The Civil War

[Joe Wordsworth]

The War of Northern Aggression!

Sincerely,
Joe
proud citizen of the great state of Mississippi

 

[CharleyH]

As I recall it was contentious relationships in part due to cultural development, and different economic needs – agricultural – industrial. The strained relationships had been developing for quite some time prior to the war ie. the Missouri Compromise which unbalanced Senate? power, I can’t recall why exactly, but something along the lines of admitting Missouri into the Union would give more votes to slave states than free states, and thus the U.S. was split in two, quite literally along borders, I think a revision amendment and thus the 39th parallel. The Dred Scott decision further aggravated the situation as we are all well aware, as well as the inclusion into the Union of different States and territories between 1819 and 1859.

It was my understanding that many Northerners had slaves, and therefore not about emancipation so much as about division of power and wealth with the above beginnings. It was also my understanding that the British and French played a role in helping the south, at least early in the war due to economic reasons.

I do not recall any history lesson regarding whether one was evil or not, although as Lucifer states the leaning has always been toward the Union as the good, and of course, they were the winners.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I think neither side really got over the Civil War. The South blames the North for invading it. The North hates that it fought to keep a part of the country that still blames it for not letting it secede.

Which raises up the point, did anyone really "win" the Civil War or was it the rote reflex of resisting a secession or break up of the country because that's what you do?

 

[CharleyH]

Which raises up the point, did anyone really "win" the Civil War or was it the rote reflex of resisting a secession or break up of the country because that's what you do?

Must correct self, not winners, but New York publishes all the books.

 

[oggbashan]

From this side of the Atlantic I saw the American Civil War as one of the inevitable conflicts that occur in almost any organisation that covers a large geographical area. That conflict occurs in countries, in states, in companies, in churches, etc.

The conflict is about how much power the headquarters or central organisation has, and how much is delegated or assumed by the dispersed locations. It happens to any organisation that reaches a certain size.

There is merit in doing everything one way; there is also merit in adapting to local conditions. How far each view is followed causes the conflict.

The American Civil War was about how much independence each state had, and how much power the federal state had. That conflict is still continuing today between states and federal agencies. The Confederation wanted a group of independent states or almost countries confederated together and only agreeing to legislation if each state wanted that law. The federal government saw that certain things should be the preserve of the whole nation of the US e.g. Defense; banking; cross-border crime... and that those powers should override any individual state's rights and duties.

Confederation is an alliance of self sufficient equals who cooperate if each one considers it is in their own interest to do so.

Federation assumes some transfer of power from the individual states to the super-state, sovereignity in the old sense.

That conflict between Confederation and Federation is now being fought out in the European Union - do we want a super-state or states cooperating when they want to?

Og

 

[Colleen Thomas]

As a northerner, what I learned about the civil war often left me, even then, wondering-- what do they teach southern kids about the civil war. From the pov of what we were learning - the south was... er... well- the 'bad guy' or at least, in the wrong.

This thread isn't meant to be a debate about the civil war, or who was wrong or who was right, just a curiosity of what they are tought. If we are continually each only taught one side-- and it is vastly difference, how are we to be considered one country? Let alone 'united' states? I think we all grow up sort of assuming that others were taught the same lessons and values that we were-- that our expereince was 'typical.' I guess this is why I read a lot, because I like to see what most do not-- that we are all starting from vastly different vantage points.

So anyway, back to the topic. Does your education leave you feeling that the North are the 'bad guys'? What are you taught about the motivations of each side and so forth?

Furthermore, what about those outside the US? How much doesn our civil war rate in you're history books and what does it seem to imply about us from the POV that you were taught?

In the south, the civil war is still being fought. Alone of the wars I can think of, the histories were written by the losers.

In simplest terms, we are taught the war was an economic war, on in which the North was trying to reduce the southern states to mere colonial possession, in leiu of having an actual empire.

On reason the histories were written by the losers is beacuse the winners just wanted to get back to making money and would ratehr forget the whole thing. Contemporary histories of the war wre almost all written from the perspective of the South.

