Thank you Dr. Schuyler!  Well said!

Marybeth S.F. Tomka, M.A. 
Laboratory Director and Curator
Center for Archaeological Research
The University of Texas at San Antonio
State Certified Curatorial Repository
One UTSA Circle
San Antonio, Texas 78249
(210) 458-7822
(210) 458-4397 Fax
http://car.utsa.edu/
. . . herding cats in a forest of catnip . . . 


-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
HISTARCH automatic digest system
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 2:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: HISTARCH Digest - 13 Apr 2011 to 14 Apr 2011 (#2011-24)

There are 15 messages totaling 1288 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. FW: Today in history (8)
  2. invisible designs (2)
  3. Today in history (4)
  4. War (1861-1865)

----------------------------------------------------------------------


Date:    Thu, 14 Apr 2011 23:14:44 -0400
From:    "Robert L. Schuyler" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: War (1861-1865)

I find the entire discussion a bit odd. Why is fighting the Civil War
over slavery (which was clearly the immediate and emotional issue that
set the stage) and over states rights mutually exclusive. One of the
basic rights of the Southern states was the right to practice the basis
of their economy - plantation agriculture based on slave labor. 
As far as the South not recognizing the slavery issue it was clearly
incorporated into their new constitution (based on the US Constitution
but with changes (e.g. one term presidency)) although the Slave Trade
was still outlawed.

Some points for the South and for the North:

(1) All known civilizations since ancient times practiced slavery and
only rare voices were ever raised against it. When someone did speak
against slavery it was usually only to say "do not enslave your own
kind" (e.g. Greeks enslaving Greeks or Moslems enslaving other Moslems).
As far as I know Jesus Christ, for example, never said anything about
slavery or spoke out against it. In the Ten Commandments I do not think
another's 'man servant' or 'maid servant' meant salaried employees.

(2) All the American British colonies and most of the new American
states had slaves and continued to practice slavery although by 1783 a
movement was underway against it. The South found the northern states
hypocritical in their newly found abolitionist stand (which was a
minority view even in the North).

(3) The states had entered the new American union (Constitution)
voluntarily and nothing in that document says they could not withdraw
the same way they came into it. Groups in New England, for example, had
earlier discussed succession at the time of the War of 1812.

(4) States Rights was critical because the South was afraid they would
be eventually outvoted in Congress as new states came into the Union and
the government might outlaw slavery as it was clearly already trying to
block it geographical expansion.

(5) The South (lower Southern states) did withdraw peacefully and amazed
everyone by successfully forming a new and viable government with a
President, Congress, Constitution and election (CSA).

(6) Technically the South started the war by firing on a federal fort
but it is clear the North set the stage and forced the issue.

(7) The War was not fought to destroy slavery. The federal government
and the President (Lincoln) clearly said it was initiated to save the
Union, not to destroy slavery in the southern states.
*************************************************************
(1) No federal President (Buchanan - Democrat or Lincoln -
Republican) could allow the South to leave the Union and expect the USA
to survive. Lincoln was not the President who refused to remove federal
forces from Charleston harbor. That had already happened before he took
office.

(2) In the past other Presidents made it clear what would happen (e.g.
Andrew Jackson - a slave owning southerner) - WAR.

(3) If the South had been allowed to withdraw peacefully (and if so the
Upper South might have stayed in the Union) war might well have already
started over who would control the western part of North America or
other issues.
**************************************************************
The War was a major disaster for America brought on by a bunch of
fanatics in the North (immediate abolitionists) and fanatics in the
South ("fire eaters") while a slower and compromising approach would
have gotten rid of slavery. All national legal slavery was gone on Earth
by 1890. Slavery, of course, still survives in illegal pockets all
around the world.

The equal disaster was the assassination of Lincoln which allowed the
Radical Republicans to make revenge-war on the South and eventually fail
at Reconstruction and set the country back for a century. If Lincoln had
lived with the victory in the war, with firmness but fairness toward the
South, things might (??) have been quite different.

Back to Historical Archaeology:  How do all these changes show up in,
say, a county in the "Black Belt" in settlement patterns and in the
landscape. What was county "X" like in 1860 vs. 1870 and later how did
Reconstruction impact the county, and then how did things change again
when the "Redeemers" created the segregated South between 1880 and 1960?
Are there major changes generated by these changes or just ripples in
the pond?

Bob Schuyler


End of HISTARCH Digest - 13 Apr 2011 to 14 Apr 2011 (#2011-24)
**************************************************************