(12-15-2022, 02:26 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2022, 10:33 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]You need to look past what we are generally feed from MSM. Most people didn't own slaves, even in the south. The war had nothing to do with salary until the North was on the verge of losing. The people weren't fighting a war so the elites in the South could own some slaves.
The elites may or may not have benefited from actually ending slavery. Being a slave sucks but at the same time you are valuable. The owner has to ensure you stay healthy, fed, and able to work or they get no return on their investment.
After slavery ended, the elites could then pay minimal and it didn't matter to them if you couldn't feed yourself or got sick. They could just hire the next worker.
So you have the people who supported the generals and then you have elites who were probably playing both sides. So I believe that's why you see these. It also helps to kept the people fighting each other instead of joining together against the elites like they had done in the forming of the nation.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
If you don't think the war was about slavery, read the 5 different Articles of Secession which were written by 5 different Southern states. They all state that they were seceding to defend slavery.
For example, Mississippi: “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."
Georgia: "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slaveholding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."
Texas: “We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."
In addition to that, the Vice-President of the Confederacy gave a speech on March 21, 1861 (the "Cornerstone Speech") where he stated: "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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 moral condition."
The Southern states seceded to defend slavery and white supremacy. There can't be any argument about that.
Slavery was the expressed issue of States' Rights. There were others but slavery was the key one.
(12-15-2022, 02:26 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2022, 10:33 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]You need to look past what we are generally feed from MSM. Most people didn't own slaves, even in the south. The war had nothing to do with salary until the North was on the verge of losing. The people weren't fighting a war so the elites in the South could own some slaves.
The elites may or may not have benefited from actually ending slavery. Being a slave sucks but at the same time you are valuable. The owner has to ensure you stay healthy, fed, and able to work or they get no return on their investment.
After slavery ended, the elites could then pay minimal and it didn't matter to them if you couldn't feed yourself or got sick. They could just hire the next worker.
So you have the people who supported the generals and then you have elites who were probably playing both sides. So I believe that's why you see these. It also helps to kept the people fighting each other instead of joining together against the elites like they had done in the forming of the nation.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
If you don't think the war was about slavery, read the 5 different Articles of Secession which were written by 5 different Southern states. They all state that they were seceding to defend slavery.
For example, Mississippi: “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."
Georgia: "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slaveholding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."
Texas: “We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."
In addition to that, the Vice-President of the Confederacy gave a speech on March 21, 1861 (the "Cornerstone Speech") where he stated: "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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 moral condition."
The Southern states seceded to defend slavery and white supremacy. There can't be any argument about that.
The Texas statement is different from the rest. It does not mention slavery but it applies to black people whether they were legally slave or free. In the Texas authors' mind, it didn't matter if the person was technically a slave or not, if they were black, their very presence could only be "beneficial or tolerable" if they were made inferior legally and economically. This was the point of view of most white people, north and south, in 1861. The northerners had in mind that first constraining and then slowly eliminating slavery would unlock new economic development for white people, with black people beginning to earn wages but only in the most menial roles. They believed that blacks could be improved somewhat by education, but not that blacks would ever be equal to whites in mind or body.
(12-15-2022, 03:46 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-15-2022, 02:26 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]If you don't think the war was about slavery, read the 5 different Articles of Secession which were written by 5 different Southern states. They all state that they were seceding to defend slavery.
For example, Mississippi: “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."
Georgia: "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slaveholding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."
Texas: “We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."
In addition to that, the Vice-President of the Confederacy gave a speech on March 21, 1861 (the "Cornerstone Speech") where he stated: "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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 moral condition."
The Southern states seceded to defend slavery and white supremacy. There can't be any argument about that.
The Texas statement is different from the rest. It does not mention slavery but it applies to black people whether they were legally slave or free. In the Texas authors' mind, it didn't matter if the person was technically a slave or not, if they were black, their very presence could only be "beneficial or tolerable" if they were made inferior legally and economically. This was the point of view of most white people, north and south, in 1861. The northerners had in mind that first constraining and then slowly eliminating slavery would unlock new economic development for white people, with black people beginning to earn wages but only in the most menial roles. They believed that blacks could be improved somewhat by education, but not that blacks would ever be equal to whites in mind or body.
