WP: Virginia 4th-grade textbook criticized over claims on black Confederate soldiers

[Larry]

The war was over states' rights in general.

FALSE

1) The Confederate states seceded from a nation where slavery was a state's decision, so they could form a nation where slavery was mandated in the federal Constitution.

2) The major cause for that secession, other than Lincoln's election, was that the federal government refused to mandate that new, southern, states had to be slave states whether the citizens of that state wanted slavery or not.

[HailGreen28]

http://www.amazon.com/Confederate-War-Gary-W-Gallagher/dp/0674160568/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1291479134&sr=8-2

Nice link. Now what did said author SAY relevant to your case?

Oh wait, did you want the link to your answers.com definition?

It beats ZERO quotations from you on the subject.

OK, I'm not debating this anymore unless you can clarify what you're arguing about. I'm not following your thoughts.

MY thoughts are clear. Slavery was what the South fought for. Soldiers and politicians. YOU are the one who brought in a red herring about "herrenvolk democracy". I trashed that for you. Got anything else?

Oh yes, the big bad Southern conspiracy.

Oh yes. Curse those evil Yankees for making the South want to keep slaves.

Which "registered Republican" are you talking about.

Take a wild guess.

[ZoEd]

The state legislatures of every single Confederate state disagree with you.

But what do they know?

---------- Post added December-4th-2010 at 09:18 AM ----------

I and several others come into every one of these threads to point out the fraud of the numerous posters making the claim that "The war wasn't about slavery".

The war was about slavery.

The South did secede to retain slavery. Their state legislatures said so, in writing, when they did it.

The South did not care about states rights. The Confederate Constitution proves it.

These facts are irrefutable.

I love how simplistic you try to make the issue and that is the reason this topic is steadily debated. People like you try to pin it down to the evil south and their slaves while painting this picture of the northern states being so much better than the south because of their valiant efforts to abolish slavery. Abolishing slavery became the vehicle for the North to get what they wanted both politically and financially, not because they gave a rats ass about the slaves. I'm sure a good bit of people cared, just like a bunch of Americans to day care about causes but not enough to go to war over. Politics and greed took us to war, just like it always does.

[gortiz]

Someone call Howard Zinn

[Larry]

I love how simplistic you try to make the issue and that is the reason this topic is steadily debated. People like you try to pin it down to the evil south and their slaves while painting this picture of the northern states being so much better than the south because of their valiant efforts to abolish slavery.

Why, I bet any minute, now, you're going to post a quote from me where I said that, aren't you?

Or, failing that, a post where somebody else said it. Right?

Or, failing that, maybe respond to the things I actually said? You know, in the post you quoted, right before you went on a rant about the things you claim I said?

[ZoEd]

Why, I bet any minute, now, you're going to post a quote from me where I said that, aren't you?

Or, failing that, a post where somebody else said it. Right?

Or, failing that, maybe respond to the things I actually said? You know, in the post you quoted, right before you went on a rant about the things you claim I said?

Bull**** Larry, every freaking post you say the same thing! It was about slavery, the south wanted to preserve slavery, the war was about slavery! Over and over, post after post it was about slavery!

I and several others come into every one of these threads to point out the fraud of the numerous posters making the claim that "The war wasn't about slavery".

The war was about slavery.

The South did secede to retain slavery. Their state legislatures said so, in writing, when they did it.

The South did not care about states rights. The Confederate Constitution proves it.

These facts are irrefutable.

See, the South did this and the South did that, it was about slavery, slavery slavery! So as you like to point out it was simply slavery. Not politics, not driven by greed, power or anything else. Simply slavery.

You don't have to say the North was so noble, because if the South was such **** bags the nobility of the North to eradicate the slave owning South of their slaves is implied. Don't you think? I mean, especially since their only modivation was slavery. It was so apparent thats what the war was about, thats why the red carpet was rolled out for them up North. There was no segregation, every freed slave was welcomed with open arms.

Talk about rewriting history.

