Re: She's baaa-aaaack

1

This question puzzled me too. I think the answer is that the North was fighting to preserve the Union, while the South was fighting to preserve slavery.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 12:12 PM
horizontal rule
2

She's atrocious.


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 12:13 PM
horizontal rule
3

She's atrocious.


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 12:13 PM
horizontal rule
4

1: That's the kind of stupid. Many of those fighting on the Union side were fighting to destroy slavery, most notably, the black soldiers.


Posted by: pee[ | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 12:14 PM
horizontal rule
5

pee[ is a great pseud. Welcome stranger.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 12:15 PM
horizontal rule
6

4: That's just a typo, not my alter-ego.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 12:16 PM
horizontal rule
7

6: Thanks! Long-time lurker!


Posted by: pee[ | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 12:17 PM
horizontal rule
8

Never mind then.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 12:17 PM
horizontal rule
9

6: Pay no attention to that fool.


Posted by: pee[ | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 12:18 PM
horizontal rule
10

]33] would be a good pseud in a dystopian-nightmare unfogged.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 12:25 PM
horizontal rule
11

I guess the way she phrased it is offensive -- "invading another country" ?


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 12:25 PM
horizontal rule
12

11: That's part of it. And while she recognized that was weird, she seemed to believe that nationalism was insufficient to explain the motivations of individual soldiers volunteering since nationalism as a force was much weaker in the 1860s.

Obviously, that explains too much. While some soldiers* were fighting against slavery, most were fighting to preserve their country. If love of country wasn't a reason to volunteer, why were there any volunteers for the Mexican-American War?

* The point about black soldiers especially holds, but during the early years of the war the North was emphatically not fighting to end slavery. Battle Cry of Freedom was very clear about this.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 12:28 PM
horizontal rule
13

Not to say that there weren't individual abolitionists volunteering in the early years of the war, but it wasn't the reason the Union as an entity was fighting. I doubt they were ever in the majority (but I'm not an expert on this).


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 12:31 PM
horizontal rule
14

Weirdly, governments tend to get all fighty when break-away governments shell national forts.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 12:32 PM
horizontal rule
15

11: Well, not offensive so much as begging the question. Sure, if the government and people of the US had believed the South was a separate country, it would have been odd to have invaded it. Given that the South had not been a separate country before 1861, and that there was all sorts of federal property, like Fort Sumter, larded throughout it, maybe not so odd.

Also "nationalism was weaker in the 19th century"? Really? I would not characterize that as a widely held belief.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 12:36 PM
horizontal rule
16

I've been borrowing my FIL's car, and since he's a Wall St. type, the radio is often tuned to Bloomberg. McArdle has a ~60 second slot that I've heard a couple times. She's just as bad as in print- I forget what the topics even were but the analysis was just so simplistic and moronic in the "I'm just asking, of course- bet you never thought of this angle!" genre.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 12:40 PM
horizontal rule
17

15: Yeah, there's a whole bag of worms there and I guess I could argue it but not well--at the very least in many places peoples' relationships to their states were radically different from a modern understanding because their states were radically different (think Germany, or what'd become the British Dominions). But her specific point (I don't feel like linking and I'm being too charitable as it is) was that Americans valued State over country. I'm willing to give some credence to that--for Southerners. State pride has always been weaker in the North.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 12:44 PM
horizontal rule
18

"Bag of worms." You know, that famous idiom.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 12:47 PM
horizontal rule
19

but during the early years of the war the North was emphatically not fighting to end slavery.

Bollox.


Posted by: John Brown's Mouldering Body | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 12:47 PM
horizontal rule
20

The Dutch Cookie probably has more important stuff to do.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 12:47 PM
horizontal rule
21

Bollox.

This is where Velma pulls the mask off John Brown's Zombie Body and reveals that it was Lord Palmerston all along.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 12:53 PM
horizontal rule
22

In conclusion, Lincoln was so right he should have had two state capitals named after him.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 12:54 PM
horizontal rule
23

]33] would be a good pseud in a dystopian-nightmare unfogged.

Wait, this is the unfogged where Trump is president, right?


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 12:54 PM
horizontal rule
24

Point taken.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 12:56 PM
horizontal rule
25

I'm just happy that McMegan has converted to Judaism. I think she will be very effective at countering that whole "smarter than everybody except maybe some Asians" stereotype.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 12:58 PM
horizontal rule
26

I mean, I like it here and all, but if you can direct me to the other unfogged, I'm outta here.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 12:58 PM
horizontal rule
27

direct me to the other unfogged

Is that the unfogged where Spock has a beard?


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 1:07 PM
horizontal rule
28

THE WORST.


Posted by: slolernr | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 1:11 PM
horizontal rule
29

A truly amazing two-step, calling the South "another country" then defending that tendentiousness by gesturing at lower national identity (which says nothing at all about the South as such). Wouldn't it be a bunch of little countries then?


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 1:14 PM
horizontal rule
30

How about the alternate reality in which Andrew Jackson stayed President and prevented the Civil War?


