Posted on 12/16/2023 9:27:14 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
1/ Within the next several days, barring intervention from Congress, the Biden Regime, in violation of the law, will remove the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery, commissioned to celebrate the reconciliation of North and South.
@blueandgray1864 @oilfieldRando
2/ The memorial is considered the masterwork of the renowned Jewish-American sculptor Sir Moses Ezekiel (a former Confederate soldier who was described by his biographer as “adamantly opposed to slavery") who is buried at its base.
3/ Ezekiel, knighted by the King of Italy, was so dedicated to North-South reconciliation that he would later host commanding Union General Ulysses S. Grant at his studio.
4/ Yet in the wake of the George Floyd moral panic, this memorial was scheduled for removal, though its removal is being done in violation of several federal laws and the clear text of the legislation, which excludes graves.
5/ As former Democrat Senator and Navy Secretary Jim Webb said:
“What was it that Union Army veteran McKinley understood about the Confederate soldiers who opposed him on the battlefield that eludes today’s monument smashers and ad hominem destroyers of historical reputations?”
6/ In fact, at the time it was constructed, some major Confederate groups opposed it because they opposed the reconciliation it symbolized.
7/ Webb, a Vietnam Veteran, has spoken about taking groups of North and South Vietnamese to the monument to show how the U.S. reconciled successfully after a bitter civil war
8/ 44 House Republicans have signed a letter opposing the removal but every Republican should be on record as opposing this lawless action
9/ But of course, this is never *really* about the Confederacy or “Confederate Statues”. The same spirit animated the recent removal of the statue of Thomas Jefferson from the New York City Council, where it had stood for 187 years.
You forgot West Virginia.
5 Northern slave states and 11 Confederate ones makes 16.
16 x 4 is 64, so I was wrong about it being 66, it was 64.
We still don't have 64 states.
If you figure just the 11 confederate states, it would have taken a Union of 44 states, which didn't happen until 1896 when Utah was admitted. (This assumes West Virginia stays with Virginia, and the 45th becomes the 44th state.)
So 30 more years even if all the border states gave it up.
Re: 214 - thanks for the post.
Machines to do the work of slaves were not that far away.
Agreed. There are the other issues.of blacks and citizenship, suffrage, due process, equal protection, etc. Those legal issues took decades as it was to be adjudicated. Assume that slavery ends in 1930-1940 - it’s interesting to consider if the aforementioned issues would have been addressed sooner or later in relation to the ending of slavery.
I understand this point of view. I have a different one, and it does not deny the role of economics in this matter. I will just list some bullets that sum up my thoughts.
I would never deny that the South fought for states rights, but I believe slavery and it's economic importance was the lunch pin of that fight.
LOL...FR manual edit: lunch pin = linchpin
Some things can clearly be discerned from the available evidence, but others are murky.
There is a possibility that people freed from slavery because it had become unpopular among the states practicing it would have had less acrimony directed at them.
I think much of the later acrimony was caused by their voting as a block for the hated Republicans who were responsible for so much devastation in the South. That was certainly the original reason why the Klan formed. It was to counteract their usage as a tool to keep electing Republicans who would vote contrary to the interests of white southerners.
Had slavery just faded away, there is a likelihood that the black vote would have been more or less equally divided between the two parties, as the white vote used to be.(but is now lopsided heavily Republican.)
I'm not sure they would have respected black people's civil rights though even without the acrimony, because many white people of the time simply hated blacks because they were of a different race. Northerners especially did not want blacks in their communities, and this was one of the primary reasons Northern states wanted slavery abolished. They wanted blacks kept away from them.
Would it have been better or worse for black people?
I think in some ways it would have been better, and in some ways it would have been just the same.
What somewhat bothers me is the likelihood that without the abuses, people would simply tolerate the second class citizen status they would have had.
With a more tolerant attitude towards blacks, there may never have built up sufficient outrage over their condition to result in the societal change that happened as a consequence of egregious abuses against them.
Modern society might have ended up somewhat more backward than we are now. Maybe. Maybe not.
Maybe they would have had greater financial wealth, and created a greater role for themselves in the economic conditions of society, and therefore be in a position to find respect from whites just by being good and successful people.
Like I said, some things are just not that easy to see, while others seem pretty clear.
