At 01:03 AM 6/22/00 -0700, you wrote:
>As Jeffrey Blankfort and others have pointed out the freeing of the
>slaves takes on many facets in the dynamic of the Civil War. 40 years
>ago in Jr. High we were taught (in Kerman, CA) that the Civil War was
>not fought over slavery, but over states rights.
>I found that a disingenous interpretation of fact considering that the
>issue of states rights arose over slavery and the apportioning of slave
>holding status among newly admitted states. Of course it is a
>convenient interpretation for southern apologists.
>On the surface the war was fought over slavery, even if the actual
>freeing of the slaves was done in steps and in response to other
>concerns. Of course beneath the surface flow the economic reasons which
>may have been the real precipitators of the conflict, but whatever the
>underlying causes, slavery was the prominent issue and an end to slavery
>was a fortunate result of a Union victory.
i should doing other stuff, but can't help point out what most historians
of reconstruction have: that the war did not end de facto and pernicious
forms of slavery and that the feudal position of sharecroppers in the Miss.
Delta Counties did not change essentially -- as the SNCC field workers who
risked their lives to walk into still existing "plantations" there in 1963
can testify. Thus, the second civil war of the 60's.
>On line news from Nootka Sound & Canada's West Coast
>An independent, progressive regional publication
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 23 2000 - 01:13:09 CUT