Posted on 12/12/2004 12:21:53 PM PST by mac_truck
I thoroughly agree with you. I can tell you though, that when my great-great-great Grandfather went to war, his body servant took a bullet for him at the Devil's Den at Gettysburg. He freed all of his slaves in 1862 when he enlisted. My family still is very close to the families of former slaves. Slavery was wrong, PERIOD. My only assertion, is that it was only one of many issues the war was fought over. I believe that most racial divisions in the South were caused by Reconstruction (divide and conquer)
This is outrageous. I am conservative as well as a scholar of slavery. While I am sympathetic to the mission of the school, printing this in 2004 smacks of the defenses of slavery written in the 1850s. Quite simply, this kind of publication does nothing to advance the conservative movement -- it confirms, in fact, what many Lefties accuse us of.
"Official documents are official documents."
Then any propaganda release by any agency of any US or state government during the 40s would be an "official document," and we're right back to my original point having been valid.
The most extreme statements of the most passionate people do not cancel out other historical factors.
Merry Christmas.
okay fair enough have a good new year
"While I am sympathetic to the mission of the school, printing this in 2004 smacks of the defenses of slavery written in the 1850s."
Well, if you want to look at the question, "What were those people thinking?" then you pretty much have to put up with that.
Isn't it interesting, though, that even if it is the truth that slaves were treated better than most people think they were, you couldn't say so without having it taken as a defense of slavery?
But your original statement didn't contrast preserving the Union and preserving the states. You contrasted preserving the Union with the "God-given right to self government." Who's to say to that the highest expression of the right to self-government is found at the state level?
As far as the election to rebel against the Union is concerned, I'm not sure that it was even a legitimate expression of the will of Tennessee. The first election in February overwhelmingly supported Tennessee staying in the Union in all three grand divisions of the state. Later the rabid slavery-loving governor and his gang of politicians in the state legislature disregarded the will of the people and pulled out of the Union. Yes, they has an election afterwards to ratify their actions, but in the second election the results were affected by the presence of gangs of rebel thugs in much of the state. Even with the state laid open to rebel bands, East Tennessee strongly supported remaining in the Union.
Incidentally, anyone who harbors a belief that the Civil War was a result of tariffs and economic concerns should read Governor Isham Harris's January 1861 address recommending disunion. Almost the whole speech was devoted to protecting slavery. I can't recall a word concerning any other justification.
Well, that was kind of the point of using the booklet. To expose the students to the viewpoints and perspectives of mid-nineteenth century southern society in the United States, including the biblical references to (some would say justification of) slavery.
FWIW- the booklet, "Slavery As It Was", has been removed from the school's curriculum and is no longer being published. Signifigant portions of the booklet were apparently plagerized from an earlier (1974) analysis entitled "Time On the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery" by Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman.
I want to correct an untruth I stated. I looked up the results for the first election and West Tennessee supported the convention on secession. Still, the calling of a convention was defeated in the entire state by a 64%-36% margin. And even that probably under reported the Union sentiment in Tennessee, because that same election had elections for delegates in case there was a convention. The pro-Union slates received an even greater majority than 64-36.
BTTT
?
Thank you, I didn't realize it was a link. I thought you were being melodramatic.
But I will get raw in a nanosecond.
“But your original statement didn't contrast preserving the Union and preserving the states. You contrasted preserving the Union with the "God-given right to self government." Who's to say...”
Rule Number One of rational discourse: Any argument that includes the words, “Who’s to say,” is a priori invalid.
“…that the highest expression of the right to self-government is found at the state level?”
You’re trying to change my argument by rephrasing it as “the highest expression of the right to self-government.” I have made no such argument. I made an argument appealing to the historical and legal situation of the US at that time, given our Constitution and the mechanisms of its ratification.
“The first election in February overwhelmingly supported Tennessee staying in the Union in all three grand divisions of the state.”
Yeah, and Clinton was elected twice. Things happen, and things change.
“…the rabid slavery-loving governor and his gang…”
Glad to see you have no biases.
“Almost the whole speech was devoted to protecting slavery. I can't recall a word concerning any other justification.”
Good grief, not this again.
Read the bloody thread. To ignore the preceding 240 years of history and rest one’s position solely on the purple prose of pepperbox politicians is neither reasonable nor responsible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.