Agreed - and agreed. There were miscegenation laws in several Northern and Western states, along with restrictive covenants for housing, cemetery burials and the like. The same with poll taxes which were found in some Northern and Western states. Pernicious legislation such as grandfathering in payment of the poll tax was eventually struck down in Guinn v. United States .
Fair enough. If you don't mind, I will offer a different perspective on your observations.
The South's dependence on slave labor in a mostly agrarian society made it's economy vulnerable to the industrial North.
Are you suggesting the North's industrial economy would hurt the South in some way? I think that after secession, they would have simply continued purchasing Northern goods as they always did, but the goods would be lower priced and have to compete with European goods on an equal footing.
The South was producing 700 million per year in goods, 500 million of which went to the North, and 200 million of which went to Europe. What would have happened to them, (barring a war) was that they would keep an additional 50 million dollars of their trade with Europe (instead of going into Washington DC's coffers) and probably a hundred million or so in their trade with the North.
The additional capitalization of the South would have caused more industries to move into it in pursuit of that additional money the South would have to spend. (And I have read newspaper accounts form the era indicating this was happening in January of 1861, before the war.)
Corwin Amendment was never trusted by to the South, and would never have been ratified under any conditions owing mostly to not providing for the spread of slavery.
I have come to realize that the assertion that slavery was going to spread was just a propaganda ploy to rile people up and to scare them into voting in the interests of the North rather than the South.
And what convinced me of this was looking at a modern map of Cotton production in the states.
Everything west of Texas can only be grown as a result of modern irrigation systems which wouldn't exist for at least 40 more years. You couldn't grow cotton in the territories. Indeed, according to the wikipedia entry for "New Mexico Territory", during the period from 1800 to the civil war, there were not but a dozen slaves in the entire territory when it stretched from Texas to California.
So no expansion. Wasn't going to happen.
Slavery and its spread were vital to the economic interests of the South, and Lincoln's comments on the Constitutionality of slavery in the territories were non committal.
Slavery couldn't spread. It was pretty much bottled up in the areas where it already existed, and would find scant purchase anywhere else.
I would never deny that the South fought for states rights, but I believe slavery and it's economic importance was the lunch pin of that fight.
If you said it was the money produced by the slaves, I would agree with you, but the fight wasn't actually over whether they would continue being slaves, the Corwin Amendment shows the Union was just fine with keeping them in slavery, the fight was over who was going to get that money they produced.
The South wanted to keep it, and the North said "No way! Either we get it, or we f*** you up!"
The North did f*** them up, and ever since we've been taught they did it for just and moral reasons, because they certainly don't want people to say they only did it for the money.
But they did it for the money. :)
The past is a lot more complicated than many people realize. We all tend to believe whatever our herd believes, and are resistant to looking at things differently from the way we have become accustomed to looking at them.
Your perspectives are logical. But, like my own, they are difficult for me to substantiate. For instance, regarding expansion into the territories, slaves can be forced to do all sorts of labor, not just agriculture. Thanks for a very interesting post...
Huh? What do you mean "was never trusted"? Trust wasn't required. All they needed to do was indicate this would satisfy their concerns and wait while Lincoln got it ratified in more Northern states. Then when enough had ratified it they could have come back in, ratified it themselves and that would have been that. Trust was not required - only ratification.
As to the second part, the spread of slavery - if that had been so important to them, then why did they adopt a solution - secession - by which they gave up any claim to the Western territories of the US and thus any chance of spreading slavery? Clearly spreading slavery for its own sake is not what was important to them (even if the climate out West were suitable for cotton and tobacco growing which its not). What they really needed were votes in the Senate to prevent even more exploitative economic legislation. As soon as they were out, they no longer needed votes in the Senate.
Slavery and its spread were vital to the economic interests of the South, and Lincoln's comments on the Constitutionality of slavery in the territories were non committal.
the spread of slavery was only vital to the economic interests in the South if it translated into more votes in the Senate. In any case, the climate was not remotely suitable to cotton or tobacco growing out West.
I would never deny that the South fought for states rights, but I believe slavery and it's economic importance was the lunch pin of that fight.
They could have protected slavery effectively forever by simply agreeing to the Corwin Amendment. There was no significant support for abolition in the US anyway. Abolitionists could not get more than single digit percentages of the vote anywhere. Slavery simply was not threatened in the US.
