The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: tombogan03884 on August 01, 2012, 11:02:30 AM
-
In the case of Dred Scott V Sanford SCOTUS ruled that Scott, a black slave was not a citizen.
Justice Taney's decision explains why.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford#Decision
It would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.
Gun control is never about guns, and never has been.
It's about control.
-
Two sides to the equation,...but your premise is correct...
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html
The Racist Roots of Gun Control
The historical record provides compelling evidence that racism underlies gun control laws -- and not in any subtle way. Throughout much of American history, gun control was openly stated as a method for keeping blacks and Hispanics "in their place," and to quiet the racial fears of whites. This paper is intended to provide a brief summary of this unholy alliance of gun control and racism, and to suggest that gun control laws should be regarded as "suspect ideas," analogous to the "suspect classifications" theory of discrimination already part of the American legal system.
Racist arms laws predate the establishment of the United States. Starting in 1751, the French Black Code required Louisiana colonists to stop any blacks, and if necessary, beat "any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane." If a black refused to stop on demand, and was on horseback, the colonist was authorized to "shoot to kill." [1] Slave possession of firearms was a necessity at times in a frontier society, yet laws continued to be passed in an attempt to prohibit slaves or free blacks from possessing firearms, except under very restrictively controlled conditions. [2] Similarly, in the sixteenth century the colony of New Spain, terrified of black slave revolts, prohibited all blacks, free and slave, from carrying arms. [3]
BUT,....
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1301/features/lives5.htm
Until recently, historians have had to depend on slave owners' records and diaries to reconstruct the daily lives of slaves. These accounts indicate that owners tried to feed their labor force as cheaply as possible.
In a diary of his year as a plantation tutor in Virginia in the 1770's, Philip Vickers Fithian notes that the slaves were provided with a weekly allowance of "a peck of Corn, & a pound of Meat a Head!" Fithian goes on to mention that the owner of this particular plantation is, "by far the most humane to his Slaves of any in these parts!" *
Culling data like this from various accounts, historians estimate that an average weekly ration for each adult slave would have been something like one peck (or eight quarts) of corn meal, a pound of salt beef or pork and a little molasses or salt fish. That's a little over 2,000 calories a day, not nearly enough for hard manual labor. How did slaves survive?
Again, evidence discovered in the sub-floor pits helps clear up the mystery. While laws prohibited slaves from owning guns, flint and other gun parts excavated from the pits reveal that slaves did in fact have access to firearms. Bone fragments suggest that slaves hunted and fished to supplement their meager rations.
***
Many Blacks fought against the Union Army as well.
-
There is a University of Ga Professor doing a study who has documented about 8,000 black Confederate volunteers.
-
There is a University of Ga Professor doing a study who has documented about 8,000 black Confederate volunteers.
Sad fact is that they were defending the only way of life they knew. What would they do without the master to provide food and shelter for them and tend to the details of their life.
Similar to the way those dependent upon government to provide for them and make their decisions for them vote for their masters today.
-
Sad fact is that they were defending the only way of life they knew. What would they do without the master to provide food and shelter for them and tend to the details of their life.
Similar to the way those dependent upon government to provide for them and make their decisions for them vote for their masters today.
Horse crap.
Their motivation was the same as most Southern whites. Their home was being invaded.
Back in those days People were citizens of their State first because the majority of political power was vested in the State.
Like it's laid out in the Constitution.
The vast majority of Southerners didn't give 2 hoots about slavery, per se.
What they were mad about was uncompensated confiscation of private property, and a self righteous Federal Govt. that ignored the Rights of states and limits to it's own power .
The decision to claim the war was about "slavery" was some BS dreamed up by a Congressional committee well after the war began.
-
Horse crap.
Their motivation was the same as most Southern whites. Their home was being invaded.
Back in those days People were citizens of their State first because the majority of political power was vested in the State.
Like it's laid out in the Constitution.
The vast majority of Southerners didn't give 2 hoots about slavery, per se.
What they were mad about was uncompensated confiscation of private property, and a self righteous Federal Govt. that ignored the Rights of states and limits to it's own power .
The decision to claim the war was about "slavery" was some BS dreamed up by a Congressional committee well after the war began.
You make a distinction between "home" and "way of life". I do not.
-
You make a distinction between "home" and "way of life". I do not.
You should, the 2 are not the same, just like "clip" and "magazine".
A slave may not have been happy to be forced to build a cotton plantation, but that doesn't mean he was any happier seeing some Yankee send his work up in smoke.
-
" The decision to claim the war was about "slavery" was some BS dreamed up by a Congressional committee well after the war began. "
Tom,
The debate about Slavery vs States rights has been over for a long time. History has shown us that it was Slavery that was the primary cause of secession. I doesn't take much research to find that the States Rights argument does not stand up to even cursory examination. I would refer you Professor Galagher from the University of Virginia. He may well be the premier living Civil War scholar. His findings support the Slavery argument. He is far from alone in his beliefs, you will find that those that continue to beat the dead horse of the States Rights argument are pretty much on the fringe much like those that belong to the Flat Earth Society.
