|
|
Post by hausmann on May 29, 2016 14:35:03 GMT
Welcome to the fourth discussion question thread for the semester! Questions are below.
1. How did slavery cause the Civil War? Why were southern whites so wedded to the system that they were willing to secede over it? Did the roots of American slavery have anything to do with the eventual coming of the Civil War?
2. Was slavery primarily a system of social control or a system of economic production? Does your answer change depending on whose perspective, slave or master, from which you view the question?
3. Civil War and Reconstruction history is some of the most contentious and politically controversial history in the United States today. Why is this? How did the Civil War and its aftermath come to be the cornerstone of so many American political debates?
|
|
|
|
Post by danielkogan on May 31, 2016 17:09:50 GMT
Response to Discussion Question 2:
In my opinion, I suppose that slavery was somewhat of a middle round between serving as a system of social control and a platform to foster economic production. More so, I certainly believe that a strong political component is relevant, as well. Let me explain: In Breen’s article, when referring to the Virginia’ society, it is mentioned that “…the changing composition of the colony’s labor force between 1660 and 1710 affected Virginia’s progress from chronic disorder to stability and more, how it fundamentally altered the relationship between blacks and whites.”
Before I analyze this excerpt, I think it is important for me to be state that I am in absolutely no way an advocate of slavery. That being said, I believe the above-mentioned quote is a prime example of a few important and central opinions surrounding slavery. It addresses the dilemma of social conduct (disorder to stability), economic transformation (labor force); lastly, brings up a well-known political element (blacks and whites). Additionally, I think the tone of this particle quote reveals a neutral concern in relation to the balance of the issues discussed. Later addressing the subject, it is discussed that after the Indians were pushed off their land, “Planters rushed to develop the fertile tobacco-producing lands along the river.” More so, Virginia needed a productive and inexpensive labor force, which would enable the tobacco market to develop. Following this, slavery was essentially introduced into the equation. Thought initially white servants were preferred, black servants were regarded as less expensive; therefore, economically more efficient. This is unequivocally absurd.
Having said that, I do believe that the perspective from which slavery is analyzed certainly matters. However, I ultimately consider that whether one takes the standpoint of a slave or a master, the result of slavery had an impact on both social control and economic development.
|
|
|
|
Post by jpetonak2 on May 31, 2016 21:58:56 GMT
Response to question 2
Slavery was a system of social control and a system of economic production depending on whose eyes you’re looking at it. From the slaves eyes it is a system of social control. The person enslaved knows that they are here to do work or whatever their jobs is for their owner. Based on what I have read and watch documentaries on, the slaves were no treat well at all. Instead of being taken care of, they were mistreated and not given the fundamental needs that all humans should be given. That is when the slaves will look at slavery as a system of social control and not a system of economic production.
Now on the other hand, through the eyes of the owners, it was a system of economic production. They saw this a great way to make more money and to increase their production output without increasing their input. By providing the bare-necessities, they were able to maximize their production in turn making their profits much larger. From my standpoint and knowledge of the subject, slavery was both a system of social control and economic production.
|
|
|
|
Post by chelseaw on Jun 1, 2016 13:53:59 GMT
By now, we all know that lives in the North and the South were very different. Through this class we have learned that while the north was more progressive in their lifestyles the south stayed buried in the past. In the south owning humans, i.e. having slaves was seen as a status symbol and asserted your worth in society. The more slaves in your possession the more wealth you had. Southern whites were so used to having slaves, it was a part of their culture, and when talk from the north started up about ending slavery, the south was afraid that their lifestyle would be ruined. They were scared enough to fight for their rights and to protect their ‘heritage’.
The civil war had many little causes to start it, but at the forefront was the debate of slavery. Following the revolution the Northern states started to step away from slavery, as they took in the words of the declaration of independence. The north hoped, that the south would soon follow. Southerners felt like they couldn’t have the economy they were in, or their way of life without African slaves, because they were extremely cheap labor. As the north was becoming more industrialized and modern, the south stayed rooted in the past. It was because of these differences that the civil war started.
|
|
|
|
Post by robgallagher on Jun 1, 2016 17:27:26 GMT
In my opinion, slavery was both a tool for social control as well as a platform for economic production. Slavery allowed whites to control the black population while at the same time it allowed them to have a cheap labor force to make goods. This view does change however when you look at it from either a slaves or masters point of view. From a slave’s point of view, slavery was used as a social control tool in order to control them by whites.
