I think that this was a big factor in starting the war, however, I also believe that the cultural differences didn't help much either. Slavery is a part of the cultural differences, but there were others as well.
Slavery was something totally inhuman, people are not property and should not be treated as such, that alone was a good reason to start a way in my opinion.
I agree with you. There is the argument that "Winners of the war write history" and that "some slaves were actually treated well" but either way, humans are not property, and deserve to be free.
That "some slaves were treated well" thing was always an eye-roller for me. I mean what does it MATTER how well they were treated if they were still slaves? Give a slave a steak dinner and they're still a slave. Invite them to dinner as a *friend* when they're free, and then you're getting somewhere.
I want to believe that there were people with a heart that had slaves, but treated them as equally as they could. There were of course others that saw them as property and kill them on the spot if they wanted to.
I'm not sure if it matters, Peninha. Many of the slave holders were described as "kind"... and even after they were freed, many slaves chose to stay with that family, the only family they ever knew. But the bottom line is that kind or not, it was still a master/slave relationship and that's just never good.
Yes, I agree with that, but put yourself in the perspective of a slave owner, you were born facing that situation and you grew up like that, even if you disagree with it what could you do?
I'm not sure what they did... but you're right. I see that a lot with the Civil War work I'm doing. Slaves were *WILLED* to offspring, so I guess all that could be done was to free them if you didn't want part of it. (If that was even possible.) Very ugly part of history.
Yes, slavery was a major if not the most single important reason why the Civil War happened. However, people need to remember Lincoln was about preserving the Union. He would have done it with or without slavery if it meant keeping the country together.
In many cases sharecropping was used to shelter black relatives and protect them from the overt racism. In the late 1950s I visited relatives in SC at the old family plantation. There were 4 very modern brick homes with new vehicles parked outside that "sharecroppers" lived in. They did little work on the plantation and held outside jobs. Their children went to college. They were all blood relatives. I met some of them at a family reunion. It was a common practice to pretend that black relatives were sharecroppers. Not all sharecroppers were so lucky. I met one lady who said she wouldn't buy a tractor because then she could only justify keeping one family instead of four, but the children were all going to college and her children would have to buy a tractor
So true, I can't even realize how barbaric we were, in times prior to that we went to another continents and though force we brought their good and enslaved their people.
Not only was it difficult to free slaves (you had to prove to the courts that they would be able to care for their self, no freeing elderly or sick slaves unless they had a pension sufficient to live on. Slaves were a responsibility) but it was not always a favor to do so. In some states a freed slave had to leave the state, so many remained as bondsmen. We did not go and capture slaves. Most were bought from family or exiled from prisons, unless captured as what Boko Haram has done.
Have you ever heard the phrase "White Man's Burden"? Jefferson didn't just free his slaves because he had the obligation to care for them, to provide for their welfare in a society where they faced prejudice. The Bible told a slave owner that he had responsibilities, just as an employer does.
Haven't heard of that expression until now, but it makes sense. We can't have slaves in one moment and in the next one send them free t poverty, social inclusion has to be accounted for.
Lincoln declaring war on the south was primarily for unification of the United States. It became about slavery afterwards. The Emancipation Proclamation was only declared after the war started and I believe it was done to get blacks to flee their masters and join up with the Union. The reason Lincoln declared war on the South was about secession and the government over state's rights.
And then there was that "little" issue of Fort Sumter, wasn't there? Isn't that where the hostilities really began, and... as far as I know, Mister Lincoln wasn't present.
I was just reading in another thread that the south started the war, but now I am reading that Lincoln declared war, after some attack from the south was that it?
The confederate army fired upon Fort Sumter and the war began. I'm not sure which history book is teaching that Lincoln just decided to declare war one day.
Most white plantation owners were people with status and power. In a world where racial prejudice was a serious problem for people of color, being under the protection of someone of power had a definite advantage. If some low-class white person tried to argue with a black cobbler about his shoes "Youse gwina hafta talk to the Colonel' (or judge or senator) would usually end the argument. The Colonel probably had a riding crop or cane handy. Please excuse my attempt at dialect, The black cobbler was probably faking it anyway (unless a Geechee, who proudly spoke Gullah) Most southern states had a requirement for manumission that the slave owner had to prove that the freed slave would be able to be financially independent. Sometimes a trust-fund would be provided for elderly or disabled slaves, or ones who were particular friends.
Slavery was a big part of the civil war, but the country being massive, and people having regional differences really set up the civil war also. The united states, was bigger than most countries, and it had hefty differences from region to region, and that caused tension which eventually led to a civil war.
