Declarations of Independence: Slavery, Secession, and the Confederate Scapegoat.

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
[font=Tahoma,]Vanderford, C. (2011). Declarations of Independence: Slavery, Secession, and the Confederate Scapegoat. [/font][font=Tahoma,]Tennessee Historical Quarterly,[/font][font=Tahoma,]70[/font][font=Tahoma,](2), 92-107. Retrieved from [/font][font=Tahoma,]http://www.jstor.org/stable/42628746[/font][font=Tahoma,] Free to download[/font]

[font=Tahoma,]The only overt objective of this thread is chasing a leaf in what looks like an interesting article. [/font]
[font=Tahoma,]Be polite. Let us try to follow the article and see where it goes.[/font]
[font=Tahoma,]Thanks[/font]


[font=Tahoma,]The issue of secession conceived of either as the reserved right of a state, or as the natural right of a group of people, has no innate connection with slavery. In the history of the United States, however, slavery has intertwined with secession in a way that makes it very difficult to extricate them. That difficulty exists not only for the Civil War but for the American Revolution as well. Historians should suspect the motives of anyone who tries to downplay the role that slavery has played in the history of the United States. They should therefore be very careful that they do not portray the Confederacy in such a way that they might encourage the general public to conceive of it as a scapegoat for slavery in North America. A comparison of the ways in which slavery influenced both the Declaration of Independence and the South Carolina Declaration of the Causes of Secession can help avoid that trap. This essay considers both documents in the context of natural rights philosophy, a philosophy that makes adequate provisions for slavery, secession, and the rights of states.1 In confronting these issues, one should begin with the opinions of the many. Opinions about the most important things hold societies together.[/font]

[font=Tahoma,]A college professor can inform opinion, but he or she must first know where the audience stands on a particular issue. Sometimes professors find things that surprise them. For instance, at a 1998 speaking engagement in North Carolina, the prominent sociologist and popular historian James Loewen quizzed an overflow crowd. "Why," he asked, "did South Carolina, followed by ten other southern states, secede?" He gave them four possible answers: "slavery, states' rights, tariffs and taxes, and the election of Lincoln." It surprised Loewen that about one-half of the audience chose "states' rights" as their answer. Only twenty-five percent answered "slavery," the answer he wanted them to choose. Loewen tried to write off the results. "That was North Carolina," he thought afterwards. "The audience was overwhelmingly white. Most were over 50 years old. Many had taken U.S. history before or during the Civil Rights movement, when public education in the South was deliberately used as a tool of white supremacy." A visit to a college campus near Minneapolis, however, confirmed Loewen's worst fears. The students there answered in the exact same ratio.2[/font]

[font=Tahoma,]Loewen's quiz inspired me to try one of my own. I teach at a small public university in Texas. Many of the students at this university have graduated from local high schools, one of which is named for Robert E. Lee. The quiz occurred on the first day of a U.S. history survey class, and most of the students had just begun college. Fifty-five students took the quiz. One question read as follows: "The southern states declared their independence from the United States in response to Abraham Lincoln's emancipation proclamation." Seventy-eight percent of the students identified that statement as true. As a simple matter of fact, however, that statement is false. South Carolina left the Union in December of 1860. The Emancipation Proclamation not go into effect until January of 1863. Emancipation occurred as a northern reaction against secession; secession not occur as a southern reaction against emancipation.[/font]
 

