Opinion of Franklin Pierce

[Mechaman]

Quick comment on the whole "% of slaveowners in South" debate:

Looking at my Lincoln Museum guide there is a very pro-Union graph that displays certain percentages of things in Northern and Southern states.  There is a graph that is "Whites in the Slave States" vs "Slave Owners in the Slave States".  Owners make up about 8% of the white population.

Sure, it's an old graph and it's biased. . . . .towards the Union.

[TDAS04]

Washington and Jefferson did not rebel against the British to protect slavery.  How did anyone get the idea that they did?  The 13 Colonies did not break away from Britain because the British were perceived to be threatening the tyrannical institution.  Jefferson actually wanted to include language in the Declaration of Independence blaming King George III for slavery.

As for the South in the Civil War, preserving the way of life based on slavery was the prime reason for secession.

[TDAS04]

Quick comment on the whole "% of slaveowners in South" debate:

Looking at my Lincoln Museum guide there is a very pro-Union graph that displays certain percentages of things in Northern and Southern states.  There is a graph that is "Whites in the Slave States" vs "Slave Owners in the Slave States".  Owners make up about 8% of the white population.

Sure, it's an old graph and it's biased. . . . .towards the Union.

It is not that relevant that only a small percentage of whites in the South owned slaves.  Slaveowners controlled the politics and called the shots, and most (though not all) Southern whites respected them.  Actually, it would be quite accurate indeed to claim that slaveowners formed an even smaller percentage of the region's population, since many people in the region were SLAVES.  Majorities of people in South Carolina and Mississippi were enslaved, and it was over 40% in Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.  So yeah, obviously slavery could not have been the main reason for secession since only a few bad slaveowners benefited from the institution anyway.  At least that's the logic that some people have.

[Mechaman]

Quick comment on the whole "% of slaveowners in South" debate:

Looking at my Lincoln Museum guide there is a very pro-Union graph that displays certain percentages of things in Northern and Southern states.  There is a graph that is "Whites in the Slave States" vs "Slave Owners in the Slave States".  Owners make up about 8% of the white population.

Sure, it's an old graph and it's biased. . . . .towards the Union.

It is not that relevant that only a small percentage of whites in the South owned slaves.  Slaveowners controlled the politics and called the shots, and most (though not all) Southern whites respected them.  Actually, it would be quite accurate indeed to claim that slaveowners formed an even smaller percentage of the region's population since, since many people in the region were SLAVES.  Majorities of people in South Carolina and Mississippi were enslaved, and it was over 40% in Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.  So yeah, obviously slavery could not have been the main reason for secession since only a few bad slaveowners benefited from the institution anyway.  At least that's the logic that some people have.

I apologize if it sounds like I am agreeing with those who claim that slavery wasn't a point in the Civil War.  It definitely was.  Mostly, I posted this to (again, this is slave owners vs. white population, not total population) more as a means to show societal inequality.  There were many poor whites in the South, some of whom resisted fighting for the Confederacy or were drafted (OMG THE FREEDOM LOVING CONFEDS DRAFTING PEOPLE!?  NO WAY!) into the army.  And of course, some respected the institution and fought for it.  I don't have exact numbers here.

Government has been and will always been the dominance of the minority over the majority.  The dominance of slavery issues in the South proves it.  "Free soil" advocates in the North probably touted this graph to show that slavery disadvantages a supermajority of whites for the benefits of a few.

My point is that (like you said) it doesn't really matter if only 1% or up to 30% of Southern Whites owned slaves.  It still happened, it still was wrong, and people need to stop losing sleep over it.  Not all Southerners were evil slaveowners, but the system supported such activity.  Tariffs were an issue, but hardly something they would've gone whole hog secession over.

[Antonio the Sixth]

That 99% figure is bullsh*t. It was more like 70% or so. Also, as should be obvious to anyone, even non-slaveowners had indirect interests (as well as emotional attachment, so to speak) in slavery.

Also yeah, sure, 11 States decided to secede because they were pissed off at tariffs.

30% of the populace had the money to own a slave? Maybe 99% is bullsh**t, but it can't be any lower then 95% at least. And yes, tarriffs happened to be a major political issue back then. Did John Calhoun almost break up the union in the 1830's over slavery? Or was it tarriffs? A 6th grade level history textbook will have the answer.

I just took a history class on this. It's 30%. Or maybe those damn San Francisco lib'rul professors are out rewriting history again?

The tariff dispute happened in the 1830s. The 1850s were dominated by the issue of slavery, nobody cared about anything except that.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Please learn some history and stop attempting to tie the Libertarian movement into slavery, something Libertarians obviously oppose. The South is not completely synonymous with slavery, and it is only thanks to the upper 1% in the South that slavery even continued.

I suggest you need to take your advice.  Try reading the document South Carolina offered to justify secession.

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

If you bother to read it, you'll see that they offered only one reason.  Slavery.  Seven states thought the election of Lincoln alone was a sufficient threat to slavery that they seceded, tho I'll admit some of those states had sense enough to realize that proclaiming they were seeking the freedom to enslave was not good public relations, so they added additional reasons to their declarations. The Upper South was not certain that Lincoln's election was not a certain threat to slavery and they hoped that the trouble could be solved via negotiation.  But four more states were sufficiently devoted to slavery that once fighting began, they sided with the slaveholders.  Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland were more divided in their concerns. (Had it not been for the fact that the Federal City was on the Potomac, Maryland would likely have had competing Union and Confederate governments just as the other border states did. Around 25,000 Marylanders fought in defense of slavery.) Delaware is sometimes called a slave state, but it really wasn't as less than 10% of its Negroes were slaves.  It just happened to be a northern state that had a few slaves. Even without the Civil War, it's likely that Delaware would have passed some sort of emancipation act in the 1860s.

[Goldwater]

Pretty obvious HP.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

At least the 2nd-worst.

Exactly.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Please learn some history and stop attempting to tie the Libertarian movement into slavery, something Libertarians obviously oppose. The South is not completely synonymous with slavery, and it is only thanks to the upper 1% in the South that slavery even continued.

I suggest you need to take your advice.  Try reading the document South Carolina offered to justify secession.

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

If you bother to read it, you'll see that they offered only one reason.  Slavery.  Seven states thought the election of Lincoln alone was a sufficient threat to slavery that they seceded, tho I'll admit some of those states had sense enough to realize that proclaiming they were seeking the freedom to enslave was not good public relations, so they added additional reasons to their declarations. The Upper South was not certain that Lincoln's election was not a certain threat to slavery and they hoped that the trouble could be solved via negotiation.  But four more states were sufficiently devoted to slavery that once fighting began, they sided with the slaveholders.  Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland were more divided in their concerns. (Had it not been for the fact that the Federal City was on the Potomac, Maryland would likely have had competing Union and Confederate governments just as the other border states did. Around 25,000 Marylanders fought in defense of slavery.) Delaware is sometimes called a slave state, but it really wasn't as less than 10% of its Negroes were slaves.  It just happened to be a northern state that had a few slaves. Even without the Civil War, it's likely that Delaware would have passed some sort of emancipation act in the 1860s.

And who were the people who drafted that document? The 8% at the top (I think that sounds about right, and that is the liberal estimate) who, as noted by Antonio, controlled the politics of the day. I never said they were right, but to tie in every citizen of the South with the slave owning elite who started the war (and yes, it was about slavery, I never denied that) is ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is the notion that the concept of states’ rights should be abolished because of the civil war. Of course, the anti Southern bias (or borderline bigotry) on this forum has been noted in the off-topic section, so I expect my arguments to be ignored or attacked with basic strawman rebuttals.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It is passing strange that modern Confederate supporters believe the same myth of latent southern Unionism that Lincoln and other Republicans believed in at the start of the Civil War.

[SPC]

Washington and Jefferson did not rebel against the British to protect slavery.  How did anyone get the idea that they did?  The 13 Colonies did not break away from Britain because the British were perceived to be threatening the tyrannical institution.  Jefferson actually wanted to include language in the Declaration of Independence blaming King George III for slavery.

As for the South in the Civil War, preserving the way of life based on slavery was the prime reason for secession.

That may not have been their reason, but the Americans success had the practical effect of prolonging slavery.

You must be logged in to read this quote.