Happy birthday, John Herring...
 

On 4/19/16 8:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2016 7:48 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/19/16 6:15 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2016 12:44 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article FPKdnckyYI1-ZonKnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


According to you and BOA, there was only *one* reason for the Civil
War
... slavery.

I'm still waiting for your history text
recomendations that say otherwise.
I have no idea why you think the Civil War would have
occurred but for slavery. It makes no sense.
Maybe in searching for text to support your view, you
will be enlightened.
At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.



Rather than a book (that I doubt you would read) here's a couple of
rational discussions on the conventional wisdom that the Civil War
was just about slavery:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html




http://www.globalresearch.ca/falsifying-history-on-behalf-of-agendas-us-civil-war-was-about-money-not-slavery/5464841






Slavery and the many issues attached to it, including economics, were
the cause and rationale for the Civil War. History revisionists and
apologists don't like to acknowledge the fact that at times in its
history, the United States was no better than many other countries in
its treatment of people of color. It's the same sort of argument you get
from Christian apologists who claim the horrors committed in the name of
that religion were somehow less horrible than the horrors committed in
the name of other religions.

Posit: If there had been no slavery in the South, there would have been
no Civil War.

We will never know. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation didn't end
slavery. He made exceptions. He even publicly stated that blacks
should not have the full citizenship rights of whites.

There were many reasons for the Civil War. Abolishing slavery is a
simple and convenient explanation but it isn't the full story. It was
really seeded in state's rights as interpreted by the south and the
feeling that the federal government was becoming too intrusive.





There have been many books written and discussions held about the causes
of the Civil War.

Some years ago, PBS had such a discussion that produced the following
comments. From the PBS site:

Drew Gilpin Faust: (President, Harvard University): "Historians are
pretty united on the cause of the Civil War being slavery."

Walter Edgar (Professor of History, University of South Carolina): "the
169 men who voted to secede first from the Union said, in their
declaration of causes, that it was ... [to] protect slavery and their
other domestic institutions ... and the men of 1860 and 1861 in other
Southern states were pretty blunt about what they were doing [also]"

Edna Medford (Professor of History, Howard University: "there was that
.... Southern perspective about the war: 'We may have lost the war, but
.... it was such a noble cause for which we fight' ... now, to take that
position, you're sort of on the fringes of historiography."

Slavery was the major cause of the Civil War. And as Gary Stein put it,
the "States' Rights" that people talk about as an alternative cause were
first and foremost about allowing states to perpetuate the institution
of slavery.

Happy birthday, John Herring...
 

On 4/19/16 8:14 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/19/16 8:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2016 7:48 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/19/16 6:15 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2016 12:44 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article FPKdnckyYI1-ZonKnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


According to you and BOA, there was only *one* reason for the Civil
War
... slavery.

I'm still waiting for your history text
recomendations that say otherwise.
I have no idea why you think the Civil War would have
occurred but for slavery. It makes no sense.
Maybe in searching for text to support your view, you
will be enlightened.
At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.



Rather than a book (that I doubt you would read) here's a couple of
rational discussions on the conventional wisdom that the Civil War
was just about slavery:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html





http://www.globalresearch.ca/falsifying-history-on-behalf-of-agendas-us-civil-war-was-about-money-not-slavery/5464841







Slavery and the many issues attached to it, including economics, were
the cause and rationale for the Civil War. History revisionists and
apologists don't like to acknowledge the fact that at times in its
history, the United States was no better than many other countries in
its treatment of people of color. It's the same sort of argument you get
from Christian apologists who claim the horrors committed in the name of
that religion were somehow less horrible than the horrors committed in
the name of other religions.

Posit: If there had been no slavery in the South, there would have been
no Civil War.

We will never know. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation didn't end
slavery. He made exceptions. He even publicly stated that blacks
should not have the full citizenship rights of whites.

There were many reasons for the Civil War. Abolishing slavery is a
simple and convenient explanation but it isn't the full story. It was
really seeded in state's rights as interpreted by the south and the
feeling that the federal government was becoming too intrusive.





There have been many books written and discussions held about the causes
of the Civil War.

Some years ago, PBS had such a discussion that produced the following
comments. From the PBS site:

Drew Gilpin Faust: (President, Harvard University): "Historians are
pretty united on the cause of the Civil War being slavery."

Walter Edgar (Professor of History, University of South Carolina): "the
169 men who voted to secede first from the Union said, in their
declaration of causes, that it was ... [to] protect slavery and their
other domestic institutions ... and the men of 1860 and 1861 in other
Southern states were pretty blunt about what they were doing [also]"

Edna Medford (Professor of History, Howard University: "there was that
... Southern perspective about the war: 'We may have lost the war, but
... it was such a noble cause for which we fight' ... now, to take that
position, you're sort of on the fringes of historiography."

