Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Any power not delegated to the federal government, of which slavery was not, was a power delegated to the STATES. There is nothing ambiguous about that.
Wrong again. One didn't have anything to do with the other.
I'm not going to claim to be an expert on this subject, so I'll just post what I've found.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever
As far as "injustices" of blacks go, you're bought the entire Hollywood script. Most slaves were not beaten, given that they were property, and that beating them would make them run away, thereby ruining the investment of the slavemaster.
Really? This article doesn't seem to agree with you.
Genovese claims that because the slaves were the legal property of their owners and at an utter disadvantage in the power relationship, it was not unusual for enslaved black women to be raped by their owners, members of their owner's families, or their owner's friends. Children who resulted from such rapes were slaves as well, because they took the status of their mothers, unless freed by the slaveholder. Over time as white men continued to take advantage of women slaves, the result was numerous mixed-race slave children and adults whose appearance was white.
Now, I speak what I know, when I say it is like ‘casting pearls before swine' to try to persuade a negro to work. He must be made to work, and should always be given to understand that if he fails to perform his duty he will be punished for it.[42]
Slaves who worked and lived on plantations were the most frequently punished. Punishment could be administered by the plantation owner or master, his wife, children (white males), and most often by the overseer or driver. Slaves were punished with a variety of objects and instruments. Some of these included: whips, being placed in chains and shackles, or in various contraptions such as metal collars, being hanged, or forced to walk a treadmill.[citation needed] Those who punished slaves also used weapons such as knives, guns, field tools, and objects found nearby. The whip was the most common instrument used against a slave. One slave said that, “The only punishment that I ever heard or knew of being administered slaves was whipping,” although he knew several that had been beaten to death for offenses such as sassing a white person, hitting another negro, fussing, or fighting in quarters.[44] Slave overseers were authorized to whip and punish slaves. One overseer told a visitor, "Some Negroes are determined never to let a white man whip them and will resist you, when you attempt it; of course you must kill them in that case."[45]
Quote:
You should also know that only about 3% of southern whites owned slaves. Most did not. Most southern farmers were Yeoman farmers. Poor dirt farmers who worked on small areas of land and worked hard to squeak out a living.
As of 1860 the percentage of Southern families that owned slaves has been estimated to be 43 percent in the lower South, 36 percent in the upper South and 22 percent in the border states that fought mostly for the Union.[25] Half the owners had one to four slaves. A total of 8000 planters owned 50 or more slaves in 1850 and only 1800 planters owned 100 or more; of the latter, 85% lived in the lower South, as opposed to one percent in the border states.[26]
So I don't know. It sounds like other sources seem to present different facts than you.
I've studied the history thoroughly on the "Civil War" and the events leading up to it and beyond.
Seriously, everything that I have stated is well-documented. The union army was full of monsters, that cannot be denied.
While I'm not denying a role of slavery in the "Civil War", it was a states' rights issue, as it was not a federal area of control under the Constitution. As such, the South was correct in regard to not wanting to be bullied and taking an inferior role in the direction of slavery in the new territories, or within their respective states, for slaves, whether you admit it or not, were property.
how were they correct in not wanting to take an "inferior role"? the "correct" thing to do would be not to want to advance slavery at all into new territories. what is the logic that your following here? plus, what makes you think that the potential territories wanted slavery to be legal? kansas certainly didnt, neither did california.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever
Slavery was not the only issue for secession and eventually the war, but so was economic intimidation, including unfair tarrifs, and abridges to the Constitution.
why dont you go ahead and cite those "abdridges to the contitution" and unfair tarriffs that caused secession. Have you ever read the document called "A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union."? i see not a single reason in there not involving slavery, at least for mississippi. Hell, they literally say "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery".
the reasons they list basically are
-dont like the fugitive slave act
-dont like past instances of territories being made free (northwest ordinance, parts of the the louisiana purchase)
-dont like that tyhe government doesnt do a good job upholding the fugitive slave act
-feel the north is prejudiced towards slavery
-fears that the north acvocates black equality
ect....you can read the document if you like
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever
In reality, the South was attempting to hold onto the true intent of the Founding Fathers.
yea, they were. many of the founding fathers were slaveholding virginians and like most americans at the time, they had strong beliefs in black inferiority and the necessity of slave labor. but...those were horrible intents that shouldnt be glorified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever
Slavery would have died a death, in all likelihood by the end of the 1800s, much like it did in Brazil, when it became less feasible, economically speaking.
um, what exactly leads you to believe this? less feasible? why? if anything, slavery would have ended due to pressure from other western nations, but who knows how long that would have taken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever
As far as "injustices" of blacks go, you're bought the entire Hollywood script. Most slaves were not beaten, given that they were property, and that beating them would make them run away, thereby ruining the investment of the slavemaster.
most slaves werent beaten because most slaves exercized passive resistance (breaking tools, intentionally working slow, playing dumb) because true resistance (running away, fighting back) would result in beatings. beatings/whippings,chopping off of feet occurred as a punishment of running away, not the opposite. running away, like uprisings, were really quite rare because they were nearly impossible to pull off. plus, isnt being enslaved an injustice right off the bat? is being beaten really required? come on, step into reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever
You should also know that only about 3% of southern whites owned slaves. Most did not. Most southern farmers were Yeoman farmers. Poor dirt farmers who worked on small areas of land and worked hard to squeak out a living.
this statement is true except your statistic is way off. roughly 25 percent of southerners owned slaves (varying from state to state). but still, it is certianly seems to be a misconception that all white southerners (or nearly all) owned slaves. but 3 percent? no way.
Wrong again. One didn't have anything to do with the other.
If you knew anything, which you obviously don't, you'd realize that the federal government could regulate commerce between states, as well as foreign trade with other nations, and this includes the importation of slaves. However, the legitimate opposition to the argument that slavery could not expand into the territories had to do with the fact that slaves were considered personal property, of which only the state could supercede the rights of the property owner. Interstate commerce has to do with the trading of goods in which a state has a direct role. If two property owners are trading, even across state lines, the state is not involved. Thus, the regulation of interstate commerce DOES NOT apply.
"In the United States, there are two separate and distinct jurisdictions, such being the jurisdiction of the States within their own territorial boundaries and the other being federal jurisdiction. Broadly speaking, state jurisdiction encompasses the legislative power to regulate, control and govern real and personal property, individuals and enterprises within the territorial boundaries of any given State. In contrast, federal jurisdiction is extremely limited, with the same being exercised only in areas external to state legislative power and territory." Federal Jurisdiction
Race has nothing to do with it. I AM biased against ignorant Southern folks, who keep spewing this stuff.
It's obvious that you are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
