Schools across U.S. do a terrible job of teaching about slavery.

  
By:  john-russell  •  one month ago  •  170 comments

Schools across U.S. do a terrible job of teaching about slavery.
The research found, too, that this isn't a regional problem. It isn't a Southern problem. It's a national problem, Jeffries said."I get students in my history classes and I talk about slavery and the Civil War, and their jaws drop," he said. "I shouldn't be blowing their minds with that. That's Early American History 101."




Research by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2017 found U.S. schools are failing to teach the hard history of slavery. Only 8 percent of high school seniors surveyed in the SPLC's report "Teaching Hard History: American Slavery" could identify slavery as the central cause of the Civil War."It's the equivalent of kids not being able to do division," said Hasan Jeffries, a history professor at Ohio State University who serves as chairman of the Teaching Hard History Advisory Board and host of the podcast "Teaching Hard History: American Slavery." "There is no other subject we could teach as bad as we do American history and still be employed."

Schools sanitize it or shy away from it



Arika Herron The.USA TODAY; McLean, Va. [McLean, Va]18 Mar 2019: A.1.

15008.png















NDIANAPOLIS –Twenty-three little bodies – all clad in navy uniforms – are wriggling in their seats at Avondale Meadows Academy. There are superhero cutouts dangling from the ceiling, a "Wakanda Forever" poster on the wall, and Snickers, the class guinea pig, just had a slice of apple. It's a typical Wednesday morning at the Indianapolis charter school, and Shorron Scott is asking her class about their feelings.

Sad. Bad. Mad. Angry. Afraid.

"Of whom?" Scott asks one of her students.

"Of the slave master," he says.

Avondale Meadows' third grade is learning about slavery in the United States, and it's not always easy.

Across the hall, in Katie Millikan's class, her two dozen students are looking at pictures of a slave collar and the scarred back of a slave.

Nine-year-old London Moore said sometimes her classmates cry. When that happens, the class takes a break from the heavy material with a vocabulary video.

"It helps," London said.

The material can get heavy for 7- and 8-year-olds. Teachers work to keep the material age-appropriate, but they don't sugarcoat the truth, either.

"We learned they treat them like, um, they dehumanize them and don't treat them like how they are," said Thaddeus Obirieze, another student in Millikan's class. "If they get splinters or anything, their owners won't care. Their owners would probably sometimes put splinters in their food. If it gets on their tongue and stuff, they wouldn't care."

Thaddeus, 8, said he doesn't get sad, but he tries not to think about it too much.

"It's so unfair," he said.

That's part of what makes slavery so difficult to teach – and so important to get right.

And many schools aren't there. In February alone:

Students at Madison's Trust Elementary School in Ashburn, Virginia, pretended to be slaves on the Underground Railroad as part of a physical education class. A third-grader, the only African-American in his class, was designated a slave during the activity. The school apologized.

On a field trip, South Carolina elementary students were told to pick cotton and sing a slave song, according to a TV station. Students from Ebenezer Avenue Elementary were visiting the Carroll School, which was built in 1929 for African-Americans and now gives programs about the Great Depression. The school district said the tunes were not intended to sound like slave songs.

Research by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2017 found U.S. schools are failing to teach the hard history of slavery. Only 8 percent of high school seniors surveyed in the SPLC's report "Teaching Hard History: American Slavery" could identify slavery as the central cause of the Civil War.

"It's the equivalent of kids not being able to do division," said Hasan Jeffries, a history professor at Ohio State University who serves as chairman of the Teaching Hard History Advisory Board and host of the podcast "Teaching Hard History: American Slavery." "There is no other subject we could teach as bad as we do American history and still be employed."

The research found, too, that this isn't a regional problem. It isn't a Southern problem. It's a national problem, Jeffries said.

"I get students in my history classes and I talk about slavery and the Civil War, and their jaws drop," he said. "I shouldn't be blowing their minds with that. That's Early American History 101."

What must schools teach?

For starters, states fail to set high expectations with their curriculum standards, the law center's research found. Jeffries' team reviewed 15 sets of state standards and found most lacked details about slavery or its essential role to the American economy.

In Indiana, explicit mentions of slavery in academic standards are few and far between – just a handful of times between fourth grade and high school.

What's more, most popular textbooks fail to provide comprehensive coverage of slavery and enslaved people, the research found.

For example, when the center reviewed 12 history textbooks, it found:

An Alabama history text lists "states' rights" as the first cause of the Civil War in a list of several factors.

An AP edition of an American history text from publishing giant McGraw-Hill presents the relationship between slavery and racism as "undecided," the review found. The textbook described the routine sexual assault of slaves as "frequent sexual liaisons" or "unwanted sexual advances" that were only "sometimes" rape.

Most textbooks also failed to cover the profit motive inherent in slavery.

The Indiana Department of Education provides extra resources online, but it's unclear how widely they're used.

For example, a video about Mary Bateman Clark, a slave who sued to end indentured servitude in Indiana, was uploaded to Vimeo three years ago and linked on the state resources website.

It has been played just 44 times.

A 'watered down' retelling

At Indianapolis Public Schools, teachers still use textbooks. But because the books try to appeal to the widest audience possible, they're often designed with the standards and politics of the biggest states in mind. Things can get "watered down," said Eric Heagy, curriculum and instruction specialist for social studies and world languages.

So Nick Sargent had his seventh-graders at Northwest Middle School reading excerpts from the writing of Olaudah Equiano, an African man who was kidnapped and sold into slavery as a child in Nigeria. He endured the Middle Passage on a slave ship to the Americas and later bought his own freedom.

"I'm really big on not sugarcoating history for them," Sargent said. "There are a lot of examples of people trying to whitewash history and not make it sound so bad, but that doesn't do it any justice."

For many of his students, reading Equiano's story is the first time they hear about the "shipping" aspect of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

"Every other slave history thing I've learned is mainly on land," said Estefany Ponce, 13. "This is the first time finding out someone's on a boat, having to go through all these things."

Deep levels of discomfort

Perhaps a larger problem than the resources for teaching slavery are the ways in which it's taught, said Keith Barton, a professor of curriculum and instruction at Indiana University.

Schools tend to teach students that slavery is a moral failing of individuals, Barton said – a past problem that was solved by the Civil War, rather than an institution with influences that African-Americans continue to feel today.

In some cases, the teacher might lack a full understanding of slavery, Barton said. In others, the miseducation might happen because the truth is so difficult to broach – and can be controversial.

As an unnamed teacher said in the survey: "It's difficult, as a white teacher to majority non-white students, to explain that white people benefited significantly at the very real expense of black people."

This discomfort is playing out, too, in a teaching force that is still predominantly white. The most recent data from the National Center for Education Statistics suggests that while demographics of America's students are shifting rapidly – most schoolchildren are non-white now – the same cannot be said of their teachers. More than 80 percent of teachers are white.

"There's this sense of: 'What if we're doing it wrong? What if it gets misinterpreted?' " Jeffries said.

The segregation effect

Like many of the country's large cities, Indianapolis and its surrounding suburbs have intensely segregated school systems. When the city and county merged municipal services in 1970, school districts were excluded.

By the time court-ordered busing started a decade later, a massive decline in Indianapolis Public Schools enrollment was well underway. Enrollment in the district plummeted from more than 100,000 students at the start of the 1970s to fewer than 30,000 in 2010.

Today, nearly three-quarters of Indianapolis' public schools students are black or Hispanic, and most are poor enough to qualify for free or reduced-price lunch.

The wealthy suburbs in the donut counties surrounding the city, though, are the inverse. Within the past year, several districts have had racist incidents.

At Hamilton Southeastern Schools, a photo was posted in September of a student in blackface.

Last November, a racist shooting threat was found in a bathroom at neighboring Noblesville High School.

Students at another suburban high school, Zionsville, were seen on a social media post this winter using a Nazi salute.

It's likely that the way schools teach slavery is contributing to incidents ofracism, Jeffries said.

The vast majority of teachers want to do better, the research found. They need stronger education programs and administrative support and better resources.

An easy way to start that: Talk about African-American history more often, rather than relegating it to Black History Month in February.

Contributing: Emma Kate Fittes, The Indianapolis Star









Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  author  JohnRussell    one month ago

Liked the article, didnt like the part where they talk about the need to tell 7 and 8 year olds about slavery. I don't agree that there is such a need. 

As a country though we have to put an end once and for all to the nonsense that the Civil War was fought over something other than the disposition of slavery. The southern states seceded because Lincoln won the 1860 election. Lincoln and the Republican Party were known to be against slavery , and the south feared something was going to be done about it. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago

They did a good job of teaching at least 25% of the population about slavery - they can't seem to get over it!!!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    one month ago

LOL. Why should people "get over" U.S. history? 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    one month ago
they can't seem to get over it!

... because it isn't over...

 
 
 
Rmando
1.1.3  Rmando  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.2    one month ago

No kidding it isn't over. Try driving through an inner city anywhere and it's like going in a time machine. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  Rmando @1.1.3    one month ago

Making light of racism is a typical fascist technique.

 
 
 
Rmando
1.1.5  Rmando  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.4    one month ago

I'm being serious. I actually think the violence and poverty level is unacceptable. If anything is "fascist" it's turning a blind eye and making no effort to improve things.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.6  Bob Nelson  replied to  Rmando @1.1.5    one month ago

Oh. I misunderstood your previous post. I apologize.