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 1:15 PM
horizontal rule
31

27: It's the one where he doesn't have a beard.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 1:16 PM
horizontal rule
32

30: In the McMegan/Trump alternate history, Jackson would've had, like, 30 goddam civil wars.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 1:18 PM
horizontal rule
33

I mean, yeah, if you assume Andrew Jackson is an immortal who proclaims himself emperor of America and governs with an iron fist for decades, I guess I could see him being pretty good at keeping the rebellions down.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 1:21 PM
horizontal rule
34

Andrew Jackson was actually very much in favor of invading the South to preserve the Union.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 1:22 PM
horizontal rule
35

It's almost as if a big group of people can get angry and unified and worked up over an issue and have ideological inconsistencies about it. Must have been a weird 1800s thing.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 1:40 PM
horizontal rule
36

Or as if slaveocrats were fine with aggressive federal intervention when they were in charge in DC.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 2:10 PM
horizontal rule
37

Kevin Drum accidentally watched CNN: they were discussing the civil war.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
38

Isn't it the case, by the way, that the Nullification Crisis was proximately about tariffs but ultimately about slavery? Radical SCans saying "if we have to along with federal authority even on laws we don't like, that's a slippery slope to abolition, so let's make a fuss now to set precedent".


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 2:36 PM
horizontal rule
39

*go along


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 2:36 PM
horizontal rule
40

http://dewitt.sanford.duke.edu/megan-mcardle-egan-visiting-professor-duke-university/

Oh how they do deserve one another.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 3:16 PM
horizontal rule
41

Did she get married to become Mrs. McArdle-Egan?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 3:26 PM
horizontal rule
42

38: I believe so, yes.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 3:42 PM
horizontal rule
43

She has been praised by New York Times columnist David Brooks

Arghhhh, it burns! There was a time when I knew not to follow Apostropher links out of self-protection.

Tbh, I always thought Duke was like a real university. Live and learn.


Posted by: Swope FM | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 3:45 PM
horizontal rule
44

"At Duke, she will teach an opinion writing course, Op-Ed Persuasive Writing"
Syllabus to include exiting topics such as "Estimation: close enough to make a point but not close enough to be accurate" and "How to encourage violence while leaving room for plausible deniability"


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 3:47 PM
horizontal rule
45

40: oh good lord


Posted by: slolernr | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 4:01 PM
horizontal rule
46

All the rocks used to build the campus at Duke match. That always made me nervous.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 4:10 PM
horizontal rule
47

40: To teach a course on persuasive op-ed writing... by counterexample, presumably?


Posted by: (gensym) | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 5:28 PM
horizontal rule
48

34: So Trump, by being wrong about the basic facts of history, also managed to find one of the redeeming qualities of Andrew Jackson, a historical figure he admires generally for the wrong reasons. It's impressive.


Posted by: Cyrus | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 6:21 PM
horizontal rule
49

I think Ta-Nehisi Coates (amongst others) has argued that while slavery might not have been the reason the North chose to contest the Civil War, it sure was *an enormous* part of why the North won. Freedmen were critical to the Union Army's strength. And of course, slavery was indubitably the reason the South seceded. No doubt about that. Here's the thing: even I, who only studied Am. Hist. in HS, learned about the importance of the Constitution being a one-way pact -- you can get in, but you can't get out. And all the reasons why that's the case (like: transfer payments, federal debts, and the list goes on and on). To expect that the Federal Government would allow some band of renegades to secede FOR WHATEVER REASON is just infantile. Heh, guess that goes along with McMegan's whole schtick, so it's in-character.

OK: I should note something. I'm pretty rabid in my belief that the slave regime in the South was immoral to its core. That anybody who defends it in any way .... well, not in my polite society. So I'd love to find out that the North (the Federal Govt) got into the Civil War b/c we (or even highly-placed people in positions of power) decided that slavery had to end. Thing is, I don't believe it. I -do- believe that Lincoln was against slavery, but he was willing to continue treading a fine line (no expansion, but no abolition as long as that was tenable. And then, once it was no longer tenable, he came out for abolition. Lots of people in government make decisions that they personally abhor, b/c they have to lead coalitions, lead nations. I'm OK with that.

But if somebody could point me at good scholarship that shows the Union got into the fight -explicitly- b/c of slavery, I'd love it.


Posted by: Chet Murthy | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 6:21 PM
horizontal rule
50

"Freedmen were critical to the Union Army's strength."

I forgot to mention that in Coates' writing on this, he quotes contemporaneous accounts where Union pols/generals -state- that units comprised of freedmen were critical to Union victories and the success of the Union campaign. Or, at least, so I remember.


Posted by: Chet Murthy | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 6:23 PM
horizontal rule
51

Perhaps also worth mentioning that if you let parts that don't agree with a policy break off, you don't just lose "the union," you lose any possible union. So it's not "preserve the union" in the sense of not letting the South break away, but "preserve the union" as in not descend into anarchy in North America. Anyway, slol gets it exactly right.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 7:31 PM
horizontal rule
52

American carnage.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 8:12 PM
horizontal rule
53

There could be agreement about how to split up the United States but it can't be, as soon as any elected body anywhere votes for it.


