Gov. Barbour: Slavery Not Significant

[OL FU]

I'm with OL FU on this one - I've said the same in countless threads debunking revisionist history by a small cadre of Citadel posters, but the Civil War only happened because of slavery. There was no other single issue that, if taken away, would've prevented the war. Individuals didn't fight because of slavery, but the war never would've started up if the slavery issue wasn't the driving force of the most important issues facing the nation in its first 50 years as it actually was.

Even in 1861, slavery was on the way out. Everyone knew this fact, even Robert E. Lee wrote about it years before the Civil War broke out, and the number of slaves being freed were growing significantly each and every year.
Not many people acknowledge this fact. but the south paid 87% of the nation's total tariffs in 1860, so there were some severe economic issues that needed to be iorned out.

Before the war started there were several attempts for a negotiated settlement. Even with encouragement from people within his own administration and pleas from foreign governments, Lincoln refused to meet and negotiate.

Nobody is denying that slavery was an issue, its just that modern historical revisionists are putting too much emphasis on that one aspect.

I realize that slavery was and would eventually die its own death, one of the reasons especially when you take into consideration that a different kind of slavery didn't end until the civil rights movement that the justification of the war waged by the north to keep the south was questionable. (different subject). But there are estimates that at least 60% of the total assets of the south at the time of the civil war was human capital. That plus a reading of most states secession documents makes it hard to ignore that the main reason the south was leaving the union was to maintain the right to own slaves.

There were certainly other issues, but it is a little hard to ignore the bull in the china shop or even better the elephant in the middle of the room.

[GannonFan]

Even in 1861, slavery was on the way out. Everyone knew this fact, even Robert E. Lee wrote about it years before the Civil War broke out, and the number of slaves being freed were growing significantly each and every year.
Not many people acknowledge this fact. but the south paid 87% of the nation's total tariffs in 1860, so there were some severe economic issues that needed to be iorned out.

Before the war started there were several attempts for a negotiated settlement. Even with encouragement from people within his own administration and pleas from foreign governments, Lincoln refused to meet and negotiate.

Nobody is denying that slavery was an issue, its just that modern historical revisionists are putting too much emphasis on that one aspect.

I realize that slavery was and would eventually die its own death, one of the reasons especially when you take into consideration that a different kind of slavery didn't end until the civil rights movement that the justification of the war waged by the north to keep the south was questionable. (different subject). But there are estimates that at least 60% of the total assets of the south at the time of the civil war was human capital. That plus a reading of most states secession documents makes it hard to ignore that the main reason the south was leaving the union was to maintain the right to own slaves.

There were certainly other issues, but it is a little hard to ignore the bull in the china shop or even better the elephant in the middle of the room.

Again, agree with OL FU. It wasn't the only reason, but it was clearly the main reason behind the conflict.

[dbackjon]

I really wanted to be the one dismantling Dback on this subject like you guys are, but its so one sided I wont say anything except keep up the good work.

Yo'u're too funny...

[houndawg]

Since 95%+ of Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, your ignorance of US history is rather disturbing.

Yes, the Confederate soldiers were duped. Your IGNORANCE, whether real, or the result of slanted education or willful disregard, is very disturbing.

Why did the states not secede until an ABOLUTIONIST was elected President if the underlying condition was not SLAVERY?

Confederate soldiers weren't duped, most of them were fighting just because there were federal troops on their turf, and most northerners couldn't have cared less about how the south ran their show, that's why there were lots of draft riots in the north.

[Baldy]

Yes, the Confederate soldiers were duped. Your IGNORANCE, whether real, or the result of slanted education or willful disregard, is very disturbing.

Why did the states not secede until an ABOLUTIONIST was elected President if the underlying condition was not SLAVERY?

Confederate soldiers weren't duped, most of them were fighting just because there were federal troops on their turf, and most northerners couldn't have cared less about how the south ran their show, that's why there were lots of draft riots in the north.

That and 87% of federal revenue back then came from the southern states.

