It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In the years between 1850 and 1860, in the thirteen slaveholding states (excluding Missouri and Delaware), the total cash value of farms rose from $1,035,544,075 to $2,288,179,125; the average cash value of farms rose from $2,035.75 to $3,438.71; the number of slaveholders grew from 326,054 to 358,728; and the average number of slaves per slaveholders rose from 9.54 to 10.69. [Thomas P. Govan, “Was Plantation Slavery Profitable?” Journal of Southern History, Vol VIII, No. 4, Nov., 1942, p. 518] Does that sound unprofitable? Does it sound as if slavery was dying out?
Indeed, it was slavery’s prosperity that posed something of a challenge to white southerners in the 1850s. As the price of slaves increased (a reflection of the profitability of the peculiar institution), white southerners began to wonder whether those rising prices would close the doors of slave ownership to southern whites, who, being excluded from the ranks of slaveholders, might come to resent the power of the slaveholding oligarchy. This helps explain why Hinton Rowan Helper’s The Impending Crisis produced such controversy, because Helper offered a class analysis of slaveholding society based on haves versus have-nots among southern whites. If class and not race became the dividing line in southern society and politics, things would change.
These concerns were behind a movement in the Deep South to reopen the trans-Atlantic slave trade in the 1850s. Increase the supply of slaves, its proponents argued, and prices would go down, opening up the prospect of broadening slave ownership. The ensuing debate demonstrated the different place of slavery in the economies and political order of the Deep South and upper South, for Virginians opposed the idea. They did so out of economic self interest. Virginians simply had too many slaves to make slavery as profitable as it once was (and this had been true in significant parts of the Old Dominion for some time: George Washington saw that Mount Vernon was becoming something of an albatross in this regard when he worked his ledger books). Rather than open up the slave trade, Virginians wanted a closed market where those white southerners looking to buy slaves would turn to Virginia to buy them. Indeed, exporting human beings for sale was an important part of Virginia’s economy during the 1850s, as white Virginians struggle with their state’s economic future. There were other reasons why people opposed the reopening of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, including concerns expressed about introducing new Africans into what slaveholders argued was a domesticated African-American population used to the joys of southern slavery. However, the initial proposal would have gotten no traction had southern whites seen slavery as unprofitable and doomed: the idea reflected confidence in slavery’s future and a desire to spread the the opportunity of slaveownership to maintain harmony among southern whites.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: kelbtalfenek
To be honest, I had never heard that claim before either until this issue in Charleston came up. How people can willingly deceive themselves about the history of slavery is beyond me. I've now seen it twice on these boards. Once last week and another this morning.
Revisionist history... This is why I keep lamenting on the state of our history classes during grade school. Teaching white washed happy history fantasy instead of the dark and painful history of reality.
At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for 60 working days, including seven Saturdays. A day earlier, Senate whips Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) and Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), the bill's floor managers, concluded they had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate.
The Civil Rights Act provided protection of voting rights; banned discrimination in public facilities—including private businesses offering public services—such as lunch counters, hotels, and theaters; and established equal employment opportunity as the law of the land.
As Senator Byrd took his seat, House members, former senators, and others—150 of them—vied for limited standing space at the back of the chamber. With all gallery seats taken, hundreds waited outside in hopelessly extended lines.
Georgia Democrat Richard Russell offered the final arguments in opposition. Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, who had enlisted the Republican votes that made cloture a realistic option, spoke for the proponents with his customary eloquence. Noting that the day marked the 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's nomination to a second term, the Illinois Republican proclaimed, in the words of Victor Hugo, "Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come." He continued, "The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!"
Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only five times in the 47 years since the cloture rule was established had the Senate agreed to cloture for any measure.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc
That very well may be the case, but as I pointed out in the OP, it was the South that pushed the issue, not the North. If the south hadn't gone bat# crazy when Lincoln was elected, MAYBE we would have gotten rid of slavery in due time. Who knows? We could ALSO have reopened the international slave trade and have more slaves than ever.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Don't lie. The Democrats that opposed desegregation were CLEARLY conservative. It is only after the Civil Rights Act happened did they jump ship and turn the Republican party conservative. I really hate seeing that narrative pushed like it is some champion victory for equal rights from conservatives. Liberals were responsible for the Civil Rights Act just like Liberals are responsible for modern Civil Rights laws. It's ALWAYS conservatives who are fighting these laws, because THAT is what conservatives do. They resist change. It is what makes them conservative.
80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70% of Democrats did. Indeed, Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the filibuster. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Richard Russell of Georgia and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina tried as hard as they could to sustain a filibuster.
Of course, it was also Democrats who helped usher the bill through the House, Senate, and ultimately a Democratic president who signed it into law. The bill wouldn't have passed without the support of Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana, a Democrat. Majority Whip Hubert Humphrey, who basically split the Democratic party in two with his 1948 Democratic National Convention speech calling for equal rights for all, kept tabs on individual members to ensure the bill had the numbers to overcome the filibuster.
Put another way, party affiliation seems to be somewhat predictive, but something seems to be missing. So, what factor did best predicting voting?
You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.