Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 6th, 2012, 03:51 PM   #21

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil View Post
Those Southern leaders were slave owners themselves. They did not want to believe that the massive personal investment they had in slaves was wasted. Perhaps it was inconceivable to them that they could personally survive the end of slavery, in a business sense.
Not just personally. They believed Southern society could not survive the end of slavery. Here's Jefferson Davis:

Quote:
"In the meantime, under the mild and genial climate of the Southern States and the increasing care and attention for the well-being and comfort of the laboring class, dictated alike by interest and humanity, the African slaves had augmented in number from about 600,000, at the date of the adoption of the constitutional compact, to upward of 4,000,000. In moral and social condition they had been elevated from brutal savages into docile, intelligent, and civilized agricultural laborers, and supplied not only with bodily comforts but with careful religious instruction. Under the supervision of a superior race their labor had been so directed as not only to allow a gradual and marked amelioration of their own condition, but to convert hundreds of thousands of square miles of wilderness into cultivated lands covered with a prosperous people; towns and cities had sprung into existence, and had rapidly increased in wealth and population under the social system of the South; the white population of the Southern slaveholding States had augmented form about 1,250,000 at the date of the adoption of the Constitution to more than 8,500,000 in 1860; and the productions of the South in cotton, rice, sugar, and tobacco, for the full development and continuance of which the labor of African slaves was and is indispensable, had swollen to an amount which formed nearly three-fourths of the exports of the whole United States and had become absolutely necessary to the wants of civilized man." - Jefferson Davis, April 29, 1861

Source: Message of Jefferson Davis
Rongo is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 6th, 2012, 03:58 PM   #22
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: USA
Posts: 4,015

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
Not just personally. They believed Southern society could not survive the end of slavery. Here's Jefferson Davis:
What if Davis was searching for a reason for what was beginning? All hell was breaking loose, they needed to define what they were fighting for. I know what they were fighting against. They were fighting against the damn Yankees who were telling them what to do. They needed an excuse as to what they were fighting for I think.
Virgil is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 04:00 PM   #23

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil View Post
What if Davis was searching for a reason for what was beginning? All hell was breaking loose, they needed to define what they were fighting for. I know what they were fighting against. They were fighting against the damn Yankees who were telling them what to do. They needed an excuse as to what they were fighting for I think.
What were the damn Yankees telling them to do?
Rongo is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 04:11 PM   #24
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: USA
Posts: 4,015

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
What were the damn Yankees telling them to do?
They were telling them they could not have their slaves anymore, and that new states entering the union would not be slave states. To me, that could not be more personal in nature, as if these Southern gentlemen were driven by pride to prove that the personal system that worked in their lives should not be discarded. I believe the whole discussion came down to foolish pride on both sides, but especially on the part of the southern plantation owners.
Virgil is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 04:27 PM   #25

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil View Post
They were telling them they could not have their slaves anymore, and that new states entering the union would not be slave states. To me, that could not be more personal in nature, as if these Southern gentlemen were driven by pride to prove that the personal system that worked in their lives should not be discarded. I believe the whole discussion came down to foolish pride on both sides, but especially on the part of the southern plantation owners.
No doubt Southern pride played a part in it. They didn't like those "damn Yankees" calling an institution "wrong" that they felt was "absolutely necessary to the wants of civilized man."

Lincoln summed it up in a letter to his friend Alexander Stephens, who would become VP of the CSA:

Quote:
"You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us." - Abraham Lincoln, December 22, 1860

Source: Letter to Alexander H. Stephens by Abraham Lincoln
Rongo is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 10:28 PM   #26

Patito de Hule's Avatar
Quack
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 3,319
Blog Entries: 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashiusx View Post
America if I am not mistaken was the only country to have a civil war over abolitioning slavery. Well according to Ron Paul.
Interesting discussion. On this particular point, it is certainly true that there have been slave rebellions from time immemorial. (Would the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt be considered one?) But the rebellion in St. Domingue (Haiti) was pretty much a civil war as well as a slave rebellion. The difference, of course, that makes the ACW unique is that the latter was a war between two sections of the country over whether slavery could be preserved in one of those sections. (And I believe even that point could be legitimately argued.) I'm not familiar with the Ron Paul quote or the context, but I'm sure he was trying to make some other point.

Was it true that slavery was a dying institution just before the invention of the cotton gin? My opinion is that it was a dying institution befoe that, but that the cotton gin gave it some additional impetus to grow. The same could be said for the plantation economy. With the cotton gin, short staple cotton became economical, and only short staple cotton could be grown in much of the south. Thus it allowed expansion of cotton plantations to the southwest. Expansion of slavery to the southwest was also deemed necessary to make slavery on a large scale.