Those are only excerpts. You can read the entire Texas Declaration of Causes here. It is ALL about slavery.
https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/se...b1861.html
Look man, no one is saying that slavery wasn't the catalyst that led to succession. Anyone objecting to that doesn't know what they are talking about. That's not why the WAR was fought, though.
Prior to the Civil war, people thought of the states like their country, and, for all intents and purposes, there was no reason to assume otherwise. Those individual states joined a Federation out of mutual self-interest to create stability and increase their presence on the world stage. Most people in the US had this world view prior to the Civil War. For example, Robert E. Lee did not support slavery, but he felt he had to fight for his countrymen... VIRGINIANS.
When the North became powerful enough to overturn the way of life for the South, the South felt the Federation now threatened to overturn said way of life and wanted out. IF the North just let them leave, there would be no war. However, they declared the South couldn't leave, and that is what started the fighting. The Civil War was fought for states' sovereignty, not slavery. The South lost, and it fundamentally changed the way we looked at the Federation. It was no longer an agreement that bound different nations... it was officially clear that the US was one nation.
Slavery is the issue that led to succession. State sovereignty is what caused the war. Period. You should know this. You're a history major.
(12-15-2022, 05:19 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Look man, no one is saying that slavery wasn't the catalyst that led to succession. Anyone objecting to that doesn't know what they are talking about. That's not why the WAR was fought, though.
Prior to the Civil war, people thought of the states like their country, and, for all intents and purposes, there was no reason to assume otherwise. Those individual states joined a Federation out of mutual self-interest to create stability and increase their presence on the world stage. Most people in the US had this world view prior to the Civil War. For example, Robert E. Lee did not support slavery, but he felt he had to fight for his countrymen... VIRGINIANS.
When the North became powerful enough to overturn the way of life for the South, the South felt the Federation now threatened to overturn said way of life and wanted out. IF the North just let them leave, there would be no war. However, they declared the South couldn't leave, and that is what started the fighting. The Civil War was fought for states' sovereignty, not slavery. The South lost, and it fundamentally changed the way we looked at the Federation. It was no longer an agreement that bound different nations... it was officially clear that the US was one nation.
Slavery is the issue that led to succession. State sovereignty is what caused the war. Period. You should know this. You're a history major.
Secession, not succession.
State sovereignty was the legal justification for secession. But the reason for secession was to defend slavery. Why do you think they wanted to secede? It wasn't to defend state sovereignty. So to say state sovereignty caused the civil war is just as wrong as it can be.
Read the various Articles of Secession. The say "the reason we are seceding is to defend slavery." How much more clear can it be?
You are both right. Stop splitting hairs. Slavery was the catalyst for secession but only because the southern states did not want northern states telling them what to do. Regardless, we can all agree slavery was, is and will always be wrong. Unfortunately the face of slavery has changed recently but not all of us recognise the subtleties of the new slavery.
(12-14-2022, 11:38 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm able to overlook some of the really weird [BLEEP] you say but this? Not so much. You have obviously never been for all intents and purposes kept prisoner and raped, sodomized, beaten, half starved, threatened, etc. Or under anyone's control before. As in a controlling relationship or a controlling family.
All of those biracial babies didn't come from black female slaves who willingly had sex with their "masters". Quite the opposite.
My freaking goodness.
You may not like that viewpoint but it is true. They were treated like animals being bought and sold but as a slave they had more value than as a free person in the south. Slaves were expensive and just like a prized cow, you make less money if you don't take care of it.
Once they were freed, they had nothing. Now they could make a very small amount of money but then usually be charged more for housing, food, medical care, etc.