[Larry]

Bull**** Larry, every freaking post you say the same thing! It was about slavery, the south wanted to preserve slavery, the war was about slavery! Over and over, post after post it was about slavery!

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

However, what you said was:

I love how simplistic you try to make the issue and that is the reason this topic is steadily debated. People like you try to pin it down to the evil south and their slaves while painting this picture of the northern states being so much better than the south because of their valiant efforts to abolish slavery.

----------

See, the South did this and the South did that, it was about slavery, slavery slavery!

And it was.

So as you like to point out it was simply slavery. Not politics, not driven by greed, power or anything else. Simply slavery.

Well, now, I never claimed that the south's desire to keep slaves wasn't greedy.

Now, if you're referring to whatever slavery apologist it was who tried to claim that the war was caused by greedy Union industrialists who had this greedy plan to abolish slavery (because the southern plantations can't survive without slavery), and then the Northern industrialists will take over all the plantations (thus cleverly acquiring an asset that can't survive without slavery, in a place where slavery is now illegal), then you're right. That's got to be the most knee-slapping attempt to invent a fictional history to try to make people who started a war to preserve slavery look like the Good Guys that I've ever seen.

----------

You don't have to say the North was so noble, because if the South was such **** bags the nobility of the North to eradicate the slave owning South of their slaves is implied. Don't you think?

That your way of saying "I know you didn't say it, Larry, when I claimed you did, but I'm still going to keep right on claiming you said it, anyway, because damit, I can't argue against the things that you really are saying, but I want to get mad, anyway"?

I mean, especially since their only modivation was slavery. It was so apparent thats what the war was about, thats why the red carpet was rolled out for them up North. There was no segregation, every freed slave was welcomed with open arms.

Talk about rewriting history.

I suppose it would be useless to point out that

1) Not one person in this thread has made those claims, either.

2) The only reason they're mentioned is by the slavery apologists, and their attempts to claim that "The Union weren't absolutely perfect, therefore fighting for slavery was noble".

"Yeah, OK, the Nazis tried to conquer the World, and they killed millions of Jews. But the US had segregated military units! How come everybody tries to make them look like the Good Guys?"

[Leonard Washington]

i heard of black confed soldiers. i thought they were forced or promised land etc.

[Larry]

i heard of black confed soldiers. i thought they were forced or promised land etc.

I certainly assume that there were some. And I assume that, like all soldiers in all wars, they each had their own motivations.

[Chicken Fried]

Nice link. Now what did said author SAY relevant to your case?

What I've been saying the entire time about what herrenvolk democracy is. By having a lower slave class beneath them, small, poorer white farmers were socially closer to the elite, wealthy farmers (who they wanted to become) because they both shared the same race when compared to the black slaves. I didn't use this as an explanation for Southern secession In fact, I said it wasn't a reason. If I remember correctly, I brought it up as an example of some of the other motivations they had. It wasn't their only or even strongest motivation, but it was something else pushing them, albeit a weak one.

It beats ZERO quotations from you on the subject.

Again, answers.com haha.

MY thoughts are clear. Slavery was what the South fought for. Soldiers and politicians. YOU are the one who brought in a red herring about "herrenvolk democracy". I trashed that for you. Got anything else?

We weren't even debating the same definition of herrenvolk democracy.

Take a wild guess.

Oh, ok, so here's what you wrote about me.

But this registered Republican would point out what party KKK member Robert Byrd was in a high leadership position. Throwing stones in glass houses and all that.

First, I'm not a registered Republican. Second, no I wouldn't. There are racists in both parties. You can't make generalizations like that. The thing that I don't understand is "Throwing stones in glass houses and all that." What is my glass house?

[HailGreen28]

What I've been saying the entire time about what herrenvolk democracy is. By having a lower slave class beneath them, small, poorer white farmers were socially closer to the elite, wealthy farmers (who they wanted to become) because they both shared the same race when compared to the black slaves. I didn't use this as an explanation for Southern secession In fact, I said it wasn't a reason. If I remember correctly, I brought it up as an example of some of the other motivations they had. It wasn't their only or even strongest motivation, but it was something else pushing them, albeit a weak one.

Wrong. Herrenvolk refers to a european idea of Aryans being superior to other whites. Because of some Nordic ancestry, blue eyes/blond hair and all that About using eugenics to breed "better" people. The racism in the South was white on black, certainly not about trying to breed better people, it was all about thinking of blacks as inferior mentally and physically. See the difference? Both are racist, but they are different. If any Civil War historian says that the Civil War had anything to do with herrenvolk, he should be laughed out of any respectable university. It's like saying World War I was fought because Germany wanted to establish itself as the master race. You may find some germans who felt that way, but you're basically a generation ahead of yourself, like this Civil War / herrenvolk thing you're on.

It was about S-L-A-V-E-R-Y. Which has about as much to do with herrenvolk as slavery does with Jim Crow. Both are based on prejudice, but they are still two different things.

Again, answers.com haha.

Vs. No quotes from you. ha ha ha. It was the simplest straight-forward link I could find, and you still don't get it. Try this link instead. The other side of the coin might well be a system of full-fledged democracy (inclusive and competitive in Robert Dahl's terminology) for the privileged population, making up what Pierre van den Berghe (1981) calls "Herrenvolk democracy" (with reference to apartheid South Africa). This is a system of ethnocracy which offers democratic participation to the dominant group only.

Her's a hint why it doesn't apply here: Keeping blacks from voting wasn't what the South's economy was based on back then.

We weren't even debating the same definition of herrenvolk democracy. .

You mentioned it. And you are wrong about the definition and the time period it existed in. (ie: Not Civil War or pre-CW)

Oh, ok, so here's what you wrote about me.

First, I'm not a registered Republican. Second, no I wouldn't. There are racists in both parties. You can't make generalizations like that. The thing that I don't understand is "Throwing stones in glass houses and all that." What is my glass house?

You never heard the phrase about glass houses? LOL. Here's the post I made about "registered republican", including who I was talking to. In case you're still confused, no I wasn't talking about you. But you stupidly call me a liberal, becuase I don't ignore some parts of history. Please try READING before posting next time.

It was destroyed in the OP.

Actually, before that. Remember the Virginia Governor's announcement of "Confederate History Month"?

(One of the things I'm finding supremely ironic is that the people pushing this mythology, are the same Political Party that wants to take credit for Lincoln.)

Yeah, this thread is a sad testament to Confederate Mythology.

But this registered Republican would point out what party KKK member Robert Byrd was in a high leadership position. Throwing stones in glass houses and all that.

[JMS]

I don't believe the objective of the South in going to war was to hold on to slavery forever. Several southern luminaries who had a huge stake in the war (like Lee) understood that slavery was a dying institution.

Longstreet too, Even Stonewall Jackson was somewhat against slavery... 3 of the 4 most important generals in the south were publically against slavery, ( Lee, Longstreet, and Jackson(*) with only JEB Stuart being the 4th most important general being pro slavery...

(*) Jackons was more moderately against slavery, than were Lee or Longstreet. Jackson did all his reasoning based upon the bible. The bible lists slavery so it can be argued Jacons was ok with the institution.. but jackson was in favor of teaching slaves to read and write, and also favored laws to punish owners to mistreated their slaves... Jackson was kind of on the fense.

Problem with your analysis that these prominent anti slave luminaries in the south meant that the south was going to end slavery itself short of violent confrontation expressed by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe who were all against slavery dating back 100 years prior to the civil war. It had long become a bridge to national office and prominance for wealthy southern slaverholders like Lee to both own slaves and openly critisize the institution. This diacotomy made them acceptable to both of the two camps who basically controlled American politics for the forst 100 years of the union. The pro and anti slavery camps.

I also don't believe the Union would have continued to wage war on the South had they "lost" the Civil War. Communism abounds in Vietnam, but have we ever gone back?[

The federalist papers disagree with you. Northerners and Southerners, Conservatives and Liberal founding fathers warned in the federaist papers that if the union were ever to break; it would condemn the United States to centuries of warfare as Europe had been condemned to centuries of warfare.

---------- Post added December-5th-2010 at 04:28 PM ----------

I don't think that's true at all. I think if the South had agreed to its own EP the British would have jumped into the Civil War. I don't think you can find a respected source that talks about the South offereing to give up slavery for British involvement.

It's common knowledge... Some people use the South's offer to emancipate the slaves in exchange for European recognition to bolster their case that the war wasnt' about slavery. I don't go that far. My point is after Gettysburg, the south well understood the war was winding down. Europe understood that too. At that point the south decided they cared more about winning than about slavery. Which isn't the same thing at all as saying the central reason for the war wasn't slavery.

The interesting thing is the south could have likely gotten british troops, maybe even french troops too if they had renounced slavery in 1861 or the beginning of 1862. The British were primed to enter the war. But by the end of 1863 and mid 1964 when the south finally got around to making the offer, the war was already a fore gone conclusion.

Jefferson Davis and Judah Benjamin understood that survival depended on European support and that this support would not be forthcoming without altering the Confederate position on slavery. In November 1864, Davis presented to the Confederate Congress a plan to employ forty thousand slaves in noncombatant military service to be followed by their emancipation. While this proposal was being considered, he dispatched Duncan F. Kenner of Louisiana to Europe on a secret mission with instructions to offer European governments a promise of emancipation of the slaves in exchange for recognition. Napoléon, then deeply involved in his Mexican policy, declined the offer and replied that France could not act without British concurrence. When Kenner made the same proposal to the British government, Palmerston rejected it out of hand, informing Kenner that Britain would never recognize the Confederate States of America. Confederate diplomacy in Europe had come to a dead end.

http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/A-D/Civil-War-Diplomacy-The-slavery-issue-and-the-end-of-confederate-diplomacy.html

By this time (July 1863 after Gettysburg) he(Duncan F. Kenner ) had become convinced that the emancipation of slaves was the only way to gain independence for the Confederacy. In 1864, he was sent by Jefferson Davis as special commissioner to England and France to secure the recognition of the Confederate States of America. Davis, through Kenner, offered the emancipation of the Confederate slaves in exchange for recognition of the Confederacy by Britain and France.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_F._Kenner

The gray and the black: the Confederate debate on emancipation

the mission of Douglas F. Kenner as secret envoy to discuss southern emanciaption in exchange for Anglo - French recognition has long been known

http://books.google.com/books?id=G2wQajesOWEC&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=Duncan+F.+Kenner+emancipation&source=bl&ots=s-y72cKqW2&sig=xoDpP5puU8mn1DMgbVdlDSGSYwo&hl=en&ei=wQL8TP3MEoWClAf4742QBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=Duncan%20F.%20Kenner%20emancipation&f=false

[/color]

We haven't gone back to Vietnam for essentially exactly the reasons I stated.

The position the federalist papers take is two people who are so similar and so geographically adjacent can not coexist without fighting. They give the example of the european states which had known wars for thousands of years in the lat 1700's.

Vietnam war was not about geographically proximal issues, nor was it about common peoples.

The underlying reasoning behind the Vietnam war was flawed. The Vietnamese didn't try to and didn't allow other countries to use their country as a base to export communism to their neighbors.

The underlying reasons for vietnam were flawed. The Domino theory was more of an expression of American ignorance than a reflection of reality on the ground in vietnam. Likewise the gulf of tonken attack on American shipping which gave the congress the justification for dispatching troops to Vietnam never actually occured.

The reason the south went to war wasn't going away. The abolitionists in the North were going to continue to try and eliminate slavery in the south (e.g. assists slaves running away) even if the south was a different country.

The North and South had coexisted for a hundred years prior to the civil war. During that time the South continously lost ground to the north. Politically, Industrially, and Population wise. If they could have comprimised and allowed slavery to continue in the short term the long term slavery would have been dead. The only way I could have seen this occuring is if the Republicans had lost the presidential election of 1860. But even then it's a long shot.

Southern leadership was too full of themselves to back down.

[JMS]

But what was the North's motivation to abolish slavery? Was it because they didn't feel like humans should be treated like animals? Or was it the fact the North was booming with industry and getting richer by the minute while the south was starting to struggle and abolishing slavery would eventually lead to the Souths demise?

As pro slavery as the southern leadership was. The north was full of people who thought the practice was immoral an abhorant. These two camps had existed since the revolutionary war times. What changed in 1861 when the south succeded was the realization that the two sides could no longer coexist.

The south could not put up with a north free of slavery and was thus seeking to impose it's slavery laws upon the north. This was done though court cases like the Dred Scott supreme court decision but also by political compromises, like the Compromise of 1850, or Fudjutive slave act...

This imposed southern slavery on northern free states as a compromise on California entering the Union as a free state.

the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 made any Federal marshal or other official who did not arrest an alleged runaway slave liable to a fine of $1,000. Law-enforcement officials everywhere now had a duty to arrest anyone suspected of being a runaway slave on no more evidence than a claimant's sworn testimony of ownership. The suspected slave could not ask for a jury trial or testify on his or her own behalf. In addition, any person aiding a runaway slave by providing food or shelter was subject to six months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Officers who captured a fugitive slave were entitled to a bonus or promotion for their work. Slave owners only needed to supply an affidavit to a Federal marshal to capture an escaped slave. Since any suspected slave was not eligible for a trial this led to many free blacks being conscripted into slavery as they had no rights in court and could not defend themselves against accusations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850

So basically the reason why the abolitionists became so popular in the north and the reaon why the north wanted to impose their anti slavery views was because they believed their no longer could be any middle ground. If slavery was not defeated it would evelope the free north... Abraham Lincoln stated as much in his famous house devided speach of 1858 when running for a senate seat in which he lost to douglas..

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention.

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it.

We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. (Compromise of 1850)

Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented.

In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South.

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/house.htm

If you honestly think the North gave a **** about slaves, I've got some ocean front property on the moon for sale. I mean, everyone who thumps their chests about the North's admirable cause to end slavery seem to forget they treated the slaves, like slaves and lower class citizens even after the war was over. They didn't welcome the slaves with open arms and treat them as equals. Oh no, they found a way to "pay" them just enough to where they weren't labled as slaves but they sure did treat them like slave labor.

Lets put things into prespective.

I think the north certainly cared as much abbout not permitting slaves in their states as the south did about keeping slavery in theirs. I think the expansion of hte country westward made compromises on both these goals untenable...

Oddly The south who claimed to fight the civil war on states rights, fought the war largely because they objected to Popular sovereignty deciding the issue of slavery in new states. Kansas Nebraska act saw both Kansas and Nebraska come into the union as free states... California was also free... The south walked out of the Democratic convention in 1860 ben Douglas tried to add popular soverignty to the platform...

The Southern leadership didn't want states rights. They wanted to deny popular sovereignty to all new states and work out who would be free or slave based upon which would provide them with their all important parity.

[Larry]

The North and South had coexisted for a hundred years prior to the civil war. During that time the South continously lost ground to the north. Politically, Industrially, and Population wise. If they could have comprimised and allowed slavery to continue in the short term the long term slavery would have been dead.

Problem with your assertion that there wouldn't have been a war if the South was allowed to keep slavery for a while, was that the south was allowed to keep slavery for a while, and decided to preemptively secede, simply because they could see the day down the road when slavery would end.

They didn't secede because Lincoln was going to free the slaves the day he took office. They seceded because they could tell that over time, they would lose the ability to block legislation in Congress.

Other reasons they gave for seceding were the northern states not returning enough escaped slaves, and meddling Yankees coming into their state and openly saying that slavery was wrong.

I'm with Peter. I don't see any of those things ending, if the South wins the war (or secedes peacefully.)

