Best us abolition of slavery history books according to redditors
We found 87 Reddit comments discussing the best us abolition of slavery history books. We ranked the 34 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
It goes beyond just misguided family members. Groups such as Daughters of the Confederate fought to ensure history books did not include the discussion of slavery. On top of that, even as late as the nineties, very few history teachers (I'm speaking less than 5% in some states) earned even a history minor. Combine these factors, and you have huge populations of people with majorly flawed education. We're now facing the backlash.
This book is very informative on the matter.
I'm actually from the Deep South (Baton Rouge), I went to public school there after Judge John Parker desegregated the public schools. I'm also a beneficiary of desegregation as being an Asian I was counted as a minority. So I'm well steeped into the mind set of Southern Pride and how the past can be romanticized. But unfortunately, not enough emphasis was ever made in school (I think about the only thing we did was read The Peculiar Institution in American History AP) about how evil of a practice that Slavery was or how hateful the Confederate States were or its leaders.
I highly, highly recommend Bound for Canaan if you want to understand the human aspect of the movement. It reads sort of like a good Atlantic story: not shying away from historical detail or complexity, but also using and following interesting individuals to highlight whatever broader point he is making.
Napolitano really sneaks in the "Lincoln tried to arm the slaves" line in the interview without much context. I was hoping to tackle this, but I'm not sure where he is coming from.
Can we speak to what position he might be making this claim from?
Lincoln dispels any notion of support for John Brown in his famous Cooper Union Speech on Feb. 27, 1860. There were some prominent Northern supporters and funders of Brown's (a few of whom fled to Canada after the raid on Harper's Ferry), but attempting to tie their ambitions of an armed slave uprising to Lincoln would be tenuous at best.
My reading and research into Brown hasn't shown any other connection there aside from the strange linkage of Lincoln's love of "Battle Hymn of the Republic," which was written to the tune of "John Brown's Body," which was written by Julia Ward Howe after visiting Lincoln in Washington. Howe was wife of Samuel Gridley Howe, who himself was one of the "Secret Six" funders of Brown's raid. This New York Times post recognizes this connection as fairly ironic given Lincoln's previous attempts to distance himself from Brown and concedes that Lincoln appears ignorant to the tune's origin. It's more of an interesting factoid than anything else.
More information of the Howes and Brown's supporters:
> Nora Titone, My Thoughts Be Bloody: The Bitter Rivalry That Led to the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln (New York: Free Press, 2011).
As an aside, there does appear to be well-researched documentation for the Confederacy's attempts to arm slaves. Near the end of the war as the military situation worsened for the South, there was support for allowing slaves to earn their freedom by fighting for the Confederacy. The first all-black company was formed in Richmond in late-March of 1865, then the capital city fell to the Union a week later.
Bruce Levine has written about this in "Confederate Emancipation: Southern Plans to Free and Arm Slaves during the Civil War." A quick journal review of his work is here for those interested.
All slaveowners benefited from slavery. Even non-slaveowners did.
But that's not really accurate. There were no proposals in 1860 to abolish slavery. There were, however a few developments that were certainly anti-slavery (and not just anti-expansion of slavery) such as Harper's Ferry and opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act.
However most sectional tensions revolved around the fights and proposals in the antebellum period regarding the status of slavery in the West including:
-Annexation of Texas (1845)
-Mexican American War (46-48)
-Wilmot Proviso (46)
-Emergence of the Free-Soil Party (48-52)
-Compromise of 1850
-Lack of government support to the Filibusters in Central America (1850s)
-Creation of Republican Party (54)
-Failure of the Ostend Manifesto (54)
-Kansas-Nebraska act (56)
-Bleeding Kansas (55-56)
-Dred Scott Decision (57)
-Lecompton Constitution (1857)
-Lincoln-Douglas Debates (1858)
All of these events that increased sectionalism and contributed to secession were focused on the acquisition of more land and whether that land would be slave or free as well as who even would get to determine the slave/free status of that land.
I'm actually reading a great book about the period right now: The Impending Crisis: America Before the Civil War 1848-1861
>Really ? Can you give me one example where in any social science women are treated as the majority group.
academia is much larger than social science.
here is one example:
>The Majority Finds Its Past: Placing Women in History
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Majority-Finds-Its-Past-Placing/dp/0807856061/
Another which talks about demographics which is a social science... Any form of geography that deals with demographics is a social science and will talk about statistics and women are in fact a statistical majority in the UK.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/2010001/article/11475-eng.htm
>In the statistical sense it is definitely true. Feel free to look at the number of women in position in power. I think you mean that numerically women are not a minority. Which is true. But when people talk about minorities in the context of social groups, it almost never means in a numerical sense.
Nobody mentioned women in power. They were only mentioned as a percentage of population. If you want to say women are a minority of MPs, CEOs etc, then that is true, but you MUST specify the specific situation. Just to say women are a minority generally implies to most people in terms of total population, which is not true in the UK.
