery which was a rich mans problem but joined and fought for different reasons.

Even is the 7 deep south states there was lots of anti war sentiment from the beginning.

It is much more complicated than slave and free. It has been an issue of division for almost 200 years and there have been no slaves for more than 147 of those.

I agree that it is more complex but the centerpeice is still Chattel Slavery

[DisruptorX]

You could argue that the North was not fighting against slavery. As slavery in the Confederacy was only abolished with the emancipation proclamation and slavery in the Union with the 13th Amendment. The were fighting because of slavery, as disagreements over the spread of the institution led more or less directly to the secession, but they were not initially fighting to abolish it.

Arguing that the South was not fighting for slavery, however, is disingenuous. The conflict over territories becoming free or slave states upon admission was the biggest issue of argument between the North and South.

[Subotan]

Land redistribution does indeed have a track record of success

Of course. To pull a random example out of my History Hat, huge land redistribution in Japan post-WWII broke the power of the pre-war landlords and created a small-farmer class who were the backbone of the Liberal Democratic Party's support, thus leading to Japan's economic miracle.

I remember reading that the key to the United State's success as opposed to other post-colonial American nations which relied heavily on immigrants, such as Argentina, was the lack of a landlord class which could dominate politics and society.

Except, of course, in the South. Perhaps if radical redistribution had occured, and each black slave had acquired his 40 acres and a mule, then the Southern backlash wouldn't have occurred.

[Horatius]

Like in China and the USSR?

Lets also remember how heavily the North developed industry and commerce to, just in order to keep Land Distribution in perspective. That said everyone should have been given land, or at least some type of property to sustain themselves as a point of basic morality, recent freed slaves have been granted the same neglect in more recent times. However is it proven that smaller farms are more effective? Large industrial farming complexes are overwhelming today aren't they?

[Azathoth]

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.

Of course. To pull a random example out of my History Hat, huge land redistribution in Japan post-WWII broke the power of the pre-war landlords and created a small-farmer class who were the backbone of the Liberal Democratic Party's support, thus leading to Japan's economic miracle.

I remember reading that the key to the United State's success as opposed to other post-colonial American nations which relied heavily on immigrants, such as Argentina, was the lack of a landlord class which could dominate politics and society.

Except, of course, in the South. Perhaps if radical redistribution had occured, and each black slave had acquired his 40 acres and a mule, then the Southern backlash wouldn't have occurred.

Well, here's an interesting article...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/op...ates.html?_r=1

Holy Jesus, why does posting on this site have to be such a hassle? When is this going to be fixed??!?!

[DisruptorX]

Given that Confederates didn't put down their guns after the Civil War, and instead turned them on blacks who didn't say "in their place", do you seriously think the North would even have considered land reform? They would have to have put the South under military rule for decades. This is something there was no popular support for amongst the Northern people.

[rotorgun]

Wow! This thread has been an interesting read. Many good points have been made. I shall add this point to consider. There is not a great nation in world history that has not had its time of exploitation of the weak, whether slave, poor, indignant, immigrant, or conquered in war. Should they all denounce their history, or the parts of it that are indigestible, and thereby deprive the world of the picture of the truth? I don't think that acknowledging the bravery of those who fought in the American Civil War for the South is wrong. There is no attempt in our country to deny the causes of the war in this act alone. While I find the acts of many countries in world history deplorable, I don't think I should take exception to a country, or a region within, of acknowledging its past.

We all, for the most part revel in our Total War games, many which "glorify" the conquest, enslavement, economic and social repression, and exploitation of the regimes of the past. Are we not somewhat hypocritical of the Virginian South for taking pride in there Antebellum past? I still can appreciate the French revolution, though it was a time of great depredation and murder. I still can wonder at the bravery of German soldiers fighting for survival against long odds, even though they fought for a deplorable regime. Slavery was wrong, will always be wrong, but is unfortunate; there are some ant species that practice this upon their brethren by the way. Forcing one's way of life down another peoples throat is wrong, yet it is still a common practice today.

