--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 5:52 PM > Subject: Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable > view. > > > > > Some of those doing the fighting were fighting for states' rights, so > > arguably it was *fought* over that. > > > > A lot of those in the South put their state above the nation. Lee > > wouldn't fight for the Union because his Virginia was part of the > > Confederacy. And this putting the state before the nation was probably > > one of the major factors that lost the war for the South. > > I think the question you raised is an interesting one, but I don't think it > is quite that easily resolved. In particular, people like Lee would lose > their whole way of life if the North won the Civil war. Gautam beat me to > the consequences for poorer whites. What I was going to say is that the > bottom white knew he was better than a good fraction of the population: > almost half in the Deep South, about 1/3rd in the upper South. > > Second, it wasn't just a few who owned slaves: in Mississippi and Georgia, > almost half of the white population were slave owners, in Alabama and > Florida over a third, in Louisiana, Texas, North Carolina, Virginia, and > Tennessee, between a quarter and a third. > > So, I would argue that if one had to choose between a principled stand > against the Federal Government having too much power, period, and > preserving a way of life; the fight was to preserve a way of life. Without > slavery, the life of most whites, slaveowners and non-slaveowners, would > have been quite different. > > Dan M.
Exactly so. I would agree that it was in essence the echonomic well being of the south that was of highest concern to the southerner. But I believe that they saw the Federal, i.e. North as imposing unwanted restrictions and laws on them which directly efected their economy. Remember, it's not like blacks were equal members of northern society. The fact that one of the major issues which could effect the souths economic well being was slavery was of course not overlooked, but I believe that as at any time, the average person believed in the retoric. The kind of attitude that if slavery was a problem, it was a problem the south needed to solve on it's own, and in it's own time. A gradual change would have allowed the south not to be economicaly fractured. ...retoric, and not what I agree with, but it's a good argument, and one that would be an easy sell to your average southerner. Basicaly I am saying that they wanted to preserve there way of life, yes, and they saw state atonomy as a way of achieving that. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