Singular among wars I can readily think of, it has only recently down played the glory of war and concentrated on the carnage, enjoying along run as glorious and full of honorable men.

In a strange paralell to vietnam we are taught we won all the battles and still lost the war. We were beter soldiers and were in the right, we just couldn't overcome the North's material advantages. it may be different now, but I remember the civil war history I was taught as containting a strong anti-northern biase. the old joke I was 13 before I learned Damn yankee was two words, is only half-way a joke.

Considering the difficulty in which a Candidate identified as being from the northeast has in getting votes down south, I tend to believe it hasn't changed much it at all.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Also, moral right or wrong aside (slavery is wrong and I am not condoning it), my college profs held that slavery was an economic necessity at the time and without it, not only would the South have failed to flourish, but the entire nation would have been significantly less successful.

Luck,

Yui

I have to disagree with your proffessors on this one.

Without a minimum wage- surely wealthy plantation owners could afford to pay a meager wage? also the system of slavery as it existed in the US forbit slaves from owning property (as they *were* property) and from having legal right to keep there wages, and from legal protections. surely none of this was 'economic necessity'? I think it was a method to aquire and continue to aquire wealth with minimum expense. Greed not survival- as more and more laws were enacted to restrict slave rights and reduce them to chatel rather than people.

But thank you for sharing with me what you were taught. (what school did you go to, btw?)

 

[sweetnpetite]

Must correct self, not winners, but New York publishes all the books.

Which leads me to a question I've asked before- do the winners get to write history- or do the writer's get to declare themselves the winners?

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I know I'll probably be bitch slapped by the history majors for asking this but is it really so bad if a country seceeds from a Union. Why is it so bad if they split and form new countries?

Put another way, if the South had pulled away from the North and became the Confederacy, if modern Chechnya separated from Russia, if the Kurds formed Kurdistan, would it have been or be terrible?

We put so much effort into keeping groups who have grown to hate each other so much they have no problem with going to war together and it never seems to be worth it. The bombings in Chechnya, the genocides in Yugoslavia and Northern Iraq, the hatred that never faded in US, the lives lost in Vietnam (that wasn't the official reason but was still how we were seen in that country). Is it actually worth it?

Note, this is an entirely curious exercise.

 

[Lord DragonsWing]

From the emancipation proclamation:

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

and as the proclamation continues Lincoln names the rebellious states where the slaves are freed from.
on this 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days from the first day above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Palquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebone, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Morthhampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States and parts of States are, and henceforward shall be, free;

As you can tell no Northern state or Neutral state was mentioned. They were not rebellious. New Orleans was mentioned along with it's surrounding parishes due to being in Northern hands under Gen. B.F. Butler, "The Butcher of New Orleans".
In order to keep the Neutral states out of the war Lincoln did not free the states there. Their state governments were not rebellious against the Union. Yet their citizens were split and fighting for both sides as many states had.

 

[R. Richard]

The main causes of the Civil War were economic.

Currently cotton sells for about a half dollar a pound. During the 1800s, cotton sold for about a quarter a pound. The value of a pound of 1800's cotton was more like $25 to $50 in modern terms.

A man with money in the early South could buy land and slaves and raise cotton. It would take too long to explain, but it is not practical to raise cotton on a small farm, you meed to have lots of workers and lots of capital. The cotton grower could become much more than just a millionaire and that’s where the Southern mansions came from.

Slaves were more valuable raising cotton, thus the poor white dirt farmers raise food and sold it to the plantations. The Southern butcher, baker and shoemaker all sold to the plantations. Because of the volume sales to the plantations, things were cheap and life was good so long as there were plantations.

Slaves were not economic in the North. The small farms and lack of a cash crop like cotton meant that salves cost more than they produced. In the West, there were beginning to get to be large farms that might have been able to use slaves. There were small wars in the West over whether each new state should be slave of free.

Suddenly, the people who did not want slaves told the South that they have to free their slaves. For the South, it was economic suicide. It was not just economic suicide for the plantation owners, it was economic suicide for the entire South, including the slaves. The freed slaves would have competed with the poor whites at the bottom of the economic ladder and it would result in disaster for both the Negroes and the poor whites.

