Posted on 04/11/2011 7:51:03 AM PDT by Davy Buck
"The fact that it is acceptable to put a Confederate flag on a car *bumper and to portray Confederates as brave and gallant defenders of states’ rights rather than as traitors and defenders of slavery is a testament to 150 years of history written by the losers." - Ohio State Professer Steven Conn in a recent piece at History News Network (No, I'll not difnigy his bitterness by providing a link)
This sounds like sour grapes to me. Were it not for the "losers" . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
If you could reference where you read the SC and GA theory, I’d like to read it, but Jefferson’s papers and several others’ point to the decision to omit being made more by Northerners because they didn’t want to start the discussion over slavery BEFORE declaring independence and thus losing the southern states’ support before going to war.
It was not an attack on the slave trade, it was a list of grievances on the king, so your phrasing is misleading.
Jefferson, the lead diplomat of the State with the most slaves, thought it ok to put and leave in there, so I can’t see how you justify such an absolute statement as it “definitely wasn’t a case” of North forcing the issue. At least concede the possibility in fairness unless you have a source to refute it.
So they seceded to lose their slaves?
First, there's a lot of hindsight involved here. Southern slaveowners tried to secede and lost their slaves. We can speculate now that if they wanted to keep their slaves they would have been better off in the union, but they didn't see things that way at the time. From the slaveowners' perspective at the time -- wrong as it may have been in hindsight -- independence was the way to secure slavery.
Second, they didn't trust the Corwin Amendment -- and with reason. Amending the Constitution with an unchangeable, unamendable, amendment was a very questionable procedure.
Still fighting that old CW huh, NonSquirter? How long do you think you will last with this name? I often wonder if you will ever get a real life before you die. I doubt it.
You were banned, go away.
You are obviously confusing me with someone else.
__________________
HAAAAAHAAAAA!! SUREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
OBSESSED WITH SLAVERY!! It’s ok, don’t worry, tell all of your Afro American neighbors that it’s OK, they aren’t going to be slaves, it’s ok. Tell Mary that too.
K-S: You must remember that Marx and Engels wrote that early in the conflict - October 1861. Before Davis' contempt for his Constitution had become clear, before Davis nationalized industries, trampled civil rights, and seized private property. Had they waited a few more years then perhaps the two could have overcome their dislike of slavery and embraced Jefferson Davis as a kindred spirit.
Hi, K-S - a pleasure to meet you. So, are you suggesting that Marx and Engels actually became Confederate supporters after October 1861? Or do you just imagine that it might have been so, but have not run across any period documentation that actually suggests it?
;>)
WIJG?: And if they admitted that tariffs were an issue, perhaps they were just a bit more honest than some of the Union enthusiasts who post here...
K-S: But later the two are far more specific on the cause of the conflict - a great deal more honest than the Southern enthusiasts who post here are...
I suggest that tariffs were "an issue" (a simple statement of fact), and you disagree, suggesting (apparently via an un-sourced quote, possibly from Marx and/or Engels) that slavery was "the cause."
How nice!
;>)
You really shouldn't be trying to discuss this with the grown-ups. Seriously, look up "expansion of slavery" and what you'll find is extensive discussion of the fate of slavery in the territories, Dred Scott, the Missouri Compromise, Bloody Kansas and all the rest. Trying to claim that "most people" understand that it really means the African slave trade proves once again just how unprepared you are talk about these subjects.
There's no way to increase the slave population (aka "expansion") except by bringing more into the country.
Oh, my God. You really are serious, aren't you? You might want to look at the slave birth rate in the US. Fogel and Engerman (you do know their work, right?) put the rate of natural increase in the US slave population at 2.3% per year. The slave population of the US tripled between 1810, when the slave trade became illegal and slowed to a trickle, and 1860. British abolitionists pointed to the high birth rate among American slaves compared to those in the Caribbean colonies as evidence of the harshness of life for the island slaves.
As for your point about the failure of the US Constitution to ban the slave trade in 1787, did you ever address the fact that it was South Carolina and Georgia that insisted on that protection, over the objections of the other states?
Here's one that's in print. Here is another.
A few sources also blame "Northern merchants," but as I said, it wasn't a case that Southerners as a group wanted criticism of King George for tolerating slavery and the slave trade in the Declaration of Independence and Northerners as a group led the opposition.