 
 
 
Rmando
1.1.7  Rmando  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.6    one month ago

No problem.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.2    one month ago

You want reparations?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.9  Bob Nelson  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.8    one month ago

I don't know the propositions well enough to have an opinion.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.2  Freedom Warrior  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago

For sure it's not taught properly.  People seem to think that slavery only existed in the US.  And that it was only perpetrated by whites against blacks.

Reality is slavery still exists to this very day around world.

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/these-5-countries-58-worlds-slaves/

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.2    one month ago
And that it was only perpetrated by whites against blacks.

In point of fact, a black was the largest slave owner in Charlestown SC.  A former slave himself.  William Ellison

And then there is this from of all places "The Root"

One of the most vexing questions in African-American history is whether free African Americans themselves owned slaves. The short answer to this question, as you might suspect, is yes, of course; some free black people in this country bought and sold other black people, and did so at least since 1654, continuing to do so right through the Civil War. For me, the really fascinating questions about black slave-owning are how many black "masters" were involved, how many slaves did they own andwhydid they own slaves?

.........

Pressly also shows that the percentage of free black slave owners as the total number of free black heads of families was quite high in several states, namely 43 percent in South Carolina, 40 percent in Louisiana, 26 percent in Mississippi, 25 percent in Alabama and 20 percent in Georgia.

Source:  https://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436

And as you note, let's not get into modern day slavery.  It's estimated that there are roughly 9.2 million slaves CURRENTLY enslaved in Africa.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.1    one month ago
In point of fact, a black was the largest slave owner in Charlestown SC.  A former slave himself.  William Ellison

Do you seriously believe that is a point that is persuasive of anything? 

Do you understand that white supremacy became the rationale for keeping African people as slaves in the American south? I seeded an article the other day that is a message from the governor of South Carolina to his state legislature in the early 1830's. He says in no uncertain terms that the black race is INFERIOR and created by God to be slaves. 

Now what in god's name does a black slave owner have to do with that? 

People who bring up the crap that you are bringing up place themselves in serious jeopardy of being considered racist. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.2    one month ago
For sure it's not taught properly.  People seem to think that slavery only existed in the US.  And that it was only perpetrated by whites against blacks. Reality is slavery still exists to this very day around world.

So what? You think you can mitigate the evil of white supremacy by mentioning irrelevant material ? 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.2.4  Freedom Warrior  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.3    one month ago

I was addressing the topic. How poor a job the schools do in educating students about slavery. Would you like to know more?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.5  Bob Nelson  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.3    one month ago
You think you can mitigate the evil of white supremacy by mentioning irrelevant material ?

That's the objective, obviously.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.6  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.2.4    one month ago
People seem to think that slavery only existed in the US.  And that it was only perpetrated by whites against blacks.

That is what you said.

 The justification for African slavery in the US became that the Negro race is inferior. 

What does slavery in other parts of the world have to do with that fact? 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.2.7  Freedom Warrior  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.6    one month ago

I'd prefer we stay on topic but that's just me apparently.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.8  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.2.7    one month ago

Oh. Ok, you do that. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.2.9  Freedom Warrior  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.8    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.10  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.3    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.11  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.2    one month ago

The seed is about American slavery and the cited classes are American History. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.12  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.2.7    one month ago

Then why are you diverting from American slavery to global slavery? 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.2.13  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @1.2.12    one month ago

That's absurd in the context of the article since it specifically discusses how poor the subject is taught. Attempting to limit the context is a form of concious bias that purposely seeks to mislead students and further constitutes a form of dishonesty that is rampant in today's society.

Fortunately, I have been able to access a wide range of materials on the topic and thus am able to understand the history of slavery in the US in the greater context of world history.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.14  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.2.13    one month ago
That's absurd in the context of the article since it specifically discusses how poor the subject is taught.

Since the 'context' of the article is a study about how AMERICAN history is taught, it isn't absurd at all. 

removed for context

I'm not blind to any level of curiosity and I'm also cognizant of the SPECIFIC topic of the seed. I have an intellectual curiosity about the Zambal tribe but posting about them in this seed would be OFF TOPIC.  

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.2.15  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @1.2.14    one month ago
Since the 'context' of the article is a study about how AMERICAN history is taught, it isn't absurd at all. 

It most definitely is as I explained above.  American history did not occur in a vacuum.  Your claim is akin to discussing the American Revolution without mentioning the French and a littany of other analogies that suggest we ignore how this country was able to put an end to slavery whereas others continue on to this very day.  An understanding of that helps to the inform the historical context and as well as the future.

To do otherwise is at best displaying a lack of intellectual curiousity but as I explained above representative of something far more sinister in today's cultural landscape.  You can save us all time if you simply admit the truth. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.16  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.2.15    one month ago
You can save us all time if you simply admit the truth. 

Or I could just save myself time by encouraging you to keep posting argle-bargle.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2  Bob Nelson    one month ago

Difficult topic. I'm not sure what a "good way to teach about slavery" might be.

At least there are some teachers who are trying...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Bob Nelson @2    one month ago

ALL of US history needs to be taught in US schools!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    one month ago

That's not possible.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.1    one month ago

LOL!  Give me the right teachers!

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  Bob Nelson @2    one month ago

Just teach it. Don't sugar coat it. This is what happened, these are the things that went on, these are the effects even after it was ended. THIS IS WHY WE HAD A CIVIL FUCKING WAR.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2    one month ago
This is what happened, these are the things that went on, these are the effects even after it was ended.

The problem is that that would take years, full time.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2    one month ago

Sugar coating is exactly what it is. I was taught that the Civil War was about states' rights. The slavery issue was glossed over.

This was in PA in 1979.

 
 
 
Ender
2.2.3  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.2    one month ago

The only thing I remember from school was taking fieldtrips to battlefield sites.

Just talking about how many people died and how tragic it was.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.4  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.2    one month ago
I was taught that the Civil War was about states' rights.

The slave states wanted to maintain the state right to own human beings as property. That is their "states right" they were interested in. They also wanted the northern states to be forced to return runaway slaves.

 
 
 
zuksam
2.3  zuksam  replied to  Bob Nelson @2    one month ago

We were taught about the Slave Trade and Slavery while we were taught about the Civil War. We spent at least a couple hours most years talking about it from 6-12 grade plus we spent a whole week watching "Roots" in high school. I think that was enough, I don't know what they're teaching now.

 
 
 
Rmando
3  Rmando    one month ago

Teaching kids about slavery is important but the SPLC is not fit to lecture anybody about it. They have become a shameless extortion racket with no credibility anymore.

 
 
 
Badfish Hαηd ⊕Ƒ †Hε Ωuεεη
4  Badfish Hαηd ⊕Ƒ †Hε Ωuεεη    one month ago

One of the primary reasons why this subject should be taught extensively is because by US State Department definition Slavery is still practiced in 167 countries including two of the world's largest countries.

I was fortunate to attend private schools where US history and World history was well taught.

About 10 years ago I was in St John's Antigue and accidentally ran into their national history museum. It was extremely low budget but an eye opener. It really put perspective on the slave trade. Ultimately they rose up and slaughtered the British soldiers and residents on the Island liberating themselves. I can't say I felt an ounce of empathy for the Brits. Now when I visit a country or island I always visit their national Museum

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Badfish Hαηd ⊕Ƒ †Hε Ωuεεη @4    one month ago
Ultimately they rose up and slaughtered the British soldiers and residents on the Island liberating themselves.

Which is in sharp contrast to the United States which was the nation that purged itself of slavery - at a tremendous cost in human life. That's the first lesson to be taught.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    one month ago

Vic, I think you are a nice guy and fundamentally a decent person, but your comment is tripe. 

It would have been nice if when the US ended slavery, after sustaining it and expanding it in America for 250 years, that a magic wand descended and created equality and harmony between the races. Then the fact that the US ended slavery in 1865 would have some better meaning. But as we know, that is not what happened. The descendants of the slaves , and while they lived the ex slaves themselves, soon became the victims of state sponsored discrimination, segregation, and racism, that had all the force of law in major portions of the country. We still feel the after effects of the state sponsored patters of discrimination that grew out of the end of the Civil War. 

The pat on the back you think the US deserves for ending slavery (after 250 years) is greatly muffled by what happened afterwards. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    one month ago
that a magic wand descended and created equality and harmony between the races.

Obviously, it was not that easy. Perhaps had the reconstruction period resembled the harsh policy that the Republicans wanted things would have would have been better. As it was Lincoln's vice President (a democrat, vice Presidents were elected back then) let the south off all to easy.

 The descendants of the slaves , and while they lived the ex slaves themselves, soon became the victims of state sponsored discrimination, segregation, and racism, that had all the force of law in major portions of the country. 

That is true and it eventually was addressed by the SCOTUS & the federal government. The southern states lost their right to govern their own elections for many decades. The "Civil Rights" movement of the late 60's achieved true equality for blacks everywhere in America. It is all part of America's great history.

We still feel the after effects of the state sponsored patters of discrimination that grew out of the end of the Civil War. 

That is where I disagree. America can be proud of not only purging itself of the evil institution known as slavery, but also changing attitudes. I think you already know my opinion of the current state of race relations. If not let me give you my appraisal: Racism, has been for the most part, completely eradicated within the white community. Race mongering, for the most part, is being fostered by the democratic party, to keep it's minority constituency as well as to churn out the minority vote. That is the prime reason for racial animosity, which should be non-existent at this point. Progressives who are still "crusading" against "racism" are merely trying to smear & silence opposing views. Last but not least are those who resent the white population.

The pat on the back you think the US deserves 

Yup, IT GENUINELY DESERVES.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
4.1.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    one month ago
Which is in sharp contrast to the United States which wasthe nationthat purged itself of slavery - at a tremendous cost in human life.

After a few other Empires did it, and of course we fought a 4 year long civil war over it in which half the nation was willing to destroy the country itself to maintain it. But yeah, overlooking that little fact, we got rid of slavery. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
4.1.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    one month ago
The "Civil Rights" movement of the late 60's achieved true equality for blacks everywhere in America.

Did it really? Ask a black person about it. I worked closely with a black dude a few years back. Cool as hell, we got along well, but when the whole NFL kneeling thing started we had a deep conversation and he gave me a very different perspective than I had previously had. 

America can be proud of not only purging itself of the evil institution known as slavery, but also changing attitudes.

Again, really? Ask black people, or look at statistics like traffic stops. 

Racism, has been for the most part, completely eradicated within the white community

Not true at all, there is a strong and growing White Supremacist movement in the US.

Race mongering, for the most part, is being fostered by the democratic party, to keep it's minority constituency as well as to churn out the minority vote.

Because we know White Supremacist groups wholly endorse Democrats. 

That is the prime reason for racial animosity, which should be non-existent at this point. Progressives who are still "crusading" against "racism" are merely trying to smear [&] silence opposing views. Last but not least are those who resent the white population.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.5  Bob Nelson  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.1.4    one month ago

Rewriting history is a standard part of fascist propaganda.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
4.1.6  Thrawn 31  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.5    one month ago

True enough. Text book example above. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.1.4    one month ago
I worked closely with a black dude a few years back. Cool as hell, we got along well, but when the whole NFL kneeling thing started we had a deep conversation and he gave me a very different perspective than I had previously had.

I have grievances too, but not against an entire group. I doubt he could convince me of anything other than he was lucky to live here. 

Again, really? Ask black people

Why? Do they all see it the same way?  That seems like a generalization.

Not true at all, there is a strong and growing White Supremacist movement in the US.

Really? Is that why so many minorities are pouring in over the southern border?  I guess they don't know what progressives know!

Because we know White Supremacist groups wholly endorse Democrats. 

When we actually had such groups - they were democrats. Now it's the party of blame the damned whites

Are you a White Supremacist? 

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.5    one month ago

What happened to skirting the code?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.9  Bob Nelson  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.8    one month ago

Don't worry. I've got a dozen of those...

Perrie will be giving me a forced vacation any day now.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.10  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    one month ago
Racism, has been for the most part, completely eradicated within the white community.

Utter nonsense. Your worldview is too dependent on right wing media. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.11  Vic Eldred  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.9    one month ago

I get 'em because I have to emphasize when somebody else does it. Otherwise they don't respond to the flag. I rather pride myself on civil debate.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.10    one month ago

Not really, but I would say your worldview is deeply invested in leftist ideology. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.13  Bob Nelson  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.11    one month ago

Goldwater's quote applies.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    one month ago
Which is in sharp contrast to the United States which was the nation that purged itself of slavery - at a tremendous cost in human life. That's the first lesson to be taught.

As I noted to BF, the British abolished slavery through an Act of Parliament, in their entire Empire, including St. John's Antigua, in 1834. 

 
 
 
Badfish Hαηd ⊕Ƒ †Hε Ωuεεη
4.1.15  Badfish Hαηd ⊕Ƒ †Hε Ωuεεη  replied to  Dulay @4.1.14    one month ago

Oh you read Wiki, I went to their national Museum and visited the Fort that was overrun.

I however defer to your Wikifinding.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.16  Dulay  replied to  Badfish Hαηd ⊕Ƒ †Hε Ωuεεη @4.1.15    one month ago
Oh you read Wiki, I went to their national Museum and visited the Fort that was overrun.
I however defer to your Wikifinding.

Actually, I went to their historical website.

Do you have an issue with the FACTS that I stated or is your issue still just ME personally? 

 
 
 
Badfish Hαηd ⊕Ƒ †Hε Ωuεεη
4.1.17  Badfish Hαηd ⊕Ƒ †Hε Ωuεεη  replied to  Dulay @4.1.16    one month ago

I admire you, no issues. Just noticed you actually went to the Wikipedia.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.18  Dulay  replied to  Badfish Hαηd ⊕Ƒ †Hε Ωuεεη @4.1.17    one month ago
I admire you, no issues.

That really comes across  BF. /s

Just noticed you actually went to the Wikipedia.

As I said, I went to St. John's history website and a couple of others. You've yet to address the FACTS I posted. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
4.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  Badfish Hαηd ⊕Ƒ †Hε Ωuεεη @4    one month ago

Slavery is that very nasty bit of history that Americans, especially white Americans, need to come to terms with. We need to accept what happened, the role our ancestors played in it, and how we benefit both then and now because of it. It really is one issue that even to this day is at the core of a lot of our problems. We never really let it go or got over it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.2    one month ago

Then you be an example for the rest of us - make some reparation to the descendants of slaves!

Do what you advocate

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
4.2.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.2    one month ago
Slavery is that very nasty bit of history that Americans, especially white Americans, need to come to terms with.

I came to terms with it in grade school.  Never owned a slave, never been a slave.  

It really is one issue that even to this day is at the core of a lot of our problems.

Only if you desire to live in the past.  People do that every day trying to play the victim.  And it just causes more problems.

There is absolutely nothing we can do to erase what happened.  I don't, to this day, understand why people try.What we need to do is teach our children what happened and ensure they know what to do to ensure it doesn't happen again.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.2.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.2    one month ago

White Americans' willful obliviousness on the topic is a very large part of the problem.

At some point, denying that there's a problem is White-supremacist propaganda.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
4.2.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.2.3    3 weeks ago

[deleted,] accepting that people screwed up (yes PEOPLE, not a specific skin color (even blacks held slaves)) and moving on from that is "white supremacist".  

 
 
 
Dulay
4.3  Dulay  replied to  Badfish Hαηd ⊕Ƒ †Hε Ωuεεη @4    one month ago
Ultimately they rose up and slaughtered the British soldiers and residents on the Island liberating themselves.

Actually, the slave rebellion in 1736 ultimately was put down by the Danes and the French, the leaders were executed. Slavery didn't end there until the Brits abolished slavery Empire wide in 1834. 

Don't know were you got your version of their history. 

 
 
 
321steve
5  321steve    one month ago

Teach people to read and they can teach themselves about anything. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6  Jack_TX    one month ago

They do a helluva lot better job teaching about slavery than they do teaching about math.

American schools do a terrible job.  Full stop.  Our educational system still operates like it's 1965.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
7  Thrawn 31    one month ago

It is because Americans are uncomfortable with our history, it doesn't jive with the image we have created of our country. America is great, and I think has ultimately been a positive force in world history, but we have a very ugly side too. Our people and our government have done a lot of nasty shit, and we do ourselves a disservice by ignoring it. 

I remember when I was in Germany on an exchange program back in 2002, I was there right near the end of the school year, right as they were getting into WW2 in their history classes. Let's just say the students, the parents, in fact very few Germans were willing to openly discuss the war. Not because they were trying to deny their nation's history, but because they were so ashamed of what had been done in their name. They know their history.

We could use a little of that in the US.

 
 
 
Iamak47
8  Iamak47    one month ago

Maybe we should have a few monuments from various times in our past scattered about the country to spawn conversations between kids and parents.  Not all teach should be done in the classroom.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
8.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Iamak47 @8    one month ago

A 1930s Civil War monument is nonsensical... unless it carries a modern plaque telling the story of the Daughters, Jim Crow, lynching, ...

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
8.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Bob Nelson @8.1    one month ago

What about a plaque stating it's in memorial of all those who died during the war?  Oh wait, that was on a monument in NC and the ignorant clowns tore it down anyway.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
8.1.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @8.1.1    one month ago
What about a plaque stating it's in memorial of all those who died during the war?

How about a plaque saying it's in honor of Santa Claus?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Bob Nelson @8.1    one month ago
A 1930s Civil War monument is nonsensical.

Bingo !

 
 
 
Kathleen
8.1.4  Kathleen  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @8.1.1    one month ago

There were so many people that died fighting against slavery, I wonder if anyone acknowledges them?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.5  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Kathleen @8.1.4    one month ago
There were so many people that died fighting against slavery, I wonder if anyone acknowledges them?

Do you have any idea how many books, articles and papers have been written about the American Civil War?  It is one of the most written about periods in all of history. What would make you think no one acknowledges those who died in that war?  

 
 
 
Kathleen
8.1.6  Kathleen  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.5    one month ago

Apparently not enough.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.7  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Kathleen @8.1.6    one month ago

If you don't read books or articles about the Civil War, or watch videos about it, fine, thats your business. But then dont offer comments that have no basis. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
8.1.8  Kathleen  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.7    one month ago

Then have them removed. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  Bob Nelson @8.1    one month ago
A 1930s Civil War monument is nonsensical

Not for those who had ancestors who died in that war

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
8.1.10  Bob Nelson  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.9    one month ago

Seriously?

Lots and lots of monuments for dead great-uncles?

Seriously?

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @8.1    one month ago

Oh, come on now, we both know Democrats will never go for the whole truth being put on public display about how they fought for slavery and how they instituted Jim Crow laws.

Not a chance, despite the flowery rhetoric.

jrSmiley_55_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
8.1.12  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Kathleen @8.1.4    3 weeks ago
I wonder if anyone acknowledges them?

Apparently you aren't paying attention.  That's not my issue.  That's something you have to work on.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.13  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @8.1.1    3 weeks ago
What about a plaque stating it's in memorial of all those who died during the war? 

If you are talking about the statue in Durham, NC, your statement is false. 

 
 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.15  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @8.1.14    3 weeks ago
You should do some research.  

Actually, I did. Here's the inscription on the Durham NC monument: 

512

It clearly is NOT about 'all those who died during the war' as you FALSELY claimed. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
8.1.16  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @8.1.15    2 weeks ago

Now find the inscriptions from the Silent Sam monument.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.17  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @8.1.16    2 weeks ago
Now find the inscriptions from the Silent Sam monument.

It doesn't say 'in memorial of all those who died during the war' either. If it did, YOU wold have posted it.

Why continue with the pretense that your prior comment was based on facts? 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
8.1.18  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @8.1.17    2 weeks ago

So you couldn't find it.  I'd bet money you just googled "confederate war memorial" and posted the 1st thing that come up.  Not really surprising though.

Again, research:

https://docsouth.unc.edu/commland/monument/41/

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.19  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @8.1.18    2 weeks ago

Jeremy, why did you post this link? 

https://docsouth.unc.edu/commland/monument/41/

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.20  author  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.19    2 weeks ago

I'll take the liberty of explaining it for you. 

The monument you call "Silent Sam" does not honor everyone who fought in the war on either side. The people it is honoring is specifically described on the statue

"TO THE SONS OF THE UNIVERSITY / WHO ENTERED THE WAR OF 1861 – 65 / IN ANSWER TO THE CALL OF THEIR / COUNTRY"

We are talking about the University of North Carolina here. Please produce a list of those sons of the University of North Carolina that fought for the North in the Civil War. 

In addition, the monument was funded by the Daughters of the Confederacy, aka the home of the "Lost Cause" mythology that attempted to aggrandize the confederacy. 

Third,  a man named Julian Carr spoke at the dedication of this monument in 1913. Who was Julian Carr?

Julian Shakespeare Carr (October 12, 1845 – April 29, 1924) was a North Carolina industrialist,philanthropist, white supremacist, and Ku Klux Klan supporter (and when young, a pro-slavery advocate).

In his dedication speech for "Silent Sam", Carr said the following

“100 yards from where we stand, less than 90 days perhaps after my return from Appomattox, I horse-whipped a negro wench, until her skirts hung in shreds, because upon the streets of this quiet village she had publicly insulted and maligned a Southern lady.”

I don't think "Silent Sam" does a thing for the argument that these statues are not offensive. 

By the way, I found out all of this by reading one of your links. 

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.21  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @8.1.18    2 weeks ago
So you couldn't find it.

Actually, I did. That's how I know that your claim about it's inscription is BULLSHIT. 

I'd bet money you just googled "confederate war memorial" and posted the 1st thing that come up.

You loose. Send a donation to the Red Cross. 

Not really surprising though.

I'm not surprised that you bet on an assumption based on your ideology. 

Again, research:

You should do some before you make BULLSHIT comments. Here is the inscription from YOUR link:

TO THE SONS OF THE UNIVERSITY / WHO ENTERED THE WAR OF 1861 – 65 / IN ANSWER TO THE CALL OF THEIR / COUNTRY AND WHOSE LIVES / TAUGHT THE LESSON OF / THEIR GREAT COMMANDER THAT / DUTY IS THE SUBLIMEST WORD / IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

It's sad and telling that you looked up a link in an attempt to prove your point yet FAILED to recognize that it refutes your claim. Not really surprising though. 

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.22  Dulay  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.20    2 weeks ago
By the way, I found out all of this by reading one of your links.

Exactly. You and I actually READ the information in the link and MORE. If only the conservatives would take the same advantage of the knowledge that they post. Of course, they're not interested in the knowledge, just the ideology. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.23  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @8.1.1    2 weeks ago
What about a plaque stating it's in memorial of all those who died during the war?  Oh wait, that was on a monument in NC and the ignorant clowns tore it down anyway.

Absolutely not true. The statue you are referring to ("Silent Sam") does NOT state that it is in memorial of all those who fought in the Civil War. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.24  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Dulay @8.1.22    2 weeks ago

This was like shooting birds in a cage. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
9  Jeremy Retired in NC    one month ago
Research by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2017 found U.S. schools are failing to teach the hard history of slavery.

Well what do you expect.  We have the easily offended demanding that every reference to slavery be removed from public view and classroom because they don't want to acknowledge that this country screwed up.  It's our country's history.  Own it.  

 
 
 
Kathleen
10  Kathleen    one month ago

One thing that I always wondered about.  What happened in Africa?  How did they get taken from their country? 

 
 
 
pat wilson
10.1  pat wilson  replied to  Kathleen @10    one month ago

You weren't taught about the origins of slavery in elementary or high school ?

 
 
 
Kathleen
10.1.1  Kathleen  replied to  pat wilson @10.1    one month ago

Not that I remember...

Then again, I am sure we all can’t remember everything we were taught in school.  Especially elementary school.

Of corse there are some that claim they remember it all...

 
 
 
pat wilson
10.1.2  pat wilson  replied to  Kathleen @10.1.1    one month ago

I'm just surprised, it's pretty basic to American history.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.1.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Kathleen @10.1.1    one month ago

Kathleen, US history is not confined to elementary school.  It is also taught in high school. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
10.1.4  Kathleen  replied to  pat wilson @10.1.2    one month ago

The Civil War yes, but they never got in too much detail about slavery. It may depend on where you went to school.

I was hoping someone would answer my question instead of being.......

 
 
 
Kathleen
10.1.5  Kathleen  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.3    one month ago

It’s been awhile since I’v been in school.

If you don’t want to answer the question then why reply?

 
 
 
Sparty On
10.1.6  Sparty On  replied to  Kathleen @10.1.5    one month ago

Google it Kathleen, find a reputable source and read it.

As you might imagine by the responses to your question here, NT is not the best source to obtain such information.

WAY too many people here who simply know EVERYTHING ...... about everything  ........ just ask them .... or not ...jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Kathleen
10.1.7  Kathleen  replied to  Sparty On @10.1.6    one month ago

I should have known better.  😊 Thanks.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Kathleen @10    one month ago
One thing that I always wondered about.  What happened in Africa?  How did they get taken from their country? 

What does that have to do with anything? Do you actually believe that slavery in the United States can be justified because slavery existed in Africa?  Please stop. Don't embarrass yourself or worse. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
10.2.1  Kathleen  replied to  JohnRussell @10.2    one month ago

Well, if you don’t want to answer the question...

Then this conversation is over.

 
 
 
Kathleen
10.2.2  Kathleen  replied to  JohnRussell @10.2    one month ago

I never said it was justified.

Now I believe what some say now.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.2.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Kathleen @10.2.1    one month ago

Kathleen, if you want to talk about slavery and the Civil War, we can talk about it.  What happened in Africa has nothing to do with it. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.2.4  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Kathleen @10.2.2    one month ago
Now I believe what some say now.

What is that? 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
10.2.5  Bob Nelson  replied to  Kathleen @10.2.2    one month ago

Kathleen...

For a hundred years, 1870 to 1970, there was a vibrant movement to "rehabilitate" the Southern revolution. That is to say, to rewrite history from brutal slavery into a genteel "Gone with the Wind", "loyal slave" myth.

The real purpose was to cover the ugly 20th Century reality of Jim Crow and the KKK.

The monuments, largely piloted by the Daughters of the Confederacy, were a key element in that propaganda.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
10.2.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @10.2    one month ago

What she is trying to get at John is the tribal leaders who sold tribe members into slavery. It has a lot to do with it, Just like the enormous slave system set up by the Aztec's in Mexico!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.2.7  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.2.6    one month ago
What she is trying to get at John is the tribal leaders who sold tribe members into slavery.

So what?  Please tell us how that would mitigate the guilt of people in America who maintained slavery on the basis of white supremacy?

It has nothing to do with it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
10.2.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @10.2.7    one month ago
Please tell us how that would mitigate the guilt of people in America who maintained slavery on the basis of white supremacy?

There is NOBODY alive today who maintained slavery in America.  Please tell us why you want to hold people responsible for what others did?  Why not yourself?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
10.2.9  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @10.2.7    one month ago
Please tell us how that would mitigate the guilt of people in America who maintained slavery on the basis of white supremacy?

I have absolutely NO GUILT for what happened centuries before I was born.  Further, I have no guilt for what happened prior to my paternal ancestors coming to this country which was AFTER our Civil War, nor for what my fraternal ancestors did not engage in.

If you personally feel guilt John, then find meaningful ways to assuage your guilt.  Just don't try to transfer your personal angst to me or others.  Thanks!!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.2.10  author  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @10.2.9    one month ago

I dont know how to respond to people who misread what was said.

Please tell us how that would mitigate the guilt of people in America who maintained slavery on the basis of white supremacy?

No one said you are guilty of owning slaves. If you are not careful though, you may be guilty of rationalizing slavery in the United States. Talk of what happened in Africa with the tribes and so forth is halfway there.

I think this topic keeps coming up from time to time because so many white people think it is fine to wave the confederate flag and have monuments to Confederate officials, and say things like blacks held slaves too, or there were Negroes in the Confederate Army.  The people who make these excuses should just stop.

 
 
 
Kathleen
10.2.11  Kathleen  replied to  XDm9mm @10.2.9    one month ago

Amen.

You cannot blame people for what others did long ago.  It’s a shame it happened, and it was wrong for those that did, but we were not even born when it did.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
10.2.12  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @10.2.10    one month ago
If you are not careful though, you may be guilty of rationalizing slavery in the United States. Talk of what happened in Africa with the tribes and so forth is halfway there.

What happened in Africa was in fact a major contributor to the issue here was it not?   The Dutch and other slave traders bought the slaves other Africans sold them.  If it were not for the African captives being bought, there would not have been any to sell.

It's NOT rationalizing, it's simply putting blame where the blame belongs.  And it's the fault of the people of centuries past.  Here AND in Africa.

 
 
 
Sparty On
11  Sparty On    one month ago

This thread is a great example of the lack of understanding of the some of the root causes of our civil war.    

The causes were economic and political as well.    But it feels good I guess for some to call it only moral.   But it was not only a moral issue.

Its doubtful that our current public school system has the honesty to teach it properly even if they tried.    Perhaps it’s best that they don’t try since they would likely try to mold the real truth to their current liberal narrative.

This thread is good proof of that ......

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @11    one month ago
This thread is a great example of the lack of understanding of the some of the root causes of our civil war.     The causes were economic and political as well.    But it feels good I guess for some to call it only moral.   But it was not only a moral issue.

The root cause of the Civil War was the fact that the north was turning anti-slavery to the point it was both infuriating and frightening the economic and social  and cultural leaders in the southern states. Slave states knew that if they were to survive into the future they would have to create some slave states in the expanding US west. Otherwise they would fall behind in the number of US Senate and House seats and the anti-slavery states and politicians would eventually be able to legislate laws that would force slavery to an end. By 1860 Lincoln was known to be anti-slavery, as was the Republican Party. When Lincoln won the election, the South made it's move. The disposition of slavery in the Lincoln era is what caused secession and thus the war. 

This is the overwhelming consensus of serious historians.  Those who say otherwise are in danger of appearing to be slave state sympathizers. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
11.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1    one month ago
The root cause of the Civil War was the fact that the north was turning anti-slavery to the point it was both infuriating and frightening the economic and social  and cultural leaders in the southern states.

And why was that?   First and foremost the North was becoming more Industrial and less Agrarian than the South.   Therefore was less and less reliant on slavery for labor.   So from an economic standpoint for the South, the potential loss of slavery would have devastated their labor force or the time but not the Norths.    So slavery, while morally abhorrent, was a necessity for them much more so than the north.

This is the overwhelming consensus of serious historians.  Those who say otherwise are in danger of appearing to be slave state sympathizers. 

One would assume that most historians who are "serious" about being accurate would take a non-emotional approach and report the total cause and effect of slavery and not just part of it.   I suspect that to be the case for most "serious" historians who are interested in an unbiased, non partisan approach to history.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @11.1.1    one month ago

...Instead of establishing justice it ( the federal government) denies justice to fifteen of the States by refusing to admit any more slave States into the Union, and by the enactment of laws to prevent the rendition of fugitive slaves. It endangers instead of insuring domestic tranquillity by the possession of the channels through which to circulate insurrectionary documents and disseminate insurrectionary sentiments among a hitherto contented servile population. It neglects instead of providing for the common defense by permitting within the limits of some of the States the organization of plans for the armed invasion of others, and by refusing to surrender the criminals when fugitives from justice. It disregards and impairs instead of promoting the general welfare by compassing the destruction of an inestimable amount of property (slaves) with all its direful consequences. It will rob us of instead of securing to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty by the extinction of a great domestic and social institution (slavery), by the overthrow of self-government and the establishment of an equality of races in our midst. Its success overthrows the fundamental principles of the Revolution by denying the freedom of property. This freedom of property (slavery) is the corner stone of social happiness. As has been said:

The rights of life, liberty, and property are so intimately blended together that neither can be lost in a state of society without all; or, at least, neither can be impaired without wounding the others.

To maintain the value of property (slaves) and realize its fullest advantages there must be guaranteed permanence, security, and protection. "Republicanism" proposes to place the right to property in slaves under the ban of a consolidated, centralized General Government, and threatens to employ all its powers and resources to the consummation of the single purpose of destroying this single species of property. When this shall be done, the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" must be involved in common ruin

David Clopton, Secession Commissioner to Delaware - January 8, 1861.

http://www.civilwarcauses.org/clopton.htm

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.1.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1.2    one month ago
Gov. A.B. Moore appointed Isham Garrott to be commissioner to his native North Carolina, in which capacity Garrott sent the following letter to the governor and legislature in Raleigh. This text is from: "The History and Debates of the Convention of the People of Alabama", William R. Smith

....The establishment alone of the policy of the Republican party, that no more slave States are to be admitted into the Union, and that slavery is to be forever prohibited in the Territories (the common property of the United States), must, of itself, at no distant day, result in the utter ruin and degradation of most, if not all of the Gulf States. Alabama has at least eight slaves to every square mile of her tillable soil. This population outstrips any race on the globe in the rapidity of its increase; and if the slaves now in Alabama are to be restricted within her present limits, doubling as they do once in less than thirty years, the children are now born who will be compelled to flee from the land of their birth, and from the slaves their parents have toiled to acquire as an inheritance for them, or to submit to the degradation of being reduced to an equality with them, and all its attendant horrors. Our people and institutions Must be secured the right of expansion, and they can never submit to a denial of that which is essential to their very existence.

http://www.civilwarcauses.org/al-nc.htm

 
 
 
Split Personality
11.2  Split Personality  replied to  Sparty On @11    one month ago

The Nullification Act of 1828 by Andrew Jackson, started it all.  South Carolina would suffer the most under the new tariff and convened Conventions in 1828 & 1832  to declare their intent to ignore the tariffs to the point of secession if need be.

Jackson responded and Congress passed The Force Act of 1832 which authorized Federal troops to enter any state that resisted the  tariffs.

The problems of tariffs did not improve with time. Slavery issues exacerbated the political climate.

By 1851 locals were openly convening secessionist meetings at the "Milton Maxy House" on Craven Street Beaufort SC

which eventually became known as the "Secession House".

384

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Split Personality @11.2    one month ago

The election of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency at the end of 1860 directly precipitated secession. 

It is amazing that people try to seriously argue that something besides slavery was the main cause of the Civil War. The southern states themselves made it perfectly clear that northern interference with the slave states right to own slaves was the reason they left the Union. This is seen not only in the individual states declarations of secession but also in the work of the Secession Commissioners who were prominent men sent by the original seceding states to go to the border states and try and convince them to join the confederacy. The constant theme of the secession commissioners was that slavery must be protected. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
11.2.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  JohnRussell @11.2.1    one month ago

Oh, for God's sake, John! You're using facts again! Have you no shame?

Slavery was the motive for secession. Yeah... OK... that's clear.

But, John! Nobody gives a shit about facts.

Let's talk about loyal slaves...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.2.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Bob Nelson @11.2.2    one month ago
Let's talk about loyal slaves...

I'm sure that is coming. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.2.4  author  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @11.2.1    one month ago
The Secession Commissioners

http://cobrienhistoryportfolio.umwblogs.org/the-secession-commisioners-and-their-reasons-for-secession/

The commissioners were a group of men who were widely unknown and therefore, could likely relate to the common people of the other Southern states (Dew, 19). However, these men had an incredible aptitude for speaking, which made them valuable in persuading undecided states to secede (Dew 19). Often, the commissioners were born in the state which they were sent to represent, strengthening their position as a Southern figure (Dew, 19).

            These commissioners spread the message of secession because of a few key reasons. They believed that the election of Abraham Lincoln was essentially “an open declaration of war” (Dew, 54), in that he would emancipate the south of slavery. This would destroy the racial structure of the South, degrade the white population, and destroy their economic prosperity (Dew, 32). It is true that states rights were a factor in secession, but the South focused on the states’ right to continue slavery (Dew, 11). These two ideals are so interconnected that it is impossible to separate them when discussing causes of secession.

            First and foremost, the Commissioners were concerned with the collapse of the racial structure of the south. With the emancipation of slavery would come the equality of both white and black men, an ideal that completely went against the Southern view that white men were naturally superior (Dew, 55). The South believed in this principle so strongly that the vice president, Alexander H. Stephens, went so far as to say the founding fathers were wrong in saying the enslavement of Africans was morally wrong (Dew, 14). If the South were to remain part of the union, they believed they would face not only racial equality, but race war and racial amalgamation (Dew, 78-79). These possibilities strongly go against the South’s belief that their “fathers had made this government for the white man” as described by William Harris, a commissioner from Mississippi (Dew 85). Harris also went as far to say that the South would rather “see the last of her race, men, women, and children, immolated in one common funeral pile, than see them subjugated to the degradation of civil, political, and social equality with the Negro race” (Dew, 89).
 
 
 
Split Personality
11.2.5  Split Personality  replied to  JohnRussell @11.2.1    one month ago
It is amazing that people try to seriously argue that something besides slavery was the main cause of the Civil War.

Perhaps because it is true. The Civil War was the culmination of many complaints and hardships ( some very real, others imagined ) both economic & political,

Secession was a pet project in SC and a threat to the union for 30 years before the outbreak of the war in, where else but, South Carolina, Charleston, Fort Sumter.

 
 
 
Sparty On
11.2.6  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @11.2.2    one month ago

Its nice when "facts" are "facts" ..... the kind which tell the complete story, the rest of the story and therefore are ...... completely genuine and factual .......

 I realize some like their "facts" personally shaped and molded specifically to support their narrative du jour.

Carry on .....

 
 
 
Split Personality
11.2.7  Split Personality  replied to  JohnRussell @11.2.4    one month ago

Nice, 'facts' from a blog.......

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.2.8  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Split Personality @11.2.5    one month ago
Perhaps because it is true

You probably need to do more research.

 
 
 
Split Personality
11.2.9  Split Personality  replied to  JohnRussell @11.2.1    one month ago

The constant theme was 'state's right's' and SC ( and others) believed that State's Right's should supersede the overreach of the Federal government.

The only reason Lincoln's election became important was that he won the election without a single elector college vote from a Southern state, the first time that had happened.

Indeed, SC did not participate in the Federal election and Lincoln wasn't on the ballot in 10 southern states.

Lincoln only won 40% of the vote but carried the Electoral heavy states like PA  and OH.  Sound familiar?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.2.10  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Split Personality @11.2.7    one month ago

I just chose something from one of the first sites that came up. I could tell by reading it that it was factual so I posted it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.2.11  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Split Personality @11.2.9    one month ago

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2010/04/15/856736/-The-secession-commissioners-Civil-War-pseudo-history-Part-3

First, let me say that I rely here on the excellent book Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War, by Charles Dew.  It's a short but hard-hitting review of what these individuals did and who they were, and I recommend it highly to anyone curious about historical research on the Civil War.  Block quotes are from his work, although much of it is in turn direct quotes of what the commissioners said and wrote.
    Now, about those secession comissioners: as the states of the Deep South prepared to secede in late 1860 and early 1861 - and before the first shots were fired, at Fort Sumter - five Deep South states (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana) appointed 'secession commissioners' to advocate secession in other slave states.  In Mississippi and Alabama the commissioners were selected by the governor, and were sent to EVERY other slave state in the Union.  In the other three states, the state legislatures chose the commissioners; South Carolina and Georgia sent commissioners to nine and ten slave states, respectively (Louisiana only appointed one, to Texas).  
    All in all, over 50 men set out to encourage secession by other states.  As the above should make clear, in everything they said and did they were acting in an official capacity as official representatives of their state governments.  According to Dew,

These individuals were not, by and large, the famous names of antebellum Southern politics.  They were often relatively obscure figures - judges, lawyers, doctors, newspaper editors - who had had modest political careers but possessed a reputation for oratory.  Sometimes they were better known - ex-governors or state attorneys general or members of Congress.  Often they had been born in the states to which they were sent; place of birth was clearly an important factor in the choice of a number of commissioners.

    In other words, these men were firmly in the mainstream of Southern politics and thought in 1860 and 61.  As such, the arguments they chose to encourage other states to secede, and to explain why secession was so important to the south, should be extremely useful in understanding the mind-set of the secessionist movement.  Be warned: as members of the white Southern elite, talking directly to other members of the white Southern elite, they did not use euphemisms or code words or double-talk.
    The Mississippi and Alabama commissioners made up the first wave.  While some states, such as South Carolina, clearly had overwhelming secessionst sentiment, in others (such as Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia) it was not nearly as clear how the legislature or people might vote on secession, if it came to that.  What words, what arguments, were used, to convince them to see the secessionist light?
    William Harris, a sitting member of Mississippi's Supreme Court, was that state's commissioner to Georgia.  Here's part of what he said to the Georgia legislature:

They [Lincoln's Republicans and the North] have demanded, and now demand, equality between the white and negro races...equality in representation, equality in the right of suffrage, equality in the honors and emoluments of office, equality in the social circle, equality in the rights of matrimony...Our fathers made this a government for the white man, rejecting the negro, as an ignorant, inferior, barbarian race, incapable of self-government, and not, therefore, entitled to be associated with the white man upon terms of civil, political, or social equality...[Mississippi] had rather see the last of her race, men, women, and children, immolated in one common funeral pile {pyre], than see them subjected to the degradation of civil, political, and social equality with the negro race.

    Shortly afterwards, Alexander Handy, also a judge of Mississippi's highest court, had this to say to a Baltimore audience (the then-governor of Maryland, a pro-Union man, had refused to call the legislature into special session).

...the Republican platform 'revealed a clear intent to overthrow the constitution, and subvert the rights of the South'...To the 'black republican' claim that 'slavery is a sin before God and the world,' Handy posited a counterclaim: "Slavery was ordained by God and sanctioned by humanity...The first act of the black republican party will be to exclude slavery from all the Territories...The moment that slavery is pronounced a moral evil - a sin - by the general government, that moment the safety of the rights of the South will be entirely gone.'

     Not to be outdone, a pair of Alabama comissioners addressed the North Carolina legislature at almost the same time.

The North 'proposes to impair the value of slave property in the states by unfriendly legislation,' they claimed, 'and compel us, as slaves increase, to abandon it, or be doomed to a servile war...the [white] children are now born who will be compelled to flee from the land of their birth, and from the slaves their parents have toiled to acquire as an inheritance for them, or to submit to the degradation of being reduced to an equality with them, and all its attendant horrors.'

    Following its vote for secession, South Carolina's appointed commissioners fanned out across the South as well.  The commissioner to Florida was one Leonidas Spratt, a lawyer and newspaper publisher, who had actually launched a campaign to reopen the African slave trade.  Here's what he had to say to the Florida secession convention:

Within this government two societies have developed.  The one is the society of one race, the other of two races.  The one is based on free labor, the other slave labor.  The one is braced together but by the two great relations of life - the relations of husband and wife, and parent and child; the other by the three relations of husband and wife, parent and child, and master and slave.  The one embodies the social principle that equality is the right of man; the other, the social principle that equality is not the right of man, but the right of equals only...There is and must be an irrepressible conflict between them, and it were best to realize the truth.

    The South Carolina commissioner to Texas was one John McQueen, also a lawyer and a former U.S. Congressman.  In keeping with recurrent theme of invoking the horror of racial equality, he informed the Texas convention that 'Lincoln was elected by a sectional vote, whose platform was that of the Black Republican party and whose policy was to be the abolition of slavery upon this continent and the elevation of our own slaves to an equality with ourselves and our children.'
    Alabama's commissioner to Kentucy, Stephen Hale, a state legislator, focused his attention on Governor Magoffin because the Kentucky leislature was not in session.  Hale's letter to Magoffin contained these sentiments:

...slavery was 'an institution with which is bound up not only the wealth and prosperity of the Southern people, but their very existence as a political community.'  The Republican victory was 'the last crowning insult and outrage upon the people of the South,' because Lincoln and the Republicans stood for 'one dogma - the equality of the races, white and black.'
    Lincoln's election was 'nothing less than an open declaration of war, for the triumph of this new theory of government detroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugarates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassination and her wives and daughters to pollution and violation to gratify the lusts of half-civilized Africans,' Hale wrote.  'The slave-holder and non-slave-holder must ultimately share the same fate; all be degraded to a position of equality with free negroes, stand side by side with them at the polls, and fraternize in all the social relations of life, or else there will be an eternal war of races, desolating the land with blood, and utterly wasting all the resources of the country.'  What Southerner, Hale asked, 'can without indignation and horror contemplate the triumph of negro equality, and see his own sons and daughters in the not too distant future associating with free negroes upon terms of political and social equality?'

  Virginia was a prize ardently pursued by secessionists.  As the most populous slave-holding state, its manpower and resources would be vital to a Southern Confederacy if it had to fight the Union (keep in mind that no shots had been fired at this point).  Secession commissioners from across the Deep South converged on Richmond in February 1861 to adress the state convention on secession.  One of them was John Preston of South Carolina, a former state legislator and famed orator.  Here's what he had to say to persuade Viriginia to come over to the Confederate cause.

    Preston began by assuring his audience that he would waste no time arguing the consitutionality of  secession.  South Carolina had surrendered none of its sovereignty when it ratified the Constitution...His primary purpose, he informed the crowded chamber, was 'to lay before you the causes which induce the State of South Carolina to withdraw from the Union.'

Aha! State's rights!