Slavery was the major cause of the Civil War. And as Gary Stein put it,
the "States' Rights" that people talk about as an alternative cause were
first and foremost about allowing states to perpetuate the institution
of slavery.


Forgot to include the Declaration of Causes from the South...and there's
no doubt after reading it that slavery was the cause of the Civil War:

http://www.civilwar.org/education/hi...nofcauses.html

Happy birthday, John Herring...
 

In article ,
says...

On 4/19/2016 7:35 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 4/19/2016 12:44 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article FPKdnckyYI1-ZonKnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


According to you and BOA, there was only *one* reason for the Civil War
... slavery.

I'm still waiting for your history text
recomendations that say otherwise.
I have no idea why you think the Civil War would have
occurred but for slavery. It makes no sense.
Maybe in searching for text to support your view, you
will be enlightened.
At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.



Rather than a book (that I doubt you would read) here's a couple of
rational discussions on the conventional wisdom that the Civil War
was just about slavery:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/falsifying-history-on-behalf-of-agendas-us-civil-war-was-about-money-not-slavery/5464841

I read these unconvincing arguments by a neurophysiologist
and an economist. I prefer historians. One example:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military-jan-june11-
civilwar_04-12/
But I can't tell you where to get your information.
I never bought into other reasons for the war, because they
go against facts.


No, they go against what you read in Social Studies class in the sixth
grade.


That's very doubtful. Since I had sixth grade in the
'50's, they were still spouting your rubbish "ideas."

"Slavery" became the talking point issue but there were many more
pressing reasons that 11 states elected to secede from the Union. The
war was fought to prevent them from seceding. In those days state
citizenship was much more important than being a citizen of the nation.
The 11 southern states felt the federal government was becoming too
intrusive and wanted no part of it. Abolitionism, led by the newly
founded Republican Party was only one of many bitches. Lincoln himself
was far from being a true abolitionist even though he led the Republican
movement.


Don't be obtuse. The legislatures of the seceding states clearly
said their reason for seceding was to "defend slavery."
Go read them, and cast off your ignorance.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

Happy birthday, John Herring...
 

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 05:43:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:44:42 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.

As Harry would say, your reading comprehension is flawed.

I entered this thread after you said this:
"So you really think the civil war was worth the cost?
It certainly wasn't for black people. They were worse off
in the south for the first 40-50 years and it took almost
100 years for it to just get a little better."

There's only one way to read that.


I never said they were better off being enslaved but I do say without
a divisive war their freedom and integration into society would have
been better if there was a financial incentive to let them go. If the
plantation owners could not sell "slave" cotton, they would find
another way to grow cotton that did not involve slaves.
We keep ignoring the fact that most of these former slaves ended up
picking cotton anyway and at slave wages.

WTF? You haven't given any thought to what it means to be
enslaved. Maybe you think black people can "naturally"
accept being slaves. I can't teach you empathy.
Your alternative history goes against the facts.
The rebs wanted that war, and they got it.

At a certain point you have to define slavery. If someone is trapped
economically the difference between that and indenture is minimal.
The plantation owner's whip was simply replaced with the ability to
deny employment.
You are also trying to impose 21st century morality on an 18th century
America.
Perhaps you are thinking that things immediately got a whole lot
better for blacks in 1865. There are plenty of people who will tell
you they did not get better by 1965.
I know we all watch the movies like Django and Roots but for most of
these people, this was just a job and they were treated better than a
sweat shop worker or a coal miner up north. At the end of the day,
they were "property" not just an expendable employee and replacing
them cost the owner money, unlike getting a new Irishman who were
coming over on the boat every day.
I understand they couldn't quit but neither could most of the "wage
slaves". Not if they wanted to eat.
Maybe Harry will pull the string on one of his "before the unions"
rants.

Happy birthday, John Herring...
 

wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 05:43:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:44:42 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.

As Harry would say, your reading comprehension is flawed.

I entered this thread after you said this:
"So you really think the civil war was worth the cost?
It certainly wasn't for black people. They were worse off
in the south for the first 40-50 years and it took almost
100 years for it to just get a little better."

There's only one way to read that.


I never said they were better off being enslaved but I do say without
a divisive war their freedom and integration into society would have
been better if there was a financial incentive to let them go. If the
plantation owners could not sell "slave" cotton, they would find
another way to grow cotton that did not involve slaves.
We keep ignoring the fact that most of these former slaves ended up
picking cotton anyway and at slave wages.

WTF? You haven't given any thought to what it means to be
enslaved. Maybe you think black people can "naturally"
accept being slaves. I can't teach you empathy.
Your alternative history goes against the facts.
The rebs wanted that war, and they got it.

