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

[JMS]

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.

The reason why slavery's days were numbered in the south weren't because of the "humanity" of the southern plantation owners. The reason slavery's days were numbered was the political coverage/defense of the institution which allowed it to exist since revolutionary war days had been broken. The Kansas Nebraska act introduced the concept of popular sovereignty. No longer would states enter the union pre-determined to be slaver or free. With popular sovereignty new states would decide for themselves. Unfortunately for the south, those states were choosing to be free in much larger percentages than they were choosing to be slave.

Which means it was only a matter of time until slavery was restricted out of existence...

---------- Post added December-6th-2010 at 08:10 AM ----------

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"

I'm unclear what point you believe that makes.... The next sentense in that quote is Jefferson davis sending an envoy to europe ( France and Britain ) seeling recognition in exchange for a confederate emancipation proclaimation. They were two entirely different efforts. One was an ongoing concern placed before the legislature the other was a secret innitiative pursued by Davis in parellel.

---------- Post added December-6th-2010 at 08:16 AM ----------

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!

It's really not at all. I see where you are going but it's actually doesn't equate...

One of the things about slavery was it was already economically unsustainable. Using migrant workers, or more likely share croppers was more efficient than slavery; not an extentension of slavery. Slavery required a huge investment, as well as upkeep. ( room board etc).... Share croppers or migrant workers required none of this...

From the perspective of northern abolitionists however their was no equivelency that you are drawing. Free men still can make poor wages.. That doesn't make them slaves.

[Burgold]

The reason why slavery's days were numbered in the south weren't because of the "humanity" of the southern plantation owners. The reason slavery's days were numbered was the political coverage/defense of the institution which allowed it to exist since revolutionary war days had been broken. The Kansas Nebraska act introduced the concept of popular sovereignty. No longer would states enter the union pre-determined to be slaver or free. With popular sovereignty new states would decide for themselves. Unfortunately for the south, those states were choosing to be free in much larger percentages than they were choosing to be slave.

Maybe. Probably, but not definitively. People are guided by self-interest far more than anything else. That's why most turn a blind eye to illegals in this country today making pennies on the dollar in the fields. If a Southern state thought it was in their best interest to keep slavery... they would have. Plus, don't underestimate the power and importance of "tradition" People will fight to the death for wrongs committed hundreds of years ago. Is there any sane reason that most of the Middle East should treat their women as they do? Self-Interest and tradition are very powerful influences. Often much more powerful than reason and often even more powerful than economics.

[JMS]

(as a result of the cotton gin)increased the demand for slaves in the South

Actually the cotton gin is something that decreased the demand for slaves and lead to a huge surplus in labor which made share croping a profitable idea in the south. Before the cotton gin you had to have many slaves picking the seads from the cotton in hours of hard labor. With the gin, which was easy to construct, one man could do the work of ten or more and do it in minutes rather than hours.

[PeterMP]

The reason why slavery's days were numbered in the south weren't because of the "humanity" of the southern plantation owners. The reason slavery's days were numbered was the political coverage/defense of the institution which allowed it to exist since revolutionary war days had been broken. The Kansas Nebraska act introduced the concept of popular sovereignty. No longer would states enter the union pre-determined to be slaver or free. With popular sovereignty new states would decide for themselves. Unfortunately for the south, those states were choosing to be free in much larger percentages than they were choosing to be slave.

Which means it was only a matter of time until slavery was restricted out of existence

Ever hear of the Dred Scott decision?

I'm unclear what point you believe that makes.... The next sentense in that quote is Jefferson davis sending an envoy to europe ( France and Britain ) seeling recognition in exchange for a confederate emancipation proclaimation. They were two entirely different efforts. One was an ongoing concern placed before the legislature the other was a secret innitiative pursued by Davis in parellel.

Your statement includes one important word that the source you quoted doesn't.

[JMS]

Maybe. Probably, but not definitively.

Yes definitely... That's why the south succeded. Because they could not envision a future in the union as a minority without the poltical parity where slavery would not be abolished.

It's why Lincoln said he would leave slavery alone after elected; and why he said if he could have avoided the war he would have not touched slavery during his administration. Lincoln was a died in the wool abolitionist. He hated slavery and wanted it ended. But to his mind it was only a matter of time. If he could avoid a war and let it die on the vine; he was all about avoiding the war.

Everybody on both sides understood if the union remained in tact, slavery's days were over.. There was no middle ground. No room for compromise. The nation would either be all slave or all free and the free states had the political advantage for the first time in the history of the country and that advantage was just going to continue to grow.

People are guided by self-interest far more than anything else. That's why most turn a blind eye to illegals in this country today making pennies on the dollar in the fields. If a Southern state thought it was in their best interest to keep slavery... they would have. Plus, don't underestimate the power and importance of "tradition" People will fight to the death for wrongs committed hundreds of years ago. Is there any sane reason that most of the Middle East should treat their women as they do? Self-Interest and tradition are very powerful influences. Often much more powerful than reason and often even more powerful than economics.

I agree with what you are saying here.. but the issue was no longer about the south. IT didn't matter that the south wanted to keep slavery and even make slavery legal in the north. What mattered was the North was politically more potent and they were equally committed against slavery. They saw no way to compromise and allow slavery to exist in the south without it being imposed upon them in the North. Which is why the North became radicalized. Why abolitionists took over in the North. The lines were drawn. IT was either going to be them or us.

[twa]

Actually the cotton gin is something that decreased the demand for slaves and lead to a huge surplus in labor which made share croping a profitable idea in the south. Before the cotton gin you had to have many slaves picking the seads from the cotton in hours of hard labor. With the gin, which was easy to construct, one man could do the work of ten or more and do it in minutes rather than hours.

Decreased the labor demand in the sheds,but reduced the bottleneck in production,thus increasing the demand for cotton

http://franklaughter.tripod.com/cgi-bin/histprof/misc/slavery1.html

Slavery began to develop even deeper roots in the South after Eli Whitney of Massachusetts invented his cotton gin in 1793. This machine removed the seeds from cotton as fast as 50 people working by hand and probably contributed more to the growth of slavery than any other development. Whitney's gin enabled farmers to meet the rapidly rising demand for cotton. As a result, the Southern cotton industry expanded, and cotton became the chief crop in the region. The planters needed more and more workers to pick and bale the cotton, which led to large increases in the slave population. The thriving sugar cane plantations of Louisiana also used many slaves during the first half of the 1800's. By 1860, about 4 million slaves lived in the South.

[Burgold]

Yes definitely... That's why the south succeded.

Nope. The South failed. If you can't even get the most basic facts right how can anyone trust your opinions.

[JMS]

Ever hear of the Dred Scott decision?

The dred scott supreme court decision tried to role back the effects of popular sovereinty. It said northern states were still constrained under some of the tenants of the Compromise of 1850 and the fugitive slave act. Escaped Slaves/ and Free men could be taken from the north and impressed or re-impressed into slavery.

However the Kansas Nebraska act had already been passed too. Which said new territories had popular sovereignty to decide the slave issue for themselves. This replaced the compromise of 1850. The supreme court decision was a bump in the road. Everybody understood that Kansas and Nebraska would both enter the union as California did before them as a free state. Obliterating any parity in the house and senate.

Your statement includes one important word that the source you quoted doesn't.

Jefferson?

Please do share. Also if you could try to actually explain what your position is now that would be helpful.

I'm guessing your are conceeding that the south certainly did offer to emancipate their slaves late in the war in exchange for European recognition.

---------- Post added December-6th-2010 at 08:42 AM ----------

Nope. The South failed. If you can't even get the most basic facts right how can anyone trust your opinions.

Failed at what? We were talking about the end of slavery being tied to the preservation of the Union. That ultimately being the reason for southenr leadership sucession. They could envison no path remaining in the union where slavery was not abolished..

Which was also Lincolns belief...

When Lincoln said if I could have avoided the war by freeing all slavers or freeing none; I would have do so... He wasn't saying he would have agreed to allow slavery to contunue forever. He was saying slavery was ending and he cared more about avoiding the civil war than he did about expiditing that end.

[Burgold]

They lost the war. Their way of life was changed and the decision taken out of their hands. So, in no way did the South "succeed"

Sheesh. You will defend even your most nonsensical points.

[JMS]

Decreased the labor demand in the sheds,but reduced the bottleneck in production,thus increasing the demand for cotton.

The cotton gin decreased the labor intensive nature of cotton crop. Which made slavery less economically viable. It made it much less labor intensive to produce. Which I'm guessing would also make it more plentiful..

It didn't have any impact on the northern cotton mills other than to make cotton more available.

Maybe I'm missing your point.

---------- Post added December-6th-2010 at 08:46 AM ----------

They lost the war. Their way of life was changed and the decision taken out of their hands. So, in no way did the South "succeed"

Sheesh. You will defend even your most nonsensical points.

Oh you were making a funny.... coarse I didn't use the word suceed. I used the word succede rather than sucede.

[twa]

The cotton gin decreased the labor intensive nature of cotton crop. Which made slavery less economically viable. It made it much less labor intensive to produce. Which I'm guessing would also make it more plentiful..

It didn't have any impact on the northern cotton mills other than to make cotton more available.

---------- Post added December-6th-2010 at 08:46 AM ----------

It made it cheaper thus a more profitable crop

http://www.eduqna.com/Teaching/2934-teaching.html

When you can produce more cotton products, you create a demand for more of that product at a cheaper price. Then, you need more slaves to pick the cotton, so the gin can separate it out, so you can make more product. With the invention of the cotton gin in 1793, the price of slaves increased dramatically through mid century. Slaves in their 20’s who were regarded as a good or even fair hand were valued between $700 and $800 (Hollaway). The development of the Cotton Gin and its subsequent increase in demand for slave labor affected the lives of enslaved African Americans greatly. With the invention of the Cotton Gin, little attention was paid to the cultivation of anything other than cotton. The Gin had made the cotton plant almost the sole possessor of the fields. The Gin created a new cash crop, stimulated the South’s economy, and increased the demand for slave labor. Even though Whitney invented the Cotton Gin to put an end to slavery, it exacerbated this world’s tragedy. Three years before the invention of the Gin, forty three percent of the World’s population was enslaved. Thirty years later, after the Cotton Gin was invented and used widely, the figure jumped to fifty two percent (Hollaway). With the Gin, cotton cultivation became the basis of the one crop, slave labor of the Deep South and a principal economic cause of the Civil War. The end of slavery and the exhaustion of the soil pushed the cotton belt to the west. Although the invention of the Cotton Gin was intended to end slavery, it dramatically increased the demand for slave labor.

[JMS]

Decreased the labor demand in the sheds,but reduced the bottleneck in production,thus increasing the demand for cotton

http://www.eduqna.com/Teaching/2934-teaching.html

When you can produce more cotton products, you create a demand for more of that product at a cheaper price. Then, you need more slaves to pick the cotton, so the gin can separate it out, so you can make more product. With the invention of the cotton gin in 1793, the price of slaves increased dramatically through mid century. Slaves in their 20’s who were regarded as a good or even fair hand were valued between $700 and $800 (Hollaway). The development of the Cotton Gin and its subsequent increase in demand for slave labor affected the lives of enslaved African Americans greatly. With the invention of the Cotton Gin, little attention was paid to the cultivation of anything other than cotton. The Gin had made the cotton plant almost the sole possessor of the fields. The Gin created a new cash crop, stimulated the South’s economy, and increased the demand for slave labor. Even though Whitney invented the Cotton Gin to put an end to slavery, it exacerbated this world’s tragedy. Three years before the invention of the Gin, forty three percent of the World’s population was enslaved. Thirty years later, after the Cotton Gin was invented and used widely, the figure jumped to fifty two percent (Hollaway). With the Gin, cotton cultivation became the basis of the one crop, slave labor of the Deep South and a principal economic cause of the Civil War. The end of slavery and the exhaustion of the soil pushed the cotton belt to the west. Although the invention of the Cotton Gin was intended to end slavery, it dramatically increased the demand for slave labor.

That's an interesting and thought provoking point. It wouldn't seem to me to be the way economics work necessarily. But the history rings true...

Good job..

So Eli Witney comes out with the cotton gin in 1790's... making cotton easier to refine, less labor intensive and more plentiful on the market. The market responds by vastly increasing consumption establishing the industrial revolution. Which in turn requires the plantations to add even more labor to produce even more cotton.

I wonder if the banning of importing new slaves into the United States in 1808 also played a role in the cost of slaves going up too?

