Alabama Governor's Slavery Blunder

CBS News ^ | 4/5/05

[Sonny M]

Not correct at all. Lee's father-in-law died in 1857 and his slaves were not freed until December 1862, slightly over the 5 year time period mandated by the will.

His bio's say different, as do most encyclopedia entries on him.

[brownsfan]

"No need to get personal..."

Hmmmm. And you don't think that type of correction/condescention isn't personal? Quid pro quo in my estimation.

[brownsfan]

"You were taught correctly."

After wading through this post the only thing I think I know is that it's a broad topic with much disagreement.

[Always Right]

All I know is that Bush caused it, and knew about it well in advance.

[PeaRidge]

As in the post just above yours, it is made clear that professors, history departments, curriculum committees, and cultural bias heavily influences education. Often, what is left out is more important than what is included.

Weave into the historically accurate equation that most books published after the war for a century, were essentially from Northern authors.

The horror of 600,000 deaths must be heavily rationalized.
And the issue of slavery perfectly fits the need for excessive rationalization for the war.

It cannot be stated by war apologists that everywhere in the entire world, slavery was peacefully settled...except in the United States.

Stating that point shows that it was possible to settle it without a war.

You can continue to rag on about slavery, but it is only your opinion.

Secession was initiated by South Carolina, and her documents reveal the statesmen saw secession as the only alternative to protect the state and the people from economic, social, and political warfare from the North.

All the others seceded based on their own conclusions about their safety in remaining in the Union.

They left because it was apparent that the Constitutional guarantees they originally sought in Union were about to be removed.

Go on about slavery; your educational failures are obvious. But remember it was legal under the United States Constitution of 1861, and if you claim the war was fought over it, then you have to accept that the invading army was conducting a war against Constitutional law.

[PeaRidge]

Of course you know that is not true. Just doing your history act for the lurkers?

From Virginia Congressman Baldwin's meeting with Lincoln just days before he commanded that the US Navy leave for Charleston and Florida with the warships and troops for a forced landing:

"Lincoln said something about feeding the troops at Sumter, and Baldwin responded that using that rationale for sending the military would not do.

Baldwin said,

“You know perfectly well that the people of Charleston have been feeding them already. That is not what they are at. They are asserting a right. They will feed the troops, and fight them while they are feeding them. They are after the assertion of a right.

“Now, the only way that you can manage them is to withdraw from the means of making a blow until time for reflection, time for influence which can be brought to bear, can be gained, and settle the matter.

“If you do not take this course, if there is a gun fired at Sumter—I do not care on which side it is fired -- the thing is gone.”

[PeaRidge]

Essentially you are completely correct.

Had Lincoln not sent warships to Charleston harbor and initiated a blockade, then the entire South would trade with the partners that provided the best prices for her cotton, tobacco, rice, sugar, hemp, and fish stores.

Thus Europe would get the goods to the exclusion of not only Northern cotton mills, but the entire yankee shipping system would be losing over 60% of their business.

Southern secession was about to cause New England cotton mills and shipping to go into recession.

Add to that that the entire US Treasury was funded by tariffs on imported goods underwritten by Southern production, that the Lincoln government, already heavily in debt, was about to go into recession itself.

The only way to gain access to cheap lenders money to subsidize the government, was to ensure that the tariff system would remain intact.

Therefore, Lincoln said he would retain the forts that ensured that tariffs would be collected.

In doing this, he also made sure that the raw materials needed up North would not end up on European boats.

"Saving the Union" really meant saving the Treasury, cotton mills, shipping, and banking in the northeast.

[Non-Sequitur]

Actually Freeman mentions how Lee was forced to hire out a number of the Custis slaves to pay off debts left by his father-in-law. Lee signed the emancipation order on December 29, 1862, about 2 and a half months past the 5 years stipulated in the Custis will.

[brownsfan]

"Essentially you are completely correct"

Interesting that if you read this thread, you will find many different opinions, and many with what seems to be legitimate supporting evidence.

[HostileTerritory]

everywhere in the entire world, slavery was peacefully settled...except in the United States.

And Haiti, where the slaves massacred all the French settlers and set up their own government. Or Jamaica, where the slaves rebelled and burned plantations, which is finally what led Britain to end the institution in the British Empire once and for all. As you wrote, often, what is left out is more important than what is included.

No, you didn't need a war to end slavery, but the southern slaveholding aristocracy wouldn't have it any other way. The simple idea that a President might not allow slavery to extend into new states was enough to lead them into secession. They had their wealth and they weren't going to give it up.

Secession was initiated by South Carolina, and her documents reveal the statesmen saw secession as the only alternative to protect the state and the people from economic, social, and political warfare from the North.

That's a little like saying that someone wasn't shot to death, they died from the loss of blood induced by an external wound, and pay no attention to the smoking gun lying on the floor. It's all sophistry. It may embarrass you now, but slavery mattered to the decision-makers in the Confederacy, and hundreds of thousands of Americans (including non-slaveholding southerners who fought to defend their homes) paid the ultimate price for their peculiar institution.

[Ditto]

Just at the time of his inauguration, he supported a new amendment to the Constitution that would have legalized slavery throughout the entire nation and territories.

That is incorrect. The proposed amendment would have meant congress could not outlaw slavery where it already existed but Lincoln was crystal clear that he would oppose expansion of slavery to the territories. Both he, and the secessionists, clearly understood that if slavery were isolated, it was doomed to collapse.

[Non-Sequitur]

Of course you know that is not true. Just doing your history act for the lurkers?

On the contrary, Pea, it is you doing a song and dance, as a look at the OR would confirm. Anderson's correspondence with Washington all make it clear that he was short of food and supplies and in danger of being starved into submission. And Baldwin's meeting with Lincoln occured on April 4, two days after Beauregard had been ordered to prevent any additional contact between Sumter and the shore, including obtaining any food.

[BlueNgold]

No.
While offering the correct speling of various forms of the word that had been tortured on the thread may have been a bit over the top - I in no way commented on the character of the individuals making such mistakes - nor would I.

Have a nice day.

Note: JimRob, thanks for including the spell-check function in the code.

[Ditto]

Anderson's correspondence with Washington all make it clear that he was short of food and supplies and in danger of being starved into submission.

Not even mentioning Anderson telling Beauregard he would soon be out of food and water and forced to stand down.

[Non-Sequitur]

The real cause of the Civil War was the South selling raw materials to England, (where they got a better price). This had the result of depriving the North of much needed raw material for manufacturing.

How did the south get a better price for their cotton in England than in the north? Cotton is cotton, and the southern growers were under no obligation to sell their product to Northern manufacturers at a lower price than the English were prepared to pay. Cotton prices were set by demand for the crop, and not by the country that crop was destined for. The bulk of the southern cotton crop was exported, but that would be because of the demand for it from Europe. Northern textile companies bought all the southern cotton that they needed, and the rest was exported. How could it have been otherwise?

[brownsfan]

"Northern textile companies bought all the southern cotton that they needed, and the rest was exported. How could it have been otherwise?"

Lots of aspects of this are confusing to me, but I feel pretty safe with this one. The North didn't get all the cotton they needed, they bought all they could afford. At the time England/Europe were wealthier, and thus, could afford to give the south a better price for cotton.

[brownsfan]

"speling"

spelling
spell
spelled
speller

My comment regarding character was value neutral. I said your action, (over the top correction), could be an insight into the type of personality you have. Now, if you saw your action as being undesirable, and took offense to the conclusion, I would say: perhaps it is best not to do things that people, (including yourself), would construe as undesirable.
However, it's possible that the insight into your character reveals you to be accurate, you have attention to detail, or even exceptionally helpful.
You decide.

[BlueNgold]

See, it's fun.
Glad to see you were paying attention. Now that I have brought you full circle into the darkness I will leave you to torture others...

Have a great day

[Constantine XIII]

funny how no one has anything to say about it, isn't it. :P

[brownsfan]

"See, it's fun."

I was wondering if you'd pick up on that!
You DO have a sense of humor. Cool.

You have a good one too.