Civil war Books From the Southern Perspective

Slavery indeed was the root cause of the CW to which all symptoms can be traced.

 

You have just described what you do: adopt a point then ignore all the evidence that confounds it.

You say the Irish were worse off than the slaves. Offer concrete evidence.

 

once more i disagree with your method to find truth. To take your baseless claims as truth I must ignore to much of history. Rather for me, history is true your baseless opinion that contradicts it, must be false.

 

multiple times i have. You have a great ability to ignore threads/ links and copy pasted posts fro m my threads. Tell me how I could get you to accept information you dont want to and are unwilling to read?

 

Wow, throwing roughly a century worth of history into single sentences and paragraphs are certainly your style I see.

OK, first of all the large Irish migrations to the US came much-much later. Prior to around 1848, the vast majority of migrants to the US came primarily from Germanic and Nordic countries. You know, the Swedes, Nords, "Pennsylvania Dutch", and the like. And yes, predominantly they worked as farm hands, worked their 5-7 years and went on with their lives.

The Irish that you talk about for most of the 19th century were sent by England to Australia as convicts. We had stopped taking "convict labor" from England decades before the 19th century even began.

The large migration from Ireland did not even start until roughly 1848. That is because of 2 things. First of course was the potato famine, which started in 1845. But it was not until 1848 that things there really started to fall apart. And very few of them arrived as any kind of Indenture or Redemptioner. That is because the recruiters never had a large presence in England (which had it's own ways to handle transporting people from one colony to another). That is why they primarily worked in Central Europe. Not in countries that still had extensive colonies, like France, Spain, Portugal, and the UK.

You are simply taking 300 years or so of history here, and trying to mash it all together. Much of it from even before the Revolutionary War, but even other things that are as late as the end of the Civil War itself.

But I am done here, with this entire stinking thread. It is all to apparent that only a few actually know and understand history, and the others are simply making things up as they go along, ignoring anything mentioned out of hand and without any kind of evidence simply because it fits their beliefs.

 

1stvermont has offered opinion and conjecture but no verified evidence that can be quantified as empirical data.

Mushroom crushes the Irish argument of 1st vermont as I did the indentured servitude argument.

 

Im with mush on this one.

 

As you should be, and as you have accepted my indentured servitude arguments.

Good.

 

Genocide and Slavery are two different actions. You can have one without the other and many times they were. Blacks in America definitely weren't being exterminated through slavery, those who owned slaves tried to increase their stock as much as possible.

 

You keep talking about the 1800s, when I have made it clear I am talking about the 1600s. And you don't call those sold into slavery as "migrants" do you?

"From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well."
www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-irish-slave-trade-forgotten-white-slaves/

 

So now the Irish argument moves from America to Europe and from the 1800s to the 1600s.

Very, very, very few Irish were transported to the Americas. Wj5 can offer no significant and conclusive numbers at all.

 

I was always talking about the 1600s. If you guys didn't think slavery was a monolithic idea that only started after 1791, you would know that it been around forever and the US isn't the only country that practiced that type of culture.

 

There was almost no Irish indentured servitude to the colonies, Wj5, don't you know that.

Convict labor banishment and indentured servitude are not slavery, except in your head.

 

Sure, the indentured servitude and the convicts (usually just political dissidences to the crown) were treated way worse.

As for the colonies, you can downplay or rationalize or flat out deny it all you want. That's your choice.
http://www.africaresource.com/rasta...the-irish-slave-trade-forgotten-white-slaves/

 

What happened 200 years plus before the Civil War does not apply.

What next, are you going to talk about the First Bank of the United States, then combine that in with a discussion of the Great Depression? This is not about the 1600's, it is about the Civil War.

And yes, from the 18th century on those that came through indenture were indeed immigrants they were not slaves.

Because they sold themselves into that condition to pay for their transportation to the US, and for their food and housing for a period of time after they first arrived!

Nobody went and kidnapped them, put them in chains, and shipped them off to another continent against their will to work for life. They made a conscious decision. Moving to a new land and a new life, in exchange for a set number of years of work. Hell, part of my own family came here in that way in the 1840's from Norway.

Nobody is talking about the 1600's. So stop trying to shove this into a topic that it does not apply to.

Oh, and to show how bad your history really is, the majority of Irish sent off did not even go to the "United States". The prime destination for them were the islands in the Caribbean. Barbados, Jamaica, and the Leeward Islands. Then later it shifted to Australia.

And it was under the same form of agreement as what came later (although those sent to Australia were generally convicts, who were returned home after their sentence was completed). Agree to up to 7 years of labor, in exchange for transit and housing and food in the "New World".

But the British also mandated what was known as "Freedom Dues" to be paid by the contract holders at the completion of the contract. In general either a cash payment of 40% of the contract value, or an equal value in land. Tell me you would not agree today to work for 7 years for somebody else, in exchange for free land.

And this group was indeed primarily made up of volunteers. Funny you talk about the 1600's. Because the height of this era of the Irish Diaspora was mostly made up of Catholics who were fleeing the horrors of Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England (and his wart). So agreeing to 7 years of labor somewhere out of the reach of the screaming Protestants was a damned good deal for those that wanted out.

You can not even begin to talk about so many were willing to do something like this, unless you also discuss why they were willing to do this. And to a Catholic in a region that had just been conquered by a Protestant nation during the Protestant Reformation, getting out was a good idea if they could.

They volunteered, and they agreed to the conditions in full knowledge before they left. The ones that were shipped out with no choice were the prisoners. And they were sent to Australia (and Tasmania). They also were sent for a specific amount of time, but at the end were then sent back home (until later on when they changed the policy to allow land grants if they remained in Australia).

Many in Ireland actually committed crimes so they could be sent to Australia.

And this is actually still a modern problem. One of the largest groups of "Illegals" in Australia today are the Irish. They are now required to have a return flight paid before they enter the country, because so many have overstayed their visa. And more than a few have remained there until they have saved enough money, then turn themselves in for a free flight home.

 

Not to the North American colonies, the majority went to the Caribbean Islands.

And those to the American Colonies were primarily indentured, trying to get away from the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland.

The island colonies did get a lot of forced indentured, but those were mostly prisoners who had taken up arms against the Parliamentarian reconquest. That was one of the bloodiest chapters in the history of Ireland. Roughly 40% of the population of Ireland died in the 15 years between 1641 and 1656, the vast majority of them were Catholics.

And the Irish still live on in the islands, but not many. In the mid 1800's there was an effort to resettle them to other islands like Grenada. But some do still remain on the island to this day, where their descendants are known as "Red Legs".

 

Wj5's sources do not prove that (1) the Irish had many indentured servants in America, and (2) that contract banishment and indentured servitude are slavery.

Wj5 simply believes that is so, which it is not.

 

Thank you, Mushroom. Put together a reading list for Wj5 and send it to him, please.

 

Better yet....ask a slave!
I am a Civil War Buff and I read biographies of Southern Leaders as well as Northern. The best reading I could suggest are the "Articles of Secession" from states such as South Carolina. They tell the real story.
Eric Foner wrote one of the most introspective books I have found. "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men-the ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War."
The book shows the many different views on slavery from a Republican perspective. Only a minority were abolitionists. Many did not appreciate the unfairness of competing with slave labor. What I really liked about the book was Alexis de Toqueville's un-partisan viewpoint on how slavery effected the South opposed to the industrious nature of even northern farming communities. The South had these wonderful plantations with over farmed desolate stretches of poor sharecroppers in between. While the North had industrious little villages where free men had blacksmith shops, stores and everyone seemed prosperous to a degree.

 

So you cherry pick you facts to back up your feelings. Thanks for writing so much when you made your whole position known with just this sentence. Good day.

 

Most Africans went to other countries than the US or colonies, so by your logic there really wasn't much of an impact on the US and they should get over it like the Irish.

 

Funny you say this. Since you scream about "cherry picking", and completely remove the next line, so what I posted looses all context.

Here, try again.

Funny, that you did the very act of cherry-picking, as you scream about cherry-picking.

But how about we go back and try again, shall we?

Tell me, how many of the so-called "Irish Slaves" from the 1600's still had descendants in the 1800's that were still slaves?

And how many of the African slaves from the 1600's still had descendants that were still slaves?

How many Irish brought to the Caribbean in the early 1800's were still "slaves" at the time of the Civil War in the 1860's? And how many of those of African descent were still slaves in the United States?

And BTW, are you even aware that the apprentice system in the United States at that time was still very close to the Indentured Servitude system? It really was the same system. A child or young adult entered into a contract, agreeing to give up a set period of their lives in exchange for food, housing, and learning a trade. And leaving such a contract without permission was illegal and made the person a fugitive.

Are you even aware that one of our Founding Fathers was such a fugitive? At the age of 15, Benjamin Franklin was an Indentured Apprentice to a printer. 2 years later he became a fugitive when he thought he had learned enough and left without permission, moving from Boston to Philadelphia to try making it on his own.

It was only because his Master was also his older brother that he was not reported as a fugitive. But if his brother had been less kind, he could very well have been legally arrested, dragged back in chains, and been punished for breaking his Indenture.

 

Yeah, that was the point. You cherry picked and so did I. Like I said, Good day.

 

Mushroom owns the discussion. There is no competition, but the cherry picker is Wj5 not mushroom.

 

I agree, a great source on slavery here, from slaves themselves.

https://www.loc.gov/collections/sla...s-project-1936-to-1938/about-this-collection/


I quote from them often


https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ation-about-slavery-in-the-old-south.8094230/



I also suggest the secession documents in there historical context as well as speeches/writings etc about secession. I quote the SC [and all states] secession documents.


https://www.christianforums.com/threads/ill-take-my-stand-–-causes-of-southern-secession-the-upper-south-american-civil-war.8088497/
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/ill-take-my-stand-–-causes-of-southern-secession-the-cotton-states.8088501/



Eric fonor is a marxists Lincoln cultist. I have no issues with reading him, but understand he comes from that view. As for the rest it will fit perfect in a future thread of mine on southern agrarianism vs northern industrialism. Stay tuned.