Skip to comments.
Five myths about why the South seceded (Barf Alert)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ ^
| Sunday, January 9, 2011
| James W. Loewen
Posted on 04/02/2011 6:49:56 AM PDT by jrushing
However, two ideological factors caused most Southern whites, including those who were not slave-owners, to defend slavery. First, Americans are wondrous optimists, looking to the upper class and expecting to join it someday. In 1860, many subsistence farmers aspired to become large slave-owners. So poor white Southerners supported slavery then, just as many low-income people support the extension of George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy now.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: civilwar; mediatemplate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-26 last
To: jrushing
Thanks. There is considerable debate about how popular secession was, but whether one owned a slave or not (and very large numbers did, usually one or two), the institution of slavery was overwhelmingly popular (of course, except with slaves) and supported by almost all southern whites---rich, poor, whatever. It was first and foremost a social system of control, a sociology of superiority, and none of those who ever brayed bout "states rights" ever meant that term in any way other than "states rights to hold humans in bondage."
21
posted on
04/02/2011 11:36:28 AM PDT
by
LS
("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually." (Hendrix))
To: jrushing
BTW, this author wrote the ridiculously bad book, “Lies My Teacher Told Me,” of which his is the biggest.
22
posted on
04/02/2011 11:37:39 AM PDT
by
LS
("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually." (Hendrix))
To: jrushing
JR Hummel is better if you want scholarly work on the subject. Other respected scholars on the subject and related WBTS topics: Gallagher, Foote, Adams, Freeman, Tilley, Dilorenzo, Robertson, Catton.
To: jrushing
Deja-vu all over again. This article wasn't worth posting back in January, but
was. It hasn't gotten any more worth posting or getting riled up about three or four months later.
Loewen's main points are common knowledge and generally agreed upon interpretations. The rest is his own personal agenda -- plugs for his book, obligatory Bush bashing. Neither the standard stuff or his own spin is that useful or interesting.
24
posted on
04/02/2011 11:58:32 AM PDT
by
x
To: stainlessbanner; K-Stater; rockrr
Other respected scholars on the subject and related WBTS topics: Gallagher, Foote, Adams, Freeman, Tilley, Dilorenzo, Robertson, Catton. Some of these things are not like the others,
Some of these things just don't belong,
Can you tell which things are not like the others
By the time I finish my song?
25
posted on
04/02/2011 11:58:42 AM PDT
by
x
To: stainlessbanner
Trying to pass off an old fraud like Dilorenzo as a
respected scholar is risable.
26
posted on
04/03/2011 4:56:01 PM PDT
by
mac_truck
( Aide toi et dieu t aidera)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-26 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson