Charlie Reese on Jefferson Davis

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Eric 951
I guess we are fighting the Civil War all over again in Pelican OT...(sorry pat, the war of southern independence)

This is really evidence that you really don't get it. And that's sad.

I don't fight the War Against Southern Independence "over again", I make people aware of the facts of it and relate them to what some of us are fighting NOW.

The entire Bush regime is built around precedents set by Lincoln. The bloated government, the corruption, the unitary executive, torture, imprisoning people without charges, suspension of habeus corpus on presidential whim, creation of special POW status to avoid the law, and on and on.

Perhaps your amateur (your word) study of the military history has you confused. I know the barest facts about the battles of the War Against Southern Freedom; in point of fact I could really care less about the nuts and bolts of the war. It's the politics and philosophy that has carried through to today that's important.

There are those that think there's no connection with what happened in 1861-1865 and today's events and government; to those I say you must be blind and deaf.

[curlesw]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, I forgot, slaves were only 4/5th human.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That statement is really based on ignorance. You'd best learn who wanted the slaves counted that way, hint: It wasn't anyone in the south.

Originally posted by fastpat


That statement is really based on ignorance. You'd best learn who wanted the slaves counted that way, hint: It wasn't anyone in the south.

fastpat, can you explain your perspective on the above statement? I had always thought it was in the south’s interest to count slaves as 4/5 (or was it 3/5?). This allowed a larger “population” and hence more representatives in congress with actually less people, right? What am I missing? (note: serious question)

v/r
Wayne C.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by curlesw
fastpat, can you explain your perspective on the above statement? I had always thought it was in the south’s interest to count slaves as 4/5 (or was it 3/5?). This allowed a larger “population” and hence more representatives in congress with actually less people, right? What am I missing? (note: serious question)

v/r
Wayne C.

The Southern states representatives to the Constitutional convention wanted the slaves counted as a whole person; the yankee states didn't want them counted at all.

The fractional representation was the compromise worked out. Among the ignorant, it's always been the south who wanted them counted as "less than a man", but the truth is quite the opposite.

[Moses]

If you want to understand history, follow the money and power.

Why did southern states want to allow blacks a full vote? More representation. More power.

Why did New Yorkers riot against the abolistionist movement and lynch blacks? They feared a massive northern migration of free blacks who would compete in the labor market.

If you REALLY want to know what was going on at the time, read the old Civil War era newspapers. The editorials generally kept their fingers on the pulse of public opinion.

[gaijindabe]

Originally posted by Moses


Why did southern states want to allow blacks a full vote? More representation. More power.

Why did New Yorkers riot against the abolistionist movement and lynch blacks?

Were blacks allowed to vote pre-civil war? Or where their numbers needed to boost the population count to get more representatives in congress?

As for rioting New Yorkers - I blame the Irish.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Moses
If you want to understand history, follow the money and power.

That's exactly what you should do, always. The answer to that problem, which has existed for a long time, is to contruct systems to gut both. It's often said that the writers of the Constitution attempted to do that, but it's not true. The Articles of Confederation had already restricted federal power, and it's a model for what we need now.The Hamiltonians, aka Federalists, didn't like that because it made things extremely difficult to manipulate from a centralized state, like Britain, Spain, and France could do. So they set up a Constitutional Convention under the guise of "modifying the Articles" and had most of the new document written before any of those in opposition, who became known as the Anti-federalists, began thinking about things.

Why did southern states want to allow blacks a full vote? More representation. More power.

That's right, there's no altruism in government, never was. In fact show me a person who claim such, and I'll show you an immoral tyrant.

Why did New Yorkers riot against the abolistionist movement and lynch blacks? They feared a massive northern migration of free blacks who would compete in the labor market.

The Emancipation Proclamation produced riots all across the north.

If you REALLY want to know what was going on at the time, read the old Civil War era newspapers. The editorials generally kept their fingers on the pulse of public opinion.

That's right, read in the yankee newspapers how the northern corporate heads called for immediate shelling and blockade of southern ports when they read the Confederate Constitution which prohibited import tariffs completely. That was their primary concern all along.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by gaijindabe
Were blacks allowed to vote pre-civil war? Or where their numbers needed to boost the population count to get more representatives in congress?

As for rioting New Yorkers - I blame the Irish.

I don't know for sure, but I don't think blacks were allowed to vote in any state prior to 1860-65. That may have varied as to date from state to state.

Free blacks in the south were counted as whole persons though, but the slaves owned by blacks were counted as the fractional person. I think in South Carolina about 3000 slaves were owned by blacks.

[Tim Hancock]

Originally posted by fastpat
[B I think in South Carolina about 3000 slaves were owned by blacks. [/B]

If that is true, I will have gotten one tiny sliver of useful information from this thread.

I feel better now If blacks owned blacks, then todays reverse discrimination that is "justified" due to the white man owning slaves, is forever flawed in my book.

I don't give a rat's azz about North vs South but I would like to hear more facts about black slave owners.

[curlesw]

Originally posted by gaijindabe
Were blacks allowed to vote pre-civil war? Or where their numbers needed to boost the population count to get more representatives in congress?

I think they were, will have to go and check. For some reason I remember reading only 6% of the free blacks voted in north...just can't remember if it was pre or post civil war.

