Posted on 01/11/2019 5:16:40 AM PST by TexasGunLover
AUSTIN, Texas — A historically inaccurate brass plaque honoring confederate veterans will come down after a vote this morning, WFAA has learned.
The State Preservation Board, which is in charge of the capitol building and grounds, meets this morning at 10:30 a.m. to officially decide the fate of the metal plate.
(Excerpt) Read more at wfaa.com ...
X: ***”But beyond that, who’s to say that slavery wasn’t a real issue?”***
Right.
A “real issue” is essential to the Lost Cause myth, something, anything which might draw our attention away from Confederate slaves.
The basic problem though is that any issue other than slavery was just “ politics as usual” in 1860.
For examples, tariffs went up & down, Federal spending went here or there, all determined by deal-making in proverbial smoke filled rooms.
Sure, some people grumbled, but nobody got enraged over small differences.
But I’m thinking there might indeed be a “real issue” which would send Democrats crashing through windows while howling in terror to get away.
It’s the same “real issue” which still drives Democrats insane today.
What is it?
It’s the very thought of genuine conservative Republicans in charge in Washington, especially the President.
When Democrats have spent generations building their power and their nests in Washington, it drives them berserk to be suddenly thrown out.
It did in 1860 and again after 2016.
Indeed, that’s just what Robert Rhett told us in December 1860, and I see no reason to doubt him.
So, let’s say that slavery was the “real reason” for maybe 95% of Deep South secessionists, and simple loss of their power in Washington was the “real reason* for the top 5%.
Do you disagree?
Central_va: ***”American Conservative’ - Nice dodge,”***
No dodge, I’m a Chevy guy, as American as baseball & apple pie.
And I firmly believe in American exceptionalism, especially when it comes to defining *Conservative”.
We are not the same as conservatives in other countries because what we conserve first & foremost is the Constitution and the value system it comes from, the Bible.
Those are not just my opinions, they are facts of history.
Diogeneslamp: ***”He [Lincoln] would hardly say so now would he?”***
Well.. of course if you are allowed to put words in Lincoln’s mouth he never said and motives in his heart he never expressed, then,,, then I can put all kinds of juicy words & motives on, let’s say, Jefferson Davis, how would you like that?
Diogeneslamp: ***”We know he gave secret orders to Lieutenant Porter, because Porter seized the flagship of the Sumter expedition and took it to Pensacola...”***
Those orders originated with Seward and Lincoln said it was a screwup.
Regardless, we have Jefferson Davis’ own words saying he intended to start war at Fort Sumter or Pickens or both, and yet Diogeneslamp still yammers on about Lincoln’s resupply mission as the “real cause”.
Why?
Diogeneslamp: ***”A man in his own house has certain privileges that someone coming into his house does not.
It is his prerogative to demand that “guests” leave his house.”***
But a man who pretends a house is his when such ownership is not lawfully established can go to jail for pretending.
Secession was never lawfully certified by the United States.
Diogeneslamp: ***”The entire crux of the matter is whether States have a right to be independent of a government they see as no longer serving their interests, and the foundation document of this nation answers that question in the affirmative.”***
But that was only how Diogeneslamp and 1860 Fire Eaters said it.
Out Founders said, firstly, a long train of abuses and usurpations could justify disunion and secondly, so could mutual consent.
Neither condition existed in 1860 and so Fire Eaters took a third path, one *** never *** endorsed by Founders: unilateral unapproved declarations of secession **at pleasure**.
Naturally Fire Eaters then, and Lost Causers today, wish us to equate their actions to our Founders’.
But they were nowhere near the same.
Lincoln was not a conservative. The Republican Party was in no way was considered conservation in 1860. You are a contrarian and an idiot.
Diogeneslamp: ***”Admiral Porter, in his memoirs, said that every ship would have been sunk.
Other military people at the time believed it would end in disaster.
I think any objective person can look at the arrays of forces on both sides and realize the mission as was written in it’s orders, a suicidal mission.”***
And others who knew Lincoln’s resupply plan thought it had a good chance of success.
The plan was: resupply under cover of night & fog using small boats.
Then Confederate gunners couldn’t hit what they couldn’t see.
Lincoln’s plan had every chance of success but did require Major Anderson to hold out until conditions were just right.
Robowombat: ***”Sanctimoniousness is one of the most common and least pleasant attribute of Americans and the English.”***
Which raises the important question: what exact nationality is robowombat that you spew such bitter hatred for Americans?
