Was the Civil War about slavery?
Tuesday, April 26, 2011 - 4:41pm
Submitted by Terry Garlock
Submitted by Terry Garlock
This year marks the 150th anniversary of America’s Civil War, and the occasion is raising the perennial argument over whether that war was about slavery or state’s rights. While the history and politics of slavery in America would fill a long bookshelf, the debate is an occasion to look past the simplicity of pop history to a few highlights that illuminate some warts and wrinkles in our country’s beginnings.
Long before slavery spread to North America, the practice had taken deep root in the Caribbean and what we now call Central and South America, brought by European colonists along with their more advanced civilization, Christianity and a few virulent diseases.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting by comparison the natives were pure. All over the world, humans have been killing and enslaving each other since long before any written history, with the spoils going to the strongest. Our own native Americans practiced a rich variety of brutality and slavery, though a few tribes like the Cherokee Nation were extraordinarily civilized, making our lousy treatment of them particularly egregious.
As colonies in North America became established, the British soon recognized the profit potential in slavery for labor-intensive agriculture. It seems the smell of gold can nudge our susceptible minds to rationalize almost anything, and the crop-intensive southern colonies soon built a slave-based economy. A lot of that money found its way back to England, and some would use the moral excuse that the system of slavery was forced on them by the king.
In 1776 when the colonies were struggling against the chokehold of the British, they finally broached the subject of independence. While they debated in the Philadelphia Continental Congress meetings, the elephant in the room nobody wished to mention was slavery.
The colonies had never before acted in concert on anything, and leading spokesmen knew they had a chance to unite to fight for independence, or they could fight each other over slavery, but that either choice precluded the other. Southern colonies would tolerate no intrusion into the slavery base of their economy. Northern colonies held a rather convenient morally dim view on slavery since their pocketbook was not affected, but they soon learned they had to postpone dealing with the abomination of slavery in order to gain the cooperation of southern colonies.
The first meetings did not even consider the treasonous idea of independence. When John Adams of Massachusetts sensed the Congress shifting towards his notion of independence, he made a strategic offer to form a committee to draft a declaration while negotiations continued. Adams persuaded Thomas Jefferson to draft the statement since Jefferson was a persuasive writer.
Jefferson was from Virginia, one of the southern slave colonies and the most populous by far. Jefferson’s paradox was that he owned hundreds of slaves to work his plantation while he was philosophically opposed to the slavery system, and in his list of grievances against the king he inserted the following language into his draft, surely knowing the firestorm of division it would create:.
“... Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms against us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them, thus paying off former crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another ...”
The drafting committee, perhaps Adams or Franklin, struck this slavery language out of the Declaration of Independence, replacing it with the following vague reference to the King’s promise of freedom to slaves in the colonies who would join the British to fight their masters: “... He has excited domestic Insurrections among us; ...”
And thus began what I would call a conspiracy of silence on the subject of slavery in America. Those deeply involved in politics kept this festering division under wraps, America’s version of a crazy aunt locked in an attic, not to be discussed openly, the subject of whispers in dark corners to preserve a fragile union.
Thomas Jefferson may have been bold in drafting his indictment of the British on the subject of slavery, possibly thinking that would absolve him and other slave owners, but the truth is not quite so tidy. While Jefferson accomplished many notable things in his life, the subject of slavery was not one to give him any cause of pride.
For such a powerful and influential writer, he was remarkably silent on slavery even while others railed against the inhumanity and injustice of the system. In the decades following the Revolution, the population of freed slaves in Virginia grew rapidly as one after another slave owner freed their slaves as a matter of conscience, or included such freedom at their death by their will. But while some of his fellow Virginians were setting their slaves free, Jefferson never did.
When the war ended with America’s independence in 1781, the country operated under Articles of Confederation until the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 to shape the form of our government. At last, America’s great thinkers were gathering to decide how we would govern ourselves, and surely the slavery issue would be finally settled, wouldn’t it?
In the Pennsylvania State House, over three months the representatives of the former colonies, now states, worked and argued, forming factions to support this or oppose that. The southern states were most interested in preserving their status quo on slavery while large and small states were at each others’ throats over the issue of apportionment and how votes in Congress would be counted.
As a prime example of Congress’ noxious deal-making specialty, northern states struck a bargain with southern states to extend the slave trade for 20 years in exchange for making federal regulation of commerce a mere majority vote in Congress instead of requiring a two-thirds majority. It seems that northern morality, just as southern morality, had its price.
The infamous Constitutional clause (Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3) counting slaves as three-fifths of a person is often derided as a gross example of racism, but that over-simplified view is mistaken even though the truth is not much better.
The fraction was a negotiated deal on enumeration to determine how taxes were distributed and how many representatives a state would have. Northern states didn’t want slaves counted at all, while southern slave states wanted slaves counted as a full person. Three-fifths was the compromise, the best deal either side could strike.
And so America’s Constitution was formed with nary an honorable attempt to get rid of slavery. While the new federal government kicked the slavery can down the road, the issue was bubbling at the state level and some states passed their own abolition laws.
By the time the first shot of the Civil War was fired in 1861, there had been ongoing struggles over slavery and compromises on the spread of slavery to western territories. Maybe the war and its bloodbath were inevitable, made necessary by deep, unresolved differences that grew into resentment, suspicion and suppressed anger just below the surface and ready to blow at the slightest provocation.
Does President Abraham Lincoln deserve the accolades he still receives for freeing the slaves in the Emancipation Proclamation? He said, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. ...”
Lincoln held the proclamation in abeyance as he waited impatiently for a Union victory on the battlefield to make the announcement, apparently to maximize political effect.
Furthermore, it was announced in September 1862, as a provision that would go into effect only for those Confederate states who had not returned to the Union by the following January. No Confederate state complied, and when Emancipation was announced on Jan. 1, 1863, it was an order to free 3 million slaves in the Confederate states where the Union held no power to enforce it, and it did not free the nearly 1 million slaves in Union states.
Secretary of State William Seward said of this absurdity, “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”
Lincoln, a Republican, angered northern Democrats with this proclamation as they favored ending the war by accepting slavery. Both parties have committed far too many offenses since that time for either to claim any virtue on the matter.
Personally, I think Lincoln was a great man and a fine President, albeit with many flaws, illustrating our tendency to overlook facts to simplify history and beatify our favorite historical figures.
Was the Civil War about slavery? Well, sure it was, but it was also about the absolute unwillingness of some states to bend to the will of outsiders, and it was about the cowardice of Congress to deal with tough issues, to sweep problems under the rug, to postpone controversy so someone else might handle it in the future, to trade away the most profound principles for a little mutual back-scratching.