Slavery was an ancient institution. But its ugliest manifestation, IMO, came with the
Middle_Passage Middle_Passage
and the large scale institution of chattel slavery in the Americas. The winter of slavery's lifetime came with the European Enlightenment and the recognition of something called human rights. While Europe and North America were waking up to human rights, chattel slavery was advancing to a point where in the South the majority of the population was actually black slaves. Another characteristic there was the fact that it was solely based on "race" and the fact that one drop of African blood made a man an African. At least that was the usual attitude, even long after the ACW. (For some interesting corollaries, read The Blacker the Berry, the novel by Wallace Thurman of the Harlem Renaissance era.)

While slavery was still on life support in the United States until 1865, I believe it would have died by 1900, or by the end of WWI at the latest. Public opinion just wouldn't have stood for it any longer.
Patito de Hule is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 11:44 AM   #27

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patito de Hule View Post
...Was it true that slavery was a dying institution just before the invention of the cotton gin? My opinion is that it was a dying institution befoe that, but that the cotton gin gave it some additional impetus to grow. The same could be said for the plantation economy. With the cotton gin, short staple cotton became economical, and only short staple cotton could be grown in much of the south...
I think the attitude of slaveholders towards slavery varied according to the profitability they reaped from it. Prior to the invention of the cotton gin, slavery was only modestly profitable (in the South) and slaveholders tended to look upon slavery as something that needed to be eliminated (over time). It was even less profitable in the North, and slaveholders there began to look at it as something that could be eliminated immediately.

With the invention of the cotton gin, however, slavery became quite profitable in the South. Suddenly slaveholders found a way to justify it. Over and over again you see it in the words of the plantation owners: slavery was a blessing, not just to the white race, but to the black race. It brought them civilization, culture and Christianity and freed them from a life of heathen savagery. Over generations of time they convinced themselves of this, to the point that on the eve of the Civil War they truly believed it.

This is just human nature. If you can save a dollar by buying a product that you know was made by slave labor, many people would probably avoid buying that product. But if you can save a thousand dollars by buying that product, many more people will buy it and find a way to justify it.
Rongo is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 02:31 PM   #28

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,394
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashiusx View Post
America if I am not mistaken was the only country to have a civil war over abolitioning slavery. Well according to Ron Paul.
I'm not familiar with Dr. Paul's comments either, he's a pretty bright fellow, but he gets
a lot of 'quotes' attributed to him by people who seem to never be able to find the
real quote. But as far as I know, he's right on this one. There have been slave rebellions
in other nations, but that was the slave fighting back, not a civil war like the US had. If anyone
knows of a new nation being born when the slaves were successful in their rebellion, other than
Toussaint in San Domingue, I would enjoy studying it .
tjadams is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 02:41 PM   #29

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,394
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
This is just human nature. If you can save a dollar by buying a product that you know was made by slave labor, many people would probably avoid buying that product. But if you can save a thousand dollars by buying that product, many more people will buy it and find a way to justify it.
That reminds me of a short interview I saw with Apple Ceo Tim Cook.
He was asked how come so much of the Apple products are made in China (out sourcing )
and not in the US & if made in the US, would the price of the product go up?
He replied, "the glass for the screen is made in the US..." and other such flimsy, dance-around
answers. You're correct. People care content with the final product and don't/didn't worry about
'how' the product was made.
tjadams is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 03:20 PM   #30

Patito de Hule's Avatar
Quack
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 3,319
Blog Entries: 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashiusx View Post
America if I am not mistaken was the only country to have a civil war over abolitioning slavery. Well according to Ron Paul.
Ron Paul has made numerous statements in the near past saying the civil war was a mistake and wrong-headed on the part of the North. The statement referred to was probably one he made "a few days before" the video I found was posted on Jan 7, 2012. This falls in the prohibited period after 1990, and is a highly controversial speech. However, I see no point in not quoting the statement he made in the video. I have left out punctuation and filler words as I was typing as fast as I could:

Quote:
There were eleven countries up until that that time and shortly after in this hemisphere in north and south america that had slavery every one of them got rid of slavery without war.
Patito de Hule is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
cotton, dying, gin, invention, slavery, true


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cotton In Japan 1991sudarshan Asian History 10 May 13th, 2012 03:34 AM
English Cotton History kingchristo European History 15 January 26th, 2011 11:46 PM
Cotton In U.S. History willhartbrown History Help 1 October 2nd, 2010 09:10 PM
Was cotton king? Commander American History 10 July 11th, 2006 03:34 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.