[houndawg]

Confederate soldiers weren't duped, most of them were fighting just because there were federal troops on their turf, and most northerners couldn't have cared less about how the south ran their show, that's why there were lots of draft riots in the north.

That and 87% of federal revenue back then came from the southern states.

Too, the north had their own system of slavery where the 16 hour day you worked in the mine or the factory didn't pay enough to cover the supplies you had to buy from the company store.

[Skjellyfetti]

Slavery wasn't the only reason or even the major reason behind the Civil War. At heart was the debate between the proper role of the federal government... it's the same debate we've been having since the Articles of Confederation failed. It's the same argument we have every day on this board.

But, without slavery it wouldn't have resulted in an all-out war.

[OL FU]

Slavery wasn't the only reason or even the major reason behind the Civil War. At heart was the debate between the proper role of the federal government... it's the same debate we've been having since the Articles of Confederation failed. It's the same argument we have every day on this board.

But, without slavery it wouldn't have resulted in an all-out war.

A Technical point, the possibility of the abolition of slavery was the major reason for secession, slavery was not the reason for the war.

[CID1990]

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour on Sunday defended fellow Gov. Bob McDonnell for his decision to declare April "Confederate History Month" in Virginia without initially acknowledging the legacy of slavery, saying the controversy "doesn't amount to diddly."

The Virginia governor took heat for his declaration from a slew of top officials, including President Obama and former Virginia Gov. L. Douglas Wilder -- the first black elected governor and a grandson of slaves.

Under pressure, McDonnell on Wednesday apologized, acknowledging a "major omission" and adding in a paragraph condemning slavery. That helped ease the tension over the matter, but Barbour said Sunday that McDonnell did not do anything wrong in the first place.

"I don't know what you would say about slavery, but anybody that thinks that you have to explain to people that slavery is a bad thing, I think that goes without saying," he told CNN's "State of the Union."

"To me, it's a sort of feeling that it's a nit, that it is not significant, that it's ... trying to make a big deal out of something doesn't amount to diddly," he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04 ... claration/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

15 yard penalty for yet another misleading subject line.


Barbour said that McDonnell's omission was not significant, not slavery itself. I happen to agree... why should someone have to make a caveat that slavery is bad? Is that not obvious?

[CID1990]

Bruce Catton (I think most of us can agree that he was probably the most objective Civil War historian out there) once said that the Civil War had many causes. However, there was one cause that had it not been present, the war would likely not have happened. That cause was slavery.

I can't really argue with that. However, this whole latest flap caused what's his name at CNN to call Confederate soldiers "terrorists". That, along with the continual chronic condescension of our Yankee neighbors is what puts Southerners in a fighting lather to begin with. Jon, your ignorance is so astounding I don't know where to begin in terms of what books to suggest to you, other than ones that have big letters, pretty pictures and come with crayons. Really.

I see absolutely nothing wrong or improper in commemorating Confederate war dead. They were some of the finest soldiers ever seen in this hemisphere. The Army of Northern Virginia is still considered on both sides of the pond to be the best mobile army prior to major industrialization. This was primarily due to the private Confederate infantryman, who, almost 100% of the time never owned a slave nor profited from others' ownership of the same. Those soldiers fought because once the ball started rolling, the only choices were fight or be subjugated in the predicted manner that was proven true in Atlanta and Columbia. (The third choice was face the noose for draft evasion).

[OL FU]

Bruce Catton (I think most of us can agree that he was probably the most objective Civil War historian out there) once said that the Civil War had many causes. However, there was one cause that had it not been present, the war would likely not have happened. That cause was slavery.

I can't really argue with that. However, this whole latest flap caused what's his name at CNN to call Confederate soldiers "terrorists". That, along with the continual chronic condescension of our Yankee neighbors is what puts Southerners in a fighting lather to begin with. Jon, your ignorance is so astounding I don't know where to begin in terms of what books to suggest to you, other than ones that have big letters, pretty pictures and come with crayons. Really.