But if you asked a slave master, they thought it as a tool for economic production. Slave owners can make more products by using this cheap labor force. For example, in the Breen article, it talks about how the labor force in the state of Virginia became more stable. We can infer that slavery made the labor force more stable. I don’t condone the use of slaves in any situation or for any reason. However, I do understand why slaves were used as a labor force. Using black slaves instead of whites was far more cheaper and it led to more money for the slave owners.
|
|
|
|
Post by madison on Jun 1, 2016 18:41:06 GMT
Response to Discussion Question #2:
Before I began reviewing the materials for this week, I thought about this question and how I would answer it now, without any further background on the situation. I have always believed that slavery was system of social control. In the past race was a huge aspect of life and interactions with people, although some of these issues still are present. The Caucasian people and the African American people were not friends in the past, and the Caucasian people thought that they ‘ruled,’ With this being said, I feel that slavery was a system of social control because it gave the Caucasian’s the power and control over the ‘lesser,’ in their eyes, African Americans.
After reviewing the material for this week I have come to the conclusion that the masters say slavery as a system of economic production, while slaves saw slavery as a system of social control. As T.H. Breen said, “No one could deny that many whites saw Negroes as property to be exploited.” From reading Breen’s “A Changing Labor Force and Race Relations in Virginia, 1660-1710,” it was evident to me that although many whites felt that they were superior to African Americans, the main reason for their slavery was to create profit. They saw slaves as a cheap and easy way to create labor and in turn materials to be sold. Although I do believe race played a part in why the masters wanted African American slaves, I believe the main focus was producing goods and making profits.
The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, states that slaves were not regular allowanced, were cold and hungry, and much more. I feel that in a slaves mind if slavery was about economic production, then masters would provide their workers with proper clothing to keep them warm and food to keep them energized to work harder. The more energized and focused someone is, the more they will accomplish, which would result in a greater economic production. Hence, looking at the viewpoint from a slaves eyes, then slavery was about social control.
|
|
|
|
Post by rheajain on Jun 1, 2016 20:59:31 GMT
I believe that slavery cannot be categorized as one or the other. In the South, the primary lifestyle was that of farming and agriculture. There, they need slaves to work in the field; however, the slave owners quickly changed the definition of owning slaves. It became a symbol of wealth and status – the more slaves one owned, the higher status they have in society. Here it was a system of economic production. When the North started to talk about ending slavery, the South got scared because that is all they knew. They didn’t know anything else but owning slaves and plantations. This was one reason the civil war started. The South was protective over its cultural and its lifestyle. The Northern states gave up slavery by the Declaration of Independence and they were hoping the South would do the same. However, the Southerners couldn’t leave what they had behind, which they used against the Northerners in the Civil War. This is a system of social control.
My view on this doesn’t change when it comes to perspective because I took the perspective of the lifestyle in the South during the civil war. Additionally, I can see how it would be a bit of both even in the perspective of the slave and the slave owner. They needed slaves not only to work on the plantations but also to show status and wealth. Therefore, I will stick to my answer because it works in either perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by hollie on Jun 1, 2016 23:38:45 GMT
Question 1
Slavery caused the Civil War due to the sheer numbers of slaves working plantations and farms in both the North and South. Particularly in the South, slaves outnumbered their Masters by the hundreds and continued to produce more slaves once purchased by their Master that was the intention that the majority of Southern white owners perceived as an economic way of profiting instigating them to secede from the Union if necessary to precede with business as usual. Slave labor profited only the Masters of slaves who brutally continued to maintain a quota of production at any cost.
Absolutely the roots of slavery had everything to do with the Civil War. The election of Lincoln was similar to the election we face now as a nation my example is Donald Trump a Republican just as Lincoln was, but Lincoln had just ousted the Whigs and was a wild card that the abolitionists had no indication as to what he meaning Lincoln was going to do with this national question of slavery. Lincoln finally declared his position only two weeks before he took the oath of office for the Presidency. This is what the Antebellum Southern white owners were waiting for and had been preparing for State Constitutions in the previous months incorporating the original Constitution as their basis of maintain slavery.