Posted by: Asteele | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 8:27 PM
horizontal rule
54

38: yes, absolutely.


Posted by: Von Wafer | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 8:44 PM
horizontal rule
55

There can be commas but they can't be, without careful placement.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 8:56 PM
horizontal rule
56

Even the United States government and troops (which I'm trying to say in preference to "Union" as of 1861 were effectively fighting against slavery in that they affirmatively believed the protection of slavery was an insufficient justification to break off.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 9:02 PM
horizontal rule
57

Insert close paren.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 9:02 PM
horizontal rule
58

:)


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 9:19 PM
horizontal rule
59

Fuck the idea that McArdle continuing to attract attention is something to note or acknowledge.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 05- 1-17 11:19 PM
horizontal rule
60

Have there in fact been any wars anywhere in which one country has invaded another country in order to abolish slavery? There have been a few minor ones fought to free slaves, but that was more about countries looking after their own citizens who had been enslaved, not about ending the institution itself.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 12:43 AM
horizontal rule
61

Cancel that, found one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_of_Lagos


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 12:46 AM
horizontal rule
62

Numerous, incidentally to other aims. The French in Malta, Boeatians in Messenia (contra Sparta) many cases in the Peleponessian War.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 3:41 AM
horizontal rule
63

Reduction of Lagos

Vamos. Es una guerra de la cocina.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 5:16 AM
horizontal rule
64

But if somebody could point me at good scholarship that shows the Union got into the fight -explicitly- b/c of slavery, I'd love it.

Any "good scholarship" presents the flow chart something like this:

1. The United States insists on national policies that will lead, inevitably but only in the long term, to the death of slavery.
2. The South recognizes this and secedes.
3. The Union goes to war to preserve a country in which the long-term demise of slavery is non-negotiable.

Was the Union going to war explicitly to end slavery? Certainly the Confederacy understood that the end of slavery wasn't incidental or accidental to the Union's purpose.

The United States had a choice: give in to the Slave Power or go to war, and knowingly chose war. To say that the North fought for some reason other than slavery seems incoherent.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 6:31 AM
horizontal rule
65

But the Union didn't "go to war" in the sense that it didn't start the shooting. It isn't certain that there would have been a hot war except that the South didn't just secede, but decided to attack first.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 6:37 AM
horizontal rule
66

Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war.


Posted by: OPINIONATED ABE LINCOLN | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 6:47 AM
horizontal rule
67

64.last: Abe Lincoln was, at first, perfectly happy with a union where slavery was preserved in the south. So, was slavery perpetually possible in the lands where it existed in 1860? Some places (e.g. Virginia) depended upon continual expansion of slavery to fund their economy, but some other places (Deep South?) were probably sustainable.

But I think at this point we're mostly arguing semantics. An anti-slavery party gaining power was why the South chose to secede right then. And eventually--by 1863, I think?--it was reframed entirely as a war to end slavery. So I don't think the Union was explicitly against slavery the entire time, but it was by the end, and slavery was undoubtedly the cause of the war.

Perhaps also worth mentioning that if you let parts that don't agree with a policy break off, you don't just lose "the union," you lose any possible union.

I wonder when the Brexiteers are going to start publicly acknowledging they're negotiating with people who know this.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 7:31 AM
horizontal rule
68

65: But what could a Confederacy dotted with Union forts and military look like without fighting? I suppose the US could just abandon the forts for an indemnity, but that's incredulous.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 7:34 AM
horizontal rule
69

Perhaps also worth mentioning that if you let parts that don't agree with a policy break off, you don't just lose "the union," you lose any possible union. So it's not "preserve the union" in the sense of not letting the South break away, but "preserve the union" as in not descend into anarchy in North America.

So, if you grant that, can there ever be a justification for any part of the US (or any country?) to secede?


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 7:36 AM
horizontal rule
70

But what could a Confederacy dotted with Union forts and military look like without fighting?

The Reconstruction?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 7:36 AM
horizontal rule
71

Both times Haiti invaded and annexed the Dominican Republic, they freed the slaves there. Not the only reason, maybe not even the main one, I'm not sure, but certainly a big one.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 7:36 AM
horizontal rule
72

Err, I'm incredulous about that. And there'd be other issues to handle: who gets control of the southwestern territories? I can't imagine northeastern business interests would be happy about losing political control over a railway route to the west.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 7:37 AM
horizontal rule
73

I suppose the US could just abandon the forts for an indemnity, but that's incredulous.

Why? This is pretty much what has happened in every other peaceful secession in history. Fixed assets like bases become the property of the successor state they're in; movable assets like ships get shared out by mutual agreement. In some cases, Country A sets up an arrangement where it keeps a base in Country B, again by mutual agreement (for example, UK basing rights in Cyprus).