By your tone I’d guess you’re a Soviet apparatchik or Democrat propagandist, same thing.
I frankly can’t think of another way to rationally explain your feelings against America.
Garden variety bozo...
Robowombat: ***”financially connected elites have since the beginning of the Republic been determined to play the ‘giddy minds and foreign quarrels’ card as a smoke screen for their financial interests.
The interests of the finance capital segment of the economy are not vital interests of the country.
Of the government maybe but the government and the country are not conterminous in any way.”***
And you learned all this cr*p in what school of anti-American propaganda?
My goodness, do you ever give it a break?
Only 17 members of the Maryland legislature were arrested.
Most were freed within a few months. The remainder were freed by the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of Mar 3,1863.
“Our State will not I hope secede I have no doubt but Lincoln will make a good President, at least we ought to give him a fair trial & then if he commits some overt act all the South will be a unit.” John H. Morgan.
Morgan never served in Missouri. His combat in Kentucky was as a cavalry officer in the Confederate Army.
John W. Garrett was President of the B&ORR from 1858 to 1884. He was never arrested by Federal authorities. As a matter of fact he became a confidant of Lincoln and accompanied the President on several trips to battle fields in Maryland. On one occasion he pulled out all stops and rapidly moved Union troops from Petersburg to Washington DC in time to help repel General Early’s attack on Fort Stevens in July of 1864. President Lincoln commended Garrett as “The right arm of the Federal Government in the aid he rendered the authorities in preventing the Confederates from seizing Washington and securing its retention as the Capital of the Loyal States.”[
Really are you that ignorant or just firing off self-righteous equine excrement to see if any sticks?
I’ve seen many places on this thread where FLT-bird claimed to have posted data, quotes, etc.
I can’t recall any place where you actually did, or even posted a reference back to your previous quote posting, i.e., “See my post # 123 above”.
As the poet said, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
LOL! As if this were the first thread on the subject....as if you and I had not posted back and forth 100+ times already. It is I who think the lady doth protest too much.
Noooooo, the Civil War is the most written about subject in America, with litterally libraries full of books these past 150+ years.
How many support Lost Cause Myths, is it 1% or .1%?
A small number.
The rest use credible sources to write real history, from the beginning.
Pure fantasy. The majority opinion of PC Revisionist Academia today was not the majority view even within Academia a generation ago. The “its all about slavery” mantra really got going again in the 1980s after having been dismissed as the laughable propaganda it was generations earlier.
That’s not to say some historians don’t disagree, of course they do, always will.
But the pack of lies which falls in the category of “Lost Cause Myth” is not history, never was, never will be.
Its the pack of lies that falls under the category of PC Revisionism that is not history, never was and never will be. Notice how its invariably the hardcore Leftists who push this line of BS?
And here’s why: whatever parts are true are real history, whatever is lies is Lost Cause Myth.
Real history are the facts and quotes and sources I’ve provided numerous times. PC Revisionist lies and propaganda are the “its all about slavery” and virtuous North myths.
They made no claim to territories owned by the US.”***
I’d say that crosses the line from myth to outright lie.
Confederates claimed & sent forces into Union territories of New Mexico and Oklahoma, as well as Union Missouri, Kentucky and West Virginia.
Nope! THAT is a lie. What you claim ONLY happened AFTER Lincoln started a war. Once the war was on, the Southern states took every measure to defend themselves. When they left they made no claim to any territory outside their borders.
Confederates also invaded Union Maryland, Pennsylvania, ohio, Indiana & Kansas and had guerrillas in California, Colorado & Vermont among others.
Again AFTER Lincoln started the war.
So all Lost Cause claims that Confederates “just wanted to be left aline” are pure nonsense.
Nope! It is your dishonest anti historical claims that are pure nonsense.
Right.
A “real issue” is essential to the Lost Cause myth, something, anything which might draw our attention away from Confederate slaves.
The basic problem though is that any issue other than slavery was just “ politics as usual” in 1860.
For examples, tariffs went up & down, Federal spending went here or there, all determined by deal-making in proverbial smoke filled rooms.
Sure, some people grumbled, but nobody got enraged over small differences.
This right here is pure lies, propaganda and myth. People got very animated over differences in tariff rates, differences in federal expenditures, federal usurpation of state sovereign rights, etc. Tariff of abominations anyone? Nullification crisis anyone?