Sound familiar?
[Terry Garlock lives in Peachtree City and occasionally contributes a column to The Citizen. His email is terry@garlock1.com.]
- Terry Garlock's blog
- Login or register to post comments
-
Mon, 05/02/2011 - 1:18pm
#92
DM: Thurmond
Yep, DM, silence on such subjects has always been the method of covering up evils.
Our military does it; our CIA does it; our FBI does it; and nearly all State, and local governments do it.
Such contracts as she had are often the usual method as long as the money is adequate or continues flowing.
How could this woman agree that Thurmond did the right thing to her Mother otherwise? Also, it deteriorates all relations with an entire race.
Thurmond did many very good things for the USA; he also did many bad things. We should recognize both. He was short on character and was hypocritical at it's worst.
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 9:38pm
#93
Scratching My Heading
Hmm, those noble South Carolinians had every chance to put all the REAL reasons in their declaration of secession. But, they seem to be fixed on one, and one only--SLAVERY!
I don't see anything about unfair taxes--but I see a lot about SLAVERY!
I don't see anything about unfair trade--but I see a lot about SLAVERY!
I don't see anything about Union troops on southern soil--but I see a lot about SLAVERY!
In fact, I don't see anything about anything much but--SLAVERY!
Now, if there were other factors behind South Carolina's secession, that document would have been the place to put them, at least one or two, don't you think?
But my pa, and his pa, and his pa, and his pa, who were true and noble South Carolinians (Georgians, Virginians, fill in your favorite slave state) said that the war WASN'T about slavery, it was about states rights and the Constitution and, and, and, and the southern way of life! Yes, little Johnny, that's right, go to sleep now and soon you'll be old enough to tote that gun...God Bless the CSA!
I wonder who the Falcons will take in the 3rd round--I'm guessing linebacker.
Go Hawks!
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 10:19pm
#94
Ninja if you're truly open to learn check this out.
This discussion is about the entire Confederacy so I'm going to respond to you using Georgia's letter of secession. Yes slavery is mentioned as I've not denied that it was a factor. But it was far from the only factor.
I don't see anything about unfair taxes--but I see a lot about SLAVERY!
Here Georgia lists how taxes are used for the north and nothing for the south.
The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States.
I don't see anything about unfair trade--but I see a lot about SLAVERY!
The act of 1846 gave northern states an unfair advantage in avoidance of taxes by delaying taxes being due until the product was sold.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
I don't see anything about Union troops on southern soil--but I see a lot about SLAVERY!
Of course not. They weren't here until after these letters were written. This letter of succession can be found at the following link on the Yale Law server.
Sat, 04/30/2011 - 11:25am
#95
South Carolina immediate causes...
"In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.............Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.......The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.
If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation"
The deal gones on, but what they were siting was that the inital agreement was that they would be a Union...ONLY.. as long as they all agreed to.
The South had no need of the North. It was a bad marriage and they wanted out. They were taxed and the money went North for improvements. They got no benifit of it. The North wanted to keep them in for the same reason. They liked the South's money.
It wasn't all about Slavery.
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 5:55pm
#96
Ninjas Are The Agent Orange Of Truth!
Our mission is to defoliate the dense and twisted canopies of lies, half-truths, and distortions some erect to mask the wickedness of their beliefs and the sins of their forefathers!
Now, about that Falcon's draft move last night....
Go Hawks!
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 4:58pm
#97
Also, I've Been Thinking About The
Falcon's draft move last night. At first, I thought the Birds paid way too high a price for moving up from 27th to 6th, costing them a No. 2 and a No.l 4 this year and a No. 1 and a No. 4 next year!
Now that I have a day to think about it, the deal was probably a good move! Jones will contribute right away, whereas there is no guarantee that the players that would have been taken in the slots given away would have EVER don anything on the level that Julio is likely to.
So, I say.
Way to go Falcons!
Sat, 04/30/2011 - 7:03am
#98
Falcons go all in
I would have been more thrilled with Jones or AJ Green if they had returned for their senior years as both are similar WR's: lot of natural talent, occasional mental lapses, and inconsistency at times against the better corners in college. All that said, both will probably be #1 Wr's in the NFL in 2-3 years. Jones is a very good blocking WR which is not a given with these kind of players.
Falcons gave up a LOT to move up and grab Jones, but it's like an arms race in the NFC these days with offenses like GB and NO that can really put points on the board.
This is a bold move and something that up until recent times you'd never see the Atlanta Falcons attempt. I like it!
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 9:36pm
#99
Ninja - Falcons
The Falcons are trying to win a Superbowl quickly. The DE that they might have taken at pick #27 probably would have needed a year or 2 to develop. As you said Jones will help right away. It was a good move in my opinion. Now we get a DE in free agency and we're ready to go.
Sat, 04/30/2011 - 9:29am
#100
G35 and Nuk
Frankly, I hope the lockout continues through the whole season!
This bandit infested group of gladiators who give night clubs a bad name and waste millions on themselves every year need to go!
This used to be honorable game, where people weren't maimed every game, has deteriorated into coliseum blood-letting!
I suppose some of the debauchery comes from rattled heads!
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 3:46am
#101
The Yankee asked the Rebel,
The Yankee asked the Rebel, “Why are you fightin?” The answer, “Cause you are.. here.. Yank”
That quote has never left me, and the more I dig, the more I find it to be true.
Most Southerners didn’t own slaves. That is a fact.
The winners get to write the history, and that is what was done with the war.
I love genealogy and there is where you get the facts. Or at least the way the people who were alive then saw it. It is much more honest than what historians today say.
Dead men don’t lie. And so it is. I’ve found things in wills and letters that are both touching and funny. In many respects, the average white slave owner and his black slave, were closer than you would ever think.
Some of the proof of that is that and the undeniable cruelty of the north in the fact that they not only burned out the whites, they burned the homes, food, and poisoned the wells of the blacks and whites alike. The idea was that if they left anything for the blacks, they would share it with the whites.
I’m a deep rooted rebel, with roots back to the 1730s . I have one ggreat that didn’t own slaves and went to war to protect his little family of a wife and a new born after the Yanks burned his little farm. I have another gg that was wealthy and hired someone to fight in his place. When the hired man came to him after the war to show him he was ok..my gg wanted his money back because he didn’t die in ‘the cause’!
What happened with slavery was there was no good guys in white hats coming down from the north. The dirty truth is deeper.
The American colonies were designed to be a money maker for the English. We (the whites) were never intended to be anything more than slaves, or at best an extension to the British Empire.