I believe that this Country is just as frustrated today as they were in 1860 and we as a Nation need to change the perceptions that were put in place by our descendants. I believe today that depending upon what economic statuses people are in are more relevant in today’s current society than what color their skin is .Although women today still make 30% less money than men and have fewer numbers in those six figure paying positions.
|
|
|
|
Post by craigaway on Jun 1, 2016 23:43:51 GMT
Question 1
In “The Black Atlantic”, it states that slavery based on race is a European invention. Europeans did not enslave each other because they were considered Christians. The T.H. Breen reading lays out many roots of the southern embracement of slavery. Economic and cultural elements changed the working dynamics in the south. This eventually became what was called a “Herrenvolk democracy” made for the master (white) race, and tyranny for subordinate slaves. Lower-class whites started to settle down into more established roles. Tobacco prices started to rise. Ships developed a capacity to ship slaves directly from Africa; they were cheaper than indentured servants and owners had greater selectivity. The English cracked down on “spirits”, who would trick servants into indenture. There was a transition from servants to skilled labor. Militias cleared land of Indians that the gentry later used for vast estates. As the economy improved for whites, it had an inverse effect on slaves. Poorer whites could no longer identify with blacks like they could in the mid-17th century. Slaves had no exposure to English language like previous slaves in Barbados. Selling of slaves compounded racial difference. The black labor force, subjected through slavery, were no longer supported by working whites, they were outnumbered, with armed militias looming. They were considered the only threat to this new economy, and the whites of all classes could rally around racial superiority.
The “Corner Stone” speech of Alexander Stephens rests on the principle that the races are not equal, and that this is a physical, philosophical, and moral truth. During the Enlightenment time of the founding fathers, they state that all men are created equal. Their institution of slavery was supposed to pass away over time. Stevens argues that there is a logic that is involved in defining these principles, and that if the premise is wrong, then the whole argument fails. He used analogies to architecture, science, God and nature as proving that the races are not equal, and that therefore slavery is justified on principle, and that it must triumph. One irony to this is that during the David Blight lecture on emancipation, Ulrich Phillips of the “plantation school” of history, argues the opposite. Slavery would have died on its own over time.
Stephens states that all of the north-west territories will move toward slave holding. In the Backstory podcast the “Road to Civil War”, they say that Lincoln mostly feared the westward annexation by slave states. He may have even been willing to allow the southern slave states to stay in the Union. During the siege of Ft. Sumter, Virginia was on the fence in the vote to secede. As the situation in Ft. Sumter intensified, they voted to secede. Both Lincoln and the early secession state South Carolina can claim to have forced the issue for Virginia. As they explained, there was the paradox of an unbalanced equation. The north did not go to war to end slavery, but the south went to war to protect it.
|
|
|
|
Post by tylerg033 on Jun 2, 2016 10:42:47 GMT
Question 2 Response:
As people go back in history and look at slavery there are many differing viewpoints on why it was done and why the southern whites did not want to give up this slavery so easily. Some people say it was because they did all the hard work for them and that may have been one of the reasons but the main reason was the economic value of these slaves. They were not just a system of social control or a system of economic control; they were both of those things and many more. The slaves allowed their masters to have that sense of power and control in society but the economic benefits of slaves was enormous. Because of the amount they paid the slaves which was sometimes nothing and other times just very small amounts the masters made large profits on their crops. Cotton was the most popular crop at this time grown in the south and for a while the South sold this cotton and traded with the likes of France and Great Britain. Because of the great profits they made you can see that slavery did a lot to bolster the southern economy.
I believe the answers would change based on your perspective of the issue but at the bottom of all of this although slavery was and is a terrible thing in this world, at the time when it was allowed by some these southern men and women made the most of their opportunity to use and profit from slavery. The views would most likely change but most people would be able to see that because of how slavery helped the South that it was hard for them to live without it.
