Posted on 01/07/2004 7:12:30 AM PST by Aurelius
In the times and the context, I think more than one interpretation is reasonable. Hiring the labor of other people's slaves was very common, and renting out slaves was a major source of income for many who bought slaves as an investment, but didn't own significant agricultural property.
On the other hand, Mrs. Jackson's being mealy-mouthed is quite "in context," as well. Ladies didn't call a spade a spade, as we do in these air-conditioned times :-).
I don't care (except as an interesting historical question, "What do we 'know,' and why do we think we know it?") whether Gen. Jackson owned slaves. Is there a moral difference between owning a slave and renting the labor of one? Not to me. Is there a moral difference between owning a slave yourself, and your wife's owning a slave? Nope. Is there a moral difference between treating a person well, and treating a person poorly, irrespective of legal status? You betcha. No one has ever suggested that Jackson treated any person, in any context, without respect for his Christian dignity, and that's why I admire him.
I hardly think that is relevent to the discussion here, not even if it is posted twice.
Your complaint about hasty generalization/unrepresentative sample in the poster's supposed inductive error may be hard to support.
The question in court would be called "patterns and practices", and the question here is whether 1) the Cherokee were justified in 1861 in seeing parallels to their removal 25 years before in terms of federal policy and practice, and 2) whether their resulting support of the Confederate position supports Aurelius's writer in concluding that Cherokee agreement with the Confederates that USG had indeed engaged an abusive policy toward divergent (but presumably protected) interests, and that such actions were typical of the ninteenth-century United States Government, does in fact constitute contemporary support for the Confederate position on secession and the Civil War.
It doesn't exactly make the scales go "clang", but it's interesting that the Indian nations sided with the Confederates when they could have remained neutral, and that they said that they took sides out of their own perception, that the Lincoln Administration's policies toward the South reminded them of Jackson's policies toward them, which is a pretty damn strong thing to say, given what they'd been through.
The best way to subvert the document's apparent support would be to allege undue influence by Confederate agents, or some sort of credible coercion.
Then you have never read her book, have you?
ALSO, can you explain why his/her tax records show NO slaves EVER as personal or farm property????
Can you explain why Mary Anna Jackson would talk about slaves owned by the family if there were none?
And we all know that you as...whatever the hell you are, will deny every possible piece of information, regardless of all evidence to the contrary, that you view as negative towards your sothron heros. Lee, Jackson, Stand Watie all owned slaves.
Anyway, at the point I've just reached, he's declared himself a big fan of Gen. Joseph E. Johnston! I don't believe I've ever come across such a thing :-); gives me something new to hunt for in the library.
Do you have an opinion on Johnston, Stainless, or a book to recommend?
What existential or moral importance do you think we should attach to this statement?
Assuming arguendo that you are correct, what value does your statement have for the person reading American history? Is this information useful to know? If so, what is its utility for the modern American?
you are PARTIALLY correct that then ,as now, the well to do politicians DID lord themselves over the "common folk".
nonetheless, the typical CSA veteran KNEW precisely what he/she was fighting for = separation from the thew average southerner regarded as the damnyankee-controlled government, which they regarded as intrusive,coercive, dictatorial,anti-LIBERTY & NOT protective of their GOD-given civil rights.
whether you like this or not, that is the TRUTH.
free the southland,sw
i'm beginning to wonder if the "servants" she describes were "freepersons of colour", hired by the day/week/month OR if they were her father's slaves?????
otherwise the failure to tax his/her supposed "slaves property" for about 15 years makes no sense.
as such, i'll go look at her family's tax records. i'll let you know what i find.
once again, THANKS for your efforts.
free dixie,sw
That's what every faction in a democracy believes when the majority isn't on his side. It's been happening for years, and continues to happen. But in the instant case there was a single, overriding issue that trumped all else and successfully divided the nation geographically. Without that geographical division, there could have been no war. If we could get the abortion issue similarly divided geographically we'd be in the same situation.
as much as i would have liked to "offer my arm & my sword" to the TRUE CAUSE, i DO like my 21st century comforts too.
they also serve the TRUE CAUSE, who work NOW for dixie FREEDOM!
free the southland NOW,sw
those were WILD TIMES! especially in the west. my 87YO mother says, that when she was a girl, the one question that you NEVER asked anyone was, "what was your name in the states????". she said even in the 20s-30s, that was a really GOOD way to start a fight!
i recently found that "The Yellow Rose of Texas", a stunningly beautiful "freewoman of colour" had at LEAST SIX (6) men killed in duels over her, TWO (2) men tried for shooting other man because of jealous rage over her & FOUR (4)men who committed suicide, because they couldn't win her love!
she MUST have been SOMETHING to see!
free dixie,sw
i remember when Billy Mills came from NOWHERE to win the GOLD MEDAL!!! he wasn't even supposed to be in the top 10.
that was a real DAY OF PRIDE for every Indian!!!
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
might does NOT make right.
free dixie NOW,sw
Careful where that leads, non-seq. Walt will be coming after you in a second. Turns out his hero John Marshall owned ten slaves: (Marshall, evil slave holder).
if one insists on a simplistic answer to this complex question (and only simpletons want/need simplistic answers to such questions), let it be this:
southerners wanted to be FREE from a government that they believed no longer was interested in their rights & best interests. i.e.,it was precisely the same cause as the American Revolution.
free dixie NOW,sw
free dixie,sw
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.