Southern Secession

As a peer-reviewed economic historian, I'm appalled a history prof politicized history this way.

 

How is it "hypocritical" to acknowledge the historical fact that the South seceded because of slavery? You aren't making any sense.

 

And there's the rub, right there

 

Please let this play out.

I do like a fun circus act

 

They're political opportunists who can exploit separatist sentiment as long as there is little chance it could happen. It's about power in the Republican Party.

Southerners who wanted to preserve their way of life (read: slavery) gambled the North wouldn't fight. They lost their bet.

It's a silly argument, no better today than it ever was.

 

Prior to the 1960s, the Democrats were a bifurcated on race. The southern Democrats supported segregation and Jim Crow while the northern branch of the party ignored the issue. The Democrats didn’t support integrating the armed forces until Harry Truman did it in the 1940s.

The landmark Brown vs. the Board of Education Supreme Court decision had two interesting lead attorneys. It is well known that Thurgood Marshal presented case for desegregation. What far less known is that the John W. Davis, who was the 1924 Democratic nominee for president, presented the case against it.



In 1956, Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, sent troops into Little Rock Arkansas to enforce the school deregulation ruling. The Southern Democrat politicians were on the other side. Eisenhower and the Republicans were instrumental in getting the first civil rights bill passed in 1957.

That changed with Lyndon Johnson and his 1964 Civil Rights Act. It passed with a lot of support from Republicans and opposition from southern Democrats. Johnson had a politically cynical approach. He figured that he would get African-Americans to vote Democrat for the next 100 years, and so far, he’s been right.

Senator Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act. He made it an important part of his 1964 “A choice, but not an echo” campaign. It started what was called “the southern strategy” which flipped the South from Democrat to Republican.



According most pundits, the “southern strategy” came into full bloom for the Republicans with Richard Nixon in 1968.



The result was not more racism. It was quite the opposite. Even hard core segregationists, like George Wallace, came over and got the support of African-American votes.

Neither party has clean hands with respect to racism. Both sides are guilty. The real question is, where does the issue go now? Will some politicians use it to their advantage by opening up old wounds for votes, or will we move forward?

 

If they were found guilty of treason, then death

 

Half of your labor is going to capital.




I was a grocery clerk in January 1964. I made $3.05/hour. We got double-time on Sundays and Holidays. That $3.05 would be $30.02 today.

https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

Grocery clerks make 20% less today. There are plenty of examples of workers with outdated skills doing much worse.

We're replacing workers looking after themselves with the worst off among them depending upon government assistance like SNAP, Obamacare, etc. to keep their heads above water.

Rich folks are running the table in a new Gilded Age. They control government and they're using your money to help other workers. You blame Democrats for helping poor people. Egads.

You're blaming Democrats for what's happening in Mexico?

 

That's what he said. He had no negotiating partner for that option.

 

Revisionist secessionist gaslighting.

Yes, that and every other shred of evidence.

 

"Power" is always an objective. You can't do much without power.

 

If you leave the Civil War out of your discussion, then it's not. But note that, though that had been your OP's claim, to focus solely on the cause, and to ignore the actual War, this was your post, to which I had been replying:

yardmeat said: ↑
We heard that one all of the time. That <the War of Northern Aggression> or "The War Between States." The truth behind the Confederacy's motives* was always kept hush-hush. Hell, I'm not even sure it is legal to teach kids that truth in Florida anymore.
<End Post>


*This clearly reads as your saying that the "Confederacy's motives" for "the War Between the States," was slavery-- not that it was their motive for Secession.

It seems nearly impossible to expect to so cleanly separate & discuss the one, without mentioning the other. And once you start talking about the war, then it's no longer just about slavery, for either side.

 

Yes. Taken by me...


Dachau

 

Yes. Households are what really count. Counting an 8 month old baby as not being a slaveowner is stupid as ****. Women also generally weren't allowed to own property, including slaves. Older male kids STOOD TO INHERIT THE ****ING SLAVES. Thing. For a second, just THINK.

 

Your attempt to cover up Southern Democrats leaving the Democratic Party for the GOP...



... isn't working.

 

I'm talking about the motives for secession. But, hey, if you look at how quickly the South started confiscating Federal arms and building an army, they clearly knew it meant war. Yes, they were definitely willing to go to war to preserve and expand slavery. No, there is nothing "hypocritical" about acknowledging this objective historical fact.

 

Why does it matter how many people owned slaves?
The governments of those states ALLOWED slavery. I don't care if only one person owned a slave in Mississippi, the state of Mississippi allowed slavery. They had laws that not only allowed slavery but protected it. That's what you should be looking at.

 

The revisionists like to claim that secession wasn't about slavery because not that many people owned slaves. It's worth addressing. Though we have documents from the time period showing that even the non-slaveowners were in favor of slavery for a whole variety of reasons.

 

Chilling.

 

There's a direct line from Southern Democrats in 1860 to Jim Crow Democrats to Southern Republicans today.

 

And you have just proven my point: if you look at how quickly your thread about the "motives for Secession," starts to lay the cause of the Civil War, solely at the feet of the Confederacy, clearly that is part of your purpose. So you are doing exactly the opposite of what you claim to be your intention.

In this particular post of yours, "disingenuous" does probably fit better than "hypocritical."

In point of fact, the Confederacy was not well organized, so the decisions of individuals (as in the firing upon Fort Sumter) were more decisive than the overall will of Southerners, or even of the Confederate government. In point of fact, any nation needs to defend itself, so forming an army is an indictment of nothing other than the desire to be a viable state. In point of fact, the Confederacy sent diplomats to Washington, to discuss their Secession, with President Lincoln-- indicating their desire to avoid a conflict-- but Lincoln refused to see them. That would suggest, to any thinking person, that it was Lincoln who was resolved, from the start, that this could not end with any negotiated parting of the nation: it was Lincoln who was not only willing to go to war, but who had already decided that war was his only recourse.

 

And everyone knows Southern Democrats morphed into the Republicans they are today.

Nope. This did...

13th Amendment

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

 

Uhm, sex tourism in the US is not something the cartels do. This occurs with people with high incomes who want their child to be a US Citizen so that when they retire, and their kid has a great job, can sponsor them to come to live with them permenately, and so forth. The poor are mostly human trafficked in one form or another. This is not just on the US Border, but pretty much everywhere when there is high demand. Other places are the North Korean/China border, the Columbia/Venezuela border, parts of Africa where war, strife, and famine is a constant occurrence along with a weak government, and other places.

For the cartels, they see this as a "business." Whether it be drug trafficking, human trafficking, and occasionally, force servitude. But forced servitude also happens in places like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and in parts of the US where the person is on a temporary visa or work visa. Many are domestic help or as an au pair program here in the US. For the other countries I have listed, it is more common than here. Although the Au Pair program has gotten some improvements, it still occurs when the family sponsoring the person takes away their passport, their communication, and charges them food and rent, which is a violation of the program. And if they complain, they will either threaten them with deporation or worse, jail. In places like Singapore, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, they do the same, except the government and police will believe them more than a foreigner, or with a little corruption of payment under the table, will arrest them and hold them until they either acquiesce or commit suicide.


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/au-pair-program-abuse-state-department-214956/
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/feb/26/qatar-foreign-workers-slave-conditions
https://www.theguardian.com/global-...omestic-workers-tell-of-abuse-in-saudi-arabia
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-kafala-system
https://coconuts.co/singapore/featu...used-to-market-domestic-workers-in-singapore/

 

And yet pro Confederate groups use a similar flag that is more rectangular than square to show their "loyalty and support" to the confederacy. But none of this disproves the point in which you responded to.

 

the KKK started three times. The first time was in 1865 by Nathan Bedford Forest. It started the group to protest the reconstruction and the newly acquired rights and freedoms that slaves were granted. This lasted about three to four years. It was suppressed by the Federal Government and was considered an illegal militia. The second Klan was started in 1915 in Stone Mountan, Georgia by William Joseph Simmons. Originally, the group didn't go after blacks, it went after Catholics at first. This was more of a fraternal organization. Ironically, the second Klan was inspired by a book called The Klansman: A historical romance of the Ku Klux Klan by Thomas Dixon. This inspired the movie The Birth of a Nation. They used paid recruiters, professional business models, and so forth to get their membership. Furthermore, author W J Cash in his book The Mind of the South wrote that the second klan and people in the South as "anti-Negro, anti-Alien, anti-Red, anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, anti-Darwin, anti-Modern, anti-Liberal, Fundamentalist, vastly Moral, [and] militantly Protestant. And summing up these fears, it brought them into focus with the tradition of the past, and above all with the ancient Southern pattern of high romantic histrionics, violence and mass coercion of the scapegoat and the heretic." Most of these ideas were that of the founder of the second Klan and still resonate with certain segments in the South, especially Anti Alien, Anti Darwin, Anti Modern, Anti Liberal, Fundamentalist, vastly moral, and militantly protestant. And the third Klan was started in the 1950s and used by many independent groups who opposed the Civil Rights Movement, And to this day, that is where the rectangular Confederate Flag came into being and was used as the Confederate Flag of the past.

History is continually repeating itself and some people have not learned from history, unfortunately.