Thelibrarian wrote:
Actually, slavery was being strangled in an anaconda choke hold with leaving the status of each western state and territory as either slave or free up to popular vote. One of the Confederacy's long term goals had been to circumvent that with succession, in order to expand into Mexico, and Central and South America in order to keep slavery alive with new land for cotton fields. The Confederates had no intention of allowing slavery to die away.
And as far as southern slavery resembling serfdom - I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. European serfs of old were tied to the land and owed labor and produce to the landlord, but were hardly chattel to be bought and sold, and had no fear of having their families divided. As a matter of fact, share cropping, which replaced slavery and encompassed both freed slaves and poor whites, had much more in common with serfdom. And it ought to be remembered, serf rebellions were very common, as the serfs saw themselves little better off than slaves.
And while I don't doubt that many poor whites had supported the Confederacy, the fact remains that those opposed it were more than just Texas Germans. Newt Knight - a Mississippian with an Anglo-Saxon name - as well as his small guerrilla army made up of Confederate army deserters and and escaped slaves, were hardly Texas Germans.
Actually, the abomination of Dred Scott was a major cause of the Civil War. What this decision in effect said was that slaves were personal property, and it was a violation of the property rights of slaveholders not to let them have their property wherever they wished. In effect, had this decision been carried out, it would have made all states slave states. Most Southerners were actually opposed to this abomination, as it negated the Somersett precedent which had governed slavery laws since before the country's founding:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_at_common_law
As far as the Confederacy expanding, you are half right. There was a group called the Golden Circle, the most radical of whom did advocate expanding in to Mexico. But most of them would have been happy taking over the Caribbean slave strongholds, such as Jamaica and Barbados.
While this movement was hardly universally popular in the South, the more moderate version did make some sense. We are used to hearing about the original thirteen colonies, but there were actually twenty-six if British holdings in the Caribbean and central America are included. Many Southerners thought it was a terrible mistake ever to ally with the northern states for independence. Instead, this group wanted to ally with Britain's Caribbean and central American colonies to form an independent nation that same as northeastern Yankees had their eyes on taking over Canada.
Again, the Golden Circle was far from popular; most Southerners simply wanted to leave the union, whether they owned slaves or not. They were as sick of liberal oppression as modern conservatives are.
As far as the Confederates not allowing slavery to die, why do you think that? Were they all-powerful like God? Or is it possible that they didn't control the events that would have led to the downfall of slavery? Remember, it ended everywhere else peacefully. The difference in the US was intolerant liberalism that wanted to destroy everything and everybody that was different.
You are right that European serfs were tied to the land. That is the major difference between Southern slavery and European serfdom. The primary reason for this difference is that the US wasn't settled, but was expanding westward. And since the Constitution outlawed the importation of slaves in 1808, the existing slave population had to be moved along with the slaveholders.
Actually, serfdom had nothing in common with sharecropping. Sharecroppers had no legal rights to the land, and were removed from it at will. There was also no sense of noblesse oblige present with sharecropping.
As far as serf rebellions were concerned, they did happen, but they were hardly the rule.
As far as serfs not being any better off than slaves, the only place I know that to be the case was Russia. The fact is that in western Europe, serfs had customary rights the same as Southern slaves did. It was in the liberal north that slaves had no rights, and this is why one of the biggest slave revolts in American history took place in NYC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_S ... lt_of_1712
And
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_C ... cy_of_1741Whether they had wanted to expand into Mexico or the Caribbean isn't the point - the point is, the Confederacy realized they needed to expand slave territories or see the institution die.
And while slavery did die on it's own everywhere else, who says that has to be a hard and fast rule that could be applied everywhere? And it should be pointed out, slavery did not end voluntarily in Jamaica, but with a bloody slave uprising.
Also, I'd be remiss to point out that the Confederacy didn't need to secede. No one had held a gun to their heads. Lincoln at the time had not been motivated to take action against slavery, even though he personally held anti-slavery beliefs. The man hadn't even taken office yet when the Confederacy took up arms and declared it's independence, so accusations that Lincoln was oppressing the south doesn't hold any water. And the fact remains, had there been no movement to secession by the south, there would have been no violent uprooting of slavery and southern society by the Union. I argue that the south would have been considerably better off had they simply stuck it out, despite regional animosities.
Incidentally, on the subject of regional animosities - those have never in reality been that severe, until ambitious political leaders and social extremists have blown them out of proportion.
As far as share cropping and serfdom are concerned - yes, there were differences. But my primary point is, share cropping, like serfdom - semi-free farmers working the land for a landlord in both cases - seems to naturally follows after the extinction of slavery.
As far as serf rebellions are concerned - there had been such uprisings in the European Middle Ages and Reformation period. The Anabaptists had taken control of the Peasant movement - which the Protestant reformers had originally supported as a secular counterpart to the Reformation - and turned it into a bloody rebellion which the Reformers had no choice but to side with the princes to reestablish law and order.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
04 Dec 2013, 11:16 am
