|
Post by mm67 on Mar 13, 2024 0:05:23 GMT -5
It has been the general consensus among main stream historians for many decades that slavery was the underlying cause of the civil war. However that is not to say northern soldiers at first went to war with the express purpose of freeing the slaves. The Battle Hymn of the Republic, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (for whatever reason) marked a turning point when northern soldiers did take up a crusade to end slavery. Minor Point. Calling it "The War Between The States" was a term promoted by confederate sympathizers to signify a war between two sovereign nations as opposed to a war within one nation, a civil war. The term is not used in scholarly journals. See John Hope Franklin, Bruce Catlett. The current field is exciting with new research and writings and new perspectives as well. Did graduate work in the field too many years ago for me to remember. It was said: Although the north won the war the south won the peace not only on the ground(Jim Crow, tenant farming, violent subjugation, apartheid) but also in the writing of the history of that era. Margaret Mitchell's "Gone With The Wind" was a wonderful book/film as a love story but it was part of The South Vindicated school of confederate sympathizing, pro slavery racist writers. "Birth of a Nation," one of Woodrow Wilson's favorites and a well known series of articles "I'll Take My Stand" by Frank Owsley are other examples. There were others. Memory does fail me but I did not consult Wikipedia.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Mar 13, 2024 0:12:02 GMT -5
I assume the Jesuits went to the auction, asked for and may have received a 10% Clerical discount and paid cash derived from the collection plate. You can't varnish the ugly truth. Did the Jesuits treat their enslaved more humanely than other enslavers? IN SOME CASES, YES. TREATMENT WAS CERTAINLY WORSE IN THE DEEP SOUTH. Maybe not if they didn't view them as free people. Did they credit their enslaved as having a soul and eligible for heaven? YES. It's probably in the book. Did they give their enslaved communion and last rites, perform marriages, baptism and confirmations? Again...YES.As a precursor to the recent Priest Abuse scandal throughout the Catholic Church did they abuse men, women or children? I hate to say it but the answer is probably yes. The way some individuals (a minority) have acted here in the 20th and 21st centuries cannot be used to explain practices centuries earlier. Has human nature changed in only two or three centuries? Maybe Jesuits living in congregation kept things in check more than Parish Priests were kept in check in the 20th century by more distant Dioceses.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Mar 13, 2024 0:55:51 GMT -5
The influence of the Catholic Church in South America has been cited as one of the chief factors impacting slavery in South America as opposed to Chattel Slavery in the English colonies. Enslaved people in South America were not chattel and were recognized as humans with a soul and in some cases enslaved people were able to purchase their freedom. Intermarriage or similar shared living arrangements among the races was widespread and open. However it was slavery not indentured servitude. Whereas, in the English colonies enslaved people were considered chattel, private property, much like a farm animal not human. There weren't open relationships. Secret sexual dalliance and rapes between master & slave were not unusual. It led to many lynchings as black men were falsely accused of rapes which in fact was quite often not the case. English chattel slavery was more brutal & dehumanizing not only in the US but throughout the British West Indies.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Mar 13, 2024 5:40:33 GMT -5
Back when most of us went to college, it was often difficult to put our hands on primary sources which might help us investigate the facts around a debate over the causes of the Civil War. Now, I can find those documents while enjoying Irish soda bread and Costco brand coffee at my kitchen table. See this link to documents from several of the Confederate states as to why they seceded. It was about slavery. Sure, there is plenty of language about how they had the right to own people in the Constitution but it was still about getting to own people and ensuring that the government enforce that ownership. I’ll look for the other states later. www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#MississippiWhen people tell you who they are, believe them.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Mar 13, 2024 6:47:54 GMT -5
The influence of the Catholic Church in South America has been cited as one of the chief factors impacting slavery in South America as opposed to Chattel Slavery in the English colonies. Enslaved people in South America were not chattel and were recognized as humans with a soul and in some cases enslaved people were able to purchase their freedom. Intermarriage or similar shared living arrangements among the races was widespread and open. However it was slavery not indentured servitude. Whereas, in the English colonies enslaved people were considered chattel, private property, much like a farm animal not human. There weren't open relationships. Secret sexual dalliance and rapes between master & slave were not unusual. It led to many lynchings as black men were falsely accused of rapes which in fact was quite often not the case. English chattel slavery was more brutal & dehumanizing not only in the US but throughout the British West Indies. Also, American slavery was the first one, IIRC, to outlaw marriage and to say that any children were born as "property" of the owner of their mother. Slaves were denied marriage (hence the start of "jumping the broom") to have some ceremony to signify the start of a married relationship. A colleague of mine at Straight and Narrow used a broom in his marriage in Paterson, NJ. It was very moving. The African-American family is still trying to recover in many ways from this practice.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Mar 13, 2024 7:23:38 GMT -5
Thanks for helping me to get up to date on correct speech. I guess anyone who "owned" an enslaved person was an enslaver as well as those who made the institution possible (sailors on ships that carried slaves, for one example). Would that also apply to those Africans who captured members of rival tribes and sold them into slavery to start the process? What would be the obligations of those African tribes today? Regarding obligations...there are both legal and ethical obligations. Do the people of this country, many of whom are descended from families that were not in North America at any time during the period of slavery, owe for something they never did? Of course not. However, there is IMHO an ethical obligation to offer something to descendants of these people that can be a symbolically important way to start acknowledging what was done to innocent people. I've always wondered if there is some sort of ethical obligation owed by families descended from enslaved persons to the descendants of Union soldiers killed or grievously injured in the war to end slavery. While slavery (still ongoing in parts of the world) has been around for thousands of years (if not more) it is highly unusual in human history for mass numbers of free men to die in an effort to stamp it out. You mean soldiers want more than to be recognized at ball games and have people say, "Thank you for your service?" It might have been easier for the descendents of slaves to have been appreciative of the efforts of Union soldiers had the country not abandoned Reconstruction in order to resolve the 1876 presidential election thereby bringing on the Jim Crow era. It is hard to think that some of those descendents of slaves were in the mood to be appreciative when,for close to one hundred years, they were completely denied the franchise, could not serve on a jury, couldn't eat at the same lunch counter as whites, had to attend segregated schools, had to sit in the back of the bus (and give up a seat for a white person) and weren't allowed to buy property in Levittown because the federal loans which supported that project strictly prohibited it. www.npr.org/transcripts/526655831Reparations are, of course, an entirely ethical matter. Any claim anyone would have against anyone is barred by the statute of limitations and, in the case of claims against government, sovereign immunity. Private parties are entitled to try to do what they think is the right thing at any time. Query whether a legislatively enacted government program which requires that recipients be the direct desecendents of enslaved people would be found to be constitutionally infirm?
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Mar 13, 2024 7:54:39 GMT -5
I've always wondered if there is some sort of ethical obligation owed by families descended from enslaved persons to the descendants of Union soldiers killed or grievously injured in the war to end slavery. While slavery (still ongoing in parts of the world) has been around for thousands of years (if not more) it is highly unusual in human history for mass numbers of free men to die in an effort to stamp it out. You mean soldiers want more than to be recognized at ball games and have people say, "Thank you for your service?"… In the context of the reparations notion I was responding to, perhaps a discount if one of your Northern ancestors was killed or seriously wounded in the Civil War.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Mar 13, 2024 9:00:03 GMT -5
Recognize? Over the years: GI Bill;VA Mortgage; Lifetime healthcare & a 20 year retirement. Also the US military has the largest educational/training programs in America. Many got a start on their careers in civilian life in the military. And, if more is provided than more it shall be. Whatever the motivation to join the military we owe them big time.
|
|
|
Post by Chu Chu on Mar 13, 2024 9:01:43 GMT -5
Cute. I am very familiar with modern scholarship on the Civil War. When you generalize to States Rights as a primary cause of the War you leave out several others (of which I am sure you are aware). Here is a list of "primary" causes of the Civil War (in no particular order): 1. States’ Rights 2. The Missouri Compromise 3 The Dred Scott Decision 4. The Abolitionist Movement 5. John Brown’s Raid (Harper’s Ferry) and Trial 6. Slavery in America (yes it is on the list but only as one cause of many) 7. Harriet Tubman 8. Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe 9. Secessionism 10. Election of Lincoln *11 Newspapers (and the few men who owned them and controlled public debate) It was a far more complicated than some with agendas might have others believe. rgs318, with respect, everything on your list, with the possible exception of #10, IS ABOUT SLAVERY! The Confederates of the time said it was about slavery.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Mar 13, 2024 9:27:20 GMT -5
You mean soldiers want more than to be recognized at ball games and have people say, "Thank you for your service?"… In the context of the reparations notion I was responding to, perhaps a discount if one of your Northern ancestors was killed or seriously wounded in the Civil War. It wasn't the Union that fired cannon at Fort Sumter.
|
|
|
Post by ndgradbuthcfan on Mar 13, 2024 9:56:19 GMT -5
You mean soldiers want more than to be recognized at ball games and have people say, "Thank you for your service?"… In the context of the reparations notion I was responding to, perhaps a discount if one of your Northern ancestors was killed or seriously wounded in the Civil War. Your original post opined that descendants of enslaved people owed something to descendants of killed Union soldiers. How about affirmative action consideration for the latter group to historically black colleges?
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Mar 13, 2024 10:18:03 GMT -5
If one reads the statements of South Carolina, the first to secede and others states in the confederacy it is quite clear slavery and its protection was their reason for declaring they had left the union. States Rights was a mechanism to insure the protection & preservation of the South's "peculiar institution." In the interim between Lincoln's election and his assuming office in March 1861 there were proposed compromises to avoid secession. These offers all involved the retention of slavery and in fact its inclusion in the Constitution. One proposal called for a line extending across the nation to the Pacific. North of the line free, south slave and protected in perpetuity in the constitution. No compromise at all. (I have forgotten names,) Lincoln was an anti slavery Republican but he believed slavery would die a natural death. Most today reject that notion as the South was a slave society with slavery and its attendant beliefs & customs deeply ingrained in the culture of the south. To repeat almost all historians agree slavery was the underlying cause of the Civil War. A review of the facts found in primary sources can lead to no other conclusion. Lincoln the man was quite interesting in his evolution and attitudes toward black people.Some like to quote racist statements uttered by Lincoln in the 1850's. But the Lincoln of 1863 and after was quite different than the Lincoln of the early 1850's. Lincoln's greatness rests in his presidency but his beauty as a man rests in his personal journey. Amazing!Apologies for not providing specifics, names & dates but, man, it's been 50+ years and I have developed CRN(Can't Remember Nuthin'.)
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Mar 13, 2024 12:32:56 GMT -5
In the context of the reparations notion I was responding to, perhaps a discount if one of your Northern ancestors was killed or seriously wounded in the Civil War. Your original post opined that descendants of enslaved people owed something to descendants of killed Union soldiers. How about affirmative action consideration for the latter group to historically black colleges? In the context of the reparations notion I was responding to, I think it makes sense those descendants (of the mostly white killed and maimed Union soldiers) would earn a full exemption or discount from any reparations to the descendants of freed slaves. As long as folks are dwelling on long ago events related to long-dead persons. Of course, the whole notion of reparations for slavery paid to descendants of slaves by current US citizens (whose ancestors may or may not have been in the states 200 years ago) may be a foolish non-starter from the get-go.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Mar 13, 2024 12:48:34 GMT -5
I had thought reparations was in mind with affirmative action & other minority programs to try to even the playing field. Obviously the majority largely but not entirely white citizenry did not agree. Courts have gutted it. I have experienced white privilege in comparison to African American males. I know it exists as a fact. Rather than get tied up in the tit for tat political I think most can agree we as a society have to continue to strive in one way or another for a more just, equitable society. And, there may be different avenues to this end. I have faith in America. We may have detours along the way but in the end I have to have hope that in the long run the arc of history bends towards justice. We shall overcome. Peace.
|
|
|
Post by ndgradbuthcfan on Mar 13, 2024 15:28:29 GMT -5
Your original post opined that descendants of enslaved people owed something to descendants of killed Union soldiers. How about affirmative action consideration for the latter group to historically black colleges? In the context of the reparations notion I was responding to, I think it makes sense those descendants (of the mostly white killed and maimed Union soldiers) would earn a full exemption or discount from any reparations to the descendants of freed slaves. As long as folks are dwelling on long ago events related to long-dead persons. Of course, the whole notion of reparations for slavery paid to descendants of slaves by current US citizens (whose ancestors may or may not have been in the states 200 years ago) may be a foolish non-starter from the get-go. My post was 100% tongue in cheek.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Mar 13, 2024 16:03:46 GMT -5
At least three of my four grandparents were born in Ireland, the fourth died in the birth of my mother. My grandfather remarried and that grandmother died soon thereafter perhaps in the Spanish flu, it was around that time. (fortunately there was a maiden Irish aunt to step in when needed and my mother had a fine childhood) One of those two women had a Father who served in the Civil War and my mother thought a sword in our attic was his Civil War sword.
Finally upon closer inspection it was determined it was the Knights of Columbus sword of my grandfather who graduated from HC in 1898. I'm not seeking any Union soldier descendants reparations but would accept any offered.
I'm also one who is not doing any genealogy. I'm taking the stories told to me to the grave. I looked at one report a distant relative did. It contradicted some stories which was unsettling. To each his own I guess.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Mar 13, 2024 16:23:39 GMT -5
Your last point IMHO is certainly a valid one.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Mar 13, 2024 16:25:08 GMT -5
Cute. I am very familiar with modern scholarship on the Civil War. When you generalize to States Rights as a primary cause of the War you leave out several others (of which I am sure you are aware). Here is a list of "primary" causes of the Civil War (in no particular order): 1. States’ Rights 2. The Missouri Compromise 3 The Dred Scott Decision 4. The Abolitionist Movement 5. John Brown’s Raid (Harper’s Ferry) and Trial 6. Slavery in America (yes it is on the list but only as one cause of many) 7. Harriet Tubman 8. Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe 9. Secessionism 10. Election of Lincoln *11 Newspapers (and the few men who owned them and controlled public debate) It was a far more complicated than some with agendas might have others believe. rgs318, with respect, everything on your list, with the possible exception of #10, IS ABOUT SLAVERY! The Confederates of the time said it was about slavery. Actually, #10 the election of Lincoln most certainly related to slavery as an underlying cause of secession & the war. Lincoln while not an abolitionist certainly opposed slavery and its expansion. The election of a clearly anti slevery president triggered the proclamations of secession by slave holding southern states starting with S. Carolina.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Mar 20, 2024 18:17:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Mar 21, 2024 6:30:27 GMT -5
I meant to watch, but got sidetracked. Did anyone watch this?
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Mar 21, 2024 9:17:25 GMT -5
Minor Point. Calling it "The War Between The States" was a term promoted by confederate sympathizers to signify a war between two sovereign nations as opposed to a war within one nation, a civil war. The term is not used in scholarly journals. See John Hope Franklin, Bruce Catlett. The current field is exciting with new research and writings and new perspectives as well. It is indeed exciting. I can remember when Southerners still referred to the War as "The War of Northern Aggression." That was a common name at that time in the South. The title of War Between the States started as a neutral description of what took place. Remember, at that time the primary allegiance of Americans was to their individual state rather than the Federal government. The Civil War (called the American Civil War when referred to by foreign historians) was a common name for the conflict even though this bloody struggle was anything but "civil." There are still more books published about the Civil War each year than any other single topic (at least through 2020). With the Internet, many formerly unavailable primary documents are now easily accessible. (BTW, Northern records are detailed and well organized, starting with the applications for pensions by Federal veterans, but Southern information is anything but organized and, sadly, not always accurate. [He may not have been one of the strongest sources for particular details, but I have always enjoyed the writing of the late Bruce Catton.]
|
|
|
Post by purplenurple on Mar 21, 2024 9:34:35 GMT -5
I meant to watch, but got sidetracked. Did anyone watch this? I did and I thought all participants did a commendable job. Difficult questions were addressed, considered answers were offered. The faith of the enslaved and their descendants, many of whom remained members of the Catholic Church, is humbling. President Rougeau and Fr. O'Keefe represented Holy Cross and the Jesuits very well.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Mar 21, 2024 9:38:05 GMT -5
Catton not Catlett. Old age. The War Between the States was a term popularized by writers sympathetic to the South in the post Civil War era. Indeed it was widely used. However, it was a civil war within one nation and not a war between two sovereign nations as the confederates & southern sympathizers proclaimed. The union won. Confederacy destroyed. Case closed. Took some courses in grad school on the Civil war- one on Civil War historiography. Lots of fun. Unfortunately through the years I have lost touch with more recent scholarship.Between law school & grad school it gets confusing.
|
|
|
Post by Chu Chu on Mar 23, 2024 13:04:48 GMT -5
I meant to watch, but got sidetracked. Did anyone watch this? I did and I thought all participants did a commendable job. Difficult questions were addressed, considered answers were offered. The faith of the enslaved and their descendants, many of whom remained members of the Catholic Church, is humbling. President Rougeau and Fr. O'Keefe represented Holy Cross and the Jesuits very well. I also watched, and I agree it was an excellent program. I was especially impressed by President Rougeau, who spoke eloquently about the Healy brothers, and how they were able to achieve so much only because they were able to pass for White. This came out great personal cost, which included estrangement from their family. He also noted that when the Healy brothers father died, the sale of his estate and slaves resulted in a gift that helped to rebuild Fenwick Hall after a catastrophic fire.
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Mar 23, 2024 13:46:55 GMT -5
Does anyone know whether the program is available to stream?
|
|