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 7:38 AM
horizontal rule
74

Lincoln had said that he wasn't going to negotiate the forts away. I have no idea what would have happened if the South hadn't fired on Fort Sumter, but I think it is worth remembering that not only did the South secede to try to secure slavery, they also started the shooting about it.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 7:40 AM
horizontal rule
75

I think it particularly important to remember this in light of the terminology used by Confederate apologists (e.g. The War o' Northern Aggression).


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 7:42 AM
horizontal rule
76

70: The Reconstruction, for all its failures, was notably lacking in any Confederacy as a political entity.

73: I think that ignores the particulars of the moment. I mean, gosh, if you can just do that any time you want to secede, why didn't we do it to get away from you guys? Peaceful secessions require both sides to be willing, and I think it's clear enough that people in the north did value the union. It also creates the problem, again, of a competitor for western expansion.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 7:44 AM
horizontal rule
77

Yeah, I think a deal might have been done, if those damn South Carolinians hadn't been so obsessed with their superior manliness to the point of believing that they could get the forts etc for free with just a slight push.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 7:46 AM
horizontal rule
78

76.2: agreed. But you asked "But what could a Confederacy dotted with Union forts and military look like without fighting?" And if you'd got a Confederacy without fighting, then the issue of it having lots of Union forts all over it would be solvable.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 7:48 AM
horizontal rule
79

If it isn't clear, I totally think the Confederacy was evil and was formed to preserve slavery. They said so, very explicitly. I agree with 74, besides thinking that if Sumter hadn't happened something equivalent would have been invented. Possibly something minor that blows up--some gungho or drunk US soldier in a fort fires on the Confederates, they fire back, nobody can be quite sure what happened, both sides blame each other.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 7:48 AM
horizontal rule
80

67.1: Stand very much to be corrected, but IIRC slavery wasn't sustainable anywhere save by westward movement*. The only way to make money on slaves was cotton; monocropped cotton exhausts the soil rapidly; without monocropping planters couldn't meet their debt service; so the cotton belt gradually moved west onto fresh soil, taking slavery with it. IIRC this process effectively extinguished slavery in Delaware and Maryland, and was well on it way in Virginia.
*Or southward. William Walker and other filibusters in the Caribbean were looking to start slave colonies.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 7:51 AM
horizontal rule
81

Plenty of American forts and military units were taken over by the Confederacy without a shot being fired. The Confederacy was unwilling to wait or compromise to get the remaining few and started shelling.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 7:52 AM
horizontal rule
82

79 I'm not going to read McMegan, but it does seem to me that you have an enthusiasm/mobilization problem if the origin of the war is too ambiguous, or actually due to northern aggression.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 7:53 AM
horizontal rule
83

80: I sometimes wonder about that because slavery had already got as far as Texas. West of there, things get very dry. I'm wondering if 1860s technology could have moved cotton production further west regardless.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 7:56 AM
horizontal rule
84

I'm waiting, by the way, for Trump to offhandedly say that the Afghanistan war could have been avoided, if someone with his superior negotiating skills had been in power.

I'm also waiting for someone in our useless press to ask Trump why he can't make the deal to end that war, as opposed to trying another surge that no one earth thinks will work.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 7:58 AM
horizontal rule
85

83: Presumably not, and maybe something Walker & C were thinking about too.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 7:59 AM
horizontal rule
86

80: I've heard arguments like that, but I don't know the economics well enough. Maybe it would lead to an economic collapse, including in the price of slaves, leading to an eventual recovery under a more sustainable system? But that's a guess--I'd rather believe it'd collapse completely the way it seemed like it was going to, pre-cotton gin, but by the '60s it had become so much more idological. And I wonder how that would have changed if slavery had existed until synthetic fertilizers were available, only a few decades later. Not that the actors involved could have know that.

82: She's not worth reading. I dunno, we're deep into the counterfactual, but I think recruits could still be rallied. There are times when shouting louder than everyone else that you're right, a la dear leader, does in fact work.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 8:07 AM
horizontal rule
87

86.1: I don't know enough either. Gradual manumission and sharecropping, permanent stagnation until WWII? AFAIK that basically was what happened anyway.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 8:15 AM
horizontal rule
88

Apart from the "gradual" and "manumission" parts.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 8:16 AM
horizontal rule
89

Well, presumably the only reason that you had to monocrop to make slavery sustainable was that slaves were so expensive. So if the fields all get exhausted, all the slave owners go bankrupt, and others can snap up the plantations and slaves at knock-down prices and run them in a more sustainable way because they won't have the same massive debt service obligations.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 8:31 AM
horizontal rule
90

51- The EU-Britain-Gibraltar situation will be interesting in this context.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 8:37 AM
horizontal rule
91

89: They were expensive, and presumably the process you describe was happening in the older South; but the trend (locally at least) was toward no slavery, not a steady state.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 8:38 AM
horizontal rule
92

The Confederacy was unwilling to wait or compromise to get the remaining few and started shelling.

Lincoln boxed the Confederacy in by sending a ship to resupply Sumter (which was actually low on supplies). He knew that Davis would either start shooting and look belligerent -- and maybe be blamed for starting the war -- or allow the ship to land and then look weak.


