Georgia's Locker-room

[IthacaMatt]

Yet in 1808 all parties agreed to stop the expansion of slavery and slave trade was nullified. Correct me if I am wrong but that is prior to the civil war. I also find it ironic that african americans were not allowed to hold employment north of the mason dixon line and part of the expansion plans of the north were to have white only labor. "the North was committed to keeping them open to white labor alone" that is from PBS when discussing the northern states policies around expansion of the United States. Many documents around the labor structure and even the role of race in labor were destroyed or re-indexed, I wonder why that was done?

You insist the south pushes a false narrative through education and as I've already shared as someone who has kids in this school that is not pushed one iota. I have been fortunate enough to work on the preservation of digital archives around issues like this as well as WW2 and other major world events. Thankfully my scope of knowledge goes beyond a guy who should stick to baseball musing on PBS. Accepting something as "fact" doesn't make it fact, we are told a variety of things through media which often miss the mark. According to CNN the guy below died twice ... does that make it so? Goebbels was right about one thing, you say something enough no matter the truth it becomes truth.

Eh, you need to read a bit more history, friend.

The Missouri Compromise was in 1820, and no cessation of slavery had yet taken place:

"The Missouri Compromise (March 3, 1820) was a United States federal legislation that stopped northern attempts to forever prohibit slavery's expansion by admitting Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state in exchange for legislation which prohibited slavery in the remaining Louisiana Purchase lands."

And then the South pushed for Texas to also be a slave state:

"In 1844, Congress finally agreed to annex Texas. On December 29, 1845, Texas entered the United States as a slave state, broadening the irrepressible differences in the United States over the issue of slavery and setting off the Mexican-American War."

Hmm, also later than 1808.

What is this mysterious (imaginary?) ban on expansion and 'nullification' (whatever you mean by that ...) of slavery that you speak of?

 

[wfschrec]

Eh, you need to read a bit more history, friend.

The Missouri Compromise was in 1820, and no cessation of slavery had yet taken place:

"The Missouri Compromise (March 3, 1820) was a United States federal legislation that stopped northern attempts to forever prohibit slavery's expansion by admitting Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state in exchange for legislation which prohibited slavery in the remaining Louisiana Purchase lands."

And then the South pushed for Texas to also be a slave state:

"In 1844, Congress finally agreed to annex Texas. On December 29, 1845, Texas entered the United States as a slave state, broadening the irrepressible differences in the United States over the issue of slavery and setting off the Mexican-American War."

Hmm, also later than 1808.

What is this mysterious (imaginary?) ban on expansion and 'nullification' (whatever you mean by that ...) of slavery that you speak of?

Directly from the national archives:

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, delegates fiercely debated the issue of slavery. They ultimately agreed that the United States would potentially cease importation of slaves in 1808. An act of Congress passed in 1800 made it illegal for Americans to engage in the slave trade between nations, and gave U.S. authorities the right to seize slave ships which were caught transporting slaves and confiscate their cargo. Then the "Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves" took effect in 1808. However, a domestic or "coastwise" trade in slaves persisted between ports within the United States, as demonstrated by slave manifests and court records.

I do find this Lincoln quote to be the most interesting of all since we are on the topic:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

It wasn't about slavery for Lincoln, that was shared in a letter in 1862 with the NY Tribune. The war boiled down to state's rights to self govern and an economic argument. There was a lot more to the Civil War than slavery.

 

[wfschrec]

Eh, you need to read a bit more history, friend.

The Missouri Compromise was in 1820, and no cessation of slavery had yet taken place:

"The Missouri Compromise (March 3, 1820) was a United States federal legislation that stopped northern attempts to forever prohibit slavery's expansion by admitting Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state in exchange for legislation which prohibited slavery in the remaining Louisiana Purchase lands."

And then the South pushed for Texas to also be a slave state:

"In 1844, Congress finally agreed to annex Texas. On December 29, 1845, Texas entered the United States as a slave state, broadening the irrepressible differences in the United States over the issue of slavery and setting off the Mexican-American War."

Hmm, also later than 1808.

What is this mysterious (imaginary?) ban on expansion and 'nullification' (whatever you mean by that ...) of slavery that you speak of?

What I said was an end to the slave trade ... due to northern demand for cotton after the advent of the cotton gin is what actually increased the demand for slave labor in the southern colonies ... even the Union government knew this and allowed this influence to occur. It was not until the south wanted to carve out their own state wide rules for governance that this was this an issue.

 

[TheCusian]

Directly from the national archives:

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, delegates fiercely debated the issue of slavery. They ultimately agreed that the United States would potentially cease importation of slaves in 1808. An act of Congress passed in 1800 made it illegal for Americans to engage in the slave trade between nations, and gave U.S. authorities the right to seize slave ships which were caught transporting slaves and confiscate their cargo. Then the "Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves" took effect in 1808. However, a domestic or "coastwise" trade in slaves persisted between ports within the United States, as demonstrated by slave manifests and court records.

I do find this Lincoln quote to be the most interesting of all since we are on the topic:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

It wasn't about slavery for Lincoln, that was shared in a letter in 1862 with the NY Tribune. The war boiled down to state's rights to self govern and an economic argument. There was a lot more to the Civil War than slavery.

This leaves out the abolishment movement and the movements of other "white" powers of the world making it illegal. It was only a matter of time as you'll notice by the distinct lack of open slave labour trading in our modern times all over the world.

Lincoln was caught between powers where the principle issue was slavery. Any hair splitting and closer reading is fine - but the ending of slavery and it's tentacles (state rights! rich guy rights!) can be lumped into one big "the civil war was about slavery" bucket pretty distinctly. The history reads this way and is taught this way.

 

[wfschrec]

This leaves out the abolishment movement and the movements of other "white" powers of the world making it illegal. It was only a matter of time as you'll notice by the distinct lack of open slave labour trading in our modern times all over the world.

Lincoln was caught between powers where the principle issue was slavery. Any hair splitting and closer reading is fine - but the ending of slavery and it's tentacles (state rights! rich guy rights!) can be lumped into one big "the civil war was about slavery" bucket pretty distinctly. The history reads this way and is taught this way.

Slave markets still exist today in many forms in other parts of the world. If other white powers were so dead set against it why did the British help the southern colony with ship building efforts. Look no further than the CSS Alabama and where it was built.

History is often open for interpretation but there are dirty little facts that get buried along the way so that those victorious get to rewrite historical narrative whether it is true or false. That is the part that gets lost in this whole discussion. It has been said that those are victorious can "write history as they see fit" is quite true and not exclusive to just the civil war.

This is one of the reasons why Patton was a staunch proponent of detailed documentation of Holocaust tragedies, many had concerns about the messaging of what the Germans were doing would be watered down and the true scope of horror would be lost. It goes in both directions.

 

[TheCusian]

Slave markets still exist today in many forms in other parts of the world. If other white powers were so dead set against it why did the British help the southern colony with ship building efforts. Look no further than the CSS Alabama and where it was built.

History is often open for interpretation but there are dirty little facts that get buried along the way so that those victorious get to rewrite historical narrative whether it is true or false. That is the part that gets lost in this whole discussion. It has been said that those are victorious can "write history as they see fit" is quite true and not exclusive to just the civil war.

This is one of the reasons why Patton was a staunch proponent of detailed documentation of Holocaust tragedies, many had concerns about the messaging of what the Germans were doing would be watered down and the true scope of horror would be lost. It goes in both directions.

I think the British were in the process of moving away from it as we went from colonies to the actual country that Lincoln was fighting to keep whole? It's a matter of timing?

Open slave markets are abhorrent and most of the modern world sees it this way, correctly.

I don't think the history is that open to interpretation. It's a many sided affair like most wars. One side says "abolish slavery" and the other says "we're fighting about state rights" and another says we're "fighting to keep the union whole" and they can all be right. And we can look back and say it was about "slavery" as a large umbrella that encompasses all of that pretty fairly.

 

[wfschrec]

I think the British were in the process of moving away from it as we went from colonies to the actual country that Lincoln was fighting to keep whole? It's a matter of timing?

Open slave markets are abhorrent and most of the modern world sees it this way, correctly.

I don't think the history is that open to interpretation. It's a many sided affair like most wars. One side says "abolish slavery" and the other says "we're fighting about state rights" and another says we're "fighting to keep the union whole" and they can all be right. And we can look back and say it was about "slavery" as a large umbrella that encompasses all of that pretty fairly.

I think we can agree that no one is changing their mind but to tell me history isn't open to interpretation then start your post with "I think ... " that is simply how you interpret the intent of the British. Understand you are talking about a nation that was anti-piracy but at its core was not only funding it but turning a blind eye to it as long as the British transports weren't subject to it.

Ultimately since the dawn of time we are subjects of a class war .. its the oldest most drawn out battle in human history ... different groups have had their respective turns at the bottom of the totem pole.

 

[TheCusian]

I think we can agree that no one is changing their mind but to tell me history isn't open to interpretation then start your post with "I think ... " that is simply how you interpret the intent of the British. Understand you are talking about a nation that was anti-piracy but at its core was not only funding it but turning a blind eye to it as long as the British transports weren't subject to it.

Ultimately since the dawn of time we are subjects of a class war .. its the oldest most drawn out battle in human history ... different groups have had their respective turns at the bottom of the totem pole.

"I think" was not an opinion but more of a "I don't know" lol

Agreed with the rest.

 

[gbo]

This thread took a weird turn...

 

[wfschrec]

This thread took a weird turn...

They usually do ...

 

[IthacaMatt]

I think we can agree that no one is changing their mind but to tell me history isn't open to interpretation then start your post with "I think ... " that is simply how you interpret the intent of the British. Understand you are talking about a nation that was anti-piracy but at its core was not only funding it but turning a blind eye to it as long as the British transports weren't subject to it.

Ultimately since the dawn of time we are subjects of a class war .. its the oldest most drawn out battle in human history ... different groups have had their respective turns at the bottom of the totem pole.

No, there are actual facts behind his statement. He just didn't bother to look them up for you. But the British gave up slavery in the early 1800s, probably 50 years before the Civil War.

 

[longtimefan]

Directly from the national archives:

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, delegates fiercely debated the issue of slavery. They ultimately agreed that the United States would potentially cease importation of slaves in 1808. An act of Congress passed in 1800 made it illegal for Americans to engage in the slave trade between nations, and gave U.S. authorities the right to seize slave ships which were caught transporting slaves and confiscate their cargo. Then the "Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves" took effect in 1808. However, a domestic or "coastwise" trade in slaves persisted between ports within the United States, as demonstrated by slave manifests and court records.

I do find this Lincoln quote to be the most interesting of all since we are on the topic:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

It wasn't about slavery for Lincoln, that was shared in a letter in 1862 with the NY Tribune. The war boiled down to state's rights to self govern and an economic argument. There was a lot more to the Civil War than slavery.

The Civil War was not all about slavery to Lincoln, but it most surely was to the southern white aristocracy.
They were all about maintaining their "culture", and slavery was the pillar of that. Read Mark Twain to observe the continuation of the slave trade in the states well after your apparently holy date of 1808.

Again, read the Confederate Constitution.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Slave markets still exist today in many forms in other parts of the world.

Forgive me, but where? And I don't mean kidnapping young girls, drugging them and then making them prostitutes.

Those aren't "slave markets" in the sense of what most Americans would perceive that to mean, where people are transported to another country and sold at public auction.

 

[MSOrange]

 

[wfschrec]

No, there are actual facts behind his statement. He just didn't bother to look them up for you. But the British gave up slavery in the early 1800s, probably 50 years before the Civil War.

The British were "against piracy" but had no issue funding it as long as it happened to Spain. Forgive me but that is contradictory. You can slice it however you wish but actions state otherwise.

 

[wfschrec]

Forgive me, but where? And I don't mean kidnapping young girls, drugging them and then making them prostitutes.

Those aren't "slave markets" in the sense of what most Americans would perceive that to mean, where people are transported to another country and sold at public auction.

Oh and using the word perception is akin to interpretation is it not? Look you can keep your opinion on the matter and I'll keep mine. The fact is I'm not changing your mind and you're not changing mine.

 

[orange79]

This thread took a weird turn...

It's what we do.

Come for the Georgia locker room talk, stay for the US history lesson.

 

[cuseincincy]

It's not just the blue bloods of southern football either...

Vanderbilt athletics announces $300 million ‘Vandy United’ fund for facility upgrades - The Vanderbilt Hustler

After teasing this announcement for days, labeling it "the future of Vanderbilt athletics" and posting about it on the university's main social handles, athletic director Candice Storey Lee and chancellor Daniel Diermeier announced Vanderbilt's biggest athletic renovation project in school...

vanderbilthustler.com

Vandy sees SU's $150Mill and raises to $300 Mill.

 

[0.2 YNdeeR]

It's what we do.

Come for the Georgia locker room talk, stay for the US history lesson.

... with a revisionist slant for good measure.

 

[anomander]

Ok there Shelby Foote. I’ll let it go. But I’ve made this point in other threads too. My track record of calling this stuff nonsense is pretty well established. I also recognize I am a hypocrite in that I also donate to SU’s athletic department.

You should have said this first I would have stopped reading the banter lol

 

[sufandu]

I was born and raised and up north and had a historian neighbor who will disagree with you. Ken Burns is better off sticking to baseball IMHO. The North narrative is what drives education in southern schools ... as someone who actually has kids in a southern school I can tell you how it is taught here.

My wife is a native of North Carolina. She knows how it's taught down here too. She thinks it's a bunch of crap.

 

[IthacaMatt]

The British were "against piracy" but had no issue funding it as long as it happened to Spain. Forgive me but that is contradictory. You can slice it however you wish but actions state otherwise.

They sure taught you some interesting things down there. Is the "WF" in your handle for Wake Forest?

 

[sufandu]

The Civil War was not all about slavery to Lincoln, but it most surely was to the southern white aristocracy.
They were all about maintaining their "culture", and slavery was the pillar of that. Read Mark Twain to observe the continuation of the slave trade in the states well after your apparently holy date of 1808.

Again, read the Confederate Constitution.

To be fair, when wfschrec is talking about 1808, that is when international slave trade ended. No more slaves could be brought from across the atlantic. It did not end trade within the country.

 

[longtimefan]

To be fair, when wfschrec is talking about 1808, that is when international slave trade ended. No more slaves could be brought from across the atlantic. It did not end trade within the country.

True, but the slave "business" in the US certainly didn't disappear, what with the effort to expand slavery into the western territories, passage of the Fugitive Slave Act, forcible action to increase the slave population, etc. Besides which, illegal importation of additional slaves took place, with state and local law enforcement often looking the other way.

There is a good reason 1808 is not considered a landmark date--because things were much the same after it as before.

 

[IthacaMatt]

To be fair, when wfschrec is talking about 1808, that is when international slave trade ended. No more slaves could be brought from across the atlantic. It did not end trade within the country.

He certainly tried to pass it off as a kumbayah moment when all of mankind was in agreement.

Hell, the people in the South were still trying to expand the footprint of slavery almost 25 years after they supposedly agreed to stop any further expansion with the Missouri Compromise in 1820.