alt.education

"Joe Irvin" wrote:
>> The southern churches were very much in line with the plantation owners.
>
>And I've said the same thing also. IMO, church leaders knew slavery was
>wrong but went along with it because of its economic value to the South.

But you don't back that opinion with evidence, whereas we can produce
reams of scholarly works to the contrary, as well as overt actions
like the split off of the Southern Baptist church.

And if you deny that those people believed none of the moralistic
arguments that they wrote, then you can hardly claim that there is any
reason to believe "Biblical scholars" today when they write about
morality and the Christian message. After all, they might merely be
telling people like you what you want to hear because they can make
money doing so.

>If you remember it was religion that helped push the anti-slavery movement:

Religion justified it and religion opposed it. Both of the Christian
religion. So much for Christianity providing an absolute moral
standard.

>> Again, read the statement of the SC convention explaining why they
>> seceded. States rights was not mentioned, it was all slavery. And not the
>> economic effects of ending slavery, but the social changes that it wouls
>> entail..
>
>Read some about the tariffs/taxes.

They were a grievance against the North. They were not the reason for
secession, since there wasn't any big change in tariff policy to serve
as a causus belli.

Secession was because Lincoln was elected, and that therefore there
was a *threat* to slavery. It wasn't a response to any policy, it was
unwillingness to accept that there even MIGHT be a change in policy.

As for tariffs:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1069109/posts


<
< percent of federal revenue before the Civil War. For the thirty years
< from 1831 to 1860 it was eighty-four percent, but for the 1850s as a
< decade it was indeed ninety percent.
<
< revenues is totally absurd. DiLorenzo bases this on pages 26-27 of
< Charles Adams, When in the Course of Human Events, but Adams comes up
< with these figures out of thin air, and worse, appears to be
< measuring the South's share of exports, and then transposing that
< percentage to their share of dutiable imports. Exports, of course,
< are not subject to taxation and never have been, because such taxes
< are prohibited by Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution --
< which Adams appears not to know. In any case, Adams claims that about
< eighty-two percent of exports from the U.S. were furnished by the
< South -- he cites no source for this, and it is in fact wrong -- the
< true figure was about sixty percent on the average, most of that
< cotton -- and then by a slight of hand claims that this proves the
< South paid a similarly disproportionate share of tariffs. But of
< course the tariffs were only on imports.
<
< duties defies common sense as well as facts. The majority of imports
< from abroad entered ports in the Northeastern US, principally New
< York City. The importers paid duties at the customs houses in those
< cities. The free states had sixty-two percent of the US population in
< the 1850s and seventy-two percent of the free population. The
< standard of living was higher in the free states and the people of
< those states consumed more than their proportionate share of dutiable
< products, so a high proportion of tariff revenue (on both consumer
< and capital goods) was paid ultimately by the people of those states
< -- a fair guess would be that the North paid about seventy percent of
< tariff duties. There is no way to measure this precisely, for once
< the duties were paid no statis tics were kept on the final
< destination of dutiable products. But consider a few examples. There
< was a tariff on sugar, which benefited only sugar planters in
< Louisiana, but seventy percent of the sugar was consumed in the free
< states. There was a tariff on hemp, which benefited only the growers
< in Kentucky and Missouri, but the shipbuilding industry was almost
< entirely in the North, so Northern users of hemp paid a
< disproportionate amount of that tariff. There were duties on both raw
< wool and finished wool cloth, which of course benefited sheep farmers
< who were mostly in the North and woolen textile manufacturers who
< were almost entirely in the North, but it was Northern consumers who
< ultimately paid probably eighty percent of that tariff (woolen
< clothes were worn more in the North than the South, for obvious rea
< sons). Or take the tariff on iron -- it benefited mainly Northern
< manufacturers (though there was an iron indus try in the South as
< well), but sixty-five percent of the railroad mileage and
< seventy-five percent of the railroad rolling stock were in the North,
< which meant that Northern railroads (and their customers, indirectly)
< paid those proportions of the duties on iron for their rails,
< locomotives, and wheels. One can come up with many more examples.
<



>South Carolina wasn't the only state that left the Union.

They were the first, and it is arguable that if they hadn't left, none
of the others would have.

>> 1. you give too much credit to slave holders.
>
>I give no credit to slave holders ...

You claim that MOST of them were aware that they were morally wrong,
without evidence. A few examples is hardly "most" when dealing with
several million people.

>as I've said many times slavery was wrong.

Most Southerners didn't agree with you. Finding a few who did agree
with you merely disproves a universal claim that no one made.

>> 3. SLavery was so imprtant to the south, and not just for economic
>> reasons, that they pushed in Congress for its expansion (see kansas
>> nebraska act, f
>
>It was important for the North also ... Northern slavers sold slaves ...

After 1808, very very few. When you argue about "issues of the time",
I suggest you distinguish between 1800 and 1860, because the issues
changed more in the first 60 years of this country than in the last 60
years.

>> 4.and your positing about the people in western NC an TN being against
>> slavery/secession is meaningless. No population ever goess 100% for
>> anything, and a small, unimportant region largely ignored by the rest of
>> the country has no influence on the rest of the region.
>
>It was still important as you've implied all Southern people were pro
>slavery.

*You* claimed in an earlier post

We are arguing against that, not with a universal "all" statement, but
by a request that you prove your statement about "most"

BTW, you asked about claims that the poor farmers were beholden to the
wealthy landowners.
http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-796
20-40% of white farmers did not own their land at all. There was no
credit system for farmers, so anyone who farmed had to have enough
wealth to pay all the bills until the crops came in, or his family
starved.

>I pointed out one part of the South that wasn't. An as you say no
>population goes 100% for anything ... I'm sure they were other Southerners
>who were against slavery.

Your claim is that MOST knew it was wrong. You cannot provide
evidence for this claim, because it simply isn't true.

>All Southerners had to pay the artificially high
>prices for tariff protected goods manufactured in the North.

As noted in the McPherson essay, Northerners had to pay artificially
high prices for tariff protected goods produced in the South, as well
as goods manufactured in the North. And Northerners bought more of
those goods.

lojbab