|
How big percentage of the Southern population were slaves?
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:40 |
|
|
zoux posted:One of the most useful things we could teach kids about the creation myth of America is that it wasn't a group of patriotic heroes standing as one and calling for the same thing in one voice. This wasn't what I was taught in the mid 90s, just the opposite. The 3/5ths compromise and all the bullshit that needed to be done to get the Constitution signed was pretty decent covered imo. Has this changed?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:How big percentage of the Southern population were slaves? In the Confederacy, about 40%. Between them and unionist regions like Appalachia, the majority of southerners opposed the Confederacy. Maybe we could honor that heritage?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:I thought that was the excepted way to read the situation involving the compromise. The idea of the South counting slaves for any votes at all I always found deeply offensive. Agreed. That's why it's annoying when 3/5 is taken out of context as somehow diminishing people when the opposite is true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:This wasn't what I was taught in the mid 90s, just the opposite. The 3/5ths compromise and all the bullshit that needed to be done to get the Constitution signed was pretty decent covered imo. Going by the number of best selling conservative authors selling millions of books based on a twisted view of originalism that just happens to back their atavistic social and political beliefs I'm gonna go with "seems like". I did attend a number of hardcore evangelist private schools in middle and early high-school where we were taught the Constitution was a divinely inspired document to create the first Christian nation and everything had gone to hell because of libertines and activist judges and we read a lot of those books, so I could be biased.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:How big percentage of the Southern population were slaves? This claims to be the 1860 Census. For a few states it was around or even over 50%
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
I took AP US history in a Connecticut public school and by that point they at least revealed the terrible secret of the founding fathers having to make dark and difficult compromises in order to get a document signed. I definitely came out of it with the impression of "hmm, America barely happened" I can't remember too much specifically what my education was like before that but I do believe it focused more heavily on cherry trees
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
What were the reasons that average southerners were given to go off and fight for slaves that they themselves probably would never own unless they were wealthy, and probably kept their wages down? I feel kinda bad about these dead men being risen up today as martyrs for a cause that didn't properly develop until after they were dead. Was there ever a backlash against people who didn't serve in the war, or was the memory of who did what faded enough by the time reconstruction ended that the wealthy who bought their way out of service got off scot-free? It's sort of a complex feeling I have about the whole thing, but I figure if these jerks are going to manufacture a bloody war for bad reasons, they could at least do the courtesy of putting their own necks on the line.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Was there ever a backlash against people who didn't serve in the war, or was the memory of who did what faded enough by the time reconstruction ended that the wealthy who bought their way out of service got off scot-free? That backlash doesn't even happen today. Q: I remember reading, it may even have been in this thread, or one like it, that the concept of whiteness as a single race encompassing all "white" nations (no Irish!) really didn't exist until the mid 19th century when Southern elites used the concept to drive a wedge between poor southerners and potentially emancipated slaves. Is that actually the case? zoux fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Apr 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Conscription was massively unpopular in the south, and poor whites were absolutely angry that rich slaveowners were given exemptions. I remember Battle Cry of the Republic talked about large areas in the South that were effectively out of control of the Confederate government and refused to send draftees.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:What were the reasons that average southerners were given to go off and fight for slaves that they themselves probably would never own unless they were wealthy, and probably kept their wages down? I feel kinda bad about these dead men being risen up today as martyrs for a cause that didn't properly develop until after they were dead. The volunteers at the start were quite disproportionately slaveowners, non-slave owner members of slaveowning families, non-slaveowners who lived in and worked for slaveowning households, or people with other direct economic ties to slavery.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:In broad terms: each state gets a number of seats in the House of Representatives based on the state's population. Slave states wanted each of their slaves to count as a full person, not because they had any particular respect for their humanity, but because that way they could have more power over free states while still treating the slaves as basically livestock. Free states didn't want slaves to count at all towards the population, not because they didn't think they counted as people, but because it would be a way for slave states to cheat and hold seats in perpetuity. The 3/5 compromise, where all non-free persons counted as 3/5 for representation, was a middle ground that kicked the slavery can down the road but at least got all of the states on board at the Constitutional Convention.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:What were the reasons that average southerners were given to go off and fight for slaves that they themselves probably would never own unless they were wealthy, and probably kept their wages down? I feel kinda bad about these dead men being risen up today as martyrs for a cause that didn't properly develop until after they were dead. Because their local aristocrat was raising a regiment to defend their homes from the invader or something along those lines. The south was almost feudal in a lot of ways. In other areas where it was less plantation-dominated, it was a sense of duty to the state. For a long time (and even still today to some extent) people identified with their state more than as American. You were Pennsylvanian, Virginian, or Georgian first, American second.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:What were the reasons that average southerners were given to go off and fight for slaves that they themselves probably would never own unless they were wealthy, and probably kept their wages down? I feel kinda bad about these dead men being risen up today as martyrs for a cause that didn't properly develop until after they were dead. Once the war happened a lot of people signed up out of a feeling of duty to their state, and to protect their homeland. Like most things there is a tiny kernel of truth to the idea that people were fighting for the CSA out of higher ideals involving states rights and liberty. The issue was hugely divisive and, at the level of the average voter, massively distorted and simplified. At the level of the individual Johnny Reb you're going to see a mix of motivations ranging from nuanced positions on the slavery question to knee jerk reactions that they need to protect their town from a foreign invader. The one thing that shouldn't be minimized, however, is how much smaller farmers benefitted from the slavery system. Small landowners who couldn't afford slaves of their own would frequently rent from larger landowners during harvest seasons, for example. There's also a lot to be said (at least from the white perspective) for a social order where even the poorest farmer is unequivocally above some other guy. That said support was nothing like uniform especially in areas outside the slave owning economy. Huge chunks of Appalachia, for example, were basically in revolt against the CSA. Hell, that's the whole reason W. Virginia happened, although areas further in the interior (Arkansas I think had a chunk like that) that weren't geographically situated to break off and join the Union were doing things like smuggling people north to join the US Army. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Apr 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
I've also read that some propaganda was directed at terrifying southerners of the idea of their "savage" slaves being freed to run rampant through the countryside, raping all the white women.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Once the war happened a lot of people signed up out of a feeling of duty to their state, and to protect their homeland. Like most things there is a tiny kernel of truth to the idea that people were fighting for the CSA out of higher ideals involving states rights and liberty. The issue was hugely divisive and, at the level of the average voter, massively distorted and simplified. At the level of the individual Johnny Reb you're going to see a mix of motivations ranging from nuanced positions on the slavery question to knee jerk reactions that they need to protect their town from a foreign invader. It was East Tennessee that nearly kept that state from voting to secede until a second vote was held with voter suppression and was basically kept under martial law until it was freed, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
bewbies posted:There wasn't much appetite for prosecutions and executions and whatnot even from the Radicals; they all recognized that hanging or shooting a bunch of people would only provide martyrs and make long term reconciliation a whole lot harder. Well, hindsight's 20/20 and considering that the progress that was made during Reconstruction was largely undone after Reconstruction, stringing up the Rebs might have not been the worst idea to break down white supremacy in the South.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:What were the reasons that average southerners were given to go off and fight for slaves that they themselves probably would never own unless they were wealthy, and probably kept their wages down? I feel kinda bad about these dead men being risen up today as martyrs for a cause that didn't properly develop until after they were dead. Slave owners were basically the entire intelligensia and aristocracy, and there weren't any alternative means of mass communication that weren't controlled by slaveowner hands. EDIT: Is going to war to defend slavery necessarily more stupid than going to war to resurrect/contain foreign Catholicism, enforce your liege's claims to some foreign territory, fulfill America's Manifest Destiny or to make some guys really rich? I guess historically people were just pretty okay with going to war on pretty flimsy pretexts, if they expect to win. Fangz fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Apr 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Part 1: Arriving in South Africa Part 2: The Reality of Combat/Getting Stuck In/WATERSPORTS! Part 3: March Marching Madness/Trench Sniping/CANADIANS! Part 4: Boer Guns, Hunger Marches and Bloody Charges With The Gordon Highlanders Part 5: Occupying Pretoria, Rest And Christmas In South Africa. Part 6: Signal Flags, Skirmishes and South African train rides. quote:
I've got enough for one more post then Rose goes home. SeanBeansShako fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Apr 25, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Well, hindsight's 20/20 and considering that the progress that was made during Reconstruction was largely undone after Reconstruction, stringing up the Rebs might have not been the worst idea to break down white supremacy in the South. It wouldn't have done much of anything to preclude the re-establishment of white supremacy (this was not a southern phenomenon in America at the time, remember) and it almost certainly would have created some kind of ugly insurgency type of situation, especially considering how it would have reneged on a bunch of promises and customs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:There's also a lot to be said (at least from the white perspective) for a social order where even the poorest farmer is unequivocally above some other guy. This is the part I find most interesting. I know a lot of the aristocracy argued that this was the ideal social order, as poor white men at least didn't have to dig ditches or work in sweatshops - there were slaves for that. They preached that it was a superior structure for the poor (whites), compared to say the industrialized North. Did poor white men buy into this? I mean, I know they probably did internally, as we can see the success of turning the poor against each other still today. But publicly was it something they talked about or agreed with?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
pthighs posted:This is the part I find most interesting. I know a lot of the aristocracy argued that this was the ideal social order, as poor white men at least didn't have to dig ditches or work in sweatshops - there were slaves for that. They preached that it was a superior structure for the poor (whites), compared to say the industrialized North. Did poor white men buy into this? I mean, I know they probably did internally, as we can see the success of turning the poor against each other still today. But publicly was it something they talked about or agreed with? Not only was this explicitly the public line, in many Southern states it was made illegal to advocate the abolition of slavery.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Fangz posted:EDIT: Is going to war to defend slavery necessarily more stupid than going to war to resurrect/contain foreign Catholicism, enforce your liege's claims to some foreign territory, fulfill America's Manifest Destiny or to make some guys really rich? I guess historically people were just pretty okay with going to war on pretty flimsy pretexts, if they expect to win.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Gone With the Wind is a strange movie Revisionist and racist of course, but also the main character has like a personality disorder or something It is the second highest grossing movie of all time when adjusted for inflation, behind the original Star Wars I don't get the appeal, I really don't. Why in the late 1930s did people get all romantic about the goddamn antebellum south?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
zoux posted:Nah, it should be properly contextualized, but hiding the atrocities of history is how you get people denying holocausts and defending native genocides. Having actually evidence and recorded documents of the atrocities does does nothing the dam the tide of deniers so I honestly have to question why you think having a semi-celebratory memorial statue would. If anything it helps their case because if they were so bad why did they make a statue of them and it also provides a "shrine" like place for them. Lets be perfectly clear, these are not a statues memoralizing genocide victims or the victims of slavery, its memoralizing the people and the country who fought to keep those people oppressed. Removing the statues is not "hiding atrocities", its saying that having statues promoting the people who did terrible poo poo is actually really hosed and maybe we as a society should not promote a clean image of them using public lands. If you want to, put a loving plaque where it once stood with a blurb about what was there and why it was a terrible idea to have it there. Telsa Cola fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Apr 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Gone With the Wind is a strange movie Gone with the Wind was an epic of epics. For the time, the movie was groundbreaking in length, the scale and cost of special effects, and in their search for actors. The book exploded onto the bestseller's list just a few years before. So it was like if Titanic, Lord of the Rings, and Harry Potter were all combined into a single movie. Everything about it was bigger than any contemporary movie. Add to that an obsessive producer and director, Gone with the Wind had no chance of turning into a safe and mediocre movie. So it was sure to be either a classic or a disaster, and it turned out to be a classic. Of course, that just makes me wonder why Gone with the Wind the book was such a hit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:Of course, that just makes me wonder why Gone with the Wind the book was such a hit. Economic anxiety? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
America is a nation of winners, we need to tear down these Confederate monuments because they celebrate a bunch of losers, therefore they are Un-American. Also I feel another reason why poor whites in the South would be in favor of slavery is similar a little to today why so many poor Americans are opposed to higher taxes on the upper classes, health care reform etc. "One day if I work hard I or my kids will be wealthy slaveholders, if only those loving yankees didn't prevent California from being a slave state like it could have I could have bought a hundred acres and started my plantation damnit"!!! 
