Posted on 03/02/2020 3:07:25 AM PST by Bull Snipe
The Commandant of the Marine Corp, General David Berger, has ordered "the removal of fall Confederate-related paraphernalia from Marine Corp installations.
Story at Source URL
(Excerpt) Read more at military.com ...
“Total US population in 1860 - 31 million
total slave owners - 385,000
so less than 2% of Americans owned slaves”
Here is another way to interpret the data
total population of States in the Union 1860: 21,907,357
total slave owners: 77,335
total slaves owned: 432,632.
.35% of United States citizens owned slaves.
Total population of the Confederate States 1860: 9,103,332
Total slave owners: 316,881
Total slaves owned: 3,521,110
11.1% of Confederate citizens owned slaves
Do your own research.
Stock answer generally for some one that cannot answer the question asked.
After clerking at Early Vote I can assure you that many vets are libs also... very sad but I thanked them for their service.
I do not believe in erasing Confederate history...makes me sick to my stomach.
My fantasy would be for private landowners in highly visible locations display as much of these fallen statues as possible. Create annual educational ceremonies.
The proper answer to someone too lazy to do his own research. You should have added, “Nanny nanny boo-boo.”
Why is that bad statistical analysis? Ownership of the slave may be held in one persons name but the entire family derived benefit from it. If statistics show that in some Southern states close to half the people lived in slave-owning families then that's a far better indication of how important slavery was to Southern society than merely counting slave owners.
Stand Watie, along with other American Indians are honored at the Cherokee Warrior Memorial. Obviously not related to or on the grounds of the Marine Corps, but we allow American Indians to honor their war dead and military heroes.
Yet, Southerners can not honor those who fought to defend their land from the very same Union Army that killed and drove off the American Indian? (Trail of Tears)
For your information I have been reading civil war histories since the mid 1960s. Not a single one of those histories, including those that were very pro Southern, ever made a claim that the Confederacy was trying to save America.
Even the die hard “Lost Cause” historians did not make that claim.
So, give me the name of a couple of the histories that you have read that claim that the Confederates were trying to save America.
“You might want to examine some of the efforts powerful, soon-to-be industrialists were taking to ensure that the South would not be industrialized, but remain an agrarian source of raw materials to the North; in essence, a colony”
Here is another reason why the South remained agrarian
“We are a peculiar people, sir! You don’t understand us, and you can’t understand us, because we are known to you only by Northern writers and Northern papers, who know nothing of us themselves, or misrepresent what they do know. We are an agricultural people; we are a primitive but a civilized people. We have no cities—we don’t want them, have no literature—we don’t need any yet. We have no press—we are glad of it. We do not require a press, because we go out and discuss all public questions from the stump with our people. We have no commercial marine—no navy—we don’t want them. We are better without them. Your ships carry our produce, and you can protect your own vessels. We want no manufactures: we desire no trading, no mechanical or manufacturing classes. As long as we have our rice, our sugar, our tobacco, and our cotton, we can command wealth to purchase all we want from those nations with which we are in amity, and to lay up money besides.”
Texas Senator Lewis T. Wigfall
same Union Army
No, it was not the “Union Army” .That army came into existence Feb. 28, 1861, and went out existence on May 26, 1865. It was the United States Army that that oversaw the “trail of Tears” and the Plains Indian wars.
Then why did Lee sign the papers manumitting the slaves in December 1862?
Just as the example of Lee’s and Grant’s wives inheriting slaves demonstrates, there could be and in slaveowning families often were more than one slaveowner in the family. Its not as simple as saying one slaveowner = one family.
Yes Mississippi did only list the violations of the fugitive slave act in the constitution by the Northern states in their declaration of causes. This was actually unconstitutional and gave the Southern states a good argument. No matter how much they hated it, tariffs that really hurt Southerners but benefitted Northerners and grossly unequal federal government expenditures again benefitting Northerners were not unconstitutional.
Yet one needs only read the declarations of Texas or Georgia:
“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded— the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”
Or read the address of Robert Barnwell Rhett attached to and sent out with South Carolina’s declaration of causes or read editorials in the newspapers of the two largest ports of the CSA:
“The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism.” Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election
“They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people’s pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union.” The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
Or read the Corwin Amendment which Lincoln endorsed in his inaugural address to see that it was not slavery that was really motivating both sides. It was the same thing people always fight over - MONEY.
Nowhere in the constitution is it said a state cannot leave. The Constitution is silent on the matter. Since according to the 10th amendment those powers not delegated by the sovereign states to the federal government remain with the states, the power to secede is one retained by the states.
3 states including the two most important ones did expressly reserve the right to secede when they ratified the constitution. Nobody at the time said this was in any way inconsistent with the constitution. Madison certainly did not say that at the time nor did he say so prior to ratification of the constitution.
But Madison is not a party to the constitution so his opinions are just the opinions of one man. The states are parties to the constitution. What did they agree to?
“We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the general assembly, and now met in convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon, Do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will....”
“We, the delegates of the people of New York... do declare and make known that the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the department of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions in certain specified powers or as inserted merely for greater caution.”
“We, the delegates of the people of Rhode Island and Plantations, duly elected... do declare and make known... that the powers of government may be resumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the department of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same; that Congress shall guarantee to each State its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution expressly delegated to the United States.”
EVERY state understood itself to have the right to unilateral secession. Remember, these same states had seceded from the British Empire just 8 years earlier after fighting a bloody 8 year war to do so. They made sure each state was named individually as being completely sovereign and independent in the 1783 Treaty of Paris. They were hardly going to agree to bind themselves forever just 8 years later to what everybody acknowledged was an experiment.
