Stupid White People
The other day a lovely rant appeared in my Facebook stream about how the South might have lost the Civil War but they were in the right and by gum, just look at all that area! The south is rising again! Praise Jesus!
Okay, I"m paraphrasing because the "lady" was booted out of the airlock so fast I didn't think about copying her post for entertainment purposes. But that was the general gist of it. It was all talking about the Civil War and how the South was coming back.
Let's get something straight: the Civil War, from the point of view of the south, was about a bunch of rich, white men convincing stupid, poor white men to fight for their right to keep black people as slaves.
Hold on, what about States rights? What about them? There was no issue between the signing of the Constitution and the start of the Civil War that was "states-rightsy" enough that anyone wanted to go to war about it. But a bunch of rich white guys being told they couldn't keep black people as slaves anymore? Well, yeah, we'll fight for that. Besides, the southern states were against states rights when it came to the northern states not allowing slavery. That argument is completely invalid.
It wasn't even an imminent threat at that point. All that had happened was Abraham Lincoln had been elected and his platform was that no more states that were admitted to the Union should allow slavery.
Large slaveholders were extremely rare. In 1860 only 11,000 Southerners, three-quarters of one percent of the white population owned more than 50 slaves; a mere 2,358 owned as many as 100 slaves. However, although large slaveholders were few in number, they owned most of the South’s slaves. Over half of all slaves lived on plantations with 20 or more slaves and a quarter lived on plantations with more than 50 slaves.
- http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=3557
At most, 1/3 of households in the south had at least one slave. The vast majority, as quoted above, were on the rich plantations. That means 2/3 of the households in the south did not have slaves - yet they were convinced to go to war to protect this "right" for the plantation owners. These men died in a fight they had no dog in.
If by "the south is going to rise again" she and others like her mean they are going to send their children off to fight and die in a war they have no dog in, they are probably right about that.
Okay, I"m paraphrasing because the "lady" was booted out of the airlock so fast I didn't think about copying her post for entertainment purposes. But that was the general gist of it. It was all talking about the Civil War and how the South was coming back.
Let's get something straight: the Civil War, from the point of view of the south, was about a bunch of rich, white men convincing stupid, poor white men to fight for their right to keep black people as slaves.
Hold on, what about States rights? What about them? There was no issue between the signing of the Constitution and the start of the Civil War that was "states-rightsy" enough that anyone wanted to go to war about it. But a bunch of rich white guys being told they couldn't keep black people as slaves anymore? Well, yeah, we'll fight for that. Besides, the southern states were against states rights when it came to the northern states not allowing slavery. That argument is completely invalid.
It wasn't even an imminent threat at that point. All that had happened was Abraham Lincoln had been elected and his platform was that no more states that were admitted to the Union should allow slavery.
Large slaveholders were extremely rare. In 1860 only 11,000 Southerners, three-quarters of one percent of the white population owned more than 50 slaves; a mere 2,358 owned as many as 100 slaves. However, although large slaveholders were few in number, they owned most of the South’s slaves. Over half of all slaves lived on plantations with 20 or more slaves and a quarter lived on plantations with more than 50 slaves.
- http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=3557
At most, 1/3 of households in the south had at least one slave. The vast majority, as quoted above, were on the rich plantations. That means 2/3 of the households in the south did not have slaves - yet they were convinced to go to war to protect this "right" for the plantation owners. These men died in a fight they had no dog in.
If by "the south is going to rise again" she and others like her mean they are going to send their children off to fight and die in a war they have no dog in, they are probably right about that.
Comments
Post a Comment