Slashdot Mirror

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm
(note, a bit of opinion near the end of that article that the civil war would not have been necessary to end slavery)

yes, sadly many black slave owners existed. however they were not the majority of slave owners. another misconception is that only the south had slaves, the northern states had them too.

That's because black people haven't used white people as SLAVES.

Why would black people use white people as slaves?

What's next? White people giving equal opportunity to whites for football and basketball, and blacks for ice hockey?

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveown ers.htm

one fault of a person makes all of their intellectual ideals null and void? you act like only "rich white" guys have owned slaves. blacks did as well as numerous other societies throughout history.

in my view it does not diminish the contributions those cultures made to the world.

Compare the states' current election results with states' past policies, and you can see how attitudes of the past carry over to influence decisions of the present. States afraid of minorities yesterday are afraid of gays and women today (Bush voters stated that anti-gay, anti-abortion "morality" was the most important issue in America, more than war or the economy). Fear is unfortunately the most easily cultivated factor in American decision making.

Blah. Feminists are funny people, they'd protest for something like this when their argument has no basis whatsoever - would they rather have us portray black women as plantation owners? It was a HISTORICAL story - how else did they expect us to set it up as?

Interestingly enough, there actually were black slave-owners .

Of course, you wouldn't have been able to present that story either.

And it's ashame, too, because making slavery an entirely black versus white issue only encourages more hostility between the races.

1.) You assume that such a state would have a reasonable number of volunteers in the National Guard.

Good point.

2.) You assume that the state in question doesn't have a State Guard that can't be federalized.

Point blank: there is no State that has a National Guard that can not be federalized.

I don't recall any negotiations of any sort. Hell, South Carolina seceded before Lincoln was even sworn in. The states that left the union didn't try to discuss things in Congress to decide the proper way to leave, they just took their toys and went home.

First, you're correct about South Carolina: the South Carlolina legislature perceived Lincoln's election as a threat. Calling a state convention, the delegates voted to remove the state of South Carolina from the union, 3 short months before Lincoln was sworn in. Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana followed in January and Texas in Feburary.

Second, you're wrong about negotiations: there were many, many hours, days, and months of negotiations between members of congress before Southern States picked up and left in January 1861. The last major effort was The Crittenden Compromise of 1860. (Read it here.)