|
|
|
|
Post by wattsajengineer on Jun 2, 2016 11:50:52 GMT
Question 1 To determine whether or not the social construction of slavery was the cause for the Civil War, it is important to grasp the culture of the time and why African slaves were such an integral part of the Southern system of living. Look at the colonization of America when it began...the population was concentrated on the East Coast. Today we still see that evident with much more metropolis cities lining the East. With that being said, it was full of industry, factories, and a multitude of jobs. In the south colonization was later, as the farmers had to move somewhere other than the big cities to grow food. They found that certain crops that were existential to the Northern industries grew well in the South. Namely cotton, as it fueled the Northern textile industry, the South soon became a raw materials manufacturer as the North grew in industry. The farmers were at one point higher tenant farmers to tend the land for them, but that got to be too expensive when the cost came to sell the cotton up North. Slave labor offered a large cost break and that meant that the plantation owner could make more for one harvest of cotton, than he could if he had to pay other farmers. Plantations grew in size and the amount of slaves increased. The industry in the North was growing larger and they needed more cotton, the Southern plantation owners had to expand their fields to accommodate the Northern quotas, and that meant more slaves. The South had become so reliant on slave labor that it fueled their economy. Isn't it funny how this group of people were literally the reason the South had money, but were treated like crap because they had brown skin instead of white? When Lincoln stated his opinion of slave labor the South wanted a way out. If they had to give up their slaves, they wouldn't be able to survive anymore, their economy would plummet and nobody would be there to pick them up when they fell over. If they became a separate nation they could still have their slaves and the fancy way of life, and then export the cotton to the North. They were willing to secede over this system because it saved their economy. I always think of the Civil War as just one big argument between siblings. "You can't have that," "But I want it" mentality spread with slavery and although the North had slaves there were not many large plantations like in the south, and many were house slaves doing chores and duties in the house instead of the house wife doing them. When the North said that the South couldn't have slaves, the South proposed the idea of seceding, the North again said no. So in a weird way the War was also like a bet between the two. If the North won the South would give up their slaves and stay a part of the Union and if the South won they would be able to secede and carry out like nothing had happened. At its core I think the Civil War was caused by slavery because neither party fully understood the impact it had on each economy and how not having it would drastically affect both parties involved. Slavery slowly snowballed into a problem the Union saw needed to be fixed and the war was the eventual frustration of both parties letting everything out. ![]()
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephanie Weiner on Jun 2, 2016 14:51:08 GMT
Question 1:
The Backstory podcast focuses greatly on the fact that Lincoln could not address this issue that was at hand. The long drawn debate was that the South thought slavery was right, and Lincoln and the Republicans thought slavery was not. With that said, it is important to note that Lincoln did not have intentions of starting a war. The podcast reveals the true intentions of Lincoln and that the roots of American slavery are not directly related to the coming of the Civil War. Brian Balogh in the Backstory podcast mentioned that secessionists thought the North was going to let the South go without a war. Peter Onuf comments on that statement, by saying that Lincoln thought the secesstionists’ feelings in the South was a “kind of cancer that could be excised.” Furthermore, there were deeper issues behind slavery that related to politics and economy, such as succession, states’ rights, and which states were part of the Union. However, a war specifically over slavery was not predicted to happen.
So in actuality, an event that had a major impact on the beginning of the civil war was in Fort Sumter, South Carolina. This event is considered the first battle of American Civil War. In South Carolina, the U.S. fort there ran out of food to eat. Lincoln made a decision to send food to South Carolina, and South Carolina took this as an act of aggression. As a result, a war is drawn between the North who does not want to go to war for slavery and the South who goes to war to protect it.
|
|
|
|
Post by kylokaitlyn on Jun 2, 2016 15:02:55 GMT
Question #2
There are two sides to every story--from the slave or the master's perspective is obviously different. It is impossible to overlook how African Americans were shunned as an inferior race, or how the South was prospering in agriculture and slavery was a necessary catalyst for this. In order to maintain the vast plantations, slaves were hired. In that perspective, it seems necessary for economic production. However, slave owners completely abused their power and forced social control over the African Americans. In the "Corner Stone" speech, Stephens says "With us, all of the white race...are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, is fitted or that condition which he occupies in our system." Stephens is expressing the common opinion of the south--of their superiority over their slaves, thus exhibiting social control. Frederick Douglas in his autobiography of slavery, recalls numerous occurrences of slave holder abusing their slaves from Mr. Gore shooting Dempy right in the head, the wife of Mr. Hicks beating a girl to death for sleeping through her baby's cries, and Master Auld starving his slaves. These are just three examples of how horrendous the other thousands of cases may be. But this goes to show the way the system was abused and reached beyond what should have been for economic production only. As there may be two sides to every story, it became the burden of accepting the social control from the slaves, or inflicting that control as the master. I don't think there is one perspective from each side. It fits into either side more than it should have.