RWebb

New Member
Joined
May 20, 2019
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
I went to public school in the South during the 1950's and 60's. Don't recall being taught anything about white supremacy. Black people and white people pretty much got along back then, albeit there were separate bathrooms and water fountains,etc. Interesting thing, the school I went to was built in 1917 and looked it. The black school was built in the 50's and was a much more modern and comfortable facility.
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
RWebb said:
I went to public school in the South during the 1950's and 60's. Don't recall being taught anything about white supremacy. Black people and white people pretty much got along back then, albeit there were separate bathrooms and water fountains,etc. Interesting thing, the school I went to was built in 1917 and looked it. The black school was built in the 50's and was a much more modern and comfortable facility.
You realize that means it took them 30+ years to build a school for black kids. They certainly didn't let them in your 1917-built school. I will also bet the teachers in the black school were inferior to those in all-white school because those teachers and their parents had been deprived of an education in the south. That is why "separate but equal" was a joke. Separate means absolutely unequal - period. I went to grade school and high school in Atlanta at the same time as you. Even the school employees (janitors and kitchen staff) were white. Our high school sports teams weren't even allowed to compete against black schools' teams. Black folks and white folks in Atlanta "got along" because they almost never came in contact with one another.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
Dad was a political worker for Bull fire hose police dog Conner and George Wallace.  I grew up in a world of nigger quarters and keeping the blacks in their places.   I was a Birmingham resident where church bombings, fire bombings, and cross burnings were common.  Years later a white preacher man got up and told how god-fearing and peaceful the 1950s/60s Bham was.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
We might want to get back on the topic too.
 

Andersonh1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
580
Reaction score
742
jgoodguy said:
[font=Tahoma,]A college professor can inform opinion, but he or she must first know where the audience stands on a particular issue. Sometimes professors find things that surprise them. For instance, at a 1998 speaking engagement in North Carolina, the prominent sociologist and popular historian James Loewen quizzed an overflow crowd. "Why," he asked, "did South Carolina, followed by ten other southern states, secede?" He gave them four possible answers: "slavery, states' rights, tariffs and taxes, and the election of Lincoln." It surprised Loewen that about one-half of the audience chose "states' rights" as their answer. Only twenty-five percent answered "slavery," the answer he wanted them to choose. Loewen tried to write off the results. "That was North Carolina," he thought afterwards. "The audience was overwhelmingly white. Most were over 50 years old. Many had taken U.S. history before or during the Civil Rights movement, when public education in the South was deliberately used as a tool of white supremacy." A visit to a college campus near Minneapolis, however, confirmed Loewen's worst fears. The students there answered in the exact same ratio.2[/font]
This confirms to me that at least some historians really are out of touch with the public at large, and they make assumptions based on their own bias, in the absence of actual evidence.

I'd have said "all four are entertwined" myself, though if I suspected the person asking the question was trying to get a certain answer, I might give a different one rather than be led by the nose. Or I might counter his question with "it depends who in that society you're talking about. You'll get a different reason or reasons depending on demographics. Don't oversimplify."
 

Viper21

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
639
Reaction score
600
Andersonh1 said:
jgoodguy said:
[font=Tahoma,]A college professor can inform opinion, but he or she must first know where the audience stands on a particular issue. Sometimes professors find things that surprise them. For instance, at a 1998 speaking engagement in North Carolina, the prominent sociologist and popular historian James Loewen quizzed an overflow crowd. "Why," he asked, "did South Carolina, followed by ten other southern states, secede?" He gave them four possible answers: "slavery, states' rights, tariffs and taxes, and the election of Lincoln." It surprised Loewen that about one-half of the audience chose "states' rights" as their answer. Only twenty-five percent answered "slavery," the answer he wanted them to choose. Loewen tried to write off the results. "That was North Carolina," he thought afterwards. "The audience was overwhelmingly white. Most were over 50 years old. Many had taken U.S. history before or during the Civil Rights movement, when public education in the South was deliberately used as a tool of white supremacy." A visit to a college campus near Minneapolis, however, confirmed Loewen's worst fears. The students there answered in the exact same ratio.2[/font]
This confirms to me that at least some historians really are out of touch with the public at large, and they make assumptions based on their own bias, in the absence of actual evidence.

I'd have said "all four are entertwined" myself, though if I suspected the person asking the question was trying to get a certain answer, I might give a different one rather than be led by the nose. Or I might counter his question with "it depends who in that society you're talking about. You'll get a different reason or reasons depending on demographics. Don't oversimplify."
I agree. Isn't that uncommon for historians to make assumptions based on their own bias.

I would've answered, Depends. Depends on which state we're talking about. The 10 that followed SC, didn't all secede at the same time. One size didn't fit all.....
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
jgoodguy said:
[font=Tahoma,]Vanderford, C. (2011). Declarations of Independence: Slavery, Secession, and the Confederate Scapegoat. [/font][font=Tahoma,]Tennessee Historical Quarterly,[/font][font=Tahoma,]70[/font][font=Tahoma,](2), 92-107. Retrieved from [/font][font=Tahoma,]http://www.jstor.org/stable/42628746[/font][font=Tahoma,] Free to download[/font]

[font=Tahoma,]The only overt objective of this thread is chasing a leaf in what looks like an interesting article. [/font]
[font=Tahoma,]Be polite. Let us try to follow the article and see where it goes.[/font]
[font=Tahoma,]Thanks[/font]
[font=Tahoma,] 
[/font]

[font=Tahoma,]The issue of secession conceived of either as the reserved right of a state, or as the natural right of a group of people, has no innate connection with slavery. In the history of the United States, however, slavery has intertwined with secession in a way that makes it very difficult to extricate them. That difficulty exists not only for the Civil War but for the American Revolution as well. Historians should suspect the motives of anyone who tries to downplay the role that slavery has played in the history of the United States. They should therefore be very careful that they do not portray the Confederacy in such a way that they might encourage the general public to conceive of it as a scapegoat for slavery in North America. A comparison of the ways in which slavery influenced both the Declaration of Independence and the South Carolina Declaration of the Causes of Secession can help avoid that trap. This essay considers both documents in the context of natural rights philosophy, a philosophy that makes adequate provisions for slavery, secession, and the rights of states.1 In confronting these issues, one should begin with the opinions of the many. Opinions about the most important things hold societies together.[/font]

[font=Tahoma,]A college professor can inform opinion, but he or she must first know where the audience stands on a particular issue. Sometimes professors find things that surprise them. For instance, at a 1998 speaking engagement in North Carolina, the prominent sociologist and popular historian James Loewen quizzed an overflow crowd. "Why," he asked, "did South Carolina, followed by ten other southern states, secede?" He gave them four possible answers: "slavery, states' rights, tariffs and taxes, and the election of Lincoln." It surprised Loewen that about one-half of the audience chose "states' rights" as their answer. Only twenty-five percent answered "slavery," the answer he wanted them to choose. Loewen tried to write off the results. "That was North Carolina," he thought afterwards. "The audience was overwhelmingly white. Most were over 50 years old. Many had taken U.S. history before or during the Civil Rights movement, when public education in the South was deliberately used as a tool of white supremacy." A visit to a college campus near Minneapolis, however, confirmed Loewen's worst fears. The students there answered in the exact same ratio.2[/font]



[font=Tahoma,]Loewen's quiz inspired me to try one of my own. I teach at a small public university in Texas. Many of the students at this university have graduated from local high schools, one of which is named for Robert E. Lee. The quiz occurred on the first day of a U.S. history survey class, and most of the students had just begun college. Fifty-five students took the quiz. One question read as follows: "The southern states declared their independence from the United States in response to Abraham Lincoln's emancipation proclamation." Seventy-eight percent of the students identified that statement as true. As a simple matter of fact, however, that statement is false. South Carolina left the Union in December of 1860. The Emancipation Proclamation not go into effect until January of 1863. Emancipation occurred as a northern reaction against secession; secession not occur as a southern reaction against emancipation.[/font]
I actually believe that Loewen got the answer he wanted, because I believe that in 1861, "States' Rights" and "Slavery" were exactly synonymous. I believe in more modern times "States' Rights" and "Jim Crow" were exactly synonymous. Jim Crow and slavery are just two sides of the same white supremacist coin.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,596
Reaction score
4,539
You know how people state our civil war was not about slavery and we produce the Ordinance of Siccession. I found this Mississippi documents... all about slavery...


Snip...

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
 
Top