Confederate flag: Washington and Lee University removing display (Lee's Chapel)

[War Paint]

can there even be a discussion with this as a starting point?  Do we REALLY have to establsih that slaver is a bad thing as a starting point for discussion????    no... REALLY???!!!??

 

I am sorry... but this is one of the most ___(delete whatever insulting potentially bannable adjective i was considering)__ posts i have ever seen here... and that is saying a ton.

 

so... people are hired as nannies (and as farmworkers) today... so slavery was no big deal?

 

 

people have sex today.. so rape is no big deal?

people die... so murder is no big deal?  right??

 

 

really?? !!??    

 

 

holy beeezzzezues, batman....... 

What in the hell are you talking about?  Man, I can't even discuss something with someone without worrying about their reading comprehension.  I guess I need to spoon feed things clearer so that some here can understand what I'm saying.  My God Dude........

Slaves didn't have it that bad, free room and board. Score!

That is not what I was saying....but like those who are wrong, they start throwing blanket statements and act like idiots.

[mcsluggo]

i'll be happy if i missed some mysterious direction that you were trying to take those two posts..... 

 

... but i'll be damned if i will chalk it up to a lack of reading comprehension!  where in the world ARE you trying to go with

 

"Then you have to factor in that perhaps the nanny would've received payment as free room and board."

followed by ...

"I'm sure we have nanny's this day and age.  Are they slaves?"

 

and where should an astute reader have already led themselves??

[JMS]

I don't think this is true.

 

(1) My understanding is that Lee wanted to stay in the military, but not fight against the South.

 

He wanted to be stationed in part of the country where he'd not be directly part of the fight.

 

Scott told him, he couldn't do that.

 

(2) He did give Lee the opportunity to resign and become a private citizen.

 

(3) I think most historians believe that Lee had long ago (when stationed in TX) even that if VA seceded that he would go with VA, that he didn't favor secession, but if it happened he'd go with VA.

I don't know about the former part of your statement. (1) It's not inconsistent with my point. (stay in the military and be stationed out of the way). The latter two parts of your statement seem more in conflict with my understanding. (2) Lee did resign but only after his meeting with Winfield Scott..

Lee's Resignation Letter Addressed to WinField Scott.. 4/20/1861.

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/letter-from-robert-e-lee-to.html

(2) The time line doesn't support this conclusion...

April 17, 1861 - Virginia Succeeded

April 18, 1861 - Windfield Scott summons Lee to his residence for a meeting

At this meeting Scott offers command of the union army to Lee and tells Lee there is no middle ground.

April 20, 1861 - Lee resigns his commission in the US army and offers his services to the Confederacy.

Lee's first position with the Confederacy is as an adviser to President Jefferson Davis.

 

 

I would also note that the National Park Service disagrees with you.   The museum on the grounds of Arlington National Cemetery  has a presentation where they state, "no other choice was possible for Lee except to fight for the South".

[mcsluggo]

......

 

And I don't know what to say if you don't understand the difference between a nanny who is a free person that receives payment partially in room and board and a slave.

 

 

Seriously, where the **** are you going with this?

 

 

Slaves didn't have it that bad, free room and board. Score!

 

 

it looks like the world is filled with non-comprehending chumps in need of some spoon feeding.... 

 

... if we could only find affordable nannies these days.... 

 

 

(but i will concede that that those guys were much better net-dudes in teh way that they stated THEIR points, than i was... )

[War Paint]

Seriously, where the **** are you going with this?

You tell me?  I made the point, which is right, that technology would've phased out Southern slavery.   I was then told "well, what about maids?"  I then made the point that a war wouldn't have been fought over that because there wasn't any economical dependence by the States in regards to maid work.  I didn't say blacks should be forced to be maids.  To go further, like the Civil Rights movement, an unpaid maid would've eventually been paid, just like women eventually got the right to vote. If laws came into existence that said "pay maids wages", there wouldn't have been a massive uprising that would've led to a war.  I hope that explains it.  Sometimes I underestimate some people's ability to use common sense here so I guess I have to spoon feed my words more carefully.

i'll be happy if i missed some mysterious direction that you were trying to take those two posts..... 

 

... but i'll be damned if i will chalk it up to a lack of reading comprehension!  where in the world ARE you trying to go with

 

"Then you have to factor in that perhaps the nanny would've received payment as free room and board."

followed by ...