Jack2142 fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Not even an American, but I think that it was a great shame that Davis and Lee did not hang for treason. Hanging the lot would have been going way to far IMO, but on the other hand letting all the secessionist politicians go right back to holding political office was downright unforgivable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 01:04
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I read somewhere that the poorest whites in the South were afraid that they would have to compete with the formerly enslaved people for jobs, and that their status in the south would go from second lowest to lowest. Also, a monument's purpose isn't to be a passive record of history. They're designed to make a statement, to honor something. Tearing down a monument to white supremacy is 100% justified.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
ponzicar posted:I read somewhere that the poorest whites in the South were afraid that they would have to compete with the formerly enslaved people for jobs, and that their status in the south would go from second lowest to lowest. I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that the statues should be left alone; only arguing over whether to move them to a museum, where the historical context can be explained, or sent down the memory hole and forgotten forever. I think the way I phrased that should indicate which side I'm on, but I am a yankee
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that the statues should be left alone; only arguing over whether to move them to a museum, where the historical context can be explained, or sent down the memory hole and forgotten forever. Collections really dont have the space for entire monuments, collection space is a pretty big crisis in the field from what I have seen and thats for poo poo that is way more sensitive and fragile than giant stone blocks. And realistically if it did get put into collections its going to stay there for decades before it gets displayed if ever so I don't know There is always major logistic issues with putting something that big on display and then swapping it out if the exhibit ends. If you want to go down that route a much more logical and cost efficient way would make a much smaller replica. Telsa Cola fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
Compromise solution, if you don't want to destroy them and there's no room in the museum. Convert them into novelty urinals, accompanied by an explanatory plaque and confederate flag patterned paper.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:I don't think the monuments should be swept under the rug and ignored like that isn't an ugly part of our history, but I don't think they should be displayed publicly either. Are they being trashed or just relocated to The Museum of Assholes or something? They should be torn down and used as material to build memorials to victims and unsung heroes. That way it's preserved as history but not as the whitewashed tales of gallantry and duty that always get thrown around. Comedy option being to tear them down and replace them with individual memorials to the men of the 54th Mass.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:They should be torn down and used as material to build memorials to victims and unsung heroes. That way it's preserved as history but not as the whitewashed tales of gallantry and duty that always get thrown around. Options like this are neat because it then becomes one of those hilarious dick moves that people will learn about in the future. Like when we took Lee's land and made Arlington.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:Options like this are neat because it then becomes one of those hilarious dick moves that people will learn about in the future. Like when we took Lee's land and made Arlington. That is one of the best "gently caress you" moves short of the emancipation proclamation and the civil war amendments. It's easy to feel a little sympathy for Lee being unable to ever go home until it's pointed out exactly what he was doing in American territory before getting turned around at Gettysburg.  he was kidnapping free black people and sending them south in fetters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
http://i.imgur.com/Cvx34t0.gifv
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
That's the thing that really makes the south stand out. Even in other slave societies, if you became a freedman, that's it, you were free. Heck, children of slaves could even inherit from the father. In the US, you were never free. You could be re-enslaved at any time if a gang went up north and snatched you off the streets. They even enslaved their children.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
 is there a story to this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:40 |
|
|
FAUXTON posted:
Not that I know of, but I picked up a fairly cheap dvd on dogfighting "Above the clouds" or somesuch and I was skipping through most of it for shits and giggles since I don't have time to sit and watch and spotted that sequence. To the best of my knowledge, it looks like a Ki-43 vs an I-15 over China. The super thin fuselage of the monoplane, coupled with the lack of a fixed landing gear, as well as the biplane its chasing, lead me to believe that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 03:35
|
|