Posted by: Von Wafer | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 8:39 AM
horizontal rule
93

90: Indeed. And maybe other overseas territories too? How much does the Falklands get from the CAP, say?


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 8:40 AM
horizontal rule
94

89: Also, the price was high largely because fresh imports were banned; which IIRC was done at the Constitutional Convention as the best the abolitionists could get, with this very process in mind.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 8:43 AM
horizontal rule
95

As I understand it Gibraltar residents voted overwhelmingly Remain (logically enough) but also want to stay as part of Britain but retain all the rights of being in the EU- ie they want an easy border crossing because otherwise they're literally stuck on an isolated rock. Kind of sounds like the rest of the Leave voters, actually- want to keep all the benefits with none of the consequences.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 8:43 AM
horizontal rule
96

92: Right. It was a good strategy for Lincoln because it always looks better when the other guy starts the war and he knew the Confederacy was impatient, aggressive assholes.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 8:45 AM
horizontal rule
97

89: I agree. It'd create a new ideological base to sustain it. Worst case scenario would be that the new owners would be northern corporations. There's no reason beside shareholder pressure that the railways couldn't own slaves, no?

93: A possible future where the Falklands leave the UK and then immediately join a within-EU Scotland for protection from Argentina would be pretty amazing. And appropriate, since they're pretty much a southern Orkneys. With landmines.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 8:46 AM
horizontal rule
98

And then if the Confederacy had actually gotten independence they would have wanted new imports, which the British would have prevented; and Britain, being the biggest market for export and for capital, and presumably de facto colonial overlord, the rebs would have to have sucked it up. Which would have been grimly hilarious.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 8:48 AM
horizontal rule
99

95: Wanting the status quo, and voting for it, doesn't sound too greedy to me. They'll have to make a choice, though, or have one made for them. Their bargaining position would be stronger if they toned down the nationalism and reminded everyone that most of them already speak Spanish.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 8:48 AM
horizontal rule
100

How much does the Falklands get from the CAP, say?

None - the Falklands are an overseas territory which is not part of the EU. They get about €1m a year from the European Development Fund. http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/regions/overseas-countries-and-territories-octs/oct-eu-relations-detail_en

Gibraltar is different because although it's an overseas territory of the UK, it is also part of the EU.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 8:50 AM
horizontal rule
101

98: I think Britain would have been happy enough to export to the Confederates.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 8:50 AM
horizontal rule
102

From 40: [McMegan] authored the 2014 book The Up Side of Down: Why Failing Well Is the Key to Success

This I believe.


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 8:54 AM
horizontal rule
103

101: Really? After maintaining the West Africa Squadron for decades? Keep in mind what Britain actually did about cotton during the war years: they just started growing it at scale in Egypt.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 8:54 AM
horizontal rule
104

And appropriate, since they're pretty much a southern Orkneys. With landmines.

It is slightly infuriating that the reason the UK is having so much trouble keeping to its commitment under the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel mines is that one of the conditions is that you have to have no mines laid on your own territory, and of course the UK still does, a lot, because they were laid there during the occupation by Argentinians who
a) didn't map where they put them
b) have forgotten where they put them
c) won't help clear them and
d) won't pay for anyone else to clear them.

As a result the UK keeps having to beg for extensions to its grace period in order to have time to clear them all. This seems a little unfair.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 8:55 AM
horizontal rule
105

99- Sure, given that the rest of the UK voted to screw them their current position makes sense because I don't imagine they'd vote to join Spain (nor would the UK let them). They aren't going to get special treatment any more than the rest of the UK. I don't see how the situation can be resolved unless they also vote to leave the UK and remain in the EU as part of a unified Ireland or Scotland or something.
Future countries:
1. Ireland
2. The Partnership of England and Wales
3. The United Kingdom of Scotland, Gibraltar, and the Falklands.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 8:57 AM
horizontal rule
106

104: How long will it take for the sheep to find them all?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 8:59 AM
horizontal rule
107

101: Except for the part where they were literally fighting wars against slavery, per the reduction of Lagos, above. Abolition was a real policy objective for Britain, over a long period. They didn't care enough to embargo antebellum American exports, obviously, but they did care enough to, for example, impose a commitment to abolition on the Portuguese when evacuating their government to Brazil in 1810, and again when recognizing Brazilian independence in 1822.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:00 AM
horizontal rule
108

103: Given a real chance of producing a continental counter-balance to the United States, I think the British would have taken it.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:00 AM
horizontal rule
109

Keep in mind that slavery was still legal in parts of the North during the war.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:01 AM
horizontal rule
110

107: 1810 s/b 1807. Relevant treaty was 1810.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:03 AM
horizontal rule
111

106: There's about 18,000 of them still there. IIRC they are being lifted by deminers from, as well as the UK, Zimbabwe and Lebanon (those guys having a lot of field experience with demining). At current rates they'll have lifted all the mines by 2047.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:04 AM
horizontal rule
112

108/9: Sure, but I thought we were talking about the British allowing the Confederacy to have new slaves. The British spent a lot of capital on preventing new slaves being taken out of Africa. They may have supported the Confederacy in other ways, but not that one.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:04 AM
horizontal rule
113

69
So, if you grant that, can there ever be a justification for any part of the US (or any country?) to secede?

Legally, technically? There's no legitimate process in the Constitution for secession. Creating that process is as simple as amending the Constitution. That's difficult but not impossible. It's been done about 27 times. (Can't be bothered to check right now and some people would count the first 10 as one instance of it.) Seceding without a legitimate process for it is by definition unjustified.

