quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

He argues that the United States needs the Civil War to be about slavery

It needs to be about slavery because it is the truth...Slavery was the cornerstone of the Confederacy... there was no other reason for the succession. Those that think state rights had anything to do with it are wrong and just hiding from the truth. All they need to do is read Alexander Stephens speech... All led from slavery and the slave driven economy with state rights as an excuse to justify their enslavement of humans for profit.

I do believe many of the young men who fought and died for the Confederacy were just fighting for home and pride but the war was started because of slavery and greed.

Butch

Well, from what I've read, admittedly only a couple of books, Lincoln feared that including black Americans in the army would cause the border states to secede; and so black Americans were able to enlist in 1862.

So, what does this tell you? That at the outset of the war maintaining the union was the most important issue for Lincoln? And, that not only in Southern states was there segregation?

Black soldiers did not receive equal pay or equal treatment in the Union Army, and their captains didn't bother training them in some instances as they had no faith in them.

That doesn't sound like a sudden redemption in one part of the country to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

He argues that the United States needs the Civil War to be about slavery

It needs to be about slavery because it is the truth...Slavery was the cornerstone of the Confederacy... there was no other reason for the succession. Those that think state rights had anything to do with it are wrong and just hiding from the truth. All they need to do is read Alexander Stephens speech... All led from slavery and the slave driven economy with state rights as an excuse to justify their enslavement of humans for profit.

I do believe many of the young men who fought and died for the Confederacy were just fighting for home and pride but the war was started because of slavery and greed.

Butch

Well, from what I've read, admittedly only a couple of books, Lincoln feared that including black Americans in the army would cause the border states to secede; and so black Americans were able to enlist in 1862.

So, what does this tell you? That at the outset of the war maintaining the union was the most important issue for Lincoln? And, that not only in Southern states was there segregation?

Black soldiers did not receive equal pay or equal treatment in the Union Army, and their captains didn't bother training them in some instances as they had no faith in them.

That doesn't sound like a sudden redemption in one part of the country to me.

They only went to using blacks in large numbers when the volunteers dried up.
Why?
Because while the Irish in particular volunteered in droves to protect the Union, they weren't going to fight to help blacks compete with them at the bottom of the economic ladder. Remember this was a time when "Irish need not apply" was a common statement at the bottom of help wanted signs. It is virtually unknown that Meade could not pursue Lee after Gettysburg because he had to take his army to New York to put down the "draft riots" which was basically Irishmen lynching every black they could get their hands on. Worst outbreak of racial violence in the nations history.

Yes, and in London mid to late 19th century, Irishmen gave the arriving Eastern Europeans a hard time. Just as East Enders had given the Irish a hard time. Over jobs. Where I live there was a massive influx of Irish and you can still hear the phrase from the older generation when things seem untidy: "it's like Paddy's Alley in here". Seems to me that when people, all people, feel their livelihood threatened all reason goes out of the window.

I understand, although you would know better than me, that although England had outlawed African slavery, they were still, in effect, selling Irish into slavery well after the U S Civil war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

He argues that the United States needs the Civil War to be about slavery

It needs to be about slavery because it is the truth...Slavery was the cornerstone of the Confederacy... there was no other reason for the succession. Those that think state rights had anything to do with it are wrong and just hiding from the truth. All they need to do is read Alexander Stephens speech... All led from slavery and the slave driven economy with state rights as an excuse to justify their enslavement of humans for profit.

I do believe many of the young men who fought and died for the Confederacy were just fighting for home and pride but the war was started because of slavery and greed.

Butch

Well, from what I've read, admittedly only a couple of books, Lincoln feared that including black Americans in the army would cause the border states to secede; and so black Americans were able to enlist in 1862.

So, what does this tell you? That at the outset of the war maintaining the union was the most important issue for Lincoln? And, that not only in Southern states was there segregation?

Black soldiers did not receive equal pay or equal treatment in the Union Army, and their captains didn't bother training them in some instances as they had no faith in them.

That doesn't sound like a sudden redemption in one part of the country to me.

They only went to using blacks in large numbers when the volunteers dried up.
Why?
Because while the Irish in particular volunteered in droves to protect the Union, they weren't going to fight to help blacks compete with them at the bottom of the economic ladder. Remember this was a time when "Irish need not apply" was a common statement at the bottom of help wanted signs. It is virtually unknown that Meade could not pursue Lee after Gettysburg because he had to take his army to New York to put down the "draft riots" which was basically Irishmen lynching every black they could get their hands on. Worst outbreak of racial violence in the nations history.

Yes, and in London mid to late 19th century, Irishmen gave the arriving Eastern Europeans a hard time. Just as East Enders had given the Irish a hard time. Over jobs. Where I live there was a massive influx of Irish and you can still hear the phrase from the older generation when things seem untidy: "it's like Paddy's Alley in here". Seems to me that when people, all people, feel their livelihood threatened all reason goes out of the window.

I understand, although you would know better than me, that although England had outlawed African slavery, they were still, in effect, selling Irish into slavery well after the U S Civil war.

It was dog eat dog in that world, and working class Englishmen were just as much on the receiving end as anyone else. It wasn't particularly based upon nationality. More a sense that where there was a profit then everyone was fair game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

He argues that the United States needs the Civil War to be about slavery

It needs to be about slavery because it is the truth...Slavery was the cornerstone of the Confederacy... there was no other reason for the succession. Those that think state rights had anything to do with it are wrong and just hiding from the truth. All they need to do is read Alexander Stephens speech... All led from slavery and the slave driven economy with state rights as an excuse to justify their enslavement of humans for profit.

I do believe many of the young men who fought and died for the Confederacy were just fighting for home and pride but the war was started because of slavery and greed.

Butch

Well, from what I've read, admittedly only a couple of books, Lincoln feared that including black Americans in the army would cause the border states to secede; and so black Americans were able to enlist in 1862.

So, what does this tell you? That at the outset of the war maintaining the union was the most important issue for Lincoln? And, that not only in Southern states was there segregation?

Black soldiers did not receive equal pay or equal treatment in the Union Army, and their captains didn't bother training them in some instances as they had no faith in them.

That doesn't sound like a sudden redemption in one part of the country to me.

They only went to using blacks in large numbers when the volunteers dried up.
Why?
Because while the Irish in particular volunteered in droves to protect the Union, they weren't going to fight to help blacks compete with them at the bottom of the economic ladder. Remember this was a time when "Irish need not apply" was a common statement at the bottom of help wanted signs. It is virtually unknown that Meade could not pursue Lee after Gettysburg because he had to take his army to New York to put down the "draft riots" which was basically Irishmen lynching every black they could get their hands on. Worst outbreak of racial violence in the nations history.

Yes, and in London mid to late 19th century, Irishmen gave the arriving Eastern Europeans a hard time. Just as East Enders had given the Irish a hard time. Over jobs. Where I live there was a massive influx of Irish and you can still hear the phrase from the older generation when things seem untidy: "it's like Paddy's Alley in here". Seems to me that when people, all people, feel their livelihood threatened all reason goes out of the window.

I understand, although you would know better than me, that although England had outlawed African slavery, they were still, in effect, selling Irish into slavery well after the U S Civil war.

For clarification, does that mean I am correct? It seems that Australia was a "penal colony" for some time after that. I realize that sentencing to a penal colony and slavery aren't the same thing, unless it is used for that purpose.
It was dog eat dog in that world, and working class Englishmen were just as much on the receiving end as anyone else. It wasn't particularly based upon nationality. More a sense that where there was a profit then everyone was fair game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

He argues that the United States needs the Civil War to be about slavery

It needs to be about slavery because it is the truth...Slavery was the cornerstone of the Confederacy... there was no other reason for the succession. Those that think state rights had anything to do with it are wrong and just hiding from the truth. All they need to do is read Alexander Stephens speech... All led from slavery and the slave driven economy with state rights as an excuse to justify their enslavement of humans for profit.

I do believe many of the young men who fought and died for the Confederacy were just fighting for home and pride but the war was started because of slavery and greed.

Butch

Well, from what I've read, admittedly only a couple of books, Lincoln feared that including black Americans in the army would cause the border states to secede; and so black Americans were able to enlist in 1862.

So, what does this tell you? That at the outset of the war maintaining the union was the most important issue for Lincoln? And, that not only in Southern states was there segregation?

Black soldiers did not receive equal pay or equal treatment in the Union Army, and their captains didn't bother training them in some instances as they had no faith in them.

That doesn't sound like a sudden redemption in one part of the country to me.

They only went to using blacks in large numbers when the volunteers dried up.
Why?
Because while the Irish in particular volunteered in droves to protect the Union, they weren't going to fight to help blacks compete with them at the bottom of the economic ladder. Remember this was a time when "Irish need not apply" was a common statement at the bottom of help wanted signs. It is virtually unknown that Meade could not pursue Lee after Gettysburg because he had to take his army to New York to put down the "draft riots" which was basically Irishmen lynching every black they could get their hands on. Worst outbreak of racial violence in the nations history.

Yes, and in London mid to late 19th century, Irishmen gave the arriving Eastern Europeans a hard time. Just as East Enders had given the Irish a hard time. Over jobs. Where I live there was a massive influx of Irish and you can still hear the phrase from the older generation when things seem untidy: "it's like Paddy's Alley in here". Seems to me that when people, all people, feel their livelihood threatened all reason goes out of the window.

I understand, although you would know better than me, that although England had outlawed African slavery, they were still, in effect, selling Irish into slavery well after the U S Civil war.

For clarification, does that mean I am correct? It seems that Australia was a "penal colony" for some time after that. I realize that sentencing to a penal colony and slavery aren't the same thing, unless it is used for that purpose.
It was dog eat dog in that world, and working class Englishmen were just as much on the receiving end as anyone else. It wasn't particularly based upon nationality. More a sense that where there was a profit then everyone was fair game.

Not quite sure what you're saying, BamaD - the quotes have gone astray.

But, if you mean were the Irish sent to Australia?

The vast, vast majority of 'criminals' sent to Australia were working class Englishmen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


As I said you would know more about it than me. Thanks for the clarification.

Your use of quotes around criminals implies to me that there is some question in your mind about there crimes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


As I said you would know more about it than me. Thanks for the clarification.

Your use of quotes around criminals implies to me that there is some question in your mind about there crimes.

They were hardly crimes of any magnitude. Stealing some linen or bread or something of that order.

If you're ever over this way, there's a really interesting museum in Nottingham.

It's about crime and punishment but the transportation aspect is part of it.

What they used to do was build custom made metal cages for people to sit in, well I say sit in I mean forced people into. They then hanged them from the town hall. They'd be out there days and weeks, and the crowd loved it. If the crowd weren't getting value for money in terms of suffering then they wanted their money back!

These cages became outlawed due to the barbarity of it, and instead they went for the much more humane punishment of shipping people off to Australia.

As it turned out, probably not a bad move for the 'criminals' providing they managed to survive the journey.

But, yes, they were mainly working class English men and women.

quote:

Even Lincoln isn't exactly the "saint"

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I understand, although you would know better than me, that although England had outlawed African slavery, they were still, in effect, selling Irish into slavery well after the U S Civil war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Oh, and I should have said that when they were thrown in gaol in those days they had to pay for their bed in prison. I personally found that surprising.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

The sad thing is that orphans were sent to Australia by well meaning organisations in the UK, up until the 1970s, but many just ended up as cheap labour on farms or faced sexual abuse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

Even Lincoln isn't exactly the "saint"

Zonie I believe that mankind is continuing to progress as a civilized species. We are not nearly there, and this includes myself. One hundred and fifty five years from now imagine what people will think of us and our treatment of gays, other minorities, our environment, and the murderous rampages in the name of religion.

quote:


The point I am trying to make is we should not necessarily vilify people from one particular era according to our way of thinking today. Otherwise Lincoln was as close to a saint, for his time, as the most revered humanist today. We should condemn the actions of our ancestors but temper this with understanding of the mores of the age.

quote:


Here in this thread and others we are vilifying whites of the south…blacks are demanding history be forgotten and ancestors not remembered while at the same time in their home country they enslaved each other. There are no humans today that have not benefited sometime in their ancestors past from the forceful suppression and or subjugation of other races and nationalities.

I think we should just learn from history but not carry grudges and condemnations from generation to generation.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

We certainly agree capitalism as defined is the reason for slavery and the Civil War... but I don't believe capitalism as a tool is evil. Private enterprise for profit should be a fair return for your labor. I would not call slavery a result of capitalism but the wrong application of the tools of capitalism. This coupled with the racist views of that era combined to enslave a race and the cause of the death of over 10 percent of the population of America at that time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

We certainly agree capitalism as defined is the reason for slavery and the Civil War... but I don't believe capitalism as a tool is evil. Private enterprise for profit should be a fair return for your labor. I would not call slavery a result of capitalism but the wrong application of the tools of capitalism. This coupled with the racist views of that era combined to enslave a race and the cause of the death of over 10 percent of the population of America at that time.

If we're talking about a fair return for one's labor, then that's more related to justice and fairness, which are humanist concepts, but not so much capitalist. Capitalism is simply maximizing profit by whatever means possible. Certainly, capitalism can be tempered by humanist and liberal concepts, but only when actively adhered to and enforced - and the force involved can get rather messy and bloody, as the Civil War and other struggles have demonstrated (such as the labor movement and civil rights movement).

There is a historical background behind race-based slavery as it developed in the colonies. In the very early years, it was more along the lines of indentured servitude, which affected many whites too. But it was temporary, it wasn't for one's entire life. So, many black indentured servants were freed and allowed to own land. But one of the outcomes of Bacon's Rebellion (1676), in which lower-class blacks and whites fought side-by-side against the wealthy aristocratic classes, was that race-based slavery became more of a standard.

Think of it: If all the poor whites got together with the poor blacks and unified with the Indians to attack the wealthy planter class, this country would be a completely different place. They were already in a fragile and precarious situation as it was. So, they had to think of something to at least get the lower-class whites on side as a buffer so they can continue to make their fortunes. That set the tone for how things were going to be run in this country for the next few centuries. While Europe was facing a growing problem with landless peasants when most of the land was owned by aristocrats, America solved that issue by sending the white landless peasants out west - the courageous pioneers in covered wagons who became part of American folklore. They were offered virtually free land, and (in many cases) slaves bought on credit to help clear it and work it. People who are broke and have nothing to their name are going to take that deal in a heartbeat, especially if they were led to believe that it's God's will and Manifest Destiny. They were even encouraged to move into territories which were not yet under US control.

So, by the time of the Civil War, this mindset was already firmly ingrained in the population - even more so than support of slavery itself. Slavery ended, but the racist mentality persisted because the ruling class wanted it that way. The South was devastated, their economy shot, most blacks and whites were penniless, broke, and pissed off. The North wasn't doing that well either, and there was continuing unrest in the factories, mines, and along the railroads. Out West, things were also somewhat disorganized and out of control - which is what the Union government was focusing on at the time.

We were still reeling from a half-century of large-scale land grabbing across the entire continent. As we gained more territory and added more states, there was always a squabble about it in Washington, regarding admission of slave states and free states. The only compromise they could reach was to make sure there was an equal number of slave and free states. That was what the fighting was all about, since both factions were fighting for political and economic control of the new territories and states. If slavery had just remained confined to the the original 13 states on the east coast and didn't expand westward across the south all the way to Texas, then there might not have been a war. Or it wouldn't have been a very big one.

quote:

BamaD


A The west was not settled by slave holders.
B If slavery had stood in the original 13 states it would have moved west in the whole country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
A The west was not settled by slave holders.
B If slavery had stood in the original 13 states it would have moved west in the whole country.