But I’m thinking there might indeed be a “real issue” which would send Democrats crashing through windows while howling in terror to get away.
It’s the same “real issue” which still drives Democrats insane today.
What is it?
It’s the very thought of genuine conservative Republicans in charge in Washington, especially the President.
Its really funny you try to equate Republicans of 150 years ago and Democrats of 150 years ago with Republicans and Democrats today. There is no equivalence between them. The Republicans of 150 years ago were for big government. The Democrats were the party of limited government and states’ rights. The two have exactly reversed since then. What you spout today are lies and propaganda embraced by hardcore LEFTISTS.
Indeed, that’s just what Robert Rhett told us in December 1860, and I see no reason to doubt him.
Rhett made the case in 1860 - though he’d been making it for years - that the federal government under the control of the Northern states was treating the Southern states exactly as the British had treated the Colonies. Sure pro forma, the constitution did provide a vote but when a majority can impose taxes that fall overwhelmingly on a minority and use the tax revenue to enrich themselves, they will quickly develop an appetite for ever more of that....kinda like we see with social programs today. If the taxes are paid by a minority, the rest will just vote themselves ever more of other people’s money.
So, let’s say that slavery was the “real reason” for maybe 95% of Deep South secessionists, and simple loss of their power in Washington was the “real reason* for the top 5%.
Do you disagree?
Only about 6% of the population of the Southern states owned slaves. Even at the ridiculously claimed 25% of families PC Revisionists have tried to extrapolate that out to conveniently ignoring that more than one family member frequently was a slave owner, that’s still a relatively small percentage of the population that owned slaves. The vast majority were not animated by something they never had. What they were motivated by though were tariffs they overwhelmingly had to pay in order to drive up the price of manufactured goods which they didn’t make and then to add insult to injury, seeing most of the money the tariff raised lavished on the very people who had voted to drive up the price of the manufactured goods which they but not Southerners produced.
Oh I know. That doesn’t paint a picture of it being a moral crusade nor does that support the little fantasy you’ve constructed of the North being morally superior. Too bad. The reality does not match your little fantasy.
Those things may look inevitable in retrospect, but did you really see them coming? People convince themselves afterwards that what happened was logical and inevitable and they saw it coming, but they usually didn't. Maybe you thought such things would happen sooner or later, but people are born, live, and die between the sooner and the later.
Now imagine that you were born and lived your whole life in a rural, agrarian environment and hear about far away factories. If you were an American Indian or African or Asian confronted with the full power of the West in the late 19th century, you might see that the White man's ways would overpower you, but if you were a White Southerner in the early 19th century who had grown up in a very similar agrarian environment to White Northerners, you might not see industrialization as the wave of the future.
The new industrial world would be quite strange to you and you might wonder whether it was really here to stay. Heck, even later in the 19th century, intellectuals and populist farmers weren't convinced that the future did belong to the factory system. Heck, even in the 1930s Southern intellectuals were convinced that industrialization had been a failure, and even if it wasn't, it wasn't something that the South wanted or needed.
As I keep repeating without your acknowledging it, there were a few elite intellectuals who wanted to industrialize (Hamiltonians in a Jeffersonian world) and some industrialists in the Upper South who weren't keen on secession, but most Southern planters liked their own way of life and felt their plantations were the basis of the wealth of the modern world.
If you don't believe James Henry Hammond, check out the "Thanksgiving Sermon" of the prominent Presbyterian preacher Benjamin Morgan Palmer, or the letter of secession commissioner Stephen Hale to Kentucky governor Beriah Magoffin, or the Mississippi Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
They all say that cotton was the basis of the world economy, and therefore slavery was the root of the world's wealth and of civilization itself. None of them say that the South should industrialize or that the reason for secession was that the North wouldn't let the South become a manufacturing economy. They all thought cotton was king and would save the day for the Confederacy.
Maybe you're thinking of Rhett Butler telling the crowd that there was no way the agrarian South could defeat the industrial North. But (apart from being fictional) Rhett Butler was just one guy. If there were more of him, the South probably wouldn't have seceded or started the war, but there weren't. Most Southerners didn't think industry would win the war for the North until the war was lost (or close to lost).