"I'm sure we have nanny's this day and age.  Are they slaves?"

 

and where should an astute reader have already led themselves??

Have you ever heard of the concept of bartering? 

[JMS]

I've seen this argument numerous times and find it bogus.

 

The cotton gin made cotton production far more lucrative and made slaves far more important. What technology would have killed slavery? The cotton picker was invented until the 1930s and didn't really go into any kid of mass use until the 40s and 50s.

 

So...are we talking the 50s or 60s here?

Slavery was dead in the United States and the World. The North had many things which made it economically easier to end slavery... (1) the industrial revolution most impacted the north making agriculture economy less important in the north.. (2) The huge migrant population in the north both came from free nations and considered slave labor competition for jobs.

It might have taken decades more, but the writing on the wall was slavery was dead at the onset of the civil war.

Hell even the south offered to unilaterally give up slavery in exchange for British and French ( both free nations ) recognition for it's cause late in the war.

But I don't know how helpful any of these facts are. A little more than half of the secessionist states which left the union did so because they disagreed and wanted to push off the abolition of slavery which became inevitable ever since the Kansas Nebraska compromise failed. New states would come into the union, and those states would have the right to choose for themselves slaver or free, and those states would be overwhelmingly be populated from immigrants and residents from the free states. The south's equilibrium which had protected slavery since the days of the founding fathers was gone.. it was only a matter of time.

[zoony]

right to succeed,

 

succession

 

 Virginia Succeeded

 

 

followed by

 

secessionist

 

 

Are you punking all of us?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Hell even the south offered to unilaterally give up slavery in exchange for British and French ( both free nations ) recognition for it's cause late in the war.

 

 

When the Hell was this? I have read three dozen books on this and NEVER saw this.

followed by

 

 

 

Are you punking all of us?

 

Nothing secedes like success.

[PeterMP]

I don't know about the former part of your statement. (1) It's not inconsistent with my point. (stay in the military and be stationed out of the way). The latter two parts of your statement seem more in conflict with my understanding. (2) Lee did resign but only after his meeting with Winfield Scott..

Lee's Resignation Letter Addressed to WinField Scott.. 4/20/1861.

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/letter-from-robert-e-lee-to.html

(2) The time line doesn't support this conclusion...

April 17, 1861 - Virginia Succeeded

April 18, 1861 - Windfield Scott summons Lee to his residence for a meeting

At this meeting Scott offers command of the union army to Lee and tells Lee there is no middle ground.

April 20, 1861 - Lee resigns his commission in the US army and offers his services to the Confederacy.

Lee's first position with the Confederacy is as an adviser to President Jefferson Davis.

 

 

I would also note that the National Park Service disagrees with you.   The museum on the grounds of Arlington National Cemetery  has a presentation where they state, "no other choice was possible for Lee except to fight for the South".

 

My memory was off, but you don't seem to be doing much better.

 

Lee was offered the army that was being called up to protect DC (which later would become the union's main army).  Then he goes and visits Scott.

 

He offers to sit out the war in Arlington (not somewhere else).  Scott tells him he can't sit it out (as a member of the military), and he should resign ASAP (if that's his plan).

 

http://www.americanheritage.com/content/robert-e-lee%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cseverest-struggle%E2%80%9D?page=3

 

"When Lee raised the idea of sitting out the conflict at Arlington, Scott said he had no room in his army for equivocal officers. If he wanted to resign, Scott brusquely informed him, he better do it right away, before he received official orders."

 

My reading of the situation is that Lee wants to be in the US military, but not fight.  Scott says you can't do that.

 

Not that he can't simply sit in Arlington.

 

And the actual VA secession didn't happen until May 23rd.  The convention in Richmond votes in favor it on April 17th, but then actually puts it to a public vote, which happened on May 23rd.

 

(It is probably worth pointing out that there were military people that DID sit out the fight:

 

"Dennis Hart Mahan, a famed West Point instructor, and another proud Virginian, chose to sit out the war. North Carolinian Alfred Mordecai resigned his commission, but rejected an offer to lead either the Confederate ordinance service or engineer department.")

 

With respect to Lee in TX:

 

http://www.americanheritage.com/content/robert-e-lee%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cseverest-struggle%E2%80%9D?page=2

 

"When he drove away from Texas, a fellow-officer called after him: “Colonel, do you intend to go South or remain North?” Lee stuck his head out of a covered wagon and replied, “I shall never bear arms against the United States—but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in defence of my native State, Virginia, in which case I shall not prove recreant to my duty.”"

 

Based on what I know, I suspect that Lee could have resigned from his commission in the US military and sat at home in Arlington, not just as a member of the US military.

 

At the end of the day, Lee appears to have believed the defense of VA was more important than his oath to defend the US and that's something he felt well before VA seceded.

[PeterMP]

You tell me?  I made the point, which is right, that technology would've phased out Southern slavery.   I was then told "well, what about maids?"  I then made the point that a war wouldn't have been fought over that because there wasn't any economical dependence by the States in regards to maid work.  I didn't say blacks should be forced to be maids.  To go further, like the Civil Rights movement, an unpaid maid would've eventually been paid, just like women eventually got the right to vote. If laws came into existence that said "pay maids wages", there wouldn't have been a massive uprising that would've led to a war.  I hope that explains it.  Sometimes I underestimate some people's ability to use common sense here so I guess I have to spoon feed my words more carefully.

Have you ever heard of the concept of bartering? 

 

I'd like to point out that the Civil Rights Movement didn't happen "on it's own".

 

It happened because people MADE it happen.  People suffered, were beaten, bleed, jailed, and even died over a period of decades and at who knows what financial costs with respect to the US as a whole for the Civil Rights movement to happen.

 

There is no reason to believe that everybody in the US would have given up slaves by some magic 'on their own' (even in spite of economic costs).

 

Yes as economics dictated, the number of slaves would have greatly decreased in the US, but that's different than slavery ending.

[Predicto]

Neo-confederate revisionism is only common sense if you want it to be.

[War Paint]

I'd like to point out that the Civil Rights Movement didn't happen "on it's own".

 

It happened because people MADE it happen.  People suffered, were beaten, bleed, jailed, and even died for the Civil Rights movement to happen.

 

There is no reason to believe that everybody in the US would have given up slaves by some magic 'on their own' (even in spite of economic costs).

 

Yes as economics dictated, the number of slaves would have greatly decreased in the US, but that's different than slavery ending.

I understand that sometimes violence can happen when change is being made.  I was bringing up scenarios that could've prevented a massive civil war.  That said, I understand that I'm playing Captain Hindsight and Monday morning QBing on an event that took place 160+ years ago is easier to do than the ones who were actually involved in the decision making back then.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I understand that sometimes violence can happen when change is being made.  I was bringing up scenarios that could've prevented a massive civil war.  That said, I understand that I'm playing Captain Hindsight and Monday morning QBing on an event that took place 160+ years ago is easier to do than the ones where actually involved in the decision making back then.

 

I want you to explain what year you think slavery eventually would have faded away and what economic and societal trends would have caused that.

[PeterMP]

I understand that sometimes violence can happen when change is being made.  I was bringing up scenarios that could've prevented a massive civil war.  That said, I understand that I'm playing Captain Hindsight and Monday morning QBing on an event that took place 160+ years ago is easier to do than the ones where actually involved in the decision making back then.

You brought up ONE scenario that would have prevented a Civil War, and then claimed the same result would have happened "on its own" without explanation of how AND why it would have happened.

 

And ignored the fact that even after the economics of the situation with respect to the US as a whole no longer (and realistically they NEVER did) make the oppression (as slaves or not as slaves through other political/socioecomomic constructs) of a group of people based primarily on race reasonable, it continued.

[War Paint]

You brought up ONE scenario that would have prevented a Civil War, and then claimed the same result would have happened "on its own" without explanation of how AND why it would have happened.

 

Ummm....yeah.  I said that technology would've eventually phased out Southern slavery on it's own.  I also said that the Civil War could've been prevented if the Federal Government funded the development of agricultural technology to speed up the process instead of funding a war.  What's so hard to understand about that?

[mcsluggo]

I'd like to point out that the Civil Rights Movement didn't happen "on it's own".

 

It happened because people MADE it happen.  People suffered, were beaten, bleed, jailed, and even died for the Civil Rights movement to happen.

 

There is no reason to believe that everybody in the US would have given up slaves by some magic 'on their own' (even in spite of economic costs).

 

Yes as economics dictated, the number of slaves would have greatly decreased in the US, but that's different than slavery ending.

 

i don't buy that last line, even, as a given.   The slaves were already THERE.  they were owned and in place.  northern and western agriculture mechanized both because the technology emerged earlier, but also because they HAD to, because labor was expensive (compared the "free" stuff down south).  When they first started switching over to more capital intensive methods, they were NOT much more effcient than the labor intensive operations, but then the gap widened as the mechanisms got more efficient (through use and trail and error and othe general technological progress that occurs through actually using technology)

 

in the south, the slaves were already owned, and they also reproduce.   All you have to do is feed them (and pay to keep them in chains and downtrodden, of course).   But the south, and southern plantations didn't have to pay big capital costs, they already had the slaves.   The southern model was trapped in a lower technology/innovation growth method of production, but that is far cry from saying that they would lose money continuing those operations.   It was an efficient means of production from the standpoint of the plantaion owners as long as production was greater than costs... and most of the slavery costs were already sunk, so variable costs were not so bad.  (and again...they didn't have to take on the crushing debt for buying expensive capital equipment).  

 

It is ONLY an efficient model if you ONLY divide the surplus (profits) amongst the few plantation owners, and the slaves are cut out of the up side, but as long as you CAN do that, that system could limp on for quite a long time, with the slave-owners continuing to live pretty damned well....  it is not a given that the south would've suddenly mechanized, if they <had not> been forced to.  And even if they HAD... mechanization can take many paths, and if you have labor that only costs capital owners the cost of barely feeding them... mechanization patterns could take a completely different trajectory that capitalizes on a bountiful supply of nearly free labor.  

 

to put it another way.... Mexican elite did pretty damned well for nearly a full century after the american civil war on the back of very cheap labor and very little capital expediture, (except by foreign multilaterals in targeted areas--- like the oil sector)  .   THe country on the whole didn't do so well (particularly the workers) but the elite did just fine.   

 

Slavery ended in 1965, and it STILL took generations for the south to mechanize, because even when the slaves were freed...there still was a huge surplus of very cheap labor.  The share-cropping model (and other methods of capitalizing on very cheap labor) continued for decades and decades.

[War Paint]

I want you to explain what year you think slavery eventually would have faded away and what economic and societal trends would have caused that.

If there was a true funding of agriculture technology instead of a massive Civil War, I would say the process would've been sped up rapidly and slavery would've been phased out completely by the end of the 1800's.  The war set back the technology timeline several decades because the South had to rebuild.

 

What do you have against finding solutions that don't involve war? 

[Slateman]

I'm always turned off by strong opinions in these threads on either side. Very much like abortion threads. Just a very complicated issue

Now that said, saying the war was about slavery is not an opinion, it is a fact. I just have a hard time judging everyone of that era who sided with the south as some do so comfortably. And I also dislike the aura of righteousness that is attached to the North... Persisting even to this day. What a joke

To say it was about slavery is making it painfully simple. Or, more precisely, completely not understanding the economics and politics of the day.

[Predicto]

Ummm....yeah.  I said that technology would've eventually phased out Southern slavery.  I also said that the Civil War could've been prevented if the Federal Government funded the development of agricultural technology to speed up the process instead of funding a war.  What's so hard to understand about that?

 

The federal government didn't fund anything like that back then.  The idea would never have occurred to anyone, even anyone understood that this would "speed up the process of the ending of slavery."  No one would have understood that idea either.  These are all concepts that require late 20th century understandings of government and economics.  

 

Moreover, a huge part of the wealth in the south was in the slaves themselves.   The south had absolutely no interest in devaluing their own capital stock.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

If there was a true funding of agriculture technology instead of a massive Civil War, I would say the process would've been sped up rapidly and slavery would've been phased out completely by the end of the 1800's.  The war set back the technology timeline several decades because the South had to rebuild.

 

What do you have against finding solutions that don't involve war? 

 

 

Funding of agriculture technology by whom?

 

The idea of governmenet investment you are proposing did not exist until the end of the 19th Century and even then was controversial. It certainly would have been ridiculously unpopular among Southern elected officials.

 

Also, what happens to the slaves once they are "phased out?" Slaves outnumbered whites in South Carolina. South Carolina whites weren't suddenly going to turn themselves into an electoral minority.

 

I'm never going to argue with McSluggo on economic analysis. I will say that he left out the actual value of slaves as a "product" in his discussion though. One of the big reasons for the Civil War was the fight over slavery in the territories. And there were myriad reasons for this fight. But a big one was the economic benefit of selling slaves into the territories. To many owners, the slaves were more valuable as a commodity to sell than in their labor output.

[Predicto]

If there was a true funding of agriculture technology instead of a massive Civil War, I would say the process would've been sped up rapidly and slavery would've been phased out completely by the end of the 1800's.  The war set back the technology timeline several decades because the South had to rebuild.

 

What do you have against finding solutions that don't involve war? 

 

 

40 years more of millions of people in slavery.    A couple of generations more of millions of innocents being enslaved.  

 

I see no problem with that.  

[PeterMP]

Ummm....yeah.  I said that technology would've eventually phased out Southern slavery.  I also said that the Civil War could've been prevented if the Federal Government funded the development of agricultural technology to speed up the process instead of funding a war.  What's so hard to understand about that?

 

Well, you said slavery, and you said it would have ended.

 

I'm asking why.  Let's ignore mcsluggo's post.  Why would slavery been gotten rid of totally?

 

And again, ignoring mcsluggo's post.

 

With respect to the rest, it isn't like that was a real choice.  In 1860, if the north had said, don't seceded and we'll start funding more research on farm technology and mass production of said equipment the southern states wouldn't have said, 'Great idea.  Let's do it.'

 

The choice in 1861 was not:

A.  fund the war

B.  fund farm technology

 

Given the restraints on technology and development, you would have needed somebody in 1830 to say in 30 years we are going to pay a big costs to fight a big expensive Civil War in the 1860s that we might be able to avoid if we start doing research in things like mass production and farming technology.

 

I suspect the majority of the Americans, including those in the south, would have rejected that idea.

 

What you are suggesting isn't a case where one person had to see things slightly differently.  You really are requiring essentially the whole US to have a different perspective.

[mcsluggo]

If there was a true funding of agriculture technology instead of a massive Civil War, I would say the process would've been sped up rapidly and slavery would've been phased out completely by the end of the 1800's.  The war set back the technology timeline several decades because the South had to rebuild.

 

What do you have against finding solutions that don't involve war? 

it wasn't war recovery and rebuilding that set the south back for decades after the war.    Germany, France, Belgium, Japan etc... rebuilt MUCH faster than the south ... hell, they rebuilt BEFORE the south, even though WWII was 80 years later.

[PeterMP]

Moreover, a huge part of the wealth in the south was in the slaves themselves.   The south had absolutely no interest in devaluing their own capital stock.

 

Slaves sold for what today is $40,000.

 

There was huge money in the slave market at the time.  The idea of inventing equipment to "phase them out" would not have been appealing to a large number of people, mostly living in the south.

[JMS]

When the Hell was this? I have read three dozen books on this and NEVER saw this.

In the winter of 1864-1865, President Jefferson Davis sent Confederate Congressman Duncan Kenner of Louisiana, a long-time advocate of arming slaves, on a secret diplomatic mission. In a effort to convince Britain and France to issue formal recognition of Confederate independence, Davis offered emancipation of the slaves.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/314895/Kenner-mission

Kenner mission

 

Kenner mission, in U.S. history, secret attempt on the part of the Confederacy in 1864 to elicit European recognition in exchange for Southern abolition of slavery.

Duncan Farrar Kenner, a prosperous Louisiana sugar planter and Thoroughbred horse breeder, represented his state in the Confederate House of Representatives throughout the war. As the conflict dragged on, he became increasingly convinced that the South could not win without English and French recognition of the legitimacy of the Confederate government.

In 1864 Kenner convinced Confederate Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamin to send a special commission to Europe, offering the abolition of slavery in exchange for recognition. The South was desperate, and Pres. Jefferson Davis reluctantly agreed to the plan. But Davis knew that such a proposal would inflame Southern opinion, and he decided to send Kenner alone to Europe without informing the Confederate Congress.

Bearing the title minister plenipotentiary and in disguise, Kenner made his way to New York and sailed for Europe on Feb. 11, 1865. The South was clearly defeated by the time he arrived, however, and the mission accomplished nothing.