Ethically? I can imagine lots of situations that would justify secession. I'd say that in many cases justification for secession looks a lot like just war theory. Whether it's actually a good idea to secede, or likely to succeed, is another matter.


Posted by: Cyrus | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:05 AM
horizontal rule
114

There isn't a version of Roomba for cleaning up minefields?


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:06 AM
horizontal rule
115

108: IDK. In the actual war, where the British actually had such a chance, AFAIK they did virtually nothing to help the Confederates. Further, had their been independence, I see no reason Britain wouldn't have imposed on the Confederacy the same terms they did on the Brazilians. The Confederacy would have been very much the weaker party at that table.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:07 AM
horizontal rule
116

112: I thought you were talking about industrial imports, not imported slaves. I agree the British would have prevented that. I also don't think the South would have tried to import slaves for that reason.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:08 AM
horizontal rule
117

s/b there. FFS.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:08 AM
horizontal rule
118

They didn't care enough to embargo antebellum American exports, obviously

Well, not enough to go to war about it anyway. The US government had a fairly ineffectual squadron (or at least a ship) off the Slave Coast from 1820, on and off, to interdict slavers, but took the position that no one else was allowed to stop a US-flagged ship except them, otherwise it was an act of war.

Despite the amazingly high casualty rates (ships frequently returned from the posting with a largely-black crew, the original crewmen having died of fever), the West Africa Station was a popular posting, because you could make not only prize money off captured slave ships but also head money (£5 a time) off liberated slaves.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:09 AM
horizontal rule
119

116: Right. Possibly I should have referred to slave imports as slave imports, not just imports. Anyway, the Confederacy would have found itself unable to save slavery anyway, and this would have been grimly hilarious.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:11 AM
horizontal rule
120

115: The Confederacy was weaker than Britain, but much stronger than Brazil. It had 2 to 3 times the population and much more wealth.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:13 AM
horizontal rule
121

118: I meant Britain didn't embargo slave-grown American cotton. Embargo is probably the wrong word. What's the verb of "tariff"?


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:14 AM
horizontal rule
122

There isn't a version of Roomba for cleaning up minefields?

Oh, there are several, but the Falklands is pretty harsh and uneven terrain, and human deminers are still the most reliable.

(I worked in a place with a lot of mines once. My sense of comfort in the maps indicating which areas were cleared was diminished noticeably when I was chatting to a clearance officer who let slip that their definition of "cleared" was "we are confident that at least 96% of the mines laid in this area have been removed".)


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:15 AM
horizontal rule
123

121: Boycott is the word. Except the word didn't exist until the 1880s.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:17 AM
horizontal rule
124

122.2: Don't hire statisticians to do that kind of job.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:18 AM
horizontal rule
125

121: well IIRC it didn't have to because the Confederacy did it itself with an export ban. And Britain just worked through its immense cotton stockpiles for the next few years and then switched to supplies from Egypt etc. (albeit at some increase in cost.)


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:18 AM
horizontal rule
126

124: I did remark to him that, if I had 25 rabid wolves in my living room, I would not feel very much happier if he were to tell me that he had definitely removed 24 of them, but his English was a bit shaky so he may not have followed my point.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:19 AM
horizontal rule
127

125: The Union blockade picked up when that ban left off.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:20 AM
horizontal rule
128

120: True; but the Confederacy also faced a vastly stronger threat to its independence (USA, as opposed to Portugal); and the CSA ruling class was (AFAIK) utterly dependent on exports to Britain. And there were other markets, but none could offer anything like the weight of Britain. In 1861 Germany and Meiji Japan didn't even exist, for instance.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:21 AM
horizontal rule
129

The US government had a fairly ineffectual squadron (or at least a ship) off the Slave Coast from 1820, on and off, to interdict slavers, but took the position that no one else was allowed to stop a US-flagged ship except them, otherwise it was an act of war.

Interesting. Did the British government/navy actually honor this policy? Presumably it was effectively their choice.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:23 AM
horizontal rule
130

The CSA was willing to buy a fuckton of guns.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:23 AM
horizontal rule
131

125, 127: I think we're talking at cross-purposes. I mean that Britain imported slave-grown cotton from the USA before 1861, and the British abolition lobby evidently wasn't strong enough to do much about that.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:24 AM
horizontal rule
132

re: 105.last

The United Republic of Scotland, London, Gibraltar, Northern Ireland, Cambridgeshire and the Thames Valley.*

* if we go by rough 'majority Remain' areas.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:29 AM
horizontal rule
133

129: Interesting. Did the British government/navy actually honor this policy?