And of course, the two sides of your argument undercut each other. If, as you keep saying, Southern cotton and slaves made the North rich, then it stands to reason that Southerners would think that cotton and slaves were the way to wealth. Then why industrialize? Industrialization wasn't necessary if cotton was the basis of wealth in the modern world, and it would only introduce discontentment and new problems. So everything you want to say about how cotton and slaves made the North rich would have convinced Southern planters that cotton and slaves were a good thing that would do well for the South.
The fact is that virtually everything under the category of PC Revisionist Myth is supsect challenged and often dismissed by serious historians. Most of it was wartime propaganda and its immediate aftermath which was not “rediscovered” until the current crop of 60’s Leftists started the long march through the institutions. It emerged when they started to be tenured professors in the 1980s.
That is pretty much the reverse of the truth. You dismiss as "wartime propaganda" the reasons people gave for fighting at the time, and embrace the revisionist ideas that Southerners developed after the war and that had great influence in the country as a whole during the segregationist era from the 1910s or so down to the 1960s. That was a revisionist effort to remove slavery from the picture and make the war something about "state's rights" or tariffs or different economies or civilization. Today, reputable historians reject "Lost Cause" revisionism. While they may not get everything right, they have at least shed some old and pernicious revisionist myths that grew up after the war.
Only about 6% of the population of the Southern states owned slaves.
Over 45% of South Carolina and Mississippi families owned slaves in 1860. Over 30% of families in Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. Those are US census figures.
Either way, it was the supplier of the cash crop (ie Southerners) who bore the costs. It certainly was not the end consumer who bought the goods.
Dude, you need to take an economics class - and better sooner than later.
Consider all of the major world changes that happened in your lifetime: the fall of the Soviet Union, the rise of China, the rise and stagnation of China, US wars in the Middle East, Al Qaeda, ISIS, feminism, the gay movement, personal computers, i-phones, the Internet, Obama, Trump.
Those things may look inevitable in retrospect, but did you really see them coming? People convince themselves afterwards that what happened was logical and inevitable and they saw it coming, but they usually didn’t. Maybe you thought such things would happen sooner or later, but people are born, live, and die between the sooner and the later.
Now imagine that you were born and lived your whole life in a rural, agrarian environment and hear about far away factories. If you were an American Indian or African or Asian confronted with the full power of the West in the late 19th century, you might see that the White man’s ways would overpower you, but if you were a White Southerner in the early 19th century who had grown up in a very similar agrarian environment to White Northerners, you might not see industrialization as the wave of the future.
The new industrial world would be quite strange to you and you might wonder whether it was really here to stay. Heck, even later in the 19th century, intellectuals and populist farmers weren’t convinced that the future did belong to the factory system. Heck, even in the 1930s Southern intellectuals were convinced that industrialization had been a failure, and even if it wasn’t, it wasn’t something that the South wanted or needed.
As I keep repeating without your acknowledging it, there were a few elite intellectuals who wanted to industrialize (Hamiltonians in a Jeffersonian world) and some industrialists in the Upper South who weren’t keen on secession, but most Southern planters liked their own way of life and felt their plantations were the basis of the wealth of the modern world.
If you don’t believe James Henry Hammond, check out the “Thanksgiving Sermon” of the prominent Presbyterian preacher Benjamin Morgan Palmer, or the letter of secession commissioner Stephen Hale to Kentucky governor Beriah Magoffin, or the Mississippi Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
They all say that cotton was the basis of the world economy, and therefore slavery was the root of the world’s wealth and of civilization itself. None of them say that the South should industrialize or that the reason for secession was that the North wouldn’t let the South become a manufacturing economy. They all thought cotton was king and would save the day for the Confederacy.
Maybe you’re thinking of Rhett Butler telling the crowd that there was no way the agrarian South could defeat the industrial North. But (apart from being fictional) Rhett Butler was just one guy. If there were more of him, the South probably wouldn’t have seceded or started the war, but there weren’t. Most Southerners didn’t think industry would win the war for the North until the war was lost (or close to lost).
Before you go on with too many things, I’ll stop you here to address them. Industrialization really got going in the UK in the early part of the 19th century. With coal and steam, Britain roared ahead and built among other things, railroads and the Lancashire mills that had such a huge appetite for all that Southern cotton. Industrialization was not some alien faraway thing few had heard of. Most knew all too well where their cotton was going and they knew why it was more economical to ship their cotton across the ocean to have it turned into textiles there rather than doing so themselves.
