Re: [DL] Freeing the Slaves

["Mr. Christopher McGlothlin, M.Ed." <sosentinel@adelphia.net>]

At 06:51 PM 8/1/2002, jtsmailinglists@yahoo.com wrote:
>My take on it is the slave owners had to broaden the
>scope of the North's abolishment of slavery.  Luckily
>for them, they held most of the political power in the
>south.  So they exagerated thier 'outrage' at the
>North's attack on state's rights.

         It's true some of the leading figures of the South during that 
time had the preservation of slavery as their primary goal, but it is 
equally true that many of them were ideologically committed to the states' 
rights paradigm laid out by John C. Calhoun. Most saw slavery and states' 
rights as compatible, and indeed, inseparable. Alexander Stephens is 
probably the best-known advocate of this position, but he was hardly the 
originator of it, and far from its only adherent.

>   By doing so they
>were able to get alot of people who really had little
>to nothing to gain from upholding slavery buy into a
>cause.

         That was their hope, but first-person accounts show that their 
efforts to broaden interest in slavery beyond slave-owners, slaves, and 
abolitionists were almost wholly unsucessful.


>However, it
>is obvious (with 20/20 hindsight) that the North was
>RIGHT.

         Sir, I think you need to get your glasses checked.:-):-):-):-)

>   Federal power does at times need to override
>the rights of states.  (Thats tough coming from a
>staunch Libertarian here.)

         It is arguable, to say the least, that Federal power needs to 
trump State authority to the extent the Republicans wanted, or that the 
Lincoln administration did.

>Admittedly it is not all of the story, but it does
>explain why so many people - even slaves themselves -
>died for what looked like to outsiders a war over
>slavery.  They bought what the politicians were
>selling.

         A study of the first-person history of that period reveals that 
most people had a love for politicians and a faith in their assertions 
comparable to what we have today.
         Illustrative of this is a comparison of the Northern depictions of 
Lincoln prior and subsequent to his death. "Oh Captian! My Captain!" is a 
far cry from the usual depiction of Lincoln: an ape.

>Quick question - was it ever economical?  I find it
>hard to believe that slavery - particularly the kind
>where people are imported such great distances - is
>ever economical for the slave master.

         Please let me make it clear that, to answer this question, we must 
for the nonce put aside the total immorality of slavery. That said, slavery 
was economical in certain times and places.
         When the Spanish could find no one else to mine the mineral riches 
of their New World colonies, slavery made sense. It was either that, or 
leave the gold and silver in the ground.
         The cotton gin and the Old World's insatiable need for cotton 
combined to make slavery profitable when producing that one crop. However, 
the South's "Cotton Diplomacy" ironically doomed this, as it forced the 
British to cultivate other sources (primarily Egypt), which increased 
supply. And we all know what happens when supply increases....

Deo Vindice,
Mr. Christopher L. McGlothlin, M.Ed.

Educator & Freelance RPG Writer
Member, Academy of Adventure Gaming Arts & Design
Moderator of the New Gamers Order Listserver

"Look upon me! I'll show you the life of the mind!"
--Charlie Meadows (John Goodman), _Barton Fink_