Re: [sixties-l] Re: Civil War & Slavery

From: robert (
Date: Fri Jun 23 2000 - 00:25:38 CUT

  • Next message: Carrol Cox: "Re: [sixties-l] Gore v. Bush"

    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.

    robert houriet
    >Jerry West
    >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