[PeterMP]

The dred scott supreme court decision tried to role back the effects of popular sovereinty. It said northern states were still constrained under some of the tenants of the Compromise of 1850 and the fugitive slave act. Escaped Slaves/ and Free men could be taken from the north and impressed or re-impressed into slavery.

The Dred Scott decision said that a slave was not freed if they were taken by their owner into a free state or a federal territory that Congress had declared a non-slave territory.

It didn't have anything to do with reimprisioning freed slaves.

Dred Scott was not an escaped slave.

Essentially, it eliminated the idea of free and slave areas in the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

[twa]

That's an interesting and thought provoking point. It wouldn't seem to me to be the way economics work necessarily. But the history rings true...

I wonder if the banning of importing new slaves into the United States in 1808 also played a role in the cost of slaves going up too?

I agree the slave price part is weak(and more related to the ban),the expansion of cotton as a cash crop clearly supports it though.

[JMS]

The Dred Scott decision said that a slave was not freed if they were taken by their owner into a free state or a federal territory that Congress had declared a non-slave territory.

It didn't have anything to do with reimprisioning freed slaves.

The pedantic argument. The net effect of the decision was that free blacks or escaped slaves in the north could be empressed back into slavery which was a return to the compromise of 1850 which the North found so distatstful.

Specifically the decision said.

1. Blacks could not be citizens whether free or not. ( no constitutional rights or protections for blacks).
   
2. It said the Moisouri Comprimise was only valid in the territories incorporated into the union at that time and did not effect new territories.
   
3. Finally that the due process clause and fifth ammendment prohibited the federal government from freeing slaves brought into federal territories.
   

Dred Scott was not an escaped slave.

Essentially, it eliminated the idea of free and slave areas in the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

I don't know what point you are trying to make other than to walk pedantical line.

Dred Scott was a slave who claiming his presence and residence in free territories required his emancipation.. He was a slave owned by Army Major John Emerson who took him to wisconson and other free territories. Places which did not allow slavery.

[Chicken Fried]

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.

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.

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

I'm not going to debate this anymore. My copy of the book is in a different city, so the quotation isn't coming anytime soon. You had likely never heard of the term before I mentioned it, and your definition comes from answers.com which is even a more ridiculous source than wikipedia. You obviously know too much for me to even try to debate this.

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.

First, it really seemed like you implied you were talking about me. If it wasn't, who was it? And of course I've heard of the phrase, but I don't know what you were implying by it. Are you implying said poster relates to Robert Byrd?

[Larry]

deleted post.

[PeterMP]

The pedantic argument. The net effect of the decision was that free blacks or escaped slaves in the north could be empressed back into slavery which was a return to the compromise of 1850 which the North found so distatstful.

Specifically the decision said.

1. Blacks could not be citizens whether free or not. ( no constitutional rights or protections for blacks).
   
2. It said the Moisouri Comprimise was only valid in the territories incorporated into the union at that time and did not effect new territories.
   
3. Finally that the due process clause and fifth ammendment prohibited the federal government from freeing slaves brought into federal territories.
   

I don't know what point you are trying to make other than to walk pedantical line.

Dred Scott was a slave who claiming his presence and residence in free territories required his emancipation.. He was a slave owned by Army Major John Emerson who took him to wisconson and other free territories. Places which did not allow slavery.

I'm making the point that the Dred Scott decision killed the idea of free states. People could take their slaves into free states, and they were still slaves.

[JMS]

I'm making the point that the Dred Scott decision killed the idea of free states. People could take their slaves into free states, and they were still slaves.

Ok then we are back aligned into agreement, and I was entirely missing your point. My bad.

Your point is correct. Folks today think the abolitionist north was trying to impose anti slave laws on the south... which they certainly did want to do prior to the civil war only they weren't very effective at it.. What folks don't understand is the South's attempts to role back popular sovereignty and blur the lines between slave and free states is what radicalized the north into the abolitionist camp.

Northerners were as pasionately against slavery in their own states as southerners were in favor of it. Slavery being imposed upon the north was very unpopular and lead to the north becoming radicalized..

Slave and free states had coexisted for 100 years prior to the civil war. What brought it to a head was neither side saw a path to co-existance anylonger.

[HailGreen28]

Larry, please delete your post before CF sees it! LOL