(And I also agree with some other poster, responding to the claim that well, the south would have ended slavery soon, if they'd won. You really think that, the South is going to secede to preserve slavery, create their own country to preserve slavery, write their own constitution, enshrining slavery, . . . and then 20 years later, they're gonna say "My bad", and amend their constitution to get rid of slavery?)

[JMS]

Problem with your assertion that there wouldn't have been a war if the South was allowed to keep slavery for a while, was that the south was allowed to keep slavery for a while, and decided to preemptively secede, simply because they could see the day down the road when slavery would end.

Exactly correct. my thought was if they hadn't succeded slavery would have eventually died on the vine no doubtedly was well understood by southern leadership too. Which is why theydid succed.

They didn't secede because Lincoln was going to free the slaves the day he took office. They seceded because they could tell that over time, they would lose the ability to block legislation in Congress.

To be honest they didn't know what lincoln would do. The republican party was an abolitionist party. It was chalk full of much more popular leaders than lincoln who wanted immediate emancipation, at least while campaigning for office.

It's also clear though the south didn't give lincoln much of a chance after he was elected. They had prepared for war, and they suceded not really based upon lincoln but that regardless of lincoln they saw no positive outcome for slavery by remaining in the union.

Other reasons they gave for seceding were the northern states not returning enough escaped slaves, and meddling Yankees coming into their state and openly saying that slavery was wrong.

Both things which were probable true. The fudjative slave act of 1850 had openned up a hornetts nest in the north. It radicalized the north, which was as committed as ending slavery in the south as the south had proved in trying to get anti slavery laws curbed in the north.

(And I also agree with some other poster, responding to the claim that well, the south would have ended slavery soon, if they'd won. You really think that, the South is going to secede to preserve slavery, create their own country to preserve slavery, write their own constitution, enshrining slavery, . . . and then 20 years later, they're gonna say "My bad", and amend their constitution to get rid of slavery?)

Facts are Jefferson Davis offered to sign a confederacy emancipation proclaimation in exchange for British and French recognition of the confederacy.

That's a historical fact....

See Duncan F. Kenner in post #437

It just proves that late in the war, the confederacy would have done anything to perserve hope of winning.... Even abandon slavery the reason their leadership succeded.

[PeterMP]

Facts are Jefferson Davis offered to sign a confederacy emancipation proclaimation in exchange for British and French recognition of the confederacy.

That's a historical fact....

See Duncan F. Kenner in post #437

It just proves that late in the war, the confederacy would have done anything to perserve hope of winning.... Even abandon slavery the reason their leadership succeded.

1. Davis agreed to see if the Confederate Congress would approve it, which it didn't.

2. David NEVER offered or even suggested of pulling a Lincoln style proclomation.

3. This was only in the face of losing the war.

Though I hadn't heard of Kenner until your post. I think you are misstating the reality of the offer from what I've read.

Kenner heard the Lee surrendered while he was in England.

For much of the war, most historians will even tell you that David didn't even take diplomatic relationships with Europe seriously. He believe there need for cotton ("King Cotton") would bring them into the war.

That some of the leadership thought it might be a good idea to give up slavery in the face of losing the war isn't a good indication of their commitment to emancipation, especially if they had won, which is what my post was about.

[Larry]

For much of the war, most historians will even tell you that David didn't even take diplomatic relationships with Europe seriously. He believe there need for cotton ("King Cotton) would bring them into the war.

I'd also heard something similar to that. That the Confederates believed that Europe needed their cotton, and would immediately recognize them, and that the Union would back down without a conflict. That when they seceded, they figured there wouldn't be a war.

[JMS]

1. Davis agreed to see if the Confederate Congress would approve it, which it didn't.

2. David NEVER offered or even suggested of pulling a Lincoln style proclomation.

3. This was only in the face of losing the war.

1. Jefferson Davis sent the chairman of the confederate's ways and means commitee to Europe with the offer.

2. That is exactly what Jefferson Davis offered the British. A confederacy emancipation proclaimation. Noteing that Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclaimation was not an act of congress but was a Presidential Order.