Wayne C.

[Eric 951]

Originally posted by fastpat
This is really evidence that you really don't get it. And that's sad.

I don't fight the War Against Southern Independence "over again", I make people aware of the facts of it and relate them to what some of us are fighting NOW.

The entire Bush regime is built around precedents set by Lincoln. The bloated government, the corruption, the unitary executive, torture, imprisoning people without charges, suspension of habeus corpus on presidential whim, creation of special POW status to avoid the law, and on and on.

Perhaps your amateur (your word) study of the military history has you confused. I know the barest facts about the battles of the War Against Southern Freedom; in point of fact I could really care less about the nuts and bolts of the war. It's the politics and philosophy that has carried through to today that's important.

There are those that think there's no connection with what happened in 1861-1865 and today's events and government; to those I say you must be blind and deaf.

paste,

I "get it". You are of the belief that all of the current problems with current government can be traced to Lincoln and the decisions made while he was President.
What YOU don't "get" is the context in which all of Lincoln' s decisions and mandates were made.
Lincoln's priority as President was to preserve the Union. Now, I know you believe that the secesssion was legal under the articles of confederation. Lincoln disagreed with your interpreatation, as do I. Anyways, every decision he made at that time was designed to regain and protect that Union as a whole, and based upon the fact that the confederates lost and the union was remade(and Lincoln won a presidential election in the midst of the war itself)--his policies were correct and succesful--in the conetxt of the times and what he was trying to accomplish.
It is quite possible he may have changed some of the policies he implemented once his goal was accomplished, but since he was assasinated by a coward, who knows.

[Rearden]

Dear lord,
Please allow me to have a fulfilling life where I don't spend my retirement years sitting in front of a computer all day, angry at the world for the way a war, a century and a half ago, turned out.

Amen.

[Tim Hancock]

Originally posted by Rearden
Dear lord,
Please allow me to have a fulfilling life where I don't spend my retirement years sitting in front of a computer all day, angry at the world for the way a war, a century and a half ago, turned out.

Amen.

+1

(of course in some peoples minds, it aint over yet!)

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Rearden
Dear lord,
Please allow me to have a fulfilling life where I don't spend my retirement years sitting in front of a computer all day, angry at the world for the way a war, a century and a half ago, turned out.

Amen.

Always a pleasure to hear from the "great unwashed" contingent on the forum.

Bye now. 0

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
If that is true, I will have gotten one tiny sliver of useful information from this thread.

I feel better now If blacks owned blacks, then todays reverse discrimination that is "justified" due to the white man owning slaves, is forever flawed in my book.

Of course it's flawed, discrimination based solely on race is always wrong.

I don't give a rat's azz about North vs South but I would like to hear more facts about black slave owners.

Black Slaveowners: Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina, 1790-1860 is but one scholarly work on this subject. There are others listed on Amazon with this book. One of the best sources of information on the economics of chattel slavery, which must be considered in any discussion of the subject, is Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery which many startling facts in it. One of which is the fact that former slaves, free blacks, sold themselves back into slavery for their own profit. Truly amazing.

[fastpat]

Another scholarly text is Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War by Professor Jeffrey R. Hummel, Department of Economics, San Jose State University.

Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
In this insightful treatment of the Civil War (addressing the causes, the war itself and Reconstruction), Hummel's text argues against the thesis that armed confrontation was inevitable. "As an excuse for civil war," he says, "maintaining the States territorial integrity is bankrupt and reprehensible. Slavery's elimination is the only morally worthy justification." But slavery, he suggests, was on its way out in any case. Not only was it a political liability, but the institution's many-faceted costs (social cost, enforcement, uprisings, mistreatment) outweighed any profits. If, after decades of unsuccessful compromise, the North had recognized the South's revolutionary right to self-determination and had let the Gulf states secede, slavery would have succumbed in the border states. Hummel goes on to argue, as have many others before, that after a devastating war and the disappointment of Reconstruction, a federal government that once interfered only a little in the affairs of individual states "had been transformed into an overbearing bureaucracy that intruded into daily life with taxes, drafts, surveillance, subsidies and regulations." Hummel, a professor of history and economics at Golden Gate University in San Francisco, quotes David H. Donald, saying, "Before the Civil War, many politicians and writers referred to the United States in the plural"--i.e., the United States are, a grammatical agreement no longer used after 1865. With its insightful analysis (not to mention the extensive bibliographical essays that elaborate each chapter), Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men will supply both the academic and Civil War buff with an added perspective on the causes and consequences of the Civil War.


From Library Journal
Hummel (history and economics, Golden Gate Univ.) presents some uncomfortable truths for both sides of the Civil War. For the South, Hummel builds a case that the war was indeed about slavery. For the North, he shows that a war to preserve the union was morally bankrupt and that freeing the slaves was the only justifiable reason for fighting. Yet Hummel demonstrates that even a war for such a noble cause was probably unnecessary, since slavery was politically doomed in an independent South. Hummel also illustrates some of the cost of the war, such as Lincoln's suppression of political opposition, the closing of dissenting newspapers, and the creation of big government under Republicans Lincoln, Johnson, and Grant. Here, Hummel steps on some toes. A worthwhile purchase for public and academic libraries.?Robert A. Curtis, Taylor Memorial P.L., Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio