What do we think of the following narrative?
The Lincoln Assassination Conspiracy Narrative
-
SaiGirl
- Posts: 368
- Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 9:42 pm
- Location: 21075
- Has thanked: 105 times
- Been thanked: 130 times
- Contact:
Movie “history” as propaganda and mythology.
In the movies, everything is resolved and reconciled.
After the war, it was Indian removal (or liquidation) that united the nation once again in fulfillment of its "Manifest Destiny".
https://journals.openedition.org/lisa/9357?lang=en
After the war, it was Indian removal (or liquidation) that united the nation once again in fulfillment of its "Manifest Destiny".
https://journals.openedition.org/lisa/9357?lang=en
-
SaiGirl
- Posts: 368
- Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 9:42 pm
- Location: 21075
- Has thanked: 105 times
- Been thanked: 130 times
- Contact:
Turning slaves into soldiers?
Both sides considered the prospect of enlisting slaves into their armies.
But only the Union carried out this plan to its conclusion: Negro infantry combat units.
The Confederates just couldn't bring themselves to do it.
But only the Union carried out this plan to its conclusion: Negro infantry combat units.
The Confederates just couldn't bring themselves to do it.
-
SaiGirl
- Posts: 368
- Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 9:42 pm
- Location: 21075
- Has thanked: 105 times
- Been thanked: 130 times
- Contact:
The Confederacy: Too little, too late.
If they had legislated and implemented a gradual plan of manumission (emancipation of the slaves), and proclaimed their reforms to the world, there's a good chance they would have received the international recognition, legitimacy and direct support from Europe, that might have made a crucial difference.
From the standpoint of European public opinion, slavery was always the main issue.
Since the slavery issue was Russia's main pretext for deploying their navy in support of the Union, a Confederate repudiation of slavery might have altered their willingness to get involved.
This was of critical strategic importance to the Union's attempted blockade of southern shipping and commerce; which was effectively frustrated by the world dominant British Royal Navy.
It was the Royal Navy that had effectively abolished the international slave trade in both the Atlantic and the Indian oceans, since at least the 1830s.
https://melbourneblogger.blogspot.com/2 ... force.html
The French, already having occupied and taken over Mexico, would have been induced to support the Confederacy as well.
The issue of slavery was the touchstone of the war in INTERNATIONAL public opinion.
The Confederacy failed to win this aspect of the war, because of their unwillingness to cut loose the "anchor of slavery" that weighed them down in European diplomacy.
From the standpoint of European public opinion, slavery was always the main issue.
Since the slavery issue was Russia's main pretext for deploying their navy in support of the Union, a Confederate repudiation of slavery might have altered their willingness to get involved.
This was of critical strategic importance to the Union's attempted blockade of southern shipping and commerce; which was effectively frustrated by the world dominant British Royal Navy.
It was the Royal Navy that had effectively abolished the international slave trade in both the Atlantic and the Indian oceans, since at least the 1830s.
https://melbourneblogger.blogspot.com/2 ... force.html
The French, already having occupied and taken over Mexico, would have been induced to support the Confederacy as well.
The issue of slavery was the touchstone of the war in INTERNATIONAL public opinion.
The Confederacy failed to win this aspect of the war, because of their unwillingness to cut loose the "anchor of slavery" that weighed them down in European diplomacy.
-
SaiGirl
- Posts: 368
- Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 9:42 pm
- Location: 21075
- Has thanked: 105 times
- Been thanked: 130 times
- Contact:
Indian Ocean Slave Trade Dwarfed Atlantic Trade
In the 17th century, the Indian ocean slave trade was arguably on a bigger scale than the Atlantic slave trade. The hub of this vile industry was in modern-day Tanzania, an area that specialized in three things: ivory, spices, and slaves.
Africans have always been willing to sell each other into slavery.
And Arabs have always been willing to buy.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/histo ... d-you.html
It was the British Empire that legislated abolition of the international slave trade.
And it was the British Royal Navy that enforced it.
- Attachments
-
-
-
-
SaiGirl
- Posts: 368
- Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 9:42 pm
- Location: 21075
- Has thanked: 105 times
- Been thanked: 130 times
- Contact:
Massive effort by the Union to import labor
Both sides experienced shortages of troops and labor shortages during the war.
The Confederacy was heavily dependent on the slave labor population.
They could have freed the slaves and instantly recruited thousands of new soldiers.
But they just couldn't bring themselves to make slaves into soldiers and hand them rifles.
The Union had a major advantage when it came to importing labor.
The Confederacy was heavily dependent on the slave labor population.
They could have freed the slaves and instantly recruited thousands of new soldiers.
But they just couldn't bring themselves to make slaves into soldiers and hand them rifles.
The Union had a major advantage when it came to importing labor.
-
SaiGirl
- Posts: 368
- Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 9:42 pm
- Location: 21075
- Has thanked: 105 times
- Been thanked: 130 times
- Contact:
In their own words: Why Georgia seceded.
“Our new government['s]...foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”
-Alexander Stephens Acting Vice President of Confederacy
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp
It was the refusal of Northerners to enforce the “Fugitive Slave Act” (capturing and returning escaped slaves) that constituted the major formally stated justification for Georgia’s secession:
But also, the effort of Northerners to restrict the extension of slavery into vast new territories acquired during the war with Mexico (1846-48) represented a threat to the continued existence of slavery in the original old states of the South.
QUOTE
==========
The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations.
A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensible for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings and all conceivable modes of hostility. The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their convenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. In several of our confederate States a citizen cannot travel the highway with his servant who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon and being subjected to infamous punishments. It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by the fraternity of such brethren.
The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation.
……
=====================================================================
UNQUOTE
-Alexander Stephens Acting Vice President of Confederacy
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp
It was the refusal of Northerners to enforce the “Fugitive Slave Act” (capturing and returning escaped slaves) that constituted the major formally stated justification for Georgia’s secession:
But also, the effort of Northerners to restrict the extension of slavery into vast new territories acquired during the war with Mexico (1846-48) represented a threat to the continued existence of slavery in the original old states of the South.
QUOTE
==========
The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations.
A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensible for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings and all conceivable modes of hostility. The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their convenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. In several of our confederate States a citizen cannot travel the highway with his servant who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon and being subjected to infamous punishments. It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by the fraternity of such brethren.
The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation.
……
=====================================================================
UNQUOTE
-
SaiGirl
- Posts: 368
- Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 9:42 pm
- Location: 21075
- Has thanked: 105 times
- Been thanked: 130 times
- Contact:
Is there fair academic consideration of a Southern view?
Commentary on Shelby Foote’s latest work.
Long considered one of the top experts in the field.
He’s been accused of advancing a “Southern bias” in popular culture’s understanding of things, mainly through his appearances on PBS documentaries about the war.
(Do I need to plow through it all myself?
I’d rather just watch his interviews.)
Long considered one of the top experts in the field.
He’s been accused of advancing a “Southern bias” in popular culture’s understanding of things, mainly through his appearances on PBS documentaries about the war.
(Do I need to plow through it all myself?
I’d rather just watch his interviews.)