I see absolutely nothing wrong or improper in commemorating Confederate war dead. They were some of the finest soldiers ever seen in this hemisphere. The Army of Northern Virginia is still considered on both sides of the pond to be the best mobile army prior to major industrialization. This was primarily due to the private Confederate infantryman, who, almost 100% of the time never owned a slave nor profited from others' ownership of the same. Those soldiers fought because once the ball started rolling, the only choices were fight or be subjugated in the predicted manner that was proven true in Atlanta and Columbia. (The third choice was face the noose for draft evasion).

good points. Another regarding confederates as traitors. I am one of those that partially buys into the argument of don't judge 18th century men by 21st century standards. I say partially because in the 18th century there were people that understood that slavery was an abomination, (some of those men were probably slave owners ) so if some could understand why not others. However, it is tossed around in many of these discussions and ignored by many, but certainly people in the 1860s, especially southerners, regarded themselves as citizens of their state first and the United States second. Lee is a good example as he would have certainly been the commander of the union troops if Virginia had not joined the confederacy. We can apply our modern patriotism to this all we want, but it simply did not exist, at least in the south, as we know it today in 1860.

[houndawg]

Bruce Catton (I think most of us can agree that he was probably the most objective Civil War historian out there) once said that the Civil War had many causes. However, there was one cause that had it not been present, the war would likely not have happened. That cause was slavery.

I can't really argue with that. However, this whole latest flap caused what's his name at CNN to call Confederate soldiers "terrorists". That, along with the continual chronic condescension of our Yankee neighbors is what puts Southerners in a fighting lather to begin with. Jon, your ignorance is so astounding I don't know where to begin in terms of what books to suggest to you, other than ones that have big letters, pretty pictures and come with crayons. Really.

I see absolutely nothing wrong or improper in commemorating Confederate war dead. They were some of the finest soldiers ever seen in this hemisphere. The Army of Northern Virginia is still considered on both sides of the pond to be the best mobile army prior to major industrialization. This was primarily due to the private Confederate infantryman, who, almost 100% of the time never owned a slave nor profited from others' ownership of the same. Those soldiers fought because once the ball started rolling, the only choices were fight or be subjugated in the predicted manner that was proven true in Atlanta and Columbia. (The third choice was face the noose for draft evasion).

Yankees are condescending to everyone, not just southerners. It seems to be in their blood and I think it goes back to those insufferable religious bigots, Puritans. To me, born and raised on the west coast, a yankee is somebody from the New England area. My experience has been that to southerners, a yankee is anybody not from the south.

[OL FU]

Bruce Catton (I think most of us can agree that he was probably the most objective Civil War historian out there) once said that the Civil War had many causes. However, there was one cause that had it not been present, the war would likely not have happened. That cause was slavery.

I can't really argue with that. However, this whole latest flap caused what's his name at CNN to call Confederate soldiers "terrorists". That, along with the continual chronic condescension of our Yankee neighbors is what puts Southerners in a fighting lather to begin with. Jon, your ignorance is so astounding I don't know where to begin in terms of what books to suggest to you, other than ones that have big letters, pretty pictures and come with crayons. Really.

I see absolutely nothing wrong or improper in commemorating Confederate war dead. They were some of the finest soldiers ever seen in this hemisphere. The Army of Northern Virginia is still considered on both sides of the pond to be the best mobile army prior to major industrialization. This was primarily due to the private Confederate infantryman, who, almost 100% of the time never owned a slave nor profited from others' ownership of the same. Those soldiers fought because once the ball started rolling, the only choices were fight or be subjugated in the predicted manner that was proven true in Atlanta and Columbia. (The third choice was face the noose for draft evasion).

Yankees are condescending to everyone, not just southerners. It seems to be in their blood and I think it goes back to those insufferable religious bigots, Puritans. To me, born and raised on the west coast, a yankee is somebody from the New England area. My experience has been that to southerners, a yankee is anybody not from the south.

After my last drive 30 miles north it also includes anybody north of the South Carolina Border


And to Europeans it is anybody in this country which is one of the many reasons I don't like Europeans

[ASUMountaineer]

Bruce Catton (I think most of us can agree that he was probably the most objective Civil War historian out there) once said that the Civil War had many causes. However, there was one cause that had it not been present, the war would likely not have happened. That cause was slavery.

I can't really argue with that. However, this whole latest flap caused what's his name at CNN to call Confederate soldiers "terrorists". That, along with the continual chronic condescension of our Yankee neighbors is what puts Southerners in a fighting lather to begin with. Jon, your ignorance is so astounding I don't know where to begin in terms of what books to suggest to you, other than ones that have big letters, pretty pictures and come with crayons. Really.

I see absolutely nothing wrong or improper in commemorating Confederate war dead. They were some of the finest soldiers ever seen in this hemisphere. The Army of Northern Virginia is still considered on both sides of the pond to be the best mobile army prior to major industrialization. This was primarily due to the private Confederate infantryman, who, almost 100% of the time never owned a slave nor profited from others' ownership of the same. Those soldiers fought because once the ball started rolling, the only choices were fight or be subjugated in the predicted manner that was proven true in Atlanta and Columbia. (The third choice was face the noose for draft evasion).

good points. Another regarding confederates as traitors. I am one of those that partially buys into the argument of don't judge 18th century men by 21st century standards. I say partially because in the 18th century there were people that understood that slavery was an abomination, (some of those men were probably slave owners ) so if some could understand why not others. However, it is tossed around in many of these discussions and ignored by many, but certainly people in the 1860s, especially southerners, regarded themselves as citizens of their state first and the United States second. Lee is a good example as he would have certainly been the commander of the union troops if Virginia had not joined the confederacy. We can apply our modern patriotism to this all we want, but it simply did not exist, at least in the south, as we know it today in 1860.

Nice post, OL FU. I remember a few years back reading an article in Newsweek about the Civil War. The author stated it as, "Before the Civil War people said 'the United States are,' and after the Civil War people began to say 'the United States is.'"

[CID1990]

good points. Another regarding confederates as traitors. I am one of those that partially buys into the argument of don't judge 18th century men by 21st century standards. I say partially because in the 18th century there were people that understood that slavery was an abomination, (some of those men were probably slave owners ) so if some could understand why not others. However, it is tossed around in many of these discussions and ignored by many, but certainly people in the 1860s, especially southerners, regarded themselves as citizens of their state first and the United States second. Lee is a good example as he would have certainly been the commander of the union troops if Virginia had not joined the confederacy. We can apply our modern patriotism to this all we want, but it simply did not exist, at least in the south, as we know it today in 1860.

Nice post, OL FU. I remember a few years back reading an article in Newsweek about the Civil War. The author stated it as, "Before the Civil War people said 'the United States are,' and after the Civil War people began to say 'the United States is.'"

It is true that if nothing else, the Civil War was a victory for Federalism.

[Skjellyfetti]

I think it was Baldy who suggested recently that I should read more primary sources. Here's a bunch:


A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union (emphasis in original):

...in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states....

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Texas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

....Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin...

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reason ... ississippi" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reason ... 20Carolina" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cornerstone Speech
Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America
March 21, 1861
Savannah, Georgia

The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth...

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr ... ntprint=76" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


There was the overarching theme of the proper role of the federal government and "state's rights." But, the Civil War would not have been fought without Southerner's feeling their "peculiar institution" was under threat. The Confederacy was clearly founded upon blatant, out-in-the-open racism. I'm not sure how anyone can rationalize flying the Confederate flag, celebrating the Confederacy, etc. The CSA stood for racism... the Vice President said so himself.

[Baldy]

There was the overarching theme of the proper role of the federal government and "state's rights." But, the Civil War would not have been fought without Southerner's feeling their "peculiar institution" was under threat. The Confederacy was clearly founded upon blatant, out-in-the-open racism. I'm not sure how anyone can rationalize flying the Confederate flag, celebrating the Confederacy, etc. The CSA stood for racism... the Vice President said so himself.

Ummm, it wasn't only the Confederacy, Wilbur.
Every slave in the US came here on ships flying the flag of the United States of America.

[Skjellyfetti]

Ummm, it wasn't only the Confederacy, Wilbur.
Every slave in the US came here on ships flying the flag of the United States of America.

No crap. It is a dark stain on America's past. No doubt about it. I'm not saying the US is perfect.

But, even Alexander Stephens says the Confederacy was the first to be founded on the belief that one race is better and should subjugate the lesser race. I'll post it again since you glossed over the primary sources you were so intent on me reading last week :

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth...

That attitude expressed in the above quote is why most people's gag reflexes kick in when they see someone waving the Confederate flag.

[CID1990]

Ummm, it wasn't only the Confederacy, Wilbur.
Every slave in the US came here on ships flying the flag of the United States of America.

No crap. It is a dark stain on America's past. No doubt about it. I'm not saying the US is perfect.

But, even Alexander Stephens says the Confederacy was the first to be founded on the belief that one race is better and should subjugate the lesser race. I'll post it again since you glossed over the primary sources you were so intent on me reading last week :

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth...

That attitude expressed in the above quote is why most people's gag reflexes kick in when they see someone waving the Confederate flag.

Stephens was one of the biggest firebrands in the South. His nomination and election as VP was a paean to the planter class. Nobody denies that the planter class saw secession as a means to save their institutions. That said, since you are adept at internet research, maybe you should also research the relative size of this portion of the population of the Southern states to the rest of the population. You will find that there are probably today more people in the North who would support racial divides than there were planters in the South in 1860.

Also, you mentioned that you read Senator Webb's book on the Scots-Irish. There is an applicable chapter, but I cannot believe that you read it.

[SuperHornet]

Why am I not surprised that people are stretching points in this thread?

Ummm, it wasn't only the Confederacy, Wilbur.
Every slave in the US came here on ships flying the flag of the United States of America.

While many ships were US flagged, a ton came over on ships flagged by the British, French, and several other countries.

Even in 1861, slavery was on the way out.

I realize that slavery was and would eventually die its own death...

This is more of a semantic issue. The trend of the institution of legal slavery has been waning since the beginning of the 19th century. The British banned the slave trade in 1807, but the institution still lived in the Commonwealth for decades to come. In fact, a missionary in a Western Hemisphere British colony was jailed for supporting a slave uprising as late as 1823. Slaves in all British colonies were emancipated in 1833, with the proviso that slaveowners would be reimbursed. Sure, it took the US another thirty years or so to follow suit, and it resulted in the Civil War.

But slavery is NOT dead!!! In fact, there are more slaves around the world right now than there has ever been. It's just not publicized as much as it should. It's covered up in a euphemism: "human trafficking." Tell the truth, Feds. It's slavery, pure and simple. I don't have access to the post (I think it was on the first page), but one idiot here is asserting that no Black person alive has dealt with slavery. Bullcr@p!!! Slavery worldwide is affecting people of every ethnicity, including those of African descent.

FYI, I just hit a lot of this in the last week or so in my history class.

[Skjellyfetti]

Stephens was one of the biggest firebrands in the South. His nomination and election as VP was a paean to the planter class. Nobody denies that the planter class saw secession as a means to save their institutions.

Yeah... so you agree with me, then. The planter class was the Confederacy. They dominated it politically, economically, socially, and any other measure you could think of....

That said, since you are adept at internet research, maybe you should also research the relative size of this portion of the population of the Southern states to the rest of the population. You will find that there are probably today more people in the North who would support racial divides than there were planters in the South in 1860.

And the population of the US is 10x larger now than it was then. I'm not sure what the point is you're trying to make... The population of the 11 Confederate states was about 9 million in 1860. So, I agree with you... but, it's a pretty silly point.

I'm not saying that antebellum South had a monopoly on racism... or that all Southerners now are racist. I'm saying the government of the Southern states was primarily motivated by slavery and racism when they seceded from the Union and the Confederacy was founded on slavery and racism. Do you dispute that? Do you need to reread those states' secession proclamations and Alexander Stephens's speech?

Also, you mentioned that you read Senator Webb's book on the Scots-Irish. There is an applicable chapter, but I cannot believe that you read it.

I know what you are talking about... but, that is a different argument than I am making. The "little guys"... yeoman farmers, middle class shop owners, etc. in the South weren't invested in slavery and were largely fighting an invading army. Here's another good book that discussis the same thing in regards to Appalachia (about how slavery was very unpopular, the high numbers of Appalachians that fought for the Union, and even Winston County in Alabama that "seceded" from Alabama and Confederacy in opposition):

The word Appalachia is seldom uttered in the same sentence with the word enlightenment. More likely, images of the film Deliverance, corncob chomping grannies, or bonafide gun-toting hillbillies come to mind. However, in truth, Appalachia has been a cradle of US freedom, independence, and enlightenment, as well as a region of progressive social history, literature, and music.

The United States of Appalachia reveals to us how so many of our nation’s basic freedoms and founding moments grew out of the Appalachias. From the first declaration of independence to the beginnings of folk music, literature, and poetry, Jeff Biggers illuminates with humor, intelligence, and clarity, the many reasons why we all need a lesson in Appalachian history.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[OL FU]

Why am I not surprised that people are stretching points in this thread?

Ummm, it wasn't only the Confederacy, Wilbur.
Every slave in the US came here on ships flying the flag of the United States of America.

While many ships were US flagged, a ton came over on ships flagged by the British, French, and several other countries.

Even in 1861, slavery was on the way out.

I realize that slavery was and would eventually die its own death...

This is more of a semantic issue. The trend of the institution of legal slavery has been waning since the beginning of the 19th century. The British banned the slave trade in 1807, but the institution still lived in the Commonwealth for decades to come. In fact, a missionary in a Western Hemisphere British colony was jailed for supporting a slave uprising as late as 1823. Slaves in all British colonies were emancipated in 1833, with the proviso that slaveowners would be reimbursed. Sure, it took the US another thirty years or so to follow suit, and it resulted in the Civil War.

But slavery is NOT dead!!! In fact, there are more slaves around the world right now than there has ever been. It's just not publicized as much as it should. It's covered up in a euphemism: "human trafficking." Tell the truth, Feds. It's slavery, pure and simple. I don't have access to the post (I think it was on the first page), but one idiot here is asserting that no Black person alive has dealt with slavery. Bullcr@p!!! Slavery worldwide is affecting people of every ethnicity, including those of African descent.

FYI, I just hit a lot of this in the last week or so in my history class.

Thanks, Never mind a good discussion but don't read more into a statement than what is written. Slavery in the south would have died. It might have taken 50 to 100 years but it would have happend. My point was not to justify southern slaveholding or justify southern secession on any grounds. In fact my point was to minimize the importance of the possibility that slavery would die on its on within the scope of our discussion.

[OL FU]

Stephens was one of the biggest firebrands in the South. His nomination and election as VP was a paean to the planter class. Nobody denies that the planter class saw secession as a means to save their institutions.

Yeah... so you agree with me, then. The planter class was the Confederacy. They dominated it politically, economically, socially, and any other measure you could think of....

That said, since you are adept at internet research, maybe you should also research the relative size of this portion of the population of the Southern states to the rest of the population. You will find that there are probably today more people in the North who would support racial divides than there were planters in the South in 1860.

And the population of the US is 10x larger now than it was then. I'm not sure what the point is you're trying to make... The population of the 11 Confederate states was about 9 million in 1860. So, I agree with you... but, it's a pretty silly point.

I'm not saying that antebellum South had a monopoly on racism... or that all Southerners now are racist. I'm saying the government of the Southern states was primarily motivated by slavery and racism when they seceded from the Union and the Confederacy was founded on slavery and racism. Do you dispute that? Do you need to reread those states' secession proclamations and Alexander Stephens's speech?

