It means DEFIANCE! Go to Hell, hussein!
Posted on 08/07/2015 7:05:50 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I’ve read that America’s first slave owner was a black man from Virginia named Anthony Johnson. I don’t know if it is true or not, but it is irrelevant to whether or not the south was making any sincere moves toward emancipation - they were not.
Taney’s Dred Scott case ensured that blacks, slave or “free” could never be full citizens and could be impressed at any time. The Fugitive Slave Act ensured that slaves that ran away from their captors to northern “free states” (states that had outlawed slavery) could be hunted down and returned south. The south was doing nothing to ease their way toward emancipation and strenuously pushing back against any attempts of the north to contain the practice.
Yes, slaves supported the war effort - as slaves - mostly hauling supplies and serving as cooks. davis repeatedly rebuffed Lee’s suggestion that they use slaves as soldiers - only relenting in 1864, by which time it was too little, too late.
Slavery figured into every aspect of the conflict between the north and the south, culturally, economically, and ideologically. It was the central issue.
Sounds good to me. We wouldn’t have to deal with soretoro or the clintoons.
In Delaware perhaps. The percentage varied from region to region (lower, upper, and border states) but averaged closer to 30% of families owning at least one slave.
We will have to agree to disagree on that. For that to be true, then both parties in the conflict would have had to agree that it was, and that has never been the case.
Man....where do you get your stats...?
Link provided.
By the end of the American Revolution, slavery had proven unprofitable in the North and was dying out. Even in the South the institution was becoming less useful to farmers as tobacco prices fluctuated and began to drop. However, in 1793 Northerner Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin; this device made it possible for textile mills to use the type of cotton most easily grown in the South. Videos Road To Emancipation Hari Jones Victors, Not Victims Articles An Overview of the Civil War Civil War Facts What Caused the Civil War? North and South Why Southerners Fought Resources The United States Colored Troops Slavery Slideshow The Emancipation Proclamation Civil War History Center Cotton replaced tobacco as the South’s main cash crop and slavery became profitable again. Although most Southerners owned no slaves at all, by 1860 the South’s “peculiar institution” was inextricably tied to the region’s economy.
Corwin Amendment. Who outdid whom in the enshrining department?
Do you have an attribution for that? The fact is Eli’s cotton gin increased demand for slave labor, not decreased it.
Link provided
Corwin was a bad deal and an indecent kowtow to the slavers. Good thing that it did not prevail.
My reading of it explains it exactly that way...slave ownership was in decline. When the Gin was invented, the demand for southern cotton went through the roof..so they used slave labor again.
Kowtow? Nice try. Kowtow trivializes it. A truly righteous North never would have “enshrined” slavery in a manner not even contemplated by the South.
And then your attempt at sleight of hand with “Good thing that it did not prevail.” The war rendered it moot. The thing, as reprehensible as I would agree it was, was put in motion without southern votes and was in the process of ratification.
The point is, from the southern perspective, is that they seceded not to keep slaves directly, but to resist the federal control and threats.
It’s what is called states rights by most southern patriots.
That’s why I said it was a side issue because they had many more grievances that were piling up like cordwood.
This is also why I said that had there been a way to mollify the few thousand plantations owners with say, labor or what later came as cotton picker equipment, even the plantations would have voluntarily freed their slaves eventually.
But the plantations were where the political power was and the money. So it remains today with different players and different politics and piles of money now located with the wallstreet banks and their investors..They call the tune...money always does.
This is the only reason why the right to own slaves became a part of the rebel constitution.
When southern people today speak of their heritage, they do it with pride, and they acknowledge the error of slavery which we took from the British and was a western world thing, not just the south US.
They are a very proud people and nobody can take their heritage away from them. Unless of course you wish to fight again...And I believe they would, and I would fight with them.
Rockrr is implacable. He is utterly incapable of seeing the complicity of the North, with the exception of a few noble and ignoble fanatics. North good, South bad. Reminds me of the movie Dances with Wolves. Indian Good; White Man Bad.
Yeah...I can see that...
I think it’s important for some people to understand that this president and this controversy over “Black lives matter” and the erroneously named “confederate flag” has the black populations pretty rattled. They are just trying to keep their heads down and out of the situation. I speak occasionally with a few of my neighbors and that’s the sentiment I am getting. I am also hearing the same from other areas of the south.
However, having said that, few will be critical of Obama or the rabble rousers, nor will they criticize the whites. They just want to live in peace and raise their families.
So nobody in the south is helped by any of this..
It may help some confused pajama criticizers to blast away and make themselves feel useful. But it’s not useful at all.
I agree about the South. But obviously not for the same reason as her.
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.