-
I'm affraid I must disagree. If you read history books shortly after the Civil War - up to the late 1930s - you'll find that slavery was hardly mentioned as a cause of the war. Neither North or South fought, specifically - or primarily - to end slavery. State's rights, and the North's invasion of the Southern states were the main cause - though you could argue that was precipitated by concerns over Lincoln's stand on the South's refusal to end slavery. Even that, though, is a red herring as the South offered to end the slave trade - and by etension, slavery - but were met with resistance (and some say a threat to secceed) from the New England shipyards and the states where they lay.
In fact, a number of attempts - by a number of means - were proferred to end slavery, but the North wanted it ended overnight. This, of course, sounds simple enough - but not when the South's entire economy was at risk. So, while the South was willing to phase out slavery over time - the North was not. And while this was a contentious issue, the South felt it could be resolved peacefully. In the South the tipping point was Lincoln's provocative open recruitment of 75,000 volunteers to invade the southern states - who did indeed see themselves as a collection of individual "countries" of a sort. Case in point: Robert E. Lee would easily have taken the offer of command of Union forces had not Virginia seceeded. But with the secession of Virginia Lee could not bear to "raise his sword against his countrymen."
It's a tedious issue indeed. But the biggest mistake when observing - and criticizing it - is doing so with today's morals and attitudes. A true historian (a double M.A. myself) knows that the biggest mistake we often make is judging people and events of the past through the lens of today when things were quite different in the past. Even terminology can change drastically from generation to generation, much less over numerous generations.
To conclude, I see the Civil War as a fight over state's rights and continued and evolving central governmental control - with a number of issues at the forefront. Economic issues, moral issues, religious issues, state's rights - and, yes, slavery - all contributed to the coming of the war. You could almost equate that era with today's, as the government continues to insist on more and more control - womb to the tomb, as they say - and a growing number of the populace rebelling against an ever-bigger number of the populace who seem content to live off governmental handouts. Those governmental handouts, of course, come from the toil of the first group who's growing tired of paying for the pleasures enjoyed by the second at their expense. At their expense, of course, because the government has only the money they take from you and I. It's not unreasonable to assume that, at some point, a "Civil War" will develop over these and many other currently contenteous issues - and some historian in the future will blame it all (falsely) on the "rich getting richer", "Not paying their fair share", etc - when we all know there exists a cornucopia of reasons, when boiled together to raise the temperature in society as a whole, something/some faction will have to give (as they say).
As for the issue of blacks fighting for the south - it's one of the least known facts of the Civil War. Stonewall Jackson's brigade had hundreds of blacks serving as both fighting men, and teamsters, cooks, etc - just as whites did. And the 8,000 figure proferred may be woefully low. The true number may be as high as 20-25,000. And they fought not because they were promised their freedom (though some were), but for the same reason everyone in the South fought. Because their homes, their way of life, and the fruit of their labors were being invaded and destroyed - and the Union soldiers they came across generally cared about as much, or less, for them as did the Confederate soldiers who fought alongside them.
-
bigdrumdaddy!
A most eloquent and interesting post. Pretty much the same information offered me by a very good social studies teacher I had 40 years ago!
Thanks and welcome aboard!
-
Thank you Bigrumdaddy,
You refer to estimates as high as 20-25,000 blacks serving, the 8,000 number was what the Prof had documented by name, Regt. etc at the time of the article.
-
Some light reading........
http://www.southernheritage411.com/
http://www.southernheritage411.com/truehistory.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._K._Edgerton
-
There is no denying that the Confederacy was far more inclusive than the Northern govt. The first American Indian promoted to General was Confederate Gen Stand Watie , the first Jew to hold major political office was Attorney General Judah P Benjamin who also served as Sec.of War, and finally as Sec. of State..
-
It is difficult to hold your head up and defend the confederacy and admit the war was about slavery. No, a new reason had to be found and the cry of States Rights was used as a beard to obfuscate the reasons. It was difficult after WWll to find a German that admited knowing anything about the Halocaust just as it was and still is today finding a Japanese that admits to Nanking.
"It’s true, then, that South Carolina seceded over states’ rights: though, as neo-confederates are loath to admit, the specific right in question concerned the ownership of human chattel. One of the South’s persistent complaints was the northern states would not vigorously cooperate in the return of fugitive slaves and that the free states allowed antislavery organizations to flourish.
In other words, for South Carolina, slavery and states’ rights were not mutually exclusive; in fact, they were the same thing. Today too few people understand the intricate legal history that connects slavery to states’ rights — and as a result a needless debate continues, 150 years after secession began. "
This argument has been settled for many years. It is the fringes that continue to object. Organizations like the Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy and various other " Heritage" organizations still try to rewrite history. It cannot be rewritten though.