Pretty much all the time - it really would have been an act of war to do otherwise, and the US had demonstrated (in 1812) that it would happily go to war to protect its merchant shipping from search by the Royal Navy.

For example, the Royal Navy were allowed, under treaty, to stop US-flagged ships, but only if they were actually carrying slaves (hence chucking the slaves overboard to drown when being pursued). US slavers couldn't be stopped or captured when empty, even if they were equipped for slaving (irons etc) until 1862. There were similar treaties with other nations, but putting them in place took a long time.

Also slavers used to switch flags, and often carried several sets of papers claiming different nationalities.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:30 AM
horizontal rule
134

100, btw, is deeply disappointing. Because, I'm all about the grim hilarity these days.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:34 AM
horizontal rule
135

131: see here. http://ultimatehistoryproject.com/blood-stained-goods.html
Boycotts did happen, but abolitionist opinion was divided over whether it was an effective tactic. I notice that one of the groups favouring them was the British India Society, a loyalist precursor of the Indian National Congress.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:35 AM
horizontal rule
136

131: Right. And I think there was a strong possibility the CSA could have continued to export cotton to the British under those same terms had the Union not fought/won the Civil War.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:36 AM
horizontal rule
137

136: Right! And I see no reason Britain would have reversed decades of policy to allow the CSA to import new slaves, thus leaving the CSA in the same economic trap that doomed slavery in the first place! Grim! Hilarity!


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:39 AM
horizontal rule
138

Seems pretty unlikely that an independent Scotland would have a military capable of defending the Falklands.


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in." (9) | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:40 AM
horizontal rule
139

Fortunately Argentina is a very long way away from having a military capable of attacking them.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:41 AM
horizontal rule
140

How many immortal swordsmen do you really need to defend some islands?


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:42 AM
horizontal rule
141

138 Are the Blackwatch not enough? And the other Scottish regiments?


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:43 AM
horizontal rule
142

Galahad took quite a beating last time round.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:45 AM
horizontal rule
143

141: alas, all merged and abolished now. Gone the Black Watch, the Argylls, the Seaforths, the Royals, the Highland Light Infantry, the Cameronians, the Fusiliers, the KOSB, the Gordons, the Cameron Highlanders. There's the Royal Regiment of Scotland (4 battalions), the Scots Guards (1 battalion) and the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (1 light cavalry regiment).


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:49 AM
horizontal rule
144

To flog for the last time this horse of my own making, Britain didn't impose immediate abolition or anything drastic on Brazil. They imposed a commitment to eventual abolition, while suppressing slaving in Africa. Brazil didn't actually get round to abolition until 1888.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:49 AM
horizontal rule
145

143 That was in 2006, wasn't it? That must have been a sorry day.


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:51 AM
horizontal rule
146

Scots are dour anyway.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:59 AM
horizontal rule
147

It's probably worth noting that "King Cotton" writ broadly (i.e. that Britain will have to help defend the Confederacy because it needed the cotton) is the stupidest economic theory until the ancestors of the Confederates went with "Mexico will pay for our wall."


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 10:01 AM
horizontal rule
148

If they lynch Trump's ancestors too I'm all for them.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 10:04 AM
horizontal rule
149

143: it's a succession of amalgamations actually. A lot of the old Scottish regiments, like the Seaforths and the Cameronians and the HLI, went in the 60s (including the Cameronians, who, uniquely, refused amalgamation and preferred to disband). Then another lot went in the mid-90s, and another lot in 2006 as you say. The Argylls, the original Thin Red Line, fared worst: one day they were part of 16 Air Assault Brigade, the high-readiness tip-of-the-spear mob, along with the Paras; the next they had been cut back to a single company and reroled for ceremonial duties only. Ouch.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 10:08 AM
horizontal rule
150

the ancestors of the Confederates went with "Mexico will pay for our wall."

Ivanka Trump plans to travel back through time and disguise herself as "Jefferson Davis" in order to make sure that the Confederacy wins this time. Ooh, sequel plot.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 10:09 AM
horizontal rule
151

Descendants?


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 10:25 AM
horizontal rule
152

George Clooney plays Lincoln.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 10:29 AM
horizontal rule
153

151: Probably.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 10:37 AM
horizontal rule
154

Quantum stuff is very indeterministic.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 10:40 AM
horizontal rule
155

I am enjoying the shit out of this thread.

For hard-to-explain-briefly reasons, I have found myself having to swat down Lost Cause mythology with alarming frequency since moving to the UK (at least I expected it growing up in the south). It's a big pet hate of mine and so even though I have no special interest in Civil War era history, (I don't really love reading history at all) outrage has been a good motivator.

So it's a pleasure to be able to sit in on a conversation among a bunch of people who know/care more about the relevant history than I do and *aren't* a bunch of lost-cause assholes like the crowd I'd usually be talking to about this.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 11:33 AM
horizontal rule
156

155 was me.


Posted by: Swope FM | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 11:34 AM
horizontal rule
157

Please do explain, at whatever length is needful.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 11:36 AM
horizontal rule
158

What are you implying?