In 1860, in the New Mexico Territory, an area which encompassed the area presently occupied by the States of New Mexico and Arizona, that there were a grand total of 22 slaves, only 12 of whom were actually domiciled there. If the South intended to be a “Slave Power,” spreading its labor system across the entire continent, it was doing a pretty poor job of it. Commenting on this fact, an English publication in 1861 said, “When, therefore, so little pains are taken to propagate slavery outside the circle of the existing slave states, it cannot be that the extension of slavery is desired by the South on social or commercial grounds directly, and still less from any love for the thing itself for its own sake. But the value of New Mexico and Arizona politically is very great! In the Senate they would count as 4 votes with the South or with the North according as they ranked in the category of slave holding or Free soil states”.
What was that quote from Senator Jefferson Davis? Oh Yeah:
"“What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party? Do you propose to better the condition of the slave? Not at all. What then do you propose? You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery. Is the slave to be benefited by it? Not at all. What then do you propose? It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country. It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds. It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement. It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim. You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why? Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.” Jefferson Davis 1860 speech in the US Senate
See? The conditions were not suitable for chattel slavery to be profitable in the West. The high value but labor intensive crops slaves were used to produce would not grow there. The South wanted them for votes in the Senate to be able to stop the North's continuing campaign to enrich themselves at the South's expense. The North did not want the South to get those votes in the Senate because it was very profitable squeezing all that money out of Southern pockets and they wanted even more of where that came from. As soon as the Southern states seceded, they didn't need votes in the US Senate anymore and didn't care about the spread of slavery. What was it worth to them? Nothing.
In theory. In practice, it was far more profitable to put them in the cotton fields in the South.
Here is that excerpt from the Wiki entry on "New Mexico Territory.
Regardless of the official status, slavery was rare in antebellum New Mexico. Black slaves never numbered more than about a dozen.[5]
Again, when they say "New Mexico, they mean the region between Texas and California.
A dozen slaves in the territory? If there was money to be made, there would have been more. People will pursue a profit regardless of how it may hurt other people.
If there was a buck to be made in the territories, the slavers would have chased it.
But do you know why it was important to convince everyone that slavery "expansion" was a serious problem? Because they might elect members of congress that would support the Southern states and not the Northern ones.
The Northern states had control of congress, and used it to enact all sorts of legislation favorable to themselves. A possible pro-southern state would disrupt their majority and cost them a lot of money, so they had to scare people away from the idea.
I will inform you if you didn't already know, that the primary organization that made a point to inform everyone of the dangers of slavery expanding into the territories was the "Free Soil Party."
Now you might think the "Free Soil Party" would be headquartered in Kansas, so that it could be close to the land in question, or perhaps even Chicago, so it wouldn't be too far away, but it was in fact headquartered in New York, over a thousand miles away from the land it was supposedly concerned about.
So why would people in New York be concerned about what was happening in the territories?
Money. Control of Congress, which would affect their money.
So yeah, they were very concerned that Kansas and other territories elected the right kind of people to congress, because it might impact their income streams if they did not.
Good quotes. I didn’t know about them previously. They dovetail with what I have said.
Agree with the your description of the circumstances surrounding the final disposition of the Corwin Amendment. The original reaction by the South to the proposed amendment was, IMO, another gigantic red flag waved in Northern faces..Indicating the South’s unshakable desire to conquer with the spread of slavery for whatever reason...labor, political power etc...
I meant just what I said. If you have some info that Jeff Davis trusted Northern politicians at the time of Corwin...Pass it on...I'll be happy to read it. I'm here to discuss and learn...By the way, "Huh"is an interesting interjection; I would be disappointed if it is being applied in scorn.
Yeah, I saw that. Thanks.
Huh? Desire to spread slavery? What are you talking about? The Southern states simply wished to leave. Nothing more. They made no claim to the western territories. They had no desire to spread slavery.
No trust of northern politicians would have been needed. All the Southern states needed to do was indicate that the Corwin Amendment would be acceptable to them as the condition of their re-entry. Lincoln strong armed 5 states to ratify it. The Southern states after making it clear passage of the Corwin Amendment would satisfy them, could have just sat back and watched Lincoln strong arm more Northern states to ratify it. Once enough had done so, they could have all re-entered, ratified it and that would have been it. It would have been a constitutional amendment. They did not need to trust anybody. They could have just sat back and said "show me".
They didn't. They never gave the slightest indication that the Corwin Amendment would address their concerns. Because their real concerns were not about the protection of slavery.
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.