Thus, we had the civil war. Yes, there were lofty ideals cited as causes, but the base level issue was economics.

The South then lost the Civil War. There was never any real chance the South would win the war, merely that the South could preserve their economic system if the war got too expensive for the North. [You will read projections that the South might have won the war. The projections are false. It would take too long to explain.]

In the aftermath of the Civil War, there were a number of interesting situations. You would find a delicate widowed Southern lady who obviously could not deal with the rough and tumble world of cotton sales, but could read, write and bargain like crazy, backed by heavily armed freed slaves who depended on the lady for food, shelter and medicine and who could deal with the rough and tumble world of cotton sales teamed for survival. The Negroes could not read and write; they could shoot. The lady could read and write; she could not shoot.

Another issue for the South was the mixing of the races. The white Southerners were afraid that the end of slavery would lead to racial mixing. They were right. When I lived in the South, a large number of the ladies shopping in the supermarket had half white/half black kids. I was told that it took a while to break down the barriers, but that it had started in the schools where the top of the line black girls began to date the top of the line white guys. It quickly grew to the point that the top girl in the school (black or white) dated one of the top five guys (black or white) and so on down the line with social standing being much more important than race.

One thing I did not like about the South is that they are very good at evaluating social standing. It was not long until they had positively identified R. Richard as just plain po’ white trash. That was OK, the po’ white trash used to gamble on Friday and Saturday night and ol’ R. Richard showed ‘em how to make those North Carolina dominoes dance for fun and profit!

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I know I'll probably be bitch slapped by the history majors for asking this but is it really so bad if a country seceeds from a Union. Why is it so bad if they split and form new countries?

Put another way, if the South had pulled away from the North and became the Confederacy, if modern Chechnya separated from Russia, if the Kurds formed Kurdistan, would it have been or be terrible?

We put so much effort into keeping groups who have grown to hate each other so much they have no problem with going to war together and it never seems to be worth it. The bombings in Chechnya, the genocides in Yugoslavia and Northern Iraq, the hatred that never faded in US, the lives lost in Vietnam (that wasn't the official reason but was still how we were seen in that country). Is it actually worth it?

Note, this is an entirely curious exercise.

Well Luc, I think you answered your own question. Do you want a next door neighbor who hates you, waiting for the opportunity to join with your other enemies? Strategically, it simply makes better sense to keep em in the union and try to answer their grievances, than to let em walk out in a huff and build their own armies.

Consider, we were at war with Spain by 1898. How would the U.S. have faired is just to the south, there was an entire population who didn't like em and might have allied with Spain? Obviously with that situation, the union mightnot have felt itself able to war with Spain, or if it had, it might have found itself in a military situation that wasn't one sided.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Well Luc, I think you answered your own question. Do you want a next door neighbor who hates you, waiting for the opportunity to join with your other enemies? Strategically, it simply makes better sense to keep em in the union and try to answer their grievances, than to let em walk out in a huff and build their own armies.

Consider, we were at war with Spain by 1898. How would the U.S. have faired is just to the south, there was an entire population who didn't like em and might have allied with Spain? Obviously with that situation, the union mightnot have felt itself able to war with Spain, or if it had, it might have found itself in a military situation that wasn't one sided.

They still do that and often those lands held onto for that reason become the impetus to join enemies. Like in Ireland for World War 2. If the British didn't insist on holding onto Northern Ireland, what real reason did Ireland have to join the Axis?

Many imperialists learned that sudden revolt in lands they clung to hurt their forces. Like what happened to the European countries during the world wars.

But I see the point you make which would drive many to cling to solidarity even though. Strength in war, prominence, and resources. I figured that was the main driving force, as that is often one of the main driving force behind conquering lands that hate the country and adding them to the Union.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

They still do that and often those lands held onto for that reason become the impetus to join enemies. Like in Ireland for World War 2. If the British didn't insist on holding onto Northern Ireland, what real reason did Ireland have to join the Axis?