Posted by: Opinionated 7' 8" | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 11:51 AM
horizontal rule
159

158 Given the OP shouldn't that be "Opinionated 2x4"?


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 11:56 AM
horizontal rule
160

Avoiding ""looking weak" turns out to be a pretty lame justification.

Speaking of which, is our current president getting more pathetic by the day, or is this an illusion?


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 11:59 AM
horizontal rule
161

160. Not an illusion. And I've never seen a weaker President that Trump, it amazes me still that any of his followers can see him as strong. Rubes and racists all of them.


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 12:03 PM
horizontal rule
162

I get his (orange-head's) emails every day. If you don't get outside information, I could see how they see him as strong.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
163

that s/b Trump


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 12:10 PM
horizontal rule
164

that s/b than


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 12:10 PM
horizontal rule
165

Argh! I blame the bourbon.


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 12:11 PM
horizontal rule
166

So do we.


Posted by: Opinionated French Revolutionary | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 12:12 PM
horizontal rule
167

Moi aussi.


Posted by: Louis Philippe Ier, Roi des Français | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 2:54 PM
horizontal rule
168

I was pretty shocked by how well the Congressional Democrats came out in the budget negotiations, and Trump basically got nothing. I don't have a clear understanding of how exactly that happened.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 5:06 PM
horizontal rule
169

168: My read on it is that Congressional Republicans finally realized that Trump doesn't have any leverage over them but Congressional Democrats do.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 5:44 PM
horizontal rule
170

Yeah, I was thinking something along those lines but not able to articulate it. It certainly isn't what I expected to happen.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 6:40 PM
horizontal rule
171

As for the longevity of slavery absent the Civil War, The Half Has Never Been Told argues fairly persuasively that slave productivity was increasing up until the Civil War. The happy narrative that is sometimes bandied about whereby the slave economy was simply less efficient than with a free economy seems to be naught but wishful thinking.


Posted by: (gensym) | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 8:30 PM
horizontal rule
172

171: That book is a lot of wishful thinking too, though not all wrong. I can elaborate rather than just talk shit if I have to, but I'm going to bed soon


Posted by: Thorn | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 8:39 PM
horizontal rule
173

Please do elaborate!


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:49 PM
horizontal rule
174

Yes, please do. I've seen that book and been intrigued but don't know much about it in detail.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 9:53 PM
horizontal rule
175

Rising productivity in itself doesn't necessarily defeat the monocrop/debt problem (if I have that right). Regardless of productivity, buying slaves added a capital cost (so, debt service+slave upkeep) where free labor had only a running cost (wages).


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 10:41 PM
horizontal rule
176

But you have to look at the absolute costs too. Is debt service plus upkeep of slaves greater or less than free wages? (This assumes slave upkeep is less than free wages, but I think this must have been the case, otherwise there would have been no advantage to slavery at all.)


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 10:53 PM
horizontal rule
177

To go back to an earlier point, cotton cultivation is definitely possible in the river valleys of the Southwest, and it has been practiced in southern Arizona from prehistoric times up to the present ("Pima cotton" is well known as a premium variety to this day). But this type of cotton agriculture is very different from the type practiced in the Deep South, and it would not have necessarily benefited from the expansion of slavery further west.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 11:01 PM
horizontal rule
178

Sven Beckert's book on cotton is supposed to be good.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 11:39 PM
horizontal rule
179

176.1: Sure.
176.2: Maybe, but that's assuming homo economicus, where slaves were also very tied up with white status.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 2-17 11:39 PM
horizontal rule
180

179.2: Indeed, but I'm not sure that's a bad assumption in this context. Slaveowners certainly tended to see their slaves as capital investments rather than people. I doubt they would have been willing to hold on to slavery if the economic calculus turned against it.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 05- 3-17 12:30 AM
horizontal rule
181

180 last: Yes; and that would be consistent with gradual extinction of slavery starting on the east coast.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 3-17 2:05 AM
horizontal rule
182

I may at some point have contradicted myself; I contain multitudes.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05- 3-17 2:09 AM
horizontal rule
183

178 aligns with what I've heard. I have the book but sort of took a break from reading about slavery in favor of The Diary of a Provincial Lady and so on.

On Baptist's book, I'll find links to the economic criticisms once I'm on a computer but one thing a lot of people hated and I thought was a strength was the governing metaphor about the ways enslaved bodies were rhetorically dismembered by metonymy that described them as numbers of head like cattle or hands and so on. I'd love to see a project tracking that sort of usage. On the other hand, his fictionalized historical vignettes where he tries to get into the mind of one of the enslaved people he's writing about seemed dehumanizing and offensive in the other direction. These people's stories are not powerful because Ed Baptist is projecting how great by modern standards they may have been. It's creepy enough that even if the book were better, I hope it would give professors pause in assigning it.


Posted by: Thorn | Link to this comment | 05- 3-17 5:14 AM
horizontal rule
184

180: The number of children they had with slave mothers suggests they also saw them as consumer goods.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 05- 3-17 8:09 AM
horizontal rule