I love my country, with all its failings, and hope that the young of my land will be able to learn the truth from such a celebration of the history of the Confederacy. I hope that such a celebration will engender more discussions such as this, so that we can learn from the mistakes of the past. If we don't are we not doomed to repeat it?

[Skullheadhq]

fighting to extend germany deep into Ukraine, it is undeniable that the Imperial German Government was.

Actually, Germany officially didn't get a sqaure inch of land. In every occupied State (Russian Poland, Baltics and the Ukraine) puppet regimes were set up. So no, the Imperial German Government wasn't planning to extend into Ukraine.

Also, Germany (Prussia) was the first one to abolish child labor (somewhere in the 1830's) and make education compulsatory, while the US did this more then 100 years later, in 1938.

[Azathoth]

Also, Germany (Prussia) was the first one to abolish child labor (somewhere in the 1830's) and make education compulsatory, while the US did this more then 100 years later, in 1938.

Always thought it was 1918.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Couldn't the same be said for the Northern leaders? What did your average Union soldier stand to gain from fighting?

Saving the Union.

[Skullheadhq]

Always thought it was 1918.

Nope, Prussia wanted education for all for a quicker industrialisation, and they thought child labour was morally wrong (which it is).
1918 was the year the republic was proclaimed, before that it was a Constitutional Monarchy/Parliamentary Democracy.
The kaiser wanted to do even more social reforms, which is the reason he fired Bismarck, but he couldn't finish his job after the (failed) revolution in Germany.

But back on topic: Didn't the south do the union a favor by seceding?

[Azathoth]

Nope, Prussia wanted education for all for a quicker industrialisation, and they thought child labour was morally wrong (which it is).
1918 was the year the republic was proclaimed, before that it was a Constitutional Monarchy/Parliamentary Democracy.
The kaiser wanted to do even more social reforms, which is the reason he fired Bismarck, but he couldn't finish his job after the (failed) revolution in Germany.

But back on topic: Didn't the south do the union a favor by seceding?

You misunderstand. I thought education in the United States was compulsory by 1918.

[A Nerd]

Didn't the south do the union a favor by seceding?

Perhaps, but that depends on who had the most to gain by the North winning the war. Surely the generation lost fighting all the battles gained little. Abolishonist civilians, perhaps. I think politicians who could enforce thier vision of what the south could be, did with war what could not be done in congress. They, in my opinion, gained the most. Sure, blacks were free, but it took another 100 years for any slight sense of equality.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Did the South do the Union a favor by seceding? No, but they did the Republican Party agenda a snot-load of good. Having a 70% majority will do that for your legislation ability.

In addition to the war, the Railroad decision was made (and the Southern Route discarded) and the homestead act was put into law, both sentencing Amerind culture to destruction. The Republicans also succeeded in shifting the American political "center" towards the West (then defined as Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, etc. and away from the brahmins of the Northeast.

[Ice]

Confederate history month... what a joke. What's even more of a joke is people defending slavery in the 1800s because it was lawful and culturally accepted.

[DisruptorX]

Hey now, slavery is very progressive.

"Government is the creature of society, and may be said to derive its powers form the consent of the governed; but society does not owe its sovereign power to the separate consent, volition or agreement of its members. Like the hive, it is as much the work of nature as the individuals who compose it. Consequently, the very opposite of the doctrine of free trade, result from this doctrine of ours. It makes each society a band of brothers, working for the common good, instead of a bag of cats biting and worrying each other. The competitive system is a system of antagonism and war; ours of peace and fraternity. The first is the system of free society; the other that of slave society. The Greek, the Roman, Judaistic, Egyptian, and all ancient polities, were founded on our theory. The loftiest patrician in those days, valued himself not on selfish, cold individuality, but on being the most devoted servant of society and his country.
......
The dissociation of labor and disintegration of society, which liberty and free competition occasion, is especially injurious to the poorer class; for besides the labor necessary to support the family, the poor man is burdened with the care of finding a home, and procuring employment, and attending to all domestic wants and concerns. Slavery relieves our slaves of these cares altogether, and slavery is a form, and the very best form, of socialism."

-George Fitzhugh, Sociology for the South, 1854.

Slavery is clearly the original form of socialism.