'For fully thirty years or more, the people of the Northern states have assailed the institution of African slavery.  During these three decades 'large masses of their people' embraced 'the most fearful' path to emancipation: 'the subject race...rising and murdering their masters.'...There could be no doubt, he continued, 'that the conflict between slavery and non-slavery is a conflict for life and death'...The North and South consitututed two separate, distinct, and antagonistic civilizations...'The South cannot exist without African slavery,' he said. "None but an equal race can labor in the North; none but a subject race will labor in the South.'  There were other 'repellent diversities' that made 'the political union...an unnatural and monstrous one,' but slavery, and race, formed the heart of the matter. Whoops.  Seems the one 'state's right' that mattered above all others was slavery.
    Much more could be said about the activities of the secession commissioners, and once again I cannot do better than recommend Dew's book.  I think, however, that it is quite clear what these men believed.  Keep in mind that the arguments they presented were designed and intended to persuade their peers of the necessity for secession.  So it is a fairly safe assumption that their themes were those they believed would resonate with the opinions and values of the other slave-holding states.
    And what where those themes?  Repeatedly and openly stating that slavery was a central, and even necessary, element of Southern society - that Southern civilization could literally not exist without slaves.  Repeatedly invoking the 'horrors' and 'degradation' of equality with negroes.  Invoking the specter of 'social equality.'  Invoking the fear of 'servile insurrection' (for some reason, people might just get tired of being slaves and try forcibly to free themselves).  And, of course, invoking the horror of blacks having intercourse with their wives and daughters (for some reason, they did not express concern about white men having sex with black women).
    To be sure, much else was said and written by these men.  And it is possible to find statements in defense of principles of state sovereignty, limited Federal government, property rights, etc.  
    But why is it so difficult for so many Confederate apologists to admit that the ONE state's right that mattered above all else - according to the secessionists themselves - was the 'right' to own slaves?  That the one type of 'property' that they were concerned with, above all else, was the nearly 4 million slaves that they owned?  Worth several billion dollars in 1860 money - which translates into the equivalent of how many tens of billions, today?
    I believe that many people are in fact sincere when they say things like 'heritage, not hate' and 'it wasn't really about slavery.'  But the only reason they can say these things sincerely, I believe, is because they are genuinely ignorant of what the secessionists themselves wrote and said to justify their cause.  We are simply not taught these things in history classes in school, not shown the original speeches and documents, that make so clear what it was about.  But with the 150th anniversary of the Civil War fast approaching, we are going to be bombarded with historical revisionism.  The prattling of Governor McDonnell in Virginia and Governor Barbour in Mississippi is only the beginning.  So we had best be prepared to confront the apologists with the words and documents of the secessionists.  Ask them to explain the Confederate Consitutition's provisions on slavery.  Ask them to explain the various declarations of the causes of secession put out by the states.  Ask them to explain what the secession commissioners wrote and said, as official representatives of their states.  And see if, once they are informed and educated, they can still bring themselves to romanticize the 'Lost Cause.'
 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.2.12  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Split Personality @11.2.9    one month ago
The constant theme was 'state's right's' and SC ( and others) believed that State's Right's should supersede the overreach of the Federal government.

Are you from South Carolina? This is weird.

The states right that the slave states were interested in was the right to own human beings.

The only reason Lincoln's election became important was that he won the election without a single elector college vote from a Southern state, the first time that had happened.

LOL.

 
 
 
Split Personality
11.2.13  Split Personality  replied to  JohnRussell @11.2.11    one month ago

You do realize that much of this supports my contention that South Carolina was indeed, immersed in talks of secession and holding regular meetings since 1851.

They were prepared.

Yes they sent commissioners to spread their fears of becoming marginalized by the north, where there was more money, more people and more electoral college votes.

The 4 way campaign of 1860 hurt Breckenridge by splitting the southern votes between himself, Bell and Douglas leaving the southerners to feel that secession was the only way they could have any hand in their own governance.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.2.14  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Split Personality @11.2.13    one month ago

You are talking about the process of deciding to secede, you are not talking about the reason. The south feared , probably rightfully, that Lincoln and a republican administration would tighten the screws on slavery.

Your point of view on this is at best misleading. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
11.2.15  Split Personality  replied to  JohnRussell @11.2.14    one month ago
Your point of view on this is at best misleading. 

And yours is the oversimplification of one of the most complex periods of our history.

Andrew Jackson to Lewis Cass, December 17, 1832,

"If I can judge from the signs of the times Nullification, and secession, or in the language of truth, disunion, is gaining strength,

we must be prepared to act with promptness, and crush the monster in its cradle before it matures to manhood."

The animus was long standing.

and for different reasons, is still standing.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.2.16  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Split Personality @11.2.15    one month ago

It is a disservice to suggest that the south seceded for "states rights" .

Talk about simplification !

In a nutshell, the south seceded because they believed that the north was not going to allow slavery to thrive and expand in the future , including the near future, and the election of a president from the Republican Party in 1860 brought it to a head.

Here are a few of the relevant planks from the 1860 Republican Party platform.

2. That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution, "That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," is essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions; and that the Federal Constitution, the Rights of the States, and the Union of the States must and shall be preserved.



7. That the new dogma that the Constitution, of its own force, carries slavery into any or all of the territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with contemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent; is revolutionary in its tendency, and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country.

8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom: That, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that "no persons should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.

9. That we brand the recent reopening of the African slave trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity and a burning shame to our country and age; and we call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic

10. That in the recent vetoes, by their Federal Governors, of the acts of the legislatures of Kansas and Nebraska, prohibiting slavery in those territories, we find a practical illustration of the boasted Democratic principle of Non-Intervention and Popular Sovereignty, embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and a demonstration of the deception and fraud involved therein.

 
 
 
Sparty On
11.2.17  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @11.2.16    one month ago
It is a disservice to suggest that the south seceded for "states rights" .

Hardly.   It clearly was a big part of the reason.  

As SP has tried to get across to you the states rights debate had been going for some time before the Civil War.   Heck, the debate still rages today for some.    Many of the Southern states felt the federal government was taking away their rights and powers.   Slavery just happened to be one of them.

 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
11.2.18  Bob Nelson  replied to  Split Personality @11.2.5    one month ago
The Civil War was the culmination of many complaints and hardships ( some very real, others imagined ) both economic & political,

Of course. History consists of vast movements.

That said... the proximate cause was slavery. Every "Declaration of Secession" said so. The Veep's famous "Cornerstone Speech" said so. There can be no doubt.

The other states were under no obligation to follow SC. They chose to. Quickly.

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.2.19  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @11.2.18    one month ago
Of course. History consists of vast movements.
That said... the proximate cause was slavery. Every "Declaration of Secession" said so. The Veep's famous "Cornerstone Speech" said so. There can be no doubt.
The other states were under no obligation to follow SC. They chose to. Quickly.

Yeppers, the rest of the Democratic South sure jumped aboard quickly, didn't they?

Not surprising, is it?

And then, after being handed a loss, they instituted Jim Crow laws to ease the pain of their defeat.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
11.2.20  Bob Nelson  replied to  Split Personality @11.2.15    one month ago

Cornerstone Speech:

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
 
 
 
Split Personality
11.2.21  Split Personality  replied to  Sparty On @11.2.17    one month ago

Imagine my dismay when 3 days into the new school year, my straight A daughter got her first SC history question wrong when she correctly answered that George Washington was the father of our country and it's first POTUS

The course ( in Middle School ) was SC history, the correct answer, according to the Beaufort County SD was Jefferson Davis.

That was in the mid 90's. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
11.2.22  Bob Nelson  replied to  Split Personality @11.2.21    one month ago

   jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Split Personality
11.2.23  Split Personality  replied to  Sparty On @11.2.17    one month ago
Many of the Southern states felt the federal government was taking away their rights and powers.   Slavery just happened to be one of them.
 

And do not forget that Andrew Jackson was a slaver, who had as few as 9 and as many as 151 when his plantations were at their peaks.

His motivations and disagreements with SC and other states had nothing to do with slavery.

 
 
 
Dulay
11.2.24  Dulay  replied to  Split Personality @11.2.5    one month ago
Perhaps because it is true.

Yet every one of the secession declarations boils down to slavery. 

 
 
 
Dulay
11.2.25  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @11.2.17    one month ago
Many of the Southern states felt the federal government was taking away their rights and powers. Slavery just happened to be one of them.

Slavery just happened to be THE one that the vast majority of every one of the secession documents concentrate on. In particular, the SC declaration doesn't cite ANY other reason. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
11.2.26  Split Personality  replied to  Dulay @11.2.25    one month ago

By the time they had reached the boiling point, all of the states involved, even Texas which only had slavery as a result of the people fleeing South Carolina that settled there,

had, as JR has so conveniently provided, been coached by the so called secession commissioners, so that they appeared to be of one mind and a cohesive unit.

You just cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

The Civil War was the result of decades of real & imagined insults to a class of white people who would duel at the drop of a glove, for their

imaginary gentility and honors.

 
 
 
Dulay
11.2.27  Dulay  replied to  Split Personality @11.2.26    one month ago
You just cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

You can't insert grievances that they didn't see fit to document. Years ago I read a book, which is still buried on one of my shelves, of the minutes of the SC secession convention. They spoke very little about anything other than slavery. 

The Civil War was the result of decades of real & imagined insults

As was the Revolutionary war yet they did a damn good job of articulating their grievances. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
11.2.28  Split Personality  replied to  Dulay @11.2.27    one month ago

Secession talks started in 1828 as a result of Andrew Jackson's Tariffs which were crushing to SC.  Again in 1832 and Jackson replied by threatening military force.