Thankfully it isn't the case today but back then it was true for many slaves. All of a sudden being free didn't really mean anything and now they would become indentured servants because they couldn't afford to pay back all the costs the former slave owners now charged them.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
(12-15-2022, 01:19 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think any elite person anywhere in the US or the confederacy was better off in 1865 than they were in 1861. Such an incredible loss of able bodied workers and machinery on both sides.
It was about slavery from the beginning. The South judged (correctly) that they needed new slave states in the Senate or else it would be a matter of time before the Feds would vote to eliminate slavery, against the will of the Southern states.
The fact that Lincoln was elected without the consent of a single Southern state demonstrated that Southern politicians had lost their ability to veto Federal policy, and Lincoln's promise to stop the expansion of slavery meant they would not get their veto back.
It's true that most southerners did not own slaves but it's also true that most people on both sides of the conflict had extremely racist attitudes. "You should pay your labor" "OK I can't afford that, I'll send them North to work for you and you can pay them" "no we don't want black people here." Etc. Some of us are less racially enlightened than others, but unless you're Black, or have William Lloyd Garrison in your family tree, you would probably be deeply, deeply disappointed in how racist your Civil War era ancestors were if you met them.
Just FYI the narrative that the owner doesn't care if the hired labor gets sick, in general that is not true. It's usually hard to replace workers when a trained worker get sick. The idea that ownership thinks all labor is replaceable and should be paid as little as possible is Marxist language.
The idea that the workers could and should band together against the elites is also Marxism. The American revolution included owners of land and capital, elites, on both sides. It was not anti-elite. The Shays rebellion was the American rebellion of labor vs elites. And it failed.
Go do some research on it. Slavery was too expensive and there were other advancements and cheaper labor that made the need for slaves less and shrinking. While yes the issue of stopping slavery was part of the events leading up to it, it was solely about states rights and stopping the growing power of the federal government. Lincoln freed the slaves as part of a last ditch effort to try and turn the tide of the war. It worked to keep unite the north and helped them win.
Yes there were racist people on both sides and unfortunately it was accepted practice and it is very hard for people to go against society.
Look at what happened to workers afterwards and who benefited. There were plenty of people who benefitted from rebuilding but it wasn't the workers.
As for the American revolution, there were many wealthy people who died penniless or even gave their lives for America. They were all part of the people fighting against the crown and their control. They did not have the power, they were somewhat free, but they were not the elites. Those were the ones who sided with the crown to rule over them.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
(12-15-2022, 05:19 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Look man, no one is saying that slavery wasn't the catalyst that led to succession. Anyone objecting to that doesn't know what they are talking about. That's not why the WAR was fought, though.
Prior to the Civil war, people thought of the states like their country, and, for all intents and purposes, there was no reason to assume otherwise. Those individual states joined a Federation out of mutual self-interest to create stability and increase their presence on the world stage. Most people in the US had this world view prior to the Civil War. For example, Robert E. Lee did not support slavery, but he felt he had to fight for his countrymen... VIRGINIANS.
When the North became powerful enough to overturn the way of life for the South, the South felt the Federation now threatened to overturn said way of life and wanted out. IF the North just let them leave, there would be no war. However, they declared the South couldn't leave, and that is what started the fighting. The Civil War was fought for states' sovereignty, not slavery. The South lost, and it fundamentally changed the way we looked at the Federation. It was no longer an agreement that bound different nations... it was officially clear that the US was one nation.
Slavery is the issue that led to succession. State sovereignty is what caused the war. Period. You should know this. You're a history major.
Robert E Lee supported slavery. We have letters of his where he told his friends that slavery was best for the "education" of the negro race. He did imply that over a few more generations that phase of their "education" would be complete, but obviously he would never have been able to force his heirs or their heirs to honor that.
(12-15-2022, 09:06 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2022, 11:38 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm able to overlook some of the really weird [BLEEP] you say but this? Not so much. You have obviously never been for all intents and purposes kept prisoner and raped, sodomized, beaten, half starved, threatened, etc. Or under anyone's control before. As in a controlling relationship or a controlling family.
