GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies
jlawrence at kc.rr.com
Thu Jan 5 14:32:47 CST 2012
The point is the slaves were the same as houses to the slave owners.
Economically, they were, as I pointed out earlier, wealth. No one argues
that. But the wealth was based on slaves.
Socially, they were scared to death that a monster they had created was
about to devour them (of course, the slaves themselves dispelled this
boogeyman when they had a chance to turn contraband. there were no
massacres. they just wanted out of the system.
Watch night is still celebrated in some poarts of the country, I have been
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Mills" <amills at jplcreative.com>
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> A nice response.
> But are the slave owners fighting to keep their slaves, or keep their
> value in those slaves that are make them rich?
> If the federal government decided as a result of the housing bubble to
> nationalize all private homes to avoid another bubble and people rebelled
> as a result: would that rebellion be over houses or the fear of losing
> your investment in those houses? There is a distinct difference between
> the two as one is over the right to own an object and the other is over
> money and investments and what is perceived to be an invasion of the
> government to prevent you from making a living by a system that has been
> around and ingrained in your culture for centuries.
> Please: before anyone says it, I understand one is comparing an inanimate
> object to a human being but fortunately, we have no modern example to use.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com]
> On Behalf Of Jack Lawrence
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 2:13 PM
> To: GDG
> Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> There is, as you point out, a lot more going on here.
> The wealth generated by slavery was not only in the cotton, rice etc that
> they produced.
> It was also in the slaves themselves. A strong field hand was worth a
> thousand dollars in 1850's-60's dollars.
> So a man with a thousand slaves had a hundreds of thousands of dollars
> dollars in wealth out in the fields, no matter how well his crops fared.
> He could also hire those slaves out, or let a skilled slave, like a
> carpenter, take on work in town and pay (more likely split) what he
> earned. He could even hire out the women.
> The south understood that the influx of northern immigrants was producing
> a body politic that wanted no part of slavery. Even so, the north was
> willing to tolerate it, to preserve the union. So was Lincoln. In that
> regard, he was a manifestation of the body politic in it's purest form.
> What would not be tolerated was the southern demand to allow slavery in
> territories prior to their admission into the union (bleeding Kansas was
> all about whether Kansas would be free or slave at admission.) The
> Supreme Court was responsible for this when it overturned The Missouri
> Compromise, which required one slave state be admitted for every free
> state admitted So the south tried to circumvent this by allowing slavery
> in the territories prior to admission. Trying to abolish slavery in a
> state that already had slaves would be difficult to say the least.
> Now, the reason the south wanted the territories to be open to slavery was
> purely economic. More slave territory meant that more slaves were needed.
> Which meant that if a man owned a thousand slaves worth a hundreds of
> thousand of dollars, they were worth hundreds of thousands of dollars
> Succinctly stated, slavery as practiced in the United States at that place
> and time was a giant bubble. It was not slavery that was going to go away.
> It was the wealth of the slaves that was going to diminish.
> Your second paragraph, that the matter of slavery in the Civil War is over
> determined is simply incorrect. The only thing going on here is slavery.
> It is true that there was a racial undertone, but it was a created racial
> undertone. Throughout history, for the most part, slavery had been pretty
> much an economic institution.
> In the south, people were taught that Africans were an inferior people,
> somewhere between animals and people. They were too simple to function
> freely. Even the slaves were educated in their dependence on white people.
> Traveling minstrel shows toured the south. They always included three main
> characters, Jim Crow, the typical hard working, carefree negro who
> when he did his masters bidding, Tambo, the joyous musical negro, and Zip
> Coon, the sly negro who was always getting Jim in trouble (think King Fish
> Amos and Andy and ). Just another way to keep blacks in their place.
> Indoctrination was prevalent among white people too.
> Preachers preached it on Sunday (There was even a "Christian Way" to treat
> your slaves dogma), politician orated over the dangers of free negroes and
> civic leaders did the same.
> The message was always the need that slaves had for white masters. But the
> really chilling, insidious, vile message, the one that chilled the
> and absolutely convinced them that they need to keep these people enslaved
> was that black slaves craved after, lusted for and, left unfettered, would
> unleash a depravity on white females unseen since the rape of the Sabine
> women. Can you imagine preaching this on Sunday?
> Which, IMHO, accounted for the fierce devotion to the south among southern
> women during the war. (Ok, Butler didn't help much).
> So, at the end of the day, there was no other cause for the war but
> but slavery itself was a many faceted thing.
> -to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
More information about the Gettysburg