In addition to that, there was the railroad which had revolutionized travel. There was the telegraph which had revolutionized communications. Weapons technology was changing fast at this time (the rifled barrel really came in after the Mexican war in 1846 and before the War for Southern Independence).
Most well understood that industrialization was the way forward. It was only a matter of time before it came to the South. They would continue to invest in cotton production as long as that had the highest margins but as in any market, high profit margins attract competitors. Cotton was not going to be king forever and the Southern states were not going to have a virtual monopoly on its production forever. I think most understood that.
Their expectation of a short war was based on their belief that the Northern states would not have the political will to pay a high cost in blood and treasure to prevent the Southern states from doing exactly the same thing their grandparents had done - secede...throw off the rule of a government they no longer consented to. That had been the principle everybody claimed to believe in up until 1861.
And of course, the two sides of your argument undercut each other. If, as you keep saying, Southern cotton and slaves made the North rich, then it stands to reason that Southerners would think that cotton and slaves were the way to wealth. Then why industrialize? Industrialization wasn’t necessary if cotton was the basis of wealth in the modern world, and it would only introduce discontentment and new problems. So everything you want to say about how cotton and slaves made the North rich would have convinced Southern planters that cotton and slaves were a good thing that would do well for the South.
As I outlined above, they were enjoying a temporary windfall that no matter how lucrative in the short term, was not going to last forever. The process repeated itself with OPEC over a century later. They were warned that high prices for oil would only spur the search for more oil, spur conservation efforts and spur the search for other energy sources.
That is pretty much the reverse of the truth. You dismiss as “wartime propaganda” the reasons people gave for fighting at the time, and embrace the revisionist ideas that Southerners developed after the war and that had great influence in the country as a whole during the segregationist era from the 1910s or so down to the 1960s. That was a revisionist effort to remove slavery from the picture and make the war something about “state’s rights” or tariffs or different economies or civilization. Today, reputable historians reject “Lost Cause” revisionism. While they may not get everything right, they have at least shed some old and pernicious revisionist myths that grew up after the war.
No this is exactly the reverse of the truth. It was wartime propaganda......propaganda the North did not discover until 2 years into the war. Before that they had repeatedly and fervently denied the war was about slavery or that they had any intention to ban slavery. Only once it became an expensive bloodbath and they needed to keep the British and French out of the war did they all of a sudden discover “it was all about slavery”.
For their part, Southerners denied it was about slavery all along. Once the war and its immediate aftermath had passed, people rightly rejected the obvious lie that it was “all about slavery”. It is ONLY the 1960s Leftists who came along over a century after the fact who revived this BS claiming that they somehow and not previous generations of historians knew the “real” reason. Their basis for this was....well....nothing really. Its not like they had any new information. Its not like they had access to people who were alive at the time as earlier generations of historians had had.
Its particularly pathetic to see some who claim to be conservatives repeating these ridiculous Leftist Revisionist lies yet here we are.
Over 45% of South Carolina and Mississippi families owned slaves in 1860. Over 30% of families in Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. Those are US census figures.
I’ve posted the figures from the US census in the past. The only way those percentages of families are reached is estimating the average family size and ASSUMING that there was only one slave owner per family. Because if you don’t make that assumption, if you recognize the reality that there were often multiple slave owners in one family, then the percentage of families who owned slaves falls dramatically.
Dude, you need to take an economics class - and better sooner than later.
Dude, I will put my economics education and experience up against yours any day.
I've read the 1860 Republican Platform, all 17 "planks" and can find there none which violate either the Constitution or Founders' Original Intentions.
But maybe I missed something that you can point out to me?
central_va: "The Republican Party was in no way was considered conservation in 1860."
Republicans certainly considered themselves conservative and they thought Democrats radical, especially in working to expand slavery.
Democrats of course had a different view, but now I sometimes see whack-jobs like Nancy Pelosi quoting the Bible to make her political points.
So Democrats simply have no shame, never did.
central_va: "You are a contrarian and an idiot."
I'm a conservative and at least as smart as you, so what are you?
Moreover, you've gotten far from what you originally said, which is that Southerners seceded because the North wasn't letting them industrialize. It's one thing to say that the Confederates recognized that they needed industry to win the war and become a viable country and something quite different to say that the reason for secession was to industrialize the South. There is no evidence for that.
