HISTARCH Archives

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

HISTARCH@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Linda Derry <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:05:00 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (57 lines)
Hi Ya'll,

As historical archaeologists, we should all agree that it is always good to
work with PRIMARY documents, right?

With that in mind, I have to say that from where I'm sitting, the old Black
Belt or cotton belt of Alabama, it sure does appear that slaveholding took
center stage in the primary documents that speak to this issue.   ( as
opposed to the rationalization that appeared along with the "Lost Cause"
narrative in the late 19th/ early 20th century.) 

Nothing could be more primary that  Alabama's secession ordinance, so I
looked it up,  and it  does state a need for a union of "Slave holding
States of the South" and then at the convention they refer to the new nation
as "a Southern slaveholding Confederacy." 

I'm betting that secession documents in most Southern states have similar
statements - So, if you hold to the state's rights point of view, why not
test your theory by locating this ordinance for your state. (& find the
complete ordinance, not something excerpted by folks with agendas).

 
Just thought it was worth throwing out to the list - I REALLY don't  want to
argue about the cause of the war  (since I live with this rhetoric on a
daily basis)  but was just thinking that in our professional community,
these secession documents ought to be our reference point rather than stuff
silly old arm chair historians  or journalists write!  <SMILE>


Linda Derry
Site Director
Old Cahawba
719 Tremont St.
Selma, AL 36701
ph. 334/875-2529
fax. 334/877-4253
[log in to unmask]




-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of geoff
carver
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 12:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: FW: Today in history

I keep wondering what rights other than the "right to own slaves" was
covered under "states rights" anyway.

-----Original Message-----

He contends that the war was always about slavery from the very beginning
but why after the war concluded, historians, politicians, and the media
ignored or downplayed that reality, be they northerners or southerners

ATOM RSS1 RSS2