3. Yes this was all about perserving some hope of the south winning the war. When loosing looked assured after Gettysburg; Southern Leadership found they cared more for winning the generational conflict with the north than they cared about slavery.

Though I hadn't heard of Kenner until your post. I think you are misstating the reality of the offer from what I've read.

Kenner heard the Lee surrendered while he was in England.

For much of the war, most historians will even tell you that David didn't even take diplomatic relationships with Europe seriously. He believe there need for cotton ("King Cotton") would bring them into the war.

Those are two different things which don't support each other. Jefferson Davis as well as Lincoln both took European involement in the war very seriously. Jefferson Davis might have thought that he had a stronger hand than he did, but so what. Davis was constantly courting Europe from almost the beginning; just as Lincoln was constantly taking steps to ensure that Europe didn't come in. Much of the motivation for the Emancipation Proclaimation two years ( 18 months ) after succession was to ensure Brtitain ( anti slavery) did not enter into the war.

That some of the leadership thought it might be a good idea to give up slavery in the face of losing the war isn't a good indication of their commitment to emancipation, especially if they had won, which is what my post was about.

It wasn't some leadership. It was the leadership. Jefferson Davis the president of the confederacy. Offered to match the union's presidential order which was called the Emancipation Proclaimation and it certainly shows what commitment to victory the south had. A commitment that eclipsed even their desire to retain slavery.

[Burgold]

I think one other argument about slavery voluntarily ending in the South is the use of migrant farmers today. Even in the 21st Century, farmers if given the option will utilize the cheapest option. When you think about some of the living conditions, pay, and other, migrant farming and slavery have some similarities. Certainly as close as people could get away with today. More, the authorities that be, even on a federal level, turn a blind eye to this practice even though it is illegal. So, if in the enlightened 21st Century with all its technology, farmers and the government thinks undocumented workers are a necessary evil... I suspect slavery would have gotten the same treatment for a long, long time. Perhaps, there would have been agreements to improve slave's "rights," but there very well might have been slavery even to this day in one form or another.

[twa]

Migrant farmers?...something tells me ya never hoed a row in your life

No need for slavery since they invented share croppers

[PeterMP]

1. Jefferson Davis sent the chairman of the confederate's ways and means commitee to Europe with the offer.

2. That is exactly what Jefferson Davis offered the British. A confederacy emancipation proclaimation. Noteing that Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclaimation was not an act of congress but was a Presidential Order.

3. Yes this was all about perserving some hope of the south winning the war. When loosing looked assured after Gettysburg; Southern Leadership found they cared more for winning the generational conflict with the north than they cared about slavery.

From your own link:

"Jefferson Davis and Judah Benjamin understood that survival depended on European support and that this support would not be forthcoming without altering the Confederate position on slavery. In November 1864, Davis presented to the Confederate Congress a plan to employ forty thousand slaves in noncombatant military service to be followed by their emancipation"

[Burgold]

Migrant farmers?...something tells me ya never hoed a row in your life

No need for slavery since they invented share croppers

Well, that's true (that'd I've never hoed a row), but isn't migrant farming still big business? I've always heard it was so. At least for the pickers and what not.

[twa]

Picking is not farming city boy :pokeye:

[Burgold]

Picking is not farming city boy :pokeye:

I'm sensing another Yankee vs. good ole boy show down... The South will FALL again. Maybe even Winter.

However, my point remains. Isn't there a large dependence on illegal undocumented workers in agriculture. Isn't there a whole culture developed at below minimum wage rates who are housed in substandard conditions? Isn't that probably as close to slavery or indentured servitude as we could get in the 21st Century U.S. And if we are doing this today and even encouraging it... what's to say if slavery wasn't an option that people wouldn't have chosen that!

[twa]

There is a dependence because of supply and demand,no different than domestic workers...the lax immigration laws contribute to it.

Why would most Americans do such things when they don't have to?

Ya might note the increased cotton demand from textile mills in the North (as a result of the cotton gin)increased the demand for slaves in the South