Also, you mentioned that you read Senator Webb's book on the Scots-Irish. There is an applicable chapter, but I cannot believe that you read it.

I know what you are talking about... but, that is a different argument than I am making. The "little guys"... yeoman farmers, middle class shop owners, etc. in the South weren't invested in slavery and were largely fighting an invading army. Here's another good book that discussis the same thing in regards to Appalachia (about how slavery was very unpopular, the high numbers of Appalachians that fought for the Union, and even Winston County in Alabama that "seceded" from Alabama and Confederacy in opposition):

The word Appalachia is seldom uttered in the same sentence with the word enlightenment. More likely, images of the film Deliverance, corncob chomping grannies, or bonafide gun-toting hillbillies come to mind. However, in truth, Appalachia has been a cradle of US freedom, independence, and enlightenment, as well as a region of progressive social history, literature, and music.

The United States of Appalachia reveals to us how so many of our nation’s basic freedoms and founding moments grew out of the Appalachias. From the first declaration of independence to the beginnings of folk music, literature, and poetry, Jeff Biggers illuminates with humor, intelligence, and clarity, the many reasons why we all need a lesson in Appalachian history.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AS I have said and sk showed in another post, if you don't believe secession was about slavery read the documents from each state that proclaimed it. It becomes pretty clear. Again there were certainly other issues. Therefore, there were other issues for the formation of the confederacy. But since slavery was the main reason for secession, it was also the main reason for the independence of each state. I suppose one could say the confederacy was formed mainly for a united front against the north, but once again the reason the states seceded in the first place was to preserve slavery, therefore the main reason for the formation of the confederacy was to protect those states ability to preserve slavery.


I just thought I would take the opportunity to agree with sk since it doesn't happen often.

[Ibanez]

Slavery ended in the US almost 150 years ago. How many more generations of people not involved with it have to keep apologizing for it?

Have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

Just about every race and part of the world has held slaves at some point in world history. Can we all just shake each others hands and move on?

So where is your thread condemning Confederate History Month then in the first place? The war ended 150 years ago. Civil Wars continue to this day across the globe. Why obsess over a bunch of traitorous, bigoted people whose primary reason for rebellion was KEEPING SLAVES.

Source: 1860 US Census

Oh Christ. Not this again. Accoriding to the 1860 Census, about 1.5% of the ENTIRE us population held slaves. Also, an estimated .015% of the population held 20-30% of the slaves. Also, the % of blacks in slavery in 1860 was about 14% as compared to 16% in 1850, 17% in 1840, 18% in 1820 andn 1830 and 19% in 1790, 1800 and 1810. Mechanization was making slavery obselete(as it had done in other countries). I understand that slave holders were in politics, but you also have to remember, that slavery was king closer to the coasts. Geographically speaking, the further in you went, the less likely you were to come across slave owners, especially in Mountainous areas (like West Virgina, Tennesee and upstate South Carolina/Georgia/North Carolina). So, to say that these people fought to maintain slaves they didn't have or cared about, is inaccurate. I'm not defending slavery, it was horrible. But if you think the primary reason was b/c 1.5% wanted to keep slaves, then you are ignorant to the facts of history and should continue study beyond high school and what the US Gov't (the victor) has told you. There was an economical issue. Economics is why wars are fought (oil in Iraq) BUT you use an ideology to get the majority population to agree to it (free the slaves, free the Iraqis).

[Ibanez]

Since 95%+ of Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, your ignorance of US history is rather disturbing.

Yes, the Confederate soldiers were duped. Your IGNORANCE, whether real, or the result of slanted education or willful disregard, is very disturbing.

Why did the states not secede until an ABOLUTIONIST was elected President if the underlying condition was not SLAVERY?

Lincoln, through his own words and actions, didn't care about black people (moreso than Bush). Lincoln was trying throughout his administration to ship blacks to Africa and Central America. He was hardly an Abolitionist, since that was a minority fringe group. And if you believe that slavery ended w/ the 13th Amendment, you may want to look into Native American Slavery that occured well into the 1880's (including sales to US Soldiers).