Many imperialists learned that sudden revolt in lands they clung to hurt their forces. Like what happened to the European countries during the world wars.

But I see the point you make which would drive many to cling to solidarity even though. Strength in war, prominence, and resources. I figured that was the main driving force, as that is often one of the main driving force behind conquering lands that hate the country and adding them to the Union.

Economic considerations will always have a hand. nationalism too is often a factor. But theusual answer is the military threat. Ireland full of unahppy people and bombers is dangerous. Ireland with it's own armies and war plant is signifcantly more dangerous.

Which is more difficult, puting down a rebellion or conqueoring an enemy nation?

 

[sweetnpetite]

The main causes of the Civil War were economic.

Currently cotton sells for about a half dollar a pound. During the 1800s, cotton sold for about a quarter a pound. The value of a pound of 1800's cotton was more like $25 to $50 in modern terms.

So isn't cotton cheaper now without slaves?

Suddenly, the people who did not want slaves told the South that they have to free their slaves. For the South, it was economic suicide. It was not just economic suicide for the plantation owners, it was economic suicide for the entire South, including the slaves. The freed slaves would have competed with the poor whites at the bottom of the economic ladder and it would result in disaster for both the Negroes and the poor whites.

Thus, we had the civil war. Yes, there were lofty ideals cited as causes, but the base level issue was economics.

The South then lost the Civil War. There was never any real chance the South would win the war, merely that the South could preserve their economic system if the war got too expensive for the North. [You will read projections that the South might have won the war. The projections are false. It would take too long to explain.]

In the aftermath of the Civil War, there were a number of interesting situations. You would find a delicate widowed Southern lady who obviously could not deal with the rough and tumble world of cotton sales, but could read, write and bargain like crazy, backed by heavily armed freed slaves who depended on the lady for food, shelter and medicine and who could deal with the rough and tumble world of cotton sales teamed for survival. The Negroes could not read and write; they could shoot. The lady could read and write; she could not shoot.

Another issue for the South was the mixing of the races. The white Southerners were afraid that the end of slavery would lead to racial mixing. They were right. When I lived in the South, a large number of the ladies shopping in the supermarket had half white/half black kids. I was told that it took a while to break down the barriers, but that it had started in the schools where the top of the line black girls began to date the top of the line white guys. It quickly grew to the point that the top girl in the school (black or white) dated one of the top five guys (black or white) and so on down the line with social standing being much more important than race.

But this is full of inacuracies and generalities that I would have believed before last month.

Not all slaves were illiterate- not all were cotton farmers. Many were trained and highly skilled in trades. Many were also highly educated as they were basicly a personal valet to their masters and had to know many things in order to perform their duties. the idea that slaves were all ignorant and unskilled is basicly propaganda. What kept them from making good livings after the end of slavery was not their ignorance and lack of job skills but the laws that were enacted to keep them from being able to do much. In fact, many of them would have been competition for middle and upperclass workers as well, if their options hadn't been so severely limited by Jim Crowe laws and customs.

As to the fear that the end of slavery would lead to racial mixing also makes little sence in light of the fact that racial mixing was *rampant* during slavery. It was just something that they were able to keep under wraps by selling off there own children so that no one could see the resemblance. The law was enacted that the legal state of the child was to follow the state of the mother. In other words, a slave woman's children would be slavs, a free woman's children would be free- in any case, regardless of their skin color or the race of the father. Why would such a law be enacted if racial mixing was not already taking place? Oh, of course some blacks were free- but mainly the law gave slave owners the right to do as they wished with there female slaves without acknowleging the children they created- and without ecenomc loss. In fact, they could sell off their own children for even more profit!

Oh yes- the base issue was economics. Ecconomics trumped morality or common sence- that blacks were people and not property and that you're own children could be sold to pay a debt.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Also, it wasn't only whites or northerners that thought that slavery was wrong. And it wasn't only slaves or people who couldn't afford slaves of there own who thought it was wrong in the south- or who worked for abolishion. Abolishion was the abolishionists against the proslavery camp- not the North against the South.

"Northerners know nothing at all about Slavery. They think it is perpetual bondage only. They have no conception of the depth of degradation involved in the word, SLAVERY; if they had, they would never cease their efforts until so horrible a system was overthrown."
A WOMAN OF NORTH CAROLINA

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/JACOBS/hj-cover.htm

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/JACOBS/hj-site-index.htm

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

To be honest, most of what's being said is a stretch far from what I hear where I am. That isn't to say it isn't accurate (or that it is accurate), just to say that it's different.

Economics, slavery, the price of cotton... eh. Having attended schools in the North (Wisconsin, Chicago), the West Coast (Los Angeles), and then college in the South... I think the North is mostly ignorant on the subject (as far as education goes), the West is horribly bias (I attribute it to the minority population there and the "progressive" attitude), and the South is your grandfather who believes that its just the wrong time of the moon for post-hole digging.

 

[cloudy]

So isn't cotton cheaper now without slaves?

No.....slaves aren't what make it more expensive then...there's a whole range of advances in farming that you can't discount like that.

But this is full of inacuracies and generalities that I would have believed before last month.

Not all slaves were illiterate- not all were cotton farmers. Many were trained and highly skilled in trades. Many were also highly educated as they were basicly a personal valet to their masters and had to know many things in order to perform their duties. the idea that slaves were all ignorant and unskilled is basicly propaganda. What kept them from making good livings after the end of slavery was not their ignorance and lack of job skills but the laws that were enacted to keep them from being able to do much. In fact, many of them would have been competition for middle and upperclass workers as well, if their options hadn't been so severely limited by Jim Crowe laws and customs.

Wrong.

Most slaves didn't know how to read or write, and it was illegal to teach them for years. Where you come up with this, except off the top of your head, is beyond me. Yes, some were skilled workers, but the vast majority were field hands, not house servants, and they were, by and large, ignorant and unskilled. It takes many more hands to work the fields than it does to run a household. Have you ever picked cotton? I have. All it takes is a very strong back, and tough hands - THAT'S ALL.

As to the fear that the end of slavery would lead to racial mixing also makes little sence in light of the fact that racial mixing was *rampant* during slavery. It was just something that they were able to keep under wraps by selling off there own children so that no one could see the resemblance. The law was enacted that the legal state of the child was to follow the state of the mother. In other words, a slave woman's children would be slavs, a free woman's children would be free- in any case, regardless of their skin color or the race of the father. Why would such a law be enacted if racial mixing was not already taking place? Oh, of course some blacks were free- but mainly the law gave slave owners the right to do as they wished with there female slaves without acknowleging the children they created- and without ecenomc loss. In fact, they could sell off their own children for even more profit!

You've been watching too much "North and South" or something. Yes, it went on, but not to the extent you would have people believe.

Please, do some research before you spout nonsense like this.

 

[rgraham666]

I know I'll probably be bitch slapped by the history majors for asking this but is it really so bad if a country seceeds from a Union. Why is it so bad if they split and form new countries?

Put another way, if the South had pulled away from the North and became the Confederacy, if modern Chechnya separated from Russia, if the Kurds formed Kurdistan, would it have been or be terrible?

We put so much effort into keeping groups who have grown to hate each other so much they have no problem with going to war together and it never seems to be worth it. The bombings in Chechnya, the genocides in Yugoslavia and Northern Iraq, the hatred that never faded in US, the lives lost in Vietnam (that wasn't the official reason but was still how we were seen in that country). Is it actually worth it?

Note, this is an entirely curious exercise.

It's more important than ever to be a big nation now that a major power in the world is transnational, to whit, the transnational corporations.

The smaller your nation is the less power it has in the face of this threat. And it is, in my mind, a major threat.

Any attempt to preserve social standards will become less possible if you are a small nation. When dealing with a corporation you will have much less pull. They can simply decide, "Well, we'll go somewhere else. We don't feel like following your rules on minimum or safety and pollution regulations."

It would be much harder to do that against against the U.S. (If it wasn't already a wholly owned subsidiary) or a united Europe.

On the thread subject, I read an article a few months ago stating that the U.S. has always been at war with itself. Of all the modern nations, it's the one that seems to be most continually in turmoil. Not sure if I agree, not sure I disagree either.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I think Cloudy's most accurate on this.

(and I picked cotton, too, once)

 

[Lord DragonsWing]

Cloudy has it all down correctly. And one thing I've noticed is how different everyone has been educated on the Civil War. I have across that no matter where we do re-enactments, attended seminars and listened to questions. It's an area everyone is undereducated in.
If anyone is interested I do have a website which is constantly update on the Civil War. It contains documents, letters, CW recipes, upcoming events and alot more. It's an excellent learning site and everyone is encouraged to discuss and post. If you're interested here's the addy

http://groups.msn.com/CivilWarReader

 

[cloudy]

Cloudy has it all down correctly. And one thing I've noticed is how different everyone has been educated on the Civil War. I have across that no matter where we do re-enactments, attended seminars and listened to questions. It's an area everyone is undereducated in.
If anyone is interested I do have a website which is constantly update on the Civil War. It contains documents, letters, CW recipes, upcoming events and alot more. It's an excellent learning site and everyone is encouraged to discuss and post. If you're interested here's the addy

http://groups.msn.com/CivilWarReader

The thing that continually amazes me, is that people watch "North and South" or "Gone with the Wind" and that's the only image they have of the South before and during the civil war.

It just isn't so, folks.

Most people couldn't afford to own slaves. That's right, I said afford. They were an expensive type of property to own, plus extended upkeep, and it was an investment. Granted, they were looked on as property, and abuses went on, but if you put yourself in the place of a plantation owner of the time, and you spent what amounted to half your yearly income on a piece of property, are you more liable to mistreat that property, or take care of it?

The bad is what makes for interesting movies, and books, not the truth. Bad things happened, I'm not denying that. And, a slave, no matter how well cared for is still a slave, and yes, that's absolutely wrong, but don't assume that the shows and movies you see portray how it really was here.

Sweet, racial mixing did not go on like you think it did. For one thing, blacks weren't even looked upon as human, so that was one factor that kept the two races apart. The disgrace upon being found out is another. R. Richard has it right when he talks about social standing here. It's still very like that now, and I can only imagine what it would have been like 150 years ago.

"Gone with the Wind" is a wonderful movie....but it's fiction, people, that's all.

 

[Remec]

I know I'll probably be bitch slapped by the history majors for asking this but is it really so bad if a country seceeds from a Union. Why is it so bad if they split and form new countries?

Put another way, if the South had pulled away from the North and became the Confederacy, if modern Chechnya separated from Russia, if the Kurds formed Kurdistan, would it have been or be terrible?

I have often wondered the same thing.

To my way of thinking, if a sovereign state enters into somekind of joining of their lands and peoples with that of a neighboring state, are they committed to that joining forever and ever, or are they allowed to...some day...dissolve the accords and resume their sovereignty? More importantly, are American states permanently bound to be part of the US?

I'm not sure such questions ever came up when I was in high school or college, but after the collapse of the USSR and the breakup of several smaller conferations....(eg, Czechoslovakia...Yugoslavia...) it makes one think sometimes.

 

[sweetnpetite]

You've been watching too much "North and South" or something. Yes, it went on, but not to the extent you would have people believe.

Please, do some research before you spout nonsense like this.

No-- just reading.

Every where the years bring to all enough of sin and sorrow; but in slavery the very dawn of life is darkened by these shadows. Even the little child, who is accustomed to wait on her mistress and her children, will learn, before she is twelve years old, why it is that her mistress hates such and such a one among the slaves. Perhaps the child's own mother is among those hated ones. She listens to violent outbreaks of jealous passion, and cannot help understanding what is the cause. She will become prematurely knowing in evil things. Soon she will learn to tremble when she hears her master's footfall. She will be compelled to realize that she is no longer a child. If God has bestowed beauty upon her, it will prove her greatest curse. That which commands admiration in the white woman only hastens the degradation of the female slave. I know that some are too much brutalized by slavery to feel the humiliation of their position; but many slaves feel it most acutely, and shrink from the memory of it. I cannot tell how much I suffered in the presence of these wrongs, nor how I am still pained by the retrospect. My master met me at every turn, reminding me that I belonged to him, and swearing by heaven and earth that he would compel me to submit to him. If I went out for a breath of fresh air, after a day of unwearied toil, his footsteps dogged me. If I knelt by my mother's grave, his dark shadow fell on me even there. The light heart which nature had given me became heavy with sad forebodings. The other slaves in my master's house noticed the change. Many of them pitied me; but none dared to ask the cause. They had no need to inquire. They knew too well the guilty practices under that roof, and they were aware that to speak of them was an offence that never went unpunished.