>I think you mean that numerically women are not a minority
Of course I do, people in this country do, I don't think I know anyone in my social or professional life who doesn't use minority to use statistical minority (I did a STEM PhD).
>But when people talk about minorities in the context of social groups, it almost never means in a numerical sense.
Outside of certain social sciences (not including geography) it is uncommon for people to do that.
>Everybody that would discuss this with any BASIC KNOWLEDGE would understand that it's perfectly valid to describe women as minority group. Give that you apparently find Oxford reliable may I suggest the dictionary of sociology
Basic knowledge of sociology as used by a particular part of the field..... Outside of that field, people would not get what your are saying as most people only deal with statistic majorities.
It seems the term minority has been used to equate/compare women to statistical minority groups. As someone who deals with numbers on a regular basis, this terminology is rather counter intuitive. It is strange to use it when the exact opposite is true statistically.
The most-often recommended single volume is Battle Cry of Freedom.
If Gettysburg is an interest, I found Hallowed Ground by the same author to be a good read. More exhaustive is Sears's Gettysburg, which helped me to understand a very dynamic picture.
Finally, we often get inquiries about the roots of the war. The Pulitzer Prize winning
Impending Crisis is first-rate.
For a historical perspective, I highly recommend the book Americans in Paris by David McCullugh to see how France was a major magnet for Americans in the 19th century https://www.amazon.com/Greater-Journey-Americans-Paris/dp/1416571779
As others mentioned, several Founding Fathers were influenced by French culture and philosophies.
Today, French cooking is considered a prestigious style, and French luxury brands are still popular in the United States.
Lol no. D’Souza is a far right revisionist historian who literally argues FDR was a fascist and JFK was a Nazi. He’s a token of the alt right and makes a living churning out bullshit conspiracy theories.
Don’t read his books just because he’s an Indian guy who talk about politics. Read someone who actually understands history and speaks the truth.
I’d recommend three books, one short, two long: On Freedom by Cass Sunstein, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ‘72 by Hunter S. Thompson, and The Greater Journey: Americans in Paris by David McCullough.
I think racism and ignorance are everywhere. For example, it's ignorant for Southerners to assume all Northerners are cold-hearted jerks if they've never even been there just like it's ignorant for Northerners to assume all Southerners are uneducated racists. People need to realize that a small portion of the population doesn't represent the WHOLE population. Have I met racists, ultra-conservatives, and religious fundamentalists? Why yes I have, but these people are few and far between, either that or others are smart enough to not be so vocal about their beliefs (which is what I think the people up North probably learned a while back ago). It's insane to me that people have this mindset about the "racist history of the South" as if the North were immune. Guess what, Washington had slaves, the ground the Liberty Bell rests on was once slave quarters. (source)
>That's why I initially asked if we're talking a specific band of time. It is UNDENIABLE that post Holodomor the Soviets were way better off than they were under the Czars. It's ALSO undeniable that one of the largest drops in standards of living in the history of the world without a domestic war was the fall of the USSR. I'm not some crazy tankie, Holodomor was a real ass thing, but so was the American genocide of 40-50m native americans and slave trade, both of which were classically liberal lines of enlightenment thinking that were precursors to neoliberal ideology.
Aside from this being a major whataboutism, source that precursor to neoliberalism claim.
>You literally denied slavery in tons of countries, including the US, and when presented with evidence of it you have no counter argument other than to cite that different sources cite different numbers on slavery in the same country, in large part because estimates and censuses are hard to find often due to the nature of it. Take some ownership of shit.
If you lie about one statistic, what else are you lying about? I'm not denying slavery doesn't exist. But it's an important normative value of all neoliberals to stop slavery. It's like trying to blame the northern states for slavery. they were the one against it.
>
>>If you were skilled labor pre-NAFTA and lived along the US border it was heaven, but for the vast majority of others it has meant ultimately lower wages or meager gains
>
>>Which is funny because if you look at literally any source, really most of the gains were made near the border.
>
>It has made it worse on both fronts
Citation needed.
> and the gains of it have gone almost entirely to people who were already well off.
Citation needed.
> income inequality has made it very easy to capture locals to make them sex slaves in both Mexico and the US as well as to own local governments and even buy legitimate businesses ala the Maquiadoras.
You're making so many claims you can't even keep up with the citations. Show me how income inequality causes all of that.
>There's literally no definition of poverty that's stable. It's almost always a relativistic metric. As such, income inequality is an aspect of it whether you deny it or not.
It doesn't matter how stable any of the other definitions are, income inequality is not a definition at all. Income inequality, in its own right, is not even a bad thing.
Before you keep going, might I remind you that literally all your citations so far in all your comments do not show what you claim. You need to focus not on the things happening, but the causal mechanism. So chop chop.