From accounts that I've seen South Carolinians and Georgians were in the forefront of the opposition. Many Virginians in Washington's day -- including Washington himself -- didn't necessarily think of themselves as "Southerners." They saw themselves as in between the New Englanders and the South Carolinians and Georgians. But it has to be noted that they had their slaves. Those further South wanted the slave trade continued, since they wanted still more slaves.
Jefferson himself blamed Northern merchants as well as South Carolinians and Georgians for deleting the passage.
Congress proceeded the same day [July 2] to consider the declaration of Independance, which had been reported & laid on the table the Friday preceding, and on Monday referred to a commee. of the whole. the pusillanimous idea that we had friends in England worth keeping terms with, still haunted the minds of many. for this reason those passages which conveyed censures on the people of England were struck out, lest they should give them offence. the clause too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina & Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who on the contrary still wished to continue it. our Northern brethren also I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for tho' their people have very few slaves themselves yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others. the debates having taken up the greater parts of the 2d. 3d. & 4th. days of July were, in the evening of the last closed.
That may be true. But so far as I can see he didn't assign them all the blame, and he did have strong prejudices against New Englanders and commercial men.
Notice that Jefferson clearly says that SC and GA objected to the passage. Then he speculates that Northerners might have been sensitive to the language as well.
But he doesn't say that the Northerners had it taken out. It's not clear whether they actively opposed it or Jefferson just thought they were cool to it.
In any event, Northern sentiments weren't the key factor in removing the passage.
Of course you do. Your posts started out fairly straight-forward, but have become increasingly emotion-charged and snarky. It's OK - I understand how emotionally invested you are ;-)
good research, and thanks for putting an honest effort into the discussion.
i still must dispute your conclusions because the SC and GA points need context. most of the slave trade even in the southern ports was still owned and controlled by northerners who simply used the those ports to minimize the travel time from africa. here’s a quick PBS-sourced link mentioning the DeWolf’s, but i should have some books around here i can dig up later. http://www.tracesofthetrade.org/guides-and-materials/historical/northern-involvement-in-the-slave-trade/
So Jefferson saying interests in those states objected is true. That those “interests” may have been controlled by (or simply themselves) Northerners is the missing link.
(No offense intended, rockrr, which is why I included you on the address line... ;>)
They understood the risk.
First, there's a lot of hindsight involved here. Southern slaveowners tried to secede and lost their slaves. We can speculate now that if they wanted to keep their slaves they would have been better off in the union, but they didn't see things that way at the time. From the slaveowners' perspective at the time -- wrong as it may have been in hindsight -- independence was the way to secure slavery.
Are you saying the Southern slaveowners didn't understand the risk?
Second, they didn't trust the Corwin Amendment -- and with reason. Amending the Constitution with an unchangeable, unamendable, amendment was a very questionable procedure.
Why would the seceding states care?
Really? Where did I do that? Of course, the slave mortality rate was higher and the birth rate lower than the white population,but it was "natural increase" and not the transatlantic trade that led to the tripling of the US slave population in the first half of the 19th Century.
nd I'm sure both stats are readily available since we had nothing better to do than perfectly document births and deaths of non-citizens at that time.
There was this thing called "the census" that counted slaves, maybe you've heard of it. And slave owners actually kept fairly meticulous track of their property.
Sadly, it didn't slow down as much as you once again assert without any reference.
You want references. Okay. "Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery" Robert WIlliam Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman, 1974. Page 23 has a chart tracing the percentage of foreign born slaves in the US from 1620, when it stood at 100%, to 1800, when it stood at about 20%, to 0% in 1860. You can find the chart via Google books. Fogel by the way, won the Nobel Prize in economics for his historical economic studies.
Like I said, you really are to all appearances woefully unprepared to discuss these matters. Do a little research outside of the Lost Cause polemicists. Maybe you'll learn something.
Using words like “crapweed” may be too funny to classify as emotional. :)
Using words like “crapweasal” may be too funny to classify as emotional. :)
Obviously, they didn't. But some people want to say that slavery wasn't the issue because the Corwin Amendment would have guaranteed slaveowner's prerogatives. That's just wrong.
The militants had already decided on secession and they weren't going to be swayed by any attempts to buy them off. It doesn't mean that they were indifferent to the survival of slavery, it just means they had already set their course of action.
Just what your point is, I don't know, sunshine, but that's what I was trying to say.
You were home sick the day they covered the birds and the bees in grade school science class, weren't you?
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.