The money making scheme of the British started with over a half million Irish, men, women, and children, being shipped to the US as white slaves. No trial, just picked up and sold for profit. That was the 1st wave, there were many many more. Sold for life. The North as well as the south were buyers.
If you read some of the early records of Jamestown, Va. They are on line and easily accessible, you will find that whites were the 1st slaves (Irish, or Scottish people who fought the English crown, or some just kidnapped off the streets). Once here, they kept running away. They went to another settlement and no one knew the difference. There were one or two totaly POed ones, that made it all the way back to Great Britain. They wrote articles that were published in the English papers about what was going on, to the great embarrassment of the establishment!
To fight the running away and blending in with another settlement, they started to brand them on the face, both cheeks. Those with burns on both cheeks then ran away to the Indians. In a last ditch effort to keep their colonies afloat, the English brought in blacks. After all, they could then tell the difference. And so it was.
There has been no defeated foreign country treated as bad as the south after the war. We have rebuilt Germany and Japan, but no money was ever given to repay for the burned out homes and poisoned wells. Again, you have to dig. There was something called the ‘Southern claims commissions’. If you care to read it, Southerner after southerner came forward with claims and they were denied. The North made a joke of the whole deal. They gleefully send the carpetbaggers and other assorted trash south to pick the bones of the southerners. As a final gesture of hope the whites and the blacks would kill each other, they for a short time put the blacks in charge of running the government in the south. Race riots broke out after whites were murdered. The whites rose up in riots that lasted weeks. That was the justice the north gave the south, the rebuilding.
Again, the question, and the simple answer sums it up. The yank asked the rebel why are you fighting, and again the answer is so clear…’cause you’re here Yank!’
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 5:45pm
#102
Closeness of Slave and Slaveholder!
Yes, slaves and their masters were very close! Just like hostages are CLOSE to their captors! Check out the endearing letter from a former slave to the close friend that used to own him!
http://books.google.com/books?id=AN9tAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA265#v=onepage&q&f=false
Go Braves. St. Louis is in town!
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 8:58pm
#103
Early Civil War
Did the Yankees ask the rebels in Pennsylvania why they were there?
The answer might have been, you want our slaves!
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 11:45am
#104
Once again Swami
The first battle of the Civil War that was north of the Mason Dixon line was fought on June 30, 1863 between George Armstrong Custer and JEB Stuart in Hanover Pa. The war was over 2 years old by this time. There was only one more fought in the north. So once again you speak of which you know nothing about.
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 1:30pm
#105
So? G35
What matters when the PA wars occured?
I guess the Indians got Custer later than 1862? 1876 wasn't it by a young Indian they think. May have been an officer frag death?
He was an Ollie North type.
You are a pretty good confuser for some people.
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 1:43pm
#106
Thanks!
Wow, thanks for proving my point better than I ever could.
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 4:23pm
#107
G35/Kevin
This may clarify the locations of Civil War battles. Maybe 'history' textbooks need to be augmented with further information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Civil_War_battles
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 5:28pm
#108
Thanks DM
Thanks for the link DM.
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 5:50pm
#109
G35 - You're welcome
Did you note Maine, Vermont, New York, Minnesota, etc.? We took our sons to visit Civil War battlegrounds to give them a picture of how this war was truly a war between the 'states'.
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 7:11pm
#110
the problem IS those were NOT civil war battles!!
in some of those states! I almost lost my cookies when I saw that map. VERY BAD AND MISLEADING SITE.
per DM..."This may clarify the locations of Civil War battles. Maybe 'history' textbooks need to be augmented with further information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Civil_War_battles"
VERMONT - St Albans Raid- that was southern POWs from that escaped an Ohio POW camp and wound up in in Canada and attempted to be bank robbers.
Washington Territory - Battle of Bear River (Bear River Massacre)aka Battle of Bear River and the Massacre at Boa Ogoi, The United States Army attacked Shoshone? The Shoshone were NOT CONFEDERATES.
ARIZONA-
Siege of Tubac was a siege of the Apache Wars, between settlers and militia of Confederate Arizona and Chiricahua Apaches.
COLORADO- Sand Creek Massacre- Massacre of Cheyenne Indians) was an incident in the Indian Wars of the United States that occurred on November 29, 1864, when a 700-man force of Colorado Territory militia attacked and destroyed a village of friendly Cheyenne and Arapaho encamped in southeastern Colorado Territory,[2] killing and mutilating an estimated 70–163 Indians, about two-thirds of whom were women and children. ..THOSE WERE NOT CONFEDERATES, tHAT WAS THE US ARMY AGAINST THE INDIANS
DAKOTA TERRITORY IS JUST AS LUDICARAS!
The Battle of Big Mound
US Army victory over the combined Santee and Teton Sioux...AGAIN WE GAVE A REBEL YELL BUT WE DIDN'T WEAR WAR PAINT!!
Battle of Dead Buffalo Lake- between United States forces and Sioux Indians of the Dakota Territory.
ALL THE DAKTOA 'CIVIL WAR' BATTLES...ALL FIGHTING THE INDIANS. (man were these guys confused) If they couldn't tell an Indian from a Rebel..well I don't know what to say.. And if you took your kids to these sites as Civil War battle grounds, I'm equally appalled!
SO CALLED BATTLES OF OF MINNESOTA.. US TROUPS MASSECRY OF THE INDIANS..
NEW YORK IS A JEWEL... their Civil War Battles were the draft riots...you got to love those New Yorkers..always exaggerating!!!
I would look deeper...but honestly, this site is a SHAM.. no one is that ignorant!
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 9:03pm
#111
150 th Anniversary
If you want to visit sites:
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 8:54pm
#112
Pick and choose Sugarrfoot
I encourage those who may be interested to do your own research. The Civil War battles were not only fought in the South.
There were Confederates who even hoped to involve California. The point is, until you read more information, you and others had a limited view of the ramifications of the war between the states -and it looks like some of those divisive sympathies are alive and well. We have terrorists who want to annihilate us - and we're still fighting each other. Sad. There are many references to the Civil War Battles - you'll enjoy the learning experience. You don't have to rely on the information gained from one source.
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 9:16pm
#113
Ah yes, the Civil War and California
Drum Barracks - Willmington, California (near San Pedro)
Source: Drum Barracks web page
The Civil War is a pivotal event in the history of the United States. Unfortunately, few people realize that California played an important role in that conflict. Although the major engagements took place in the East, troops from Drum Barracks, kept California in the Union, protected much of the Southwest and secured the territory which is now Arizona and New Mexico for the Union.
The Drum Barracks Civil War Museum is housed in the last remaining wooden building of Drum Barracks, named after Adjutant General Richard Coulter Drum, head of the Department of the Pacific. This facility served as the Union Army headquarters in the Southwest (Southern California and the Arizona Territory) from 1861 - 1871. Drum Barracks, which was first called Camp Drum, served as the main staging, training and supply base for military operations in the Southwest, and occupied approximately sixty acres of land with an additional thirty-seven acres near the harbor. The land was sold to the Army by Phineas Banning, and B. D. Wilson, who each received one dollar, with the agreement that the land would revert back to them after the camp was closed.
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 1:48pm
#114
Proving WHAT point?
Wow, thanks for proving my point better than I ever could.
Proving WHAT point?
First two battles in a state don't count?
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 8:42am
#115
Well said Sugar...
"cause you're here".
War of Northern Aggression is the proper name.
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 8:30am
#116
And if I said
' get over it', would you understand why those words are so painful?
If history had been taught correctly, we wouldn't be in this hurtful, divisive situation regarding 'race'. I too have researched the genealogical files-and we're all related-not just spiritually, but materially. Many families are acknowledging kinship ( not just the Jeffersons). Most records show the callousness of the black slave trade. Blacks were regarded as 'animals' and better survived the harsh plantation work than the Irish . with less illness. And they didn't have to be paid - and could be bred and produce more 'slaves' - like cattle. Records
also show that corrupt traders brought quadroons from Louisiana to Georgia and passed them off to 'white' men as 'white ladies' for marriage. So much for the 'pure' white race in Georgia. I started participating in this blog six years ago to explore the topic 'race' when I noted so much glee in denigrating 'black'. I compliment the southern white woman who so artfully welcomed the defeated Confederate soldier home and supported him in feeling like a hero. She saved the south and is responsible for it's endurance. It's correct, the 'north' did little to rebuild the south. You see, we all have our own perspective of history. Today I see so many mixed race people in Fayette County and so many proud grandparents of racially mixed children. We are moving on- but it is incorrect to change the truth of history in order to feel good. I have met my Irish cousins in Ireland. I was welcomed with love. Love breaks the wall of color. . . and the history helps us to 'overcome' and not repeat the ignorant acts of the past.
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 11:00am
#117
DM
what you are really dealing with is not the 'get over it', it is the fact that historians have lied and painted a very misleading picture.
Slavery was one issue, there were others. Both Southerners and Blacks feel they have unfinished business with the aftermath of the war. The difference is that white southerners are a little ahead because they have long accepted they were lied to and ridiculed by the north. They learned early, the "Southern Claims Commission", Reconstruction, etc. were all a bitter joke. Never meant to do anything but ridicule and exploit.
Blacks have trouble wrapping the mind around the joke. Yours has a different twist. The painful truth for you is that the Blacks were a pawn. Yes, many on both sides were against slavery. But the north freed ..only.. the southern slaves during the war to help themselves win the war. They kept theirs up north. Very little of what was eluded to for black or white in the south ever came to pass. You were used.
What you will find in stories after the war of black helping white and vis a versa in the south. For every family black or white in the south after the war, there is a different story, just as I had one ggg that never owned slaves, and another that hired someone else to fight for him. Everyone was different. I had another, that would work his for several years and then set them free. No doubt he, himself, had come here as an indenture. There were free blacks all around the area I came from and can be found on the 1850-1860 census. They all took his name, Smith. They did I'm sure cause they liked him. His only request was never leave the area, because he couldn't make sure they would stay free, or be sold back into slavery.
Accept that the war had more issues than one and it goes a long way toward understanding the aftermath. They never invaded the south out of the kindness in their hearts toward blacks, it was all about money. The southern taxes paid for a lot of things that the north felt they ..HAD.. to have up north. The southerners couldn't understand that and thought them frivolous and helpless, as they were more self sufficient. The north and the south were indeed two separate people with two separate ideas about how to do things. They didn't have much use for each other. The south wanted to end the marriage and the north wanted to stay married because they liked being 'kept up' so to speak.
After the war we were exploited, black and white alike. And, have had to live with the rosy lies they stated as fact in the history books. We lost, to the vi tor goes the spoils, (and the history)
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 11:08am
#118
Suggarfoot
Thanks for taking the time to share that. What you don't seem to realize is that I was taught the truth about American history - and these facts are not new to me. The aftermath of the Civil War for me was Jim Crow. . . and this may be the difference in our perspective of 'history of the Civil War'. That is the issue which affected me directly until just a few years ago. My living here peacefully in Fayette County with no fear of going out after dark, or traveling through and being caught here after dark would not have been a reality 30 years ago. The Civil War was over in 1865. As I stated before, I was not taught the fantasy of facts that surround Lincoln. Many 'blacks' have been reading Lerone Bennet's historical and accurate account of American history since I was a teenager. His articles were in Ebony magazine - and used in many schools where 'Blacks' were in attendance. I shared before that we were made aware of leaders who were pragmatists - and made decisions based on the 'bigger goal'. I had relatives who marched with Susan B. Anthony for sufferage - but were told that it was not time for the 'black' woman to get the vote because of the 'south'. This reality has been no 'joke' for blacks. . . .believe me.
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 11:54am
#119
Jim Crow
Because the north had done with their 'Reconstruction, aka explotation, it may have been a good idea to seperate the races for a while. I don't know. There had been race riots etc. and even Carver thought it was right at the time. Maybe if they had put them together they would have gotten along, maybe not.
If it had been 'seperate but equal', it would have probably been ok, but we know it wasn't equal.
When I was growing I can remember my father teaching me both races are the same, that everyone wants the same things.
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 12:36pm
#120
Suggarfoot
Very wise father. Where I was raised, we did get along, attended the same schools and formed political alliances that had very little to do with race. ( all races were represented in both the young republicans and democrats) We just had our high school 50 year reunion three years ago. We worked hard at ignoring ignorant practices based on race. Our parents and members of our respective communities made sure that we were aware of history beyond what was found in most textbooks. We had no illusions about the real story and we were taught that all of our ancestors contributed to Americsn history. Now there is an attempt to take what little has been included out of the Texas textbooks . Sad. Americans working together is beneficial. There are many examples of this in Fayette County today. I'm glad you realize that both races were 'used'.
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 1:33pm
#121
I know nothing about
Texas texbooks? What are they trying to say the war was over?