It was a hundred years after the Civil War that full citizenship was given to the decedents of slaves in the South. There was a history of lynchings, Ku Klux Klan rallies and separate facilities. Finally, it was the Civil Rights movement led by MLK that actually "freed" the slaves (figuratively). It wasn't till the 1960s that Blacks were even allowed to attend State Colleges in the South.
Now history revisionists are trying to make the point about States Rights? Absolutely Laughable! It is akin to Germans saying, " We moved Jews into those camps to keep them from being hurt during the war."
-
It is difficult to hold your head up and defend the confederacy and admit the war was about slavery.
Especially when it isn't true.
Which are you going to believe, the words and writings of people who were there, or the revisionist bullsh!t that liberal professors began spouting a century later ?
I'm surprised you are diving into this so ill prepared, your comments are usually much better informed.
-
I am perhaps Ill prepared because I am taken aback that there are still people that follow that line of thinking. It is not unlike coming upon people that believe you can cure a headache by bleeding a person, or people that can prove the world is flat, although I do know those people exist it is always a surprise.
I have not heard any argument here that vouches for states rights other than "everybody knows its true" type of response. To suggest that Liberal Professors have an ax to grind may well be true in some instances. I am, in general, not proud of our higher learning institutions, or of our lower learning ones as well. In this case though the facts speak for themselves and no amount of denial can change those facts. I can go into greater depth if it is required but I really have no desire to rehash the argument that world is flat.
Although I doubt anyone will do it, I suggest, that with an open mind, people do some research on their own. The information is there for the picking. If anyone thinks it is worthwhile I would continue this discussion but I doubt we would come any conclusion other than " WAS TOO ! WAS NOT ! " I think my example of post war Germany was spot on. And just the treatment of blacks in the Post War south also bolsters the slavery argument that the South considered negroes as no more than cattle not worthy of associating with whites.
-
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_28?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=fighting+for+the+confederacy+the+personal+recollections+of+general+edward+porter+alexander&sprefix=Fighting+for+the+Confederacy%2Cstripbooks%2C349
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_3_12?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=bruce+catton+civil+war+books&sprefix=Bruce+Catton%2Cstripbooks%2C163&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Abruce+catton+civil+war+books
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_18?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=cherokee+cavaliers&sprefix=cHEROKEE+CAVALIERS%2Cstripbooks%2C163&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Acherokee+cavaliers
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_17?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=i+rode+with+stonewall&sprefix=I+rode+with+Stone%2Cstripbooks%2C163&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Ai+rode+with+stonewall
That should do to start with, I started on the Catton books when I was about 8.
The Shaara series, "Killer Angels", "Gods and Generals", and "Last full Measure", while they are fiction, are quite accurate, more readable than some of the "historic" accounts, and give you more of a sense of just who the names actually were as people.
A couple things I will point out is that a lot of the treatment received by former slaves resulted not from being black, but from being associated with the Northern occupation forces in the same way that modern Conservatives (myself included) lump all blacks into the gangbanger, welfare camp after 4 years of being called racists by the Obama regime, even though we respect many, such as Thomas Sowell.
Secondly, very few Union troops were fighting against slavery, most of them had no more use for blacks, who they saw competing for jobs if freed, than the most racist Southerner. They actually were fighting to preserve the Union regardless of how the slavery question was resolved.
-
Ok, lets talk.
The Missouri Compromise allowed for Missouri to be admitted to the union as a slave state and Maine to be admitted as a free state. It also disallowed slavery in some northern part of Louisiana. In 1853 a decision had to be made as to the admission of Kansas and Nebraska. I believe that it was Henry Clay that proposed that those states be allowed to choose for themselves either slave or free. The south had an investment in slaves and did not want to have that investment threatened. The US Govt also allowed at that time the south to send bounty hunters into the north and retrieve escaped slaves and return them to their masters. Then came the Dread Scott decision. Dread Scott was a slave that moved with his master to Wisconsin and Minnesota. It was Scotts position that both Wisc and Minn were free states therefor he should be free. The SCOTUS disagreed and ruled that he was not a citizen and as such had no rights, he remained property. See the beginnings of a strong slavery issue? It will become even stronger and force the souths hand.
We had won the war with Mexico and we gained vast areas of land out west. It was mostly the Northerners that wanted to keep that land as free. They didn't do this for any great humanitarian reason but because they didn't want to have to compete against landowners that
kept slaves. The south was greatly opposed to the idea of free states in the west. The North felt that if they could contain slavery and not let it expand it would die a natural death.
It was at this time the Republican party was formed and Lincoln was elected. With Lincolns election South Carolina seceded and was followed by the other southern states. It was not an invasion of the south that started the war but the firing on Ft Sumter that precipitated the conflict. If you wish, you can say it was states rights that caused the secession, but you have to admit that it was the Southern States right to own slaves that was the right.