All of those biracial babies didn't come from black female slaves who willingly had sex with their "masters". Quite the opposite.
My freaking goodness.
You may not like that viewpoint but it is true. They were treated like animals being bought and sold but as a slave they had more value than as a free person in the south. Slaves were expensive and just like a prized cow, you make less money if you don't take care of it.
Once they were freed, they had nothing. Now they could make a very small amount of money but then usually be charged more for housing, food, medical care, etc.
Thankfully it isn't the case today but back then it was true for many slaves. All of a sudden being free didn't really mean anything and now they would become indentured servants because they couldn't afford to pay back all the costs the former slave owners now charged them.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
I would rather be free and have nothing than be owned and have "value" because that "value" comes at a high price. One I'm not willing to pay.
(12-15-2022, 09:27 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ] (12-15-2022, 01:19 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think any elite person anywhere in the US or the confederacy was better off in 1865 than they were in 1861. Such an incredible loss of able bodied workers and machinery on both sides.
It was about slavery from the beginning. The South judged (correctly) that they needed new slave states in the Senate or else it would be a matter of time before the Feds would vote to eliminate slavery, against the will of the Southern states.
The fact that Lincoln was elected without the consent of a single Southern state demonstrated that Southern politicians had lost their ability to veto Federal policy, and Lincoln's promise to stop the expansion of slavery meant they would not get their veto back.
It's true that most southerners did not own slaves but it's also true that most people on both sides of the conflict had extremely racist attitudes. "You should pay your labor" "OK I can't afford that, I'll send them North to work for you and you can pay them" "no we don't want black people here." Etc. Some of us are less racially enlightened than others, but unless you're Black, or have William Lloyd Garrison in your family tree, you would probably be deeply, deeply disappointed in how racist your Civil War era ancestors were if you met them.
Just FYI the narrative that the owner doesn't care if the hired labor gets sick, in general that is not true. It's usually hard to replace workers when a trained worker get sick. The idea that ownership thinks all labor is replaceable and should be paid as little as possible is Marxist language.
The idea that the workers could and should band together against the elites is also Marxism. The American revolution included owners of land and capital, elites, on both sides. It was not anti-elite. The Shays rebellion was the American rebellion of labor vs elites. And it failed.
Go do some research on it. Slavery was too expensive and there were other advancements and cheaper labor that made the need for slaves less and shrinking. While yes the issue of stopping slavery was part of the events leading up to it, it was solely about states rights and stopping the growing power of the federal government. Lincoln freed the slaves as part of a last ditch effort to try and turn the tide of the war. It worked to keep unite the north and helped them win.
Yes there were racist people on both sides and unfortunately it was accepted practice and it is very hard for people to go against society.
Look at what happened to workers afterwards and who benefited. There were plenty of people who benefitted from rebuilding but it wasn't the workers.
As for the American revolution, there were many wealthy people who died penniless or even gave their lives for America. They were all part of the people fighting against the crown and their control. They did not have the power, they were somewhat free, but they were not the elites. Those were the ones who sided with the crown to rule over them.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
Slaves did get more expensive and slavery less profitable in the decades leading up to the Civil War. This was another factor, along with the others I mentioned, that convinced many Southerners that they needed to start the war in 1861. Men start wars not when their societies are at their peak, but when there are signs that they will lose ground to their enemies naturally if they don't strike first. Many Southerners were convinced that their losses could be reversed simply by making sure Northerners no longer had any say in their tariff or banking policy. However these facts do not mean slavery was going to end on its own.
Lincoln was not losing the war before the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. Memphis and New Orleans both fell to federal troops before the Emancipation proclamation was made.
The North did not get back to its 1860 GDP until about 1873. The South did not get back to its 1860 GDP until the early 1900s. The whole pie was smaller. No one won in the short term except the freed slaves.
The American Revolution attracted many poor men, but it also attracted rich men, and both groups gave their lives. George Washington, Francis Marion, Horatio Gates, and John Hancock were all very wealthy.
We're all slaves now.. Our Master is technology.