At a certain point you have to define slavery. If someone is trapped
economically the difference between that and indenture is minimal.
The plantation owner's whip was simply replaced with the ability to
deny employment.
You are also trying to impose 21st century morality on an 18th century
America.
Perhaps you are thinking that things immediately got a whole lot
better for blacks in 1865. There are plenty of people who will tell
you they did not get better by 1965.
I know we all watch the movies like Django and Roots but for most of
these people, this was just a job and they were treated better than a
sweat shop worker or a coal miner up north. At the end of the day,
they were "property" not just an expendable employee and replacing
them cost the owner money, unlike getting a new Irishman who were
coming over on the boat every day.
I understand they couldn't quit but neither could most of the "wage
slaves". Not if they wanted to eat.
Maybe Harry will pull the string on one of his "before the unions"
rants.




You might of called the Irish coming out off the boats the equivalent of
slaves. They were immediately impressed in to the Union Army. No choice.
Was a true Union, no right to work state setup.

Happy birthday, John Herring...
 

On 4/19/16 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 05:43:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:44:42 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.

As Harry would say, your reading comprehension is flawed.

I entered this thread after you said this:
"So you really think the civil war was worth the cost?
It certainly wasn't for black people. They were worse off
in the south for the first 40-50 years and it took almost
100 years for it to just get a little better."

There's only one way to read that.


I never said they were better off being enslaved but I do say without
a divisive war their freedom and integration into society would have
been better if there was a financial incentive to let them go. If the
plantation owners could not sell "slave" cotton, they would find
another way to grow cotton that did not involve slaves.
We keep ignoring the fact that most of these former slaves ended up
picking cotton anyway and at slave wages.

WTF? You haven't given any thought to what it means to be
enslaved. Maybe you think black people can "naturally"
accept being slaves. I can't teach you empathy.
Your alternative history goes against the facts.
The rebs wanted that war, and they got it.

At a certain point you have to define slavery.


Oh, please...what the hell is the matter with you?

Happy birthday, John Herring...
 

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:48:26 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Posit: If there had been no slavery in the South, there would have been
no Civil War.

I agree but that was really an economic question for the plantation
owners and if the civilized world customers simply refused to buy
"slave" cotton, they would have an incentive to free the slaves and
hire them back for a salary that would cost them a similar amount
since they would be relieved of the obligation of room and board.
How much do you figure the income was for a freed slave in 1870
Mississippi? Was it much better 50 years later? What were you
protesting 100 years after they "won" their freedom in the war?

Happy birthday, John Herring...
 

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:06:41 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


We will never know. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation didn't end
slavery. He made exceptions. He even publicly stated that blacks
should not have the full citizenship rights of whites.

The Emancipation Proclamation ONLY applied to the confederate states.
There were still slaves in Southern Maryland, until the Maryland
legislature freed them.
Since there was not really a war there, you see the same kind of
integration I was referring to. Until the white flight of the 60s, the
counties in southern maryland had plenty of black owned farms, right
next to white owned farms and they people got along just fine. It
wasn't until the "white flight" people from DC moved there that they
had problems.

Happy birthday, John Herring...
 

On 4/19/16 12:00 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:48:26 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Posit: If there had been no slavery in the South, there would have been
no Civil War.

I agree but that was really an economic question for the plantation
owners and if the civilized world customers simply refused to buy
"slave" cotton, they would have an incentive to free the slaves and
hire them back for a salary that would cost them a similar amount
since they would be relieved of the obligation of room and board.
How much do you figure the income was for a freed slave in 1870
Mississippi? Was it much better 50 years later? What were you
protesting 100 years after they "won" their freedom in the war?


Perhaps you don't fully understand the horrors of slavery perpetrated
against the blacks.

As for what "civilized world" customers might have done, well, they
didn't do it.

As I have stated previously, I would have preferred far more draconian
treatment of the former slave owners after the south surrendered.

Happy birthday, John Herring...
 

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:14:42 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


Some years ago, PBS had such a discussion that produced the following
comments. From the PBS site:

Drew Gilpin Faust: (President, Harvard University): "Historians are
pretty united on the cause of the Civil War being slavery."

Walter Edgar (Professor of History, University of South Carolina): "the
169 men who voted to secede first from the Union said, in their
declaration of causes, that it was ... [to] protect slavery and their
other domestic institutions ... and the men of 1860 and 1861 in other
Southern states were pretty blunt about what they were doing [also]"

Edna Medford (Professor of History, Howard University: "there was that
... Southern perspective about the war: 'We may have lost the war, but
... it was such a noble cause for which we fight' ... now, to take that
position, you're sort of on the fringes of historiography."

Slavery was the major cause of the Civil War. And as Gary Stein put it,
the "States' Rights" that people talk about as an alternative cause were
first and foremost about allowing states to perpetuate the institution
of slavery.

You don't think "Howard University" might have a little bit of a
slant?
What does Cornell West say? ;-)