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 4:07pm
#122
Texas textbook controversy
Here are some articles involving Texas textbooks. There are others. The reason I mentioned this is because there have always been some who want 'history' taught to represent their ideology or point of view. It was rewarding to see that one of the contributors to this discussion referred us to Lerone Bennet's book and stated that he found it historically accurate. Someone else also agreed that the 'winner' of a conflict often has a different point of view. My issue with the Civil War is the impact it had on Negros in the US. ( and not just the north and south ). Others certainly have different issues and perspectives. I hope that with the availability of a variety of resources, students can do their own research in their quest for historical 'truth'.
http://www.euroclio.eu/site/index.php/news-mainmenu-730/history-educatio...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR201003...
http://news.change.org/stories/more-on-fighting-bias-in-history-textbooks
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 5:57pm
#123
Davids mom: Text Books
The Japanese seemed to have the same problem accounting for the years 1931 through 1945. Author/historian Stephen Ambrose was noted that "The Japanese presentation of the war to its children runs something like this: 'One day, for no reason we ever understood, the Americans started dropping atomic bombs on us.'" (Google).
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 7:15pm
#124
that is too funny!
No reason?
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 6:18pm
#125
Cyclist -so true
This is why we should allow students to use all of the resources available for research and not exclude perspectives that do not agree with ours. Many Germans in my mothers generation declared they didn't know what was going on regarding Jews and Gypsies - yet they were aware of them disappearing from their communities. In my research, I've noticed that it is important to get as much information as possible in order to get a clue as to what is 'true'.
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 4:10pm
#126
Deleted by poster
.
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 4:09pm
#127
Deleted by poster
.
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 9:06am
#128
Races are not related?
Cain after slaying Able, went into the Land of Nod and had a son by his wife in Nod and the son was named Enoch. Have no idea of wife's name. Don't know who Enoch married--nor who "married" them. Jumped the broom I suppose.
I'm not sure if the Land of Nod was made up of various races or not, nor am I sure if Adam and Eve had a bunch more children.
But if Adam and Eve were the first people, and had more kids after Cain and Able, who were grown men, I think, and unless they inbred quite soon, there must have been more people in Nod!
Maybe also there was a Land of Dreams where the Chinese lived, and a Land of Neatness where the Arabs lived, and a Land of the Jews, where...well you understand?
I guess also that evolution somewhere along the track from Enoch, various races evolved!
In any case, we all are related. Even to the Great Apes who I have never seen mentioned about being on the Ark!
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 9:23am
#129
Roundabout
. . and that's the truth! LOL
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:10pm
#130
The Conspirator
I saw that film. It was fantastic! I was pleased to see that the South was not vilified and the North was not beatified. Slavery was never mentioned in the film but that makes sense. The prosecution of Mary Surratt had nothing to do with slavery; it had to do with treason. I highly recommend the film.
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:09pm
#131
Oh ... Don't Get Me Started ...
It's always worthy of an eye-roll to hear the revisionist historians trumpet how the Civil War was fought ONLY to free the slaves. The reasons for southern secession and the outbreak of the war could fill a 10 chapter book with each section dedicated to a different contributing circumstance. If given their way, these politically correct "experts" would have us rip out all of the chapters except for the one pertaining to slavery. Nowhere during my years of study have I read an account of Union troops exclaiming "Free the slaves ... free the slaves" as they marched or Southern troops advancing into battle chanting "Keep our slaves ... keep our slaves." This is just a complete distortion of history. Also ... while we're on the subject ... if African-American is an acceptable term in describing one's ancestry, then shouldn't Confederate-American be equally appropriate?
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:38pm
#132
Yes Melungeon
General Ulysses Grant is quoted as saying "If I thought this war would free the negro I would put my sword in its scabbard and go home."
It amazes me how little we as a people know about the Civil War. Maybe the most important event in this country's history. I took a date to see the Conspirator. She was stunned to learn that when Lincoln was assassinated he was not the only target that night. And I agree with you on the causes of the civil war. Anyone that says it was all about slavery is showing a complete ignorance on this topic!
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 1:46pm
#133
A rather questionable quote there...
General Ulysses Grant is quoted as saying "If I thought this war would free the negro I would put my sword in its scabbard and go home."
It amazes me how little we as a people know about the Civil War.
I did a little digging on that quote that G35 Dude attributed to U.S. Grant, as my spidey sense was tingling.
It would appear that the first instance of that quote appeared over 14 years AFTER Grant's death in a little-regarded revisionist history of the Civil War entitled "The Unwritten South" by an author named J. Clarence Stonebraker (page 66). There is NO attribution for that quote. There's also an amusing quote attributed to General Sherman in this book: "War is cruelty ! This year we will take your property, and next year your lives!" which is also unattributed. Neither of these quotes are found in any other biography of Grant or Sherman.
The Grant "quote" does get a prominent display in a number of White Supremacist websites, though, and now the Citizen as well.
Grain of salt, y'all. Grain of salt.
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 9:50pm
#134
Bacon?
I actually found the quote on page 64 of the unwritten south. As well as several other places none of which that I recognize as white supremacy sites. Can you please provide your source of reference that the quote is false?
Sat, 04/30/2011 - 10:55am
#135
Source of reference
I have no "source of reference that the quote is false".
I stated that I have serious doubts that the quote attributed to Grant was actually said by Grant because A) the only source is an unreferenced claim made in a book published 14 years after Grant's death, B) it is not noted in any scholarly reference work about Grant, and C) it is not listed in any compendium of notable quotations such as Bartlett's.
I believe this quote to be an apocryphal story (not unlike "George Washington chopping down the cherry tree: 'I cannot tell a lie' "), a work of fiction. I am of the opinion that this was a complete fabrication intended solely to promote the author's preconceived position (kinda like the stuff observerofu routinely posts here).
Sat, 04/30/2011 - 11:53am
#136
OK Bacon
Since you don't like that quote let me give you another one from Grant. From "Facts and falsehoods concerning the war on the South, 1861-1865″ by Elizabeth Avery Meriwether page 219.
“The sole object of this war,” said Grant, “is to restore the Union. Should I become convinced it has any other object, or that the Government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the Abolitionists, I pledge you my honor as a man and a soldier I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side.”
In a letter to Horace Greeley Lincoln is quoted as saying "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."
Sat, 04/30/2011 - 1:32pm
#137
Dude you are wasting your time with bacon
you can give him the absolute proof that the Sun exist backed by the most researched links and he would still say you lied and nothing you say will dent that thick skull.
I know it's your time to waste but why bother.
Bacon is wrapped up in the flag of ideology and nothing can penetrate it.