--------

I once saw two beautiful children playing together. One was a fair white child; the other was her slave, and also her sister. When I saw them embracing each other, and heard their joyous laughter, I turned sadly away from the lovely sight. I foresaw the inevitable blight that would fall on the little slave's heart. I knew how soon her laughter would be changed to sighs. The fair child grew up to be a still fairer woman. From childhood to womanhood her pathway was blooming with flowers, and overarched by a sunny sky. Scarcely one day of her life had been clouded when the sun rose on her happy bridal morning.

How had those years dealt with her slave sister, the little playmate of her childhood? She, also, was very beautiful; but the flowers and sunshine of love were not for her. She drank the cup of sin, and shame, and misery, whereof her persecuted race are compelled to drink.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/JACOBS/hjch5.htm

 

[sweetnpetite]

No pen can give an adequate description of the all-pervading corruption produced by slavery. The slave girl is reared in an atmosphere of licentiousness and fear. The lash and the foul talk of her master and his sons are her teachers. When she is fourteen or fifteen, her owner, or his sons, or the overseer, or perhaps all of them, begin to bribe her with presents. If these fail to accomplish their purpose, she is whipped or starved into submission to their will. She may have had religious principles inculcated by some pious mother or grandmother, or some good mistress; she may have a lover, whose good opinion and peace of mind are dear to her heart; or the profligate men who have power over her may be exceedingly odious to her. But resistance is hopeless.

The slaveholder's sons are, of course, vitiated, even while boys, by the unclean influences every where around them. Nor do the master's daughters always escape. Severe retributions sometimes come upon him for the wrongs he does to the daughters of the slaves. The white daughters early hear their parents quarrelling about some female slave. Their curiosity is excited, and they soon learn the cause. They are attended by the young slave girls whom their father has corrupted; and they hear such talk as should never meet youthful ears, or any other ears. They know that the women slaves are subject to their father's authority in all things; and in some cases they exercise the same authority over the men slaves. I have myself seen the master of such a household whose head was bowed down in shame; for it was known in the neighborhood that his daughter had selected one of the meanest slaves on his plantation to be the father of his first grandchild. She did not make her advances to her equals, nor even to her father's more intelligent servants. She selected the most brutalized, over whom her authority could be exercised with less fear of exposure. Her father, half frantic with rage, sought to revenge himself on the offending black man; but his daughter, foreseeing the storm that would arise, had given him free papers, and sent him out of the state.
In such cases the infant is smothered, or sent where it is never seen by any who know its history. But if the white parent is the father, instead of the mother, the offspring are unblushingly reared for the market. If they are girls, I have indicated plainly enough what will be their inevitable destiny.

You may believe what I say; for I write only that whereof I know. I was twenty-one years in that cage of obscene birds. I can testify, from my own experience and observation, that slavery is a curse to the whites as well as to the blacks. It makes the white fathers cruel and sensual; the sons violent and licentious; it contaminates the daughters, and makes the wives wretched. And as for the colored race, it needs an abler pen than mine to describe the extremity of their sufferings, the depth of their degradation.

Yet few slaveholders seem to be aware of the wide-spread moral ruin occasioned by this wicked system. Their talk is of blighted cotton crops-not of the blight on their children's souls.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/JACOBS/hjch9.htm

why would it be rare when it was so easy? even a respectable man like Thomas Jefferson fathered children with a slave. Why would it be otherwise for the majority?