You "think" most Southerners understood that cotton wouldn't be king forever. It looks like you don't have much grasp of psychology. Oil isn't going to be king for ever, but for most people the day when it isn't is far in the future, not something we think about or concern ourselves with. I suppose in 1860 many Southerners thought slavery wouldn't be around forever either, but ending it wasn't something that most thought about or wanted to do, or could contemplate without shivers.
And you mention oil, saying that OPEC was warned that it wouldn't last forever. If they didn't listen or understand, why are you so convinced that the cotton kings were anything different? That's another contradiction in your argument.
And no, Southerners did not deny that the war was about slavery from the beginning. Look at what they were actually saying at the time. Many of them clearly stated that their cause - the cause of civilization as they saw it - was intimately tied up with slavery. To deny that is to be a revisionist.
Because if you don’t make that assumption, if you recognize the reality that there were often multiple slave owners in one family, then the percentage of families who owned slaves falls dramatically.
If a man and woman who owned slaves married, the slaves become the property of the head of the household, right? And if a father gives a plantation and slaves to his son, his place becomes a new household and he becomes a head of family. I guess if your maiden aunt lived with you and owned a slave it might skew the results a bit, but not much.
Anyway, you are probably not going to be convinced by anything anybody says to you. And you probably aren't going to learn better formatting skills to make your posts readable, so I don't really need to keep pursuing this subject with you.
You are assuming that people thought and knew things that they didn’t say at the time. You are working deductively, saying people must have thought that way, rather than inductively, looking at what they actually said and did.
Wrong. They knew what was happening in the world around them. They knew what was going on with their primary customer Great Britain.
Moreover, you’ve gotten far from what you originally said, which is that Southerners seceded because the North wasn’t letting them industrialize.
That’s not what I said. I said they seceded because the economic policies set by the federal government drained a lot of money out of their pockets and enriched Northern business interests.
It’s one thing to say that the Confederates recognized that they needed industry to win the war and become a viable country and something quite different to say that the reason for secession was to industrialize the South. There is no evidence for that.
Yeah....because that’s not what I said. I noted that their industrialization was slowed down because of all the money that was drained out of their pockets to pay for the North’s industrialization, but I was very clear it was the partisan sectional legislation itself that drove them to secede.
You “think” most Southerners understood that cotton wouldn’t be king forever. It looks like you don’t have much grasp of psychology.
You’re basing your argument on the notion that they had no idea what was going on in the world around them. There were plenty who understood the rest of the western world quite well.
Oil isn’t going to be king for ever, but for most people the day when it isn’t is far in the future, not something we think about or concern ourselves with. I suppose in 1860 many Southerners thought slavery wouldn’t be around forever either, but ending it wasn’t something that most thought about or wanted to do, or could contemplate without shivers.
I think most well understood its days were numbered. They had seen most Northern states get rid of it in the last generation and they had seen the British Empire get rid of it in 1838.
And you mention oil, saying that OPEC was warned that it wouldn’t last forever. If they didn’t listen or understand, why are you so convinced that the cotton kings were anything different? That’s another contradiction in your argument.
Huh? I think many DID understand that it wouldn’t last forever - at least not as the major source of profit it was at that time. The only constant in the world is change. There is no contradiction in what I said.
And no, Southerners did not deny that the war was about slavery from the beginning. Look at what they were actually saying at the time. Many of them clearly stated that their cause - the cause of civilization as they saw it - was intimately tied up with slavery. To deny that is to be a revisionist.
Yes they did. Your claim is patently false. Not only did they expressly deny that’s what they were fighting for, they did so from the start. They turned down the North’s offer of slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment.
If a man and woman who owned slaves married, the slaves become the property of the head of the household, right? And if a father gives a plantation and slaves to his son, his place becomes a new household and he becomes a head of family. I guess if your maiden aunt lived with you and owned a slave it might skew the results a bit, but not much.
Not necessarily. Lee’s wife inherited slaves. Grant’s wife inherited slaves. Adult children of families with a lot of slaves would often be given slaves as a coming of age gift or as a wedding gift, etc. Of the families which did own slaves, there were plenty in which there were multiple slave owners.
Anyway, you are probably not going to be convinced by anything anybody says to you. And you probably aren’t going to learn better formatting skills to make your posts readable, so I don’t really need to keep pursuing this subject with you.
I’d say you are immune to facts and reasons and will just blindly keep clinging to your Leftist PC Revisionist dogma on this issue judging from your pattern.
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.