(12-15-2022, 10:49 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-15-2022, 09:06 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]You may not like that viewpoint but it is true. They were treated like animals being bought and sold but as a slave they had more value than as a free person in the south. Slaves were expensive and just like a prized cow, you make less money if you don't take care of it.
Once they were freed, they had nothing. Now they could make a very small amount of money but then usually be charged more for housing, food, medical care, etc.
Thankfully it isn't the case today but back then it was true for many slaves. All of a sudden being free didn't really mean anything and now they would become indentured servants because they couldn't afford to pay back all the costs the former slave owners now charged them.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
I would rather be free and have nothing than be owned and have "value" because that "value" comes at a high price. One I'm not willing to pay.
Maybe so. Not sure the Tackies would agree with you. This is again arguably true for the many Irish who took that risk to come to America, also.
(12-15-2022, 10:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-15-2022, 05:19 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Look man, no one is saying that slavery wasn't the catalyst that led to succession. Anyone objecting to that doesn't know what they are talking about. That's not why the WAR was fought, though.
Prior to the Civil war, people thought of the states like their country, and, for all intents and purposes, there was no reason to assume otherwise. Those individual states joined a Federation out of mutual self-interest to create stability and increase their presence on the world stage. Most people in the US had this world view prior to the Civil War. For example, Robert E. Lee did not support slavery, but he felt he had to fight for his countrymen... VIRGINIANS.
When the North became powerful enough to overturn the way of life for the South, the South felt the Federation now threatened to overturn said way of life and wanted out. IF the North just let them leave, there would be no war. However, they declared the South couldn't leave, and that is what started the fighting. The Civil War was fought for states' sovereignty, not slavery. The South lost, and it fundamentally changed the way we looked at the Federation. It was no longer an agreement that bound different nations... it was officially clear that the US was one nation.
Slavery is the issue that led to succession. State sovereignty is what caused the war. Period. You should know this. You're a history major.
Robert E Lee supported slavery. We have letters of his where he told his friends that slavery was best for the "education" of the negro race. He did imply that over a few more generations that phase of their "education" would be complete, but obviously he would never have been able to force his heirs or their heirs to honor that.
That's not supporting slavery. I didn't say he opposed it, but he was not a fervent supporter of it. Taking an idea that was prevalent in a bygone area and holding people to our current standard of thought is half the reason we can't have a nuanced discussion about anything. Presentism is real, ya'll.
(12-16-2022, 02:11 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (12-15-2022, 10:49 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]I would rather be free and have nothing than be owned and have "value" because that "value" comes at a high price. One I'm not willing to pay.
Maybe so. Not sure the Tackies would agree with you. This is again arguably true for the many Irish who took that risk to come to America, also.
Not sure who the Tackies were, but many of the Irish people arriving in colonial times were on 7 year contracts. That's bad, but not as bad as being a slave for life.
(12-16-2022, 02:35 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (12-15-2022, 10:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Robert E Lee supported slavery. We have letters of his where he told his friends that slavery was best for the "education" of the negro race. He did imply that over a few more generations that phase of their "education" would be complete, but obviously he would never have been able to force his heirs or their heirs to honor that.
That's not supporting slavery. I didn't say he opposed it, but he was not a fervent supporter of it. Taking an idea that was prevalent in a bygone area and holding people to our current standard of thought is half the reason we can't have a nuanced discussion about anything. Presentism is real, ya'll.
I agree that the words in his letters are not fervent.
However, his efforts to invade Maryland and Pennsylvania, capture any black people found alive, and bring them back to Virginia as slaves, were fervent.
It's never morally right to own a human being against their will. In any era of history.
(12-16-2022, 10:26 AM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]It's never morally right to own a human being against their will. In any era of history.
Textbook example of Presentism.
(12-16-2022, 11:03 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (12-16-2022, 10:26 AM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]It's never morally right to own a human being against their will. In any era of history.
Textbook example of Presentism.
In this case, Presentism equals moral relativism.