|
|
|
|
Post by blweaver215 on Jun 2, 2016 16:58:18 GMT
Response to Question 2:
I believe that slavery was primarily a system of social control. While I see how slavery also benefitted economic production I view slavery as a system of social control first, which was then followed by a system of economic production. In the Breen article it talks about how, “After 1660 the Virginia legislature began to deprive black people of basic civil rights”. It also states how, “For the Negroes the original trip from Africa to the West Indies had been a terrible ordeal”. It later goes on to say how harsh the psychological trauma must have been for many of the Africans on board. From the very beginning the Africans were traumatized and broken down by their captors. We often hear stories of how the slave ships were overstuffed and many Africans died at sea because of how terrible the living conditions were onboard. After bringing the Africans to America they began to work as slaves and eventually were stripped of their own basic rights. Rights that many of us take for granted today. If a group of peoples’ rights were being stripped from them today, I would also look at it from the standpoint of social control.
Now my answer changes a bit depending on the perspective that you are looking at it from. However, right from the start we see how the Africans are classified as “slaves” and the owner is classified as “master”. This already shows social control by having one man be more powerful and owning other men. The fact that slaves had to call a man “master” is a showing of social control that ran deep in the south. This being said, I do think that if you are a “master” who owns many slaves on a plantation, you would have an easier time explaining how it is a system of economic production over a system of social control. The argument could be made that slaves were essential to the economy in the south and without them the economy would crash. Slaves work without wage and there are an abundance of them. If all of a sudden an abundance of free labor was replaced with workers who needed a living wage, the economy would surely be different. However, I still believe that slavery was a system of social control over a system of economic production.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Jun 2, 2016 18:32:04 GMT
Question #3
I would say that the Civil War and Reconstruction is the most controversial and tense history today because the United States can't agree on the hows and whys of it. On top of that, you have ancestors of those who fought in the war who want to believe that their ancestor fought for the right reasons. Because of this you get those who argue that the Civil War was a war over slavery and others who argue that it was a war to protect a way of life, politically and economically. This kind of ambiguity has led to some of the problems with understanding the history. I think that Dr. David Blights, The Meaning of Emancipation in Civil War Memory, and the Backstory podcast, gives great arguments as to why the Civil War and reconstruction was about slavery. Dr. Blight says that by having the south secede, then allows them to continue to prosper and grow economically without the North. In the Back Story Podcast they discuss how tensions that led up to the war arose from debates on whether or not new slave states could be excepted into the union and how the rhetoric at the time was focusing on the morals and justifications of slavery and race. Alexander Stephens Corner Stone speech discusses that very issue on morals and justness, except his take is of a white supremacist view. The Corner Stone speech is important in this case as it shows the arguments used to say that the civil war is one on government and not on slavery. However even he can't leave the discussion of race and slavery out of the speech. This is why this history is so controversial and contented, because even when trying to argue that the War is not about slavery, documents such as Stephens' could suggest otherwise.
The emancipation of slaves, and the reconstruction of the union, has left a lot of open wounds that are still around today. Going off of Dr. David Blight, and The Atlantic article, peoples emotions play into the understanding of the Civil War and Reconstruction histories. Whenever race relations are discussed politically, they can be traced back to reconstruction and slavery. Whenever monuments and symbols are discussed politically (as is seen in The Atlantic article) the answer to what is good and what is bad is found through looking back at this history. If your ancestor fought for the confederacy, and carried the confederate flag (although even that flags accuracy has been argued as well) then you will want to honor the ancestry. But when the flag is put into context as a symbol of slavery, then the controversy begins. This battle between what can be recognized from the war and what should be shunned from the war I think plays a huge part in the political debates. Especially when slavery is trying to be avoided in such discussions, makes the arguments tenser. Unlike many other wars, I feel that the American Civil war has a unique trait of not having a true winner. While the history books may say that the Union Won, reconstruction muddied that victory and left the rest up for interpretation which led to many problems afterward. Reconstruction being a difficult process could be in part why Jim Crow and segregation developed out of it. Again, other topics that further complicate and make controversial the political atmosphere around the Civil War and Reconstruction's history.
|
|