SC caved to a deal in 1833 but were never happy about it and the state never recovered financially.

By 1851, secret meetings began in Beaufort SC and many of those who attended were presumably the Secession Commissioners but since they were conspiring to commit treason, there are no written records... until November of 1860 when the state government itself passed a resolution not recognizing Lincoln as the dully elected POTUS>

SC had not participated in the national election, which is also telling.

 
 
 
Sparty On
11.2.29  Sparty On  replied to  Split Personality @11.2.21    one month ago

Wow!

 
 
 
Sparty On
11.2.30  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @11.2.25    one month ago

That slavery was one of the main reasons is not in question.   Never said it wasn't but it was not the ONLY reason and its disingenuous to intimate that it was.

That said, the REASONS that slavery was an issue were just as much or more economic than cultural.   In the mid 1800's cotton was Americas leading export and production (picking) of cotton was inextricably attached to slave labor.   I know it's cool in some schools to gloss over that reality and just talk about how abhorrent a practice slavery was.     It certainly was but that's not even close to the .... rest of the story. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
11.2.31  Split Personality  replied to  Sparty On @11.2.30    one month ago

SC blew it by firing on Fort Sumter.

Had they not done that, Lincoln would have been hard pressed to come up with any reason to declare war on any state.

Lincoln was also in favor of leaving slavery in the states where it existed,( even the Emancipation Proclamation only freed 75% of the slaves )

but the small civil war ongoing in Bleeding Kansas since 1854, convinced him that expanding slavery into the territories and new states was not going to be allowed.

As it was, Jeff Davis declared war on the USA first.  The USA never declared war on the South.

 
 
 
Dulay
11.2.32  Dulay  replied to  Split Personality @11.2.28    one month ago
SC had not participated in the national election, which is also telling.

Since they didn't participate, they had no right to whine about the results. 

I wonder whether SC and other Southern states pursued judicial remedies for some of their grievances during all those years of whining. 

I remember from that book I mentioned that the Commissioners had an agreement about the Charleston Forts with Buchannan and the first chance they got, they reneged on it. SC took 2 Forts, the Federal Courthouse, Post office and Armory by force of arms and THEN demanded that Federal troops be removed from SC before negotiating. Buchannan basically told them that he had no intention of abandoning Federal property. 

 
 
 
katrix
11.2.33  katrix  replied to  Split Personality @11.2.31    one month ago

Some historians now say that Brown's raid on the U.S. Armory at Harpers Ferry should be considered the beginning of the Civil War - I assume by that, they mean the point at which it became inevitable. 

 
 
 
Dulay
11.2.34  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @11.2.30    one month ago
Never said it wasn't but it was not the ONLY reason and its disingenuous to intimate that it was.

I didn't 'intimate' anything. I'm merely stating what is clearly documented in the declarations. We can research the plethora of possible motivations but we should recognize that what came out of every state's conventions were treatises on their grievance about slavery. 

 
 
 
Dulay
11.2.35  Dulay  replied to  Split Personality @11.2.31    one month ago
Had they not done that, Lincoln would have been hard pressed to come up with any reason to declare war on any state.

I don't think that Lincoln was the one that declared war.

Buchannan wrote to the Commissioners after they took 2 of the 3 Forts in Charleston and informed them that the Congress would address their insurrection [declare war] and warned them that he intended to defend Ft. Sumter and other Federal buildings [property]. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
11.2.36  Split Personality  replied to  Dulay @11.2.32    one month ago

Buchanan, was useless as a POTUS, more so at the end of his Presidency ...

The election of Abraham Lincoln in November 1860 triggered a crisis which had been simmering for at least a decade. Outraged by the election of a candidate who was known to be opposed to the spread of slavery into new states and territories, leaders of the southern states began to take action to split from the United States.

In Washington, President James Buchanan, who had been miserable during his term in the White House and couldn’t wait to leave office, was thrown into a horrendous situation.

In the 1800s, newly elected presidents were not sworn into office until March 4 of the following year. And that meant Buchanan had to spend four months presiding over a nation which was coming apart.

The state of South Carolina, which had been asserting its right to secede from the Union for decades, back to the time of the Nullification Crisis, was a hotbed of secessionist sentiment. One of its senators, James Chesnut, resigned from the U.S. Senate on November 10, 1860, only four days after Lincoln’s election. His state's other senator resigned the next day.

Buchanan's Message to Congress Did Nothing to Hold the Union Together

As talk in the South about secession was quite serious, it was expected that the president would do something to reduce tensions. In that era, presidents did not visit Capitol Hill to deliver a State of the Union Address in January but instead provided the report required by the Constitution in written form in early December.

President Buchanan wrote a message to Congress which was delivered on December 3, 1860. In his message, Buchanan said that he believed secession was illegal.

Yet Buchanan also said he did not believe the federal government had any right to prevent states from seceding.

So Buchanan’s message pleased nobody. Southerners were offended by Buchanan’s belief that secession was illegal. And Northerners were perplexed by the president’s belief that the federal government couldn’t act to prevent states from seceding.

His Own Cabinet Reflected the National Crisis

Buchanan’s message to Congress also angered members of his own cabinet. On December 8, 1860, Howell Cobb, the secretary of the treasury, a native of Georgia, told Buchanan he could no longer work for him.

A week later, Buchanan’s Secretary of State, Lewis Cass, a native of Michigan, also resigned, but for a very different reason. Cass felt that Buchanan was not doing enough to prevent the secession of southern states.

South Carolina Seceded on December 20

As the year drew to a close, the state of South Carolina held a convention at which the state’s leaders decided to secede from the Union. The official ordinance of secession was voted on and passed on December 20, 1860.

A delegation of South Carolinians traveled to Washington to meet with Buchanan, who saw them at the White House on December 28, 1860.

Buchanan told the South Carolina commissioners that he was considering them to be private citizens, not representatives of some new government. But, he was willing to listen to their various complaints, which tended to focus on the situation surrounding the federal garrison which had just moved from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor.

https://www.thoughtco.com/president-james-buchanan-the-secession-crisis-1773714

 
 
 
Sparty On
11.2.37  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @11.2.34    one month ago
I didn't 'intimate' anything.

I didn't say you did.

I'm merely stating what is clearly documented in the declarations. We can research the plethora of possible motivations but we should recognize that what came out of every state's conventions were treatises on their grievance about slavery.

Congrats and i'm clearly stating many folks depth understanding of the core causes of the Civil War is vacuous at best.   I suspect due largely to partisan biases but perhaps also due to a lousy education.

 
 
 
Sparty On
11.2.38  Sparty On  replied to  Split Personality @11.2.31    one month ago

Yep, its really too bad many many folks appear to just stop at the word "slavery" when it comes to understanding the Civil War.

Slavery was certainly a root cause but it was SOOOO much more complicated than just that.

 
 
 
Dulay
11.2.39  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @11.2.37    one month ago
vacuous at best

Wow, that's a pretty harsh view. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
11.2.40  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @11.2.39    one month ago
I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. 

Lol ... if you say so.

 
 
 
Kathleen
12  Kathleen    one month ago

Let’s make this clear. 

I do not condon slavery or any other poor treatment of human beings. 

I only asked a couple of questions that I was wondering about.

Instead I got smart assed digs.

Sorry I even got on this thread.

 
 
 
Tessylo
12.1  Tessylo  replied to  Kathleen @12    one month ago

There's a solution to that dear.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
13  It Is ME    one month ago

Here ya go !

"Schools across U.S. do a terrible job of ...... teaching" !

 
 
 
Tessylo
14  Tessylo    one month ago

Some schools sure didn't do a good job with some . . . . . of their students !

 
 
 
Badfish Hαηd ⊕Ƒ †Hε Ωuεεη
15  Badfish Hαηd ⊕Ƒ †Hε Ωuεεη    one month ago

The two largest countries in our world still practice slavery, we should impose North Korean type sanctions on them. Why don't we?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
15.1  mocowgirl  replied to  Badfish Hαηd ⊕Ƒ †Hε Ωuεεη @15    one month ago
Why don't we?

Might be detriment to profit margins, stock price and/or shareholders' dividends?

https://qz.com/1332137/products-the-us-buys-that-could-be-made-by-slaves-or-forced-labor/  The US is the biggest importer of goods at risk of modern slavery, according to the report. A smartphone from a US store could be made from factories where workers paid less than minimum wages while working overtime. The packaged shrimp from a supermarket could have been caught by fishermen trafficked to Thailand and kept in cages. The US Customs and Border Protection has put up a list of products banned due to suspicions of its labor supply. As of July 2018, there are only 45 items on the list.
 
 
 
mocowgirl
15.1.1  mocowgirl  replied to  mocowgirl @15.1    one month ago

List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor

ILAB maintains a list of goods and their source countries which it has reason to believe are produced by child labor or forced labor in violation of international standards, as required under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2005 and subsequent reauthorizations. As of September 20, 2018, the List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor comprises 148 goods from 76 countries. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/reports/child-labor/list-of-goods

more info at link above.

This may be among the reasons that schools don't teach about the inhumanity of past slavery because it might mean that our children might grow into adults that won't support and/or ignore modern day slavery.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

lib50
bugsy
KDMichigan
Phoenyx13
Raven Wing
Gordy327
igknorantzrulz


64 visitors