“Lee’s and Grant’s wives amply demonstrate”
Lee was the executor of the Custis estate. As such he was obligated to free the former Custis slave within five years of GTW Custis’ death. Mary Lee never had legal title to any of those slaves’
Julia Dent Grant never owned the slaves that attended her. they were the property of her father Fredrick Dent. He lent them to her whenever she resided in Missouri. When she left the State with her husband, the slaves remained in Missouri.
Again, this is according to the 1860 US Census.
I base my assertion on facts obtained at the following sites:
A comprehensive synopsis of slaver ownership in the south in 1860.
Distribution of the slave population in the South, based on 1860 census results.
Now had you claimed that "94.37% of Southern soldiers did not have slaves at the time of the Civil War", that might be a more compelling assertion. Still wrong, but more compelling.
Here is an interesting refutation of that argument .
If you have other data that controverts this please feel free to post it.
Thank you for the information...and the confirmation.
EVERY state understood itself to have the right to unilateral secession.
Wrong.
We can dispense with the BS claims about 10% of the total free population in the Southern States owning slaves. These are the actual numbers by state from the 1860 US Census. I did not even include the numbers from Missouri and Kentucky both of which arguably seceded and both of which had relatively lower rates of slave owning.
Alabama
Total Free Population 529121
Total # of Slaveowners 33730
% of Free population owning slaves 6.37%
Arkansas
Total Free Population 324335
Total # of Slaveowners 11481
% of Free population owning slaves 3.54%
Florida
Total Free Population 78679
Total # of Slaveowners 5152
% of Free population owning slaves 6.55%
Georgia
Total Free Population 595088
Total # of Slaveowners 41084
% of Free population owning slaves 6.90%
Louisiana
Total Free Population 376276
Total # of Slaveowners 22033
% of Free population owning slaves 5.86%
Mississippi
Total Free Population 354674
Total # of Slaveowners 30943
% of Free population owning slaves 8.72%
North Carolina
Total Free Population 661583
Total # of Slaveowners 34658
% of Free population owning slaves 5.24%
South Carolina
Total Free Population 301302
Total # of Slaveowners 26701
% of Free population owning slaves 8.86%
Tennessee
Total Free Population 834082
Total # of Slaveowners 36844
% of Free population owning slaves 4,42%
Texas
Total Free Population 421649
Total # of Slaveowners 21878
% of Free population owning slaves 5.19%
Virginia
Total Free Population 1105453
Total # of Slaveowners 52128
% of Free population owning slaves 4.72%
Total
Total Free Population 5582242
Total # of Slaveowners 316632
% of Free population owning slaves 5.67%
It was all about slavery. The south had threatened to secede in 1856 if the republic party nominee was elected. Why? Because the republican parties platform contained anti-slavery language which was unacceptable to the fire-eaters in the south.
The reason for this opposition to the Republican party is best expressed in this letter from Georgia politician Howell Cobb, who served as the first President of the provisional confederate congress. He wrote this open letter to the people of Georgia during the 1860 election.
“In these declarations Mr. Lincoln has covered the entire abolition platform - hatred of slavery, disregard of judicial decisions, negro equality, and, as a matter of course, the ultimate extinction of slavery. None of these doctrines, however, are left to inference, so far as Mr. Lincoln is concerned, as we see he has avowed them in the plainest and clearest language. Can there be a doubt in any intelligent mind, that the object which the Black Republican party has in view is the ultimate extinction of slavery in the United States? To doubt it, is to cast the imputation of hypocracy and imbecility upon the majority of the people of every Northern State, who have stood by this party through all its trials and struggles, to its ultimate triumph in the election Lincoln.
They are not exceeded by the boldness of Seward, the malignity of Giddings, or the infamy of Garrison. It was the knowledge of these facts which induced his nomination by the Republican party; and by the free circulation which has been given to them in the canvass, it would seem that Mr. Lincoln is indebted to their popularity for his election.
There is one dogma of this party which has been so solemnly enunciated, both by their national conventions and Mr. Lincoln that it is worth of serious consideration. I allude to the doctrine of negro equality. The stereotyped expression of the Declaration of Independence that “All men are born equal,” has been perverted from its plain and truthful meaning, and made the basis of a political dogma which strikes at the very foundations of the institution of slavery. Mr. Lincoln and his party assert that this doctrine of equality applies to the negro, and necessarily there can exist no such thing as property in our equals. Upon this point both Mr. Lincoln and his party have spoken with a distinctiveness that admits of no question or equivocation. If they are right, the institution of slavery as it exists in the Southern States is in direct violation of the fundamental principles of our Government; and to say that they would not use all the powers in their hands to eradicate the evil and restore the Government to its “ancient faith,” would be to write themselves down self-convicted traitors both to principle and duty.
...
In the election which just transpired, the Black Republicans did not hesitate to announce, defend and justify the doctrines and principles which I have attributed to them. During the progress of the canvass I obtained copies of the documents which they were circulating at the North, with a view of ascertaining the grounds upon which they were appealing to the people for their support and confidence. With the exception of a few dull speeches in favor of a protective tariff, intended for circulation in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and still fewer number of pitiful appeals for squandering the public lands, the whole canvass was conducted by the most bitter and malignant appeals to the anti-slavery sentiment of the North.”
What, exactly, would you accept as proof that the states rebelled because of slavery? It seems their own declarations and statements don’t carry any weight with you.
If I provided you a 10, 20, 50, quotes from the southern leaders that the war was about slavery would you accept it? I have my doubts. There is no amount of evidence that would change your mind.
He was named as the executor of his wife’s estate. The will called for the slaves to be manumitted when the estate’s debts were paid off.
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.