He's right and you are wrong just go ahead and admit it that his vaunted secondary education is so much greater than yours that you could not possibly argue in the arena of ideas with him.
Sat, 04/30/2011 - 3:28pm
#138
Observerofu
LOL Yes I've figured that out now. He kind of reminds me of my ex wife!
Sat, 04/30/2011 - 12:27pm
#139
OK G35 Dude!
Since you don't like that quote let me give you another one from Grant. From "Facts and falsehoods concerning the war on the South, 1861-1865″ by Elizabeth Avery Meriwether page 219.
“The sole object of this war,” said Grant, “is to restore the Union. Should I become convinced it has any other object, or that the Government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the Abolitionists, I pledge you my honor as a man and a soldier I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side.”
Another dubious quote! First of all, the book in question was authored by George Edmonds. The entire text is available on Google Books. LINK The quote you listed (which your initial quote above seems to be a paraphrase of) actually contains a REFERENCE! Unfortunately, the reference is to an 1868 pamphlet called "the Democratic Speakers Handbook", which was a collection of anecdotes for Democrats to use against U.S. Grant's presidential election bid. The sourcing for your quote in THAT book is an unnamed person who overheard Grant say that once in a place called "ringo's banking house". Dubious at best! LINK (page 33) Also on that same page, right below that "quote", is the story of US Grant chopping down a pear tree and telling his father he cannot NOT tell a lie! Lotsa credibility!
Interestingly, both of your Grant quotes were tagged as "disputed" and removed by the wikischolars at wikiquote! LINK
In a letter to Horace Greeley Lincoln is quoted as saying "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."
Now THIS is more like it! A properly sourced and verifiable quote....I'm actually familiar with this one! Lincoln's motivation was documented from the start!
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:41pm
#140
Causes/Results
No war is a 'one cause war' - however, the result of this war was important to many for many different reasons. Those who were 'freed' received 'rights' 100+ years later.
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 6:43pm
#141
DM
DM I'm not defending slavery. I'm just tired of history being slanted by some to give credit where credit is not due. Those that say the civil war was all about slavery ignore the fact that Lincoln even stated in his campaign speeches that he had no intention of freeing the slaves. He did not attempt to free any slaves until the war was almost 3 years old. Then the emancipation proclamation only freed the slaves in the confederate states. It's interesting to me that the great emancipator only freed the slaves of his enemy while allowing the union to keep theirs. And yes there were states on the union side that had slaves. Lincoln used slavery as a pawn in the war to keep the union in tact.
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 8:24pm
#142
G35 You are Correct
The book I spoke of has looked extensively at the "Confiscation Act" which was very much a part of Lincoln's plan if he had lived long enough. You seem to have read many of the same history books I have. Indeed the "Emancipation Proclamation" only freed the slaves in the south it did not free the slaves in the north.
Forced into Glory Abraham Lincoln's White Dream by Lerone Bennett looks at Lincoln's plan to use government funds to buy slaves and send them back to Africa. Congress stopped him from using gov. funds for his plan. Mr. Lincoln seemed to overlook the fact that he was proposing to do the very thing he criticized others of doing, the buying and selling of people.
Our schools have really dropped the ball by watering down history to what amounts to a cute little fantasy.
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 6:58pm
#143
G35
I was exposed to all the facts as you have stated. We were never taught that Lincoln wanted to free all slaves. It was made very clear from his own writings and creditable historians that the south was angry that they could no longer go into the north to recover their property and that new states would not be allowed to become 'slave states'. He still started my family on the road to full citizenship - and for this, I give him credit. He remains a hero in many eyes.
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 10:54pm
#144
Thank you Mr. Garlock
Truth.
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 10:44pm
#145
Difference between 'indentured servant' and 'slave'.
An indentured servant:
was typically a young, unskilled laborer contracted to work for an employer for a fixed period of time, typically three to seven years, in exchange for transportation, food, clothing, lodging and other necessities during the term of their indenture.[1] They included men and women; most were under age 21, and most became helpers on farms or house servants. They were not paid wages.
slave
–noun
1.
a person who was the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
2.
a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person:
One had 'hope' - the other did not.
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 11:26pm
#146
A few additions, DM
The "indenture" was a legal contract which set out the terms of service (how long and in exchange for what). It got its name from the tiny patterned punctures (indentions) that established the document as a valid agreement. A contract involves 2 parties (at least) who stand in equal bargaining positions, either of whom can voluntarily reject the offer of the other party, cease negotiations and not get into the contractual relationship in the first place. In theory, an indentured (read: contractual) servant could seek legal redress in the courts and sue for breach of contract if they were not let out of their condition of servitude according to the terms of the indenture.
Nothing about a slave's conditions of service was voluntary. Nothing. Not the means by which they entered into slavery. Not the compensation (or lack thereof). Not the price that they paid to get out of slavery. At best, they could hope that any promises of freedom upon their master's death would be honored. Most times, they were not. And even those who purchased their freedom lived the rest of their days hoping that some enterprising slave catcher would not destroy their emancipation documents and drag them back to a slave state to be sold back into slavery. Under the Dred Scott decision, a slave had NO legal rights in US courts because property cannot be a citizen.
Most important, the hope of America -- the promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the Constitution -- was legally denied to one group of people simply by defining them (again, involuntarily) to exclude them from a right to enjoy in the "unalienable rights" America was created to protect.
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 6:50am
#147
No name
The whole truth and nothing but the truth! Thanks for the additions.
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 10:47pm
#148
Deleted by poster
.
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 10:46pm
#149
Deleted by poster
.
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 10:09pm
#150
More Info on Lincoln
I recommend a book for people interested in the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln.
Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream The author is Lerone Bennett Jr. The book is heavy with footnotes documenting sources. So far all of the ones I have searched check out.
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 9:00pm
#151
Forced Into Glory / also A Team of Rivals
An excellent read.
http://www.answers.com/topic/lerone-bennett-jr
For those who may be unfamiliar with this author of Forced Into Glory.
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 9:17pm
#152
Mr. Garlock - Lincoln
" if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. ...”
Lincoln did exactly what he said he would do, the Emancipation Proclamation was a military document.
The Constitution was flawed from the beginning on slavery, it took a war to correct that flaw. During and following the war the Republicians then went wild with centralized governmental power resulting in massive corruption that has never stopped.
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 9:39pm
#153
Yea, but at least the cotton got picked on time
Slavery was the sole reason that the South had a booming economy and was able to raise enough money to mount a war against the union. Not really a nice fact, but certainly a fact.
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 6:24pm
#154
If the South's economy was "booming"...
the north's was exploding. The north was the center of manufacturing for the US at that time and still was until it was outsourced overseas recently. More capital was flowing into the north (both from domestic and foreign sources) to support the manufacturing gains during the years preceding and after that period. Population centers in the north were large enough to support the soon to occur US industrial age and still had enough reserves to field a large army.
What's interesting now a days, is that capital is flowing to China and the US is....well we will know where we are heading after 4 more years. (eyes rolling)
BTW, I don't want to upset any one's feelings but, when Lee failed to strangle Washington the gig was up. This war like others are fought with resources which the south was critically short of. That's why the union prevailed then and why the US prevailed against both Japan and Germany some 80 years later.
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 6:47pm
#155
Essayists/Economists
at the time of the Civil War wrote about the need for the south to become more industrialized in order to maintain their economy. These visionaries could foresee the influence of the abolitionists. But slavery had created a 'way of life' for some southerners that was unheard of to 'give up'.
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 9:59am
#156
mudcat - the south had money due to the cotton gin.
The south succeeded because of economics. And as you pointed out the freeing of the slaves destroyed the economy of the south. But why was the south so dependent on agriculture? Because that was the way the north wanted it. No, or very little, tax money from the north ever came back to the south to help develop it. So the south did what it had to survive. The reason that the south had an economy that was starting to boom was because of Eli Whitney's cotton gin. Before the cotton gin one person could pick and clean, yes the seeds had to be removed before the cotton was usable, was 1 to 2 pounds a day. After the gin that number rose to around 50 pounds a day. When the north saw that the south was making money they petitioned congress to pass an import tax on anything the south purchased that did not come from the north. They wanted to force the south to send the money back north. This along with the election of a president that did not receive one southern electoral vote and only 40% of the popular vote were the straws that broke the camels back so to speak. Yes congress elected Lincoln by electoral vote not the people.
Now another point I'd like to make is that had not Lincoln been assassinated his plan was to ship all slaves back to Africa. While he was to a point against slavery he was no friend to the black man.
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 4:35pm
#157
G35 Dude - Thanks
It's really nice to see tht some people actually study history rather than parrot the "politically correct" nonsense that we hear today.
While Lincoln is many times rated as the best President in history by current day academicians, more and more studies are rating him as the worst president in American history because he was in great part responsible for the war between the states.
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 6:31pm
#158
It is so interesting for us
It is so interesting for us who were not exposed to the 'southern' version of American history to see how 'facts ' can be used to make the 'feel good' version for some southerners more palatable. I was exposed to the facts of Lincoln's administration-but he did sign the Proclamation of Emancipation. The owner of my great grandfather taught him how to read. He realized that he wouldn't be able to return to Louisiana and find members of his family as he desired, so his owner sent him to Chicago to work for his friend Mr. Palmer (the Palmer Hotel), The Proclamation was a start. . . and Mr. Lincoln gets credit for that and keeping the union together. We're still working on freeing folk from slave labor in this country. . . but progress is being made! Refusal to move away from an economy that was dependent on slave labor caused the Civil War,
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 9:32am
#159
southern version?
I'm sorry hon. Facts are facts. If I've misstated any facts please point them out to me. You may not want to see them that way because of your background. And all in all that is your right. There are 2 sayings that I like to reference as related by history. 1. History is an agreed upon set of lies. 2. The winners write the history books. If you need an example study the battle of the Alamo. Compare the Mexican version the to one taught in our schools. Most historians now agree that the Mexican version was more truthful.
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 6:56pm
#160
G35
Never felt you misstated facts. My point, I was exposed to/taught the same facts. I was never taught what some here called the fantasy surrounding the Lincoln story. As I said, he signed the Proclamation- and for me and mine, that was the beginning of a good thing . We were taught that pragmatic leaders do what they have to do to achieve the 'bigger' goal. This helped us to understand / not necessarily accept some of the decisions made before the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Sorry - I thought some of your contributions to this discussion were 'right on'.
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 9:55pm
#161
Sole reason? - Mudcat
I don't know about that, but it certainly was the central reason.
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 6:55am
#162
central, main, significant, whatever - pick your adjective
For sure slavery was the engine that drove the South's agricultural economy. Lincoln freeing the slaves destroyed the economy in the South and it did not recover for decades - some would say parts of the South have not recovered to this day.
Sure, from a human point of view it was the right thing to do. Might even use the word "Fair" like Obama does when he diagrams the war on the businesses - large and small that are the backbone of our economy. Obama will probably go down in history as another Lincoln because in 100 years all the businesses that have gone under will be forgotten and all the people who have lost their jobs and homes will be dead.
"Fair". There's an adjective for you. Fair means let's drag everybody back into the 1865 era or better yet 1930's. Fair means everyone gets to start over again after the government takes the achievers' assets away.
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 10:15pm
#163
Irish Immigrants/Indentured Servants
Let's not forget the poor white immigrants who came here as indentured servants to work their way to freedom. They were not freed with the slaves. The work on plantations was shared by many.
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 4:23pm
#164
skyspy - the Irish
Ah yes, the dirty Irish. And for those of you who have not heard that phrase, it does not mean physically dirty but rather that the Irish got every dirty job that came along. Lends new meaning to the words "second class citizen", doesn't it?
How refreshing it is that the Irish never developed the victim mentality that some other groups did.
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 5:39pm
#165
The Irish
Until you get to digging, no one knows or understands the depths of the Irish suffering. The English treated them like dogs for no reason I can yet uncover.
There suffering goes backs hundreds of years, way before they came to the US as "life slaves".
If you read the Montgomery Manuscripts, it talks about the conditions the Irish were in when the Montgomerys and the Hamiltons came to Ireland to for the settlements of the Scot-Irish in 1580.
Some background.... the Montgomerys were looking for greener pastures away from the English control. The story is stranger than a Hollywood novel, but true.
Con O Neil, an Irishman who owned much of Northern Ireland, found himself in an English prison for some frivolous BS of having a drunken party and one of his people got into it with an Englishman and killed him. The English arrested Con O Neil and was going to kill him. The Montgomerys, hated the English, and helped him escape. The pay off was that O Neil would give Montgomerys half his land, which he did. The English got wind of the deal afterwards and everyone was going to jail if the Hamilton's weren't included so they could keep an eye on both Con O' Neil and the Montgomerys.
When the Montgomerys and other related families came to settle Northern Ireland, they were appalled at what they found.
The English had gone in and killed all Irish, men, women, and children, they could find. The lucky ones that lived were sold into slavery in America and Barbados.
The account that was given was horrible. They said that crops hadn't been planted in years as the English said they would kill them if they did. All their huts were burned, even the roof was pulled of the church so the Irish would have no place to take refuge against the fierce winters. If they built a hut, or even put a roof on the church, the English would hunt them down and kill them. England was only 20 miles by water, so it was a threat they could easily make good on.
The Irish were forced to live in the woods. They were starving. The 1st year, some of the Scot-Irish children were killed for food by the Irish. Yep, cannibalized.
The Scot Irish, (Montgomerys and related families), at 1st hired them and the 1st houses the Montgomerys and related families built, clearly had an Irish flare. When the English saw what was going on, they were told if they caught them hiring them, feeding them, or in any other way, helping them, they would have the same fate.
The Scot-Irish had to watch the Irish starve and give no assistance. Later, of course, they Irish declared war on the Scot-Irish and did their best to kill them.
What a bitter pill for the Irish to watch someone else come in and take their land so to speak, grow crops and feed their families, while they were banished to living in the woods with no shelter.
The account of this genocide, you won't find in history books, the Montgomery Manuscrips is the only place I've read it. It was an eye witness account.
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 2:57am
#166
I'm not Irish so I have no dog in that fight
but I've read countless old records and they were the most brutaly treated of all, except the Indians.
On the levees of the Mississippi, the plantation owners used them to do the dangerous work. They would work for pennies because they were starving. They died of maleria and exhaustion. That was ok, there were thousands more, starving and waiting in line for a chance. They were resentfull of the black slaves who were fed and clothed and didn't have to work so hard.
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:27pm
#167
Victims and victim mentality
Perhaps I am confused but when did the Jim Crow laws keep the Irish from equal participation in economic and political freedom?
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:58pm
#168
Dogs and Irish need not apply
Seriously My Name Here? Please consult your history books. How about the Know Nothing Party and the Nativist movement of the 1840's and up? The oppression was not codified in the books, only in the hearts of nineteenth century Americans.
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 8:37pm
#169
Major Mike: The "Dirty" Irish
You are correct. They were given the most dangerous and dirty jobs, because they were not considered to be as valuable as slaves. Very few people have bothered to read about our real history. The inconvenient facts of our real history have been drowned out by people who whine and snivel and cry poor me. They still want special favors as a reward for what happened to their ancestors.
The real Americans I do feel sorry for in all of our history are the American Indians. They truly got the shaft.
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 2:40am
#170
yep the Irish were treated so bad
Most people don't know that the 1st 'for life' slaves in the US were the Irish. The 'dirty' English picked up over half a million, men, woman, and children, and shipped them to America and Barbadoes. Their only crime was that they were Irish. Half million was only the 1st group. The English made a fortune selling them. They stole and sold millions of them. If you read the early Jamestown records, to keep them from running away to another settlement and blending in, they branded them with a hot iron on both cheeks of their face. Later the English decided to us blacks cause it was harder for them to go to another settlement and blend.
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 6:12pm
#171
Victim Mentality?
Victim mentality ? Some groups see themselves as survivors and winners-which those who have difficulty with this concept insist on labeling an entire group of Americans as 'losers'. When Kennedy was elected as a proud Irishman, I think that few considered him or his LARGE family 'dirty'. ( There may have been and possibly still are a few of those extremists around) Some with that extremist thought appear to be having the same problem with Obama - a genealogy correct African-American - whose mother was born in Kansas no less! At least those who 'think' like this are now on the fringe of American society-right?
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 6:34pm
#172
DM - BS
DM You are soooooo funny when someone pushes one of your politically correct hot buttons. As usual, you don't have a clue about what you are babbling about.
Thaks for my "hump day" laugh.
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 7:03pm
#173
Throw a rock
Into a bunch of fighting cocks and the one that is hit hollers. :-)
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:27pm
#174
Major Mike
That's David's Moms way of calling you a racist.
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 8:57pm
#175
I don't think you can say "cocks" on here DM
But you did and I will forgive you. But please babe, not everything is about race or skin color. Get over it. Sure there is bias and prejudice and even hatred in some people, but certainly not in most people. You keep fanning the flames of the terrible things that Democrats and the KKK did in the 1900's. Get over it babe. Nobody on here wants a repeat. Stop acting like everyone is a racist. We ain't.
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 9:19pm
#176
Mudcat
You shouldn't feel 'hit'! I am well aware that the majority of posters here are not racist- and I've often said this. I think the topic was history's treatment of Lincoln - and major mike intimating that some on here are operating from a victim mentality.
I know better than most the change that has occurred in the country since 1939. Just as the people of the Jewish faith will not allow us to 'get over' the holocaust , African Americans will not allow some members of the US to 'forget' or 'get over' Jin Crow mentality. We have overcome SOME aspects of slavery. Sorry if you feel I 'm calling you racist. I'm sure that label doesn't fit you.
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:24pm
#177
David's Mom
I know a lot of Jewish people, and all of them are quite over it since most if not all of the instigators of that injustice are now dead. They don't go around inventing straw men that are out to get them and use it as an excuse for not being able to accomplish something in their lives.
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 7:01am
#178
Not being able to accomplish something?
Hardly my issue. . . Or Obama's and tens of thousands of other African Americans. Jewish people are over it? Why the museums, etc.? What is your issue grizz? No 'president ' in your family? Sorry . Get over it.
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 7:38am
#179
I think the overfed bear is talking about Jesse Jackson
and Al Sharpton and their shakedown schemes and reparations for slavery and the simple fact that they claim to represent all black people and blame the man (whoever he is) for keeping them down. Only Bill Cosby has spoken up with a differing view - the one about personal responsibility.
He may also be referring to the Obamazombies who were dumb enough to go on TV and say that they were going to be free of house and car payments because Obama was nominated or elected. Sadly those silly people were black and it did not create a good visual image.
Might also have something to with what % of crimes are committed by 12% of the population or what % of that 12% of the population is in prison for violent crimes.
And the Jewish people not only "got over it" without forgetting "it"; they created a country that has a very low crime rate and probably the highest level of security in the world - which kind of makes it better than the US.
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 8:16am
#180
Mudcats and grizzlies
Mudcat's are bottom feeders. I don't know what grizz's excuse is- but I leave these two to you Kevin. Most came here to discuss Lincoln, slavery, and history - not to denigrate other Americans .
Ouch! "I have no idea who you know", sounds like I hit the nail on the head with the 'yeller' hair, 2 inch fingernails, and attitude.. nope, don't know anyone that knows you...just a guess. ha ha that will give me a laugh the rest of the day I got it right.