I never said the war wasn't about slavery primarily. I'd recommend this book. It's very good.
Also thanks for doing the legwork for me and giving me access to the exact numbers of slaves in places like Kentucky.
Where to begin...
>You could absolutely have capitalism without slaves.
First of all, you appear to have misunderstood what I meant when I said slavery was part of the foundation of capitalism. I did not mean that every capitalist society has slavery. Rather, the Atlantic slave trade provided the economic foundation on which the capitalist system was built. Capitalist merchants and shipping were sustained by the slave trade, while major cash crops such as sugar and tobacco were grown by slaves. Like it or not, the development of capitalism was contingent upon slavery.
>slavery in the US, which disappeared despite (or I would argue, in part because of) it being a capitalist country.
Wrong. Slavery did not disappear because America was a capitalist country. If anything, slavery, which had started to decline after the Revolutionary War, experienced a renaissance in the early nineteenth century as plantation owners started growing cotton to supply capitalist merchants in the North and capitalist industrialists abroad. Slavery became intertwined with American capitalism, with slaves serving as capital for banks and the stock markets trading in futures on slave crops. Slave owners even started to employ capitalist labor management techniques. For more information see Edward Baptist's The Half Has Never Been Told and James Oakes's The Ruling Race.
This is not an isolated incident, as it has occurred repeatedly in the history of capitalism. For example, the Firestone Corporation employed forced labor rounded up by government soldiers in Liberia during the 1920s. (It also covertly supplied Liberian warlord Charles Taylor during the 1990s as part of a deal to protect its rubber plantation in the country.) Similarly, capitalist corporations such as I. G. Farben profited from Jewish slave labor in Auschwitz and other Nazi camps.
>it's about the individual actors that make up a system making decisions, not the system itself.
By that logic, authoritarian communism shouldn't be held responsible for the abuses of the Soviet Union, Cambodia, the People's Republic of China, etc.
>So I take it you'd rather have the other choice be death?
Where did I say that?
>I'll close by pointing out that capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other economic system.
A brief examination of the article you linked showed that it relied on biased sources such as The Economist magazine and the Cato Institute. Not very reliable.
This is the subject of a very interesting book by Bruce Levine, called Confederate Emancipation.
The skinny of it is that both the idea of emancipating the slaves as a war necessity (whether to help encourage European recognition or else to try and endear the slaves into joining the southern cause en masse) and of training slaves to fight for the Confederate Army, whether or not freedom was part of that enlistment, was talked about almost from day one of the war. However, it was only ever seriously supported by a fairly small minority among Confederates and in all cases encountered very, very strong opposition from most confederates. As things turned badly for the Confederacy during the war, Jefferson Davis began trying very hard to enlist black troops for the south and was heavily resisted. Ultimately a very small number of black troops were trained at the very end of the war, but they never saw actual combat. Predictably, black volunteers, even with the incentive of freedom, always came up short, and the number who actually got into uniforms is too small to be significant in any way. IIRC barely a company of black confederate troops was formed, but I can't confirm that at the moment.
That being said, black slaves were used by the army for support roles from day one as well. They tended soldiers in the camps, built defenses, and fulfilled many other roles, except fighting and soldiering. This led to the whole incident at Fort Monroe and the Confiscation Acts, which are quite worth researching.
Reconstruction, in general, is pretty depressing, from both sides. I think that's another reason that not many like to teach it. Look at the this, not for the full understanding, but just to start to realize how many different opinions existed on how Reconstruction should be done, and how much it got fought over. The major Parties were splitting and fighting, people were getting assassinated, laws were passed by Congress that generals refused to implement, States were re-accepted then had congressional delegates blocked from entering congress... It was chaos.
The Prison-Labor thing is pretty well known. Just google it. It certainly didn't happen everywhere or to all blacks, but it was significant. And specifically allowed by the 13th amendment, which the southern states had little to no say in authoring. Again, the main controversy wasn't that it was happening, but the details in who actually started it and ended up controlling it. Most resources simplify it to being controlled by the States, but don't go into the details of who was lobbying for it or benefiting from it.
You could start with the [Penal Labor wiki] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labour#United_States) and Convict Lease. Slavery By Another Name by Blackmon is about it, although it's not really a southern perspective or centered on reconstruction. But it's recent, really well researched, and won a Pulitzer. Confederate Military History by Evans is probably the standard resource for southern perspective on Reconstruction. It's a 12 volume set, written in 1899, and not exactly a weekend novel. But it is available free online. Evans (a confederate general) traveled around the south, gathering stories, opinions, etc from other prominent southerners.
"The Wheel of Servitude: Black Forced Labor After Slavery" by Novak discusses it in detail, and during reconstruction. [Complicity] (www.amazon.com/Complicity-Promoted-Prolonged-Profited-Slavery/dp/0345467833) discusses Northern encouragement and profiting from slavery, but I believe only pre-