"Slavery was the primary, central, cause of secession"

[^_^ 5,021]

By ROBERT S. MCELVAINE | 3/28/11 6:35 AM EDT

“Slavery was the primary, central, cause of secession,” Barbour told me Friday. “The Civil War was necessary to bring about the abolition of slavery,” he continued. “Abolishing slavery was morally imperative and necessary, and it’s regrettable that it took the Civil War to do it. But it did.”

Now, saying slavery was the cause of the South’s Lost Cause hardly qualifies as breaking news — it sounds more like “olds.” But for a Republican governor of Mississippi to say what most Americans consider obvious truth is news. Big news.

It’s significant for two reasons: First, it sounds like Barbour is indeed running for the GOP presidential nomination. Second, it suggests that Mississippi has changed considerably since the 1960s.

...

Many white Mississippians—though not nearly as many as in the past—still insist that secession was about “freedom” and states’ rights, not slavery. Those people are part of the Republican base in Mississippi — and elsewhere in the South.

...

“We are continuing to move away from the old myths of the Civil War,” former Mississippi Gov. William Winter told me recently, “the myth that it was not about slavery, that it was about states’ rights and control by the central government.”

“If we know anything about history,” the former governor continued, “if we read about the background of secession, we know that, of course, it was about slavery. The Southern states at that point would not have seceded but for the issue of slavery.”

Now Barbour, the sitting governor, has dared to make a similar statement.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52026.html

[Obama 2012 1,714]

By ROBERT S. MCELVAINE | 3/28/11 6:35 AM EDT

“Slavery was the primary, central, cause of secession,” Barbour told me Friday. “The Civil War was necessary to bring about the abolition of slavery,” he continued. “Abolishing slavery was morally imperative and necessary, and it’s regrettable that it took the Civil War to do it. But it did.”

Now, saying slavery was the cause of the South’s Lost Cause hardly qualifies as breaking news — it sounds more like “olds.” But for a Republican governor of Mississippi to say what most Americans consider obvious truth is news. Big news.

It’s significant for two reasons: First, it sounds like Barbour is indeed running for the GOP presidential nomination. Second, it suggests that Mississippi has changed considerably since the 1960s.

...

Many white Mississippians—though not nearly as many as in the past—still insist that secession was about “freedom” and states’ rights, not slavery. Those people are part of the Republican base in Mississippi — and elsewhere in the South.

...

“We are continuing to move away from the old myths of the Civil War,” former Mississippi Gov. William Winter told me recently, “the myth that it was not about slavery, that it was about states’ rights and control by the central government.”

“If we know anything about history,” the former governor continued, “if we read about the background of secession, we know that, of course, it was about slavery. The Southern states at that point would not have seceded but for the issue of slavery.”

Now Barbour, the sitting governor, has dared to make a similar statement.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52026.html

the bolded is arguable. Very arguable actually.

Without slavery, the US would never have been what it is.

The civil war about slavery? It played a role, but even Lincoln didn't necessarily believe in freeing the slaves. Nor were many northern states for freeing the slaves either.

It was a mixture of slavery, economics, and yes states rights. Without each ingredient present, we may not have seen the civil war/session.

Funny part being also is that Lincoln even supported a state's right to secede from the union. This is rarely ever talked about.... It's amazing what political pressures will cause you to do though.

[^_^ 5,021]

“Abolishing slavery was morally imperative and necessary

the bolded is arguable. Very arguable actually.

Without slavery, the US would never have been what it is.

By that logic, abolishing slavery was in fact immoral?

Interesting that when it comes to enslaving black people, you put the interests of the state over the interests of the individual. I guess your anti-state libertarianism only applies to white people.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

By that logic, abolishing slavery was in fact immoral?

Interesting that when it comes to enslaving black people, you put the interests of the state over the interests of the individual. I guess your anti-state libertarianism only applies to white people.

Just remember who sold who to the "white man" and that not all blacks were slaves either.

That wasn't my point though and you know it.

There will always be slavery in the world. We would not be a functioning society without it.

Every race has been slaves in one form or another throughout the history of this world.

[^_^ 5,021]

Just remember who sold who to the "white man" and that not all blacks were slaves either.

The overwhelming majority of slaves in the United States were black. When you argue that this slavery was necessary to the interests of the state, you put the interests of the state above the interests of these individuals. If you were a good ol' fashioned three-fifths racist, your position would be coherent if utterly despicable. But you're not a racist, you're a libertarian. That makes your position incoherent and more than a little crazy.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The overwhelming majority of slaves in the United States were black. When you argue that this slavery was necessary to the interests of the state, you put the interests of the state above the interests of these individuals. If you were a good ol' fashioned three-fifths racist, your position would be coherent if utterly despicable. But you're not a racist, you're a libertarian. That makes your position incoherent and more than a little crazy.

You're still missing the point.

There's a big difference in supporting slavery and realizing the benefits it had for this country (and still does to this day).

Not everything is about race/skin color.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Slavery is bad. Slavery is the original cradle to grave nanny state.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[^_^ 5,021]

You're still missing the point.

There's a big difference in supporting slavery and realizing the benefits it had for this country (and still does to this day).

Allow me to summarize.

Barbour: Abolishing slavery was morally imperative and necessary

Paul: That is arguable

Is that a fair summary so far?

I take your statement to mean that abolishing slavery was not morally imperative. If that's not what you mean, then please tell me what is it about Barbour's statement you find arguable?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Slavery is bad. Slavery is the original cradle to grave nanny state.

try living in a world without it. It wouldn't be a pretty one.

Well, unless you are filthy rich.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

try living in a world without it. It wouldn't be a pretty one.

Well, unless you are filthy rich.

Without what?

[rika60607 215]

Really?

You would not have a functioning society here in the US unless in some far away country there was some slavery going on?

There will always be slavery in the world. We would not be a functioning society without it.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Really?

You would not have a functioning society here in the US unless in some far away country there was some slavery going on?

He must be referring to the suburban sex slave trade.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Really?

You would not have a functioning society here in the US unless in some far away country there was some slavery going on?

do you enjoy cheap clothes, cheap electronics, cheap goods, etc.

Ever notice how "made in America" = big price tag?

How about cheap food? Do you think day laborers make minimum wage? Do you think farm hands make minimum wage?

Slavery is right in front of our faces every day. Yet we choose to ignore it and deem it 'acceptable' because no one is noticeably being held against their will. The question you have to ask yourself though, is what other options do those people really have?

Allow me to summarize.

Barbour: Abolishing slavery was morally imperative and necessary

Paul: That is arguable

Is that a fair summary so far?

I take your statement to mean that abolishing slavery was not morally imperative. If that's not what you mean, then please tell me what is it about Barbour's statement you find arguable?

morality is always arguable. It's why it's an ever-changing thing. Be it progressive or even regressive at times.

[rika60607 215]

Oh, I see

No, I personally do not enjoy cheap food or apparel. I have expensive taste and shop accordingly. It is cheaper in the long run than buying cheap poor quality products anyway.

(Eggs from cage free chickens, yay!)

Your attempt to equate poverty with slavery, while poetic, is not valid.

do you enjoy cheap clothes, cheap electronics, cheap goods, etc.

Ever notice how "made in America" = big price tag?

How about cheap food? Do you think day laborers make minimum wage? Do you think farm hands make minimum wage?

Slavery is right in front of our faces every day. Yet we choose to ignore it and deem it 'acceptable' because no one is noticeably being held against their will. The question you have to ask yourself though, is what other options do those people really have?

morality is always arguable. It's why it's an ever-changing thing. Be it progressive or even regressive at times.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Oh, I see

No, I personally do not enjoy cheap food or apparel. I have expensive taste and shop accordingly. It is cheaper in the long run than buying cheap poor quality products anyway.

(Eggs from cage free chickens, yay!)

Your attempt to equate poverty with slavery, while poetic, is not valid.

"poverty?"

Is that what makes you 'feel better' about what it really is, is calling it something different?

Oh come now. You are smarter than that.

So working in ####### conditions, 15 hour days, making a few dollars a day is "poverty" and not slavery?

I see. Now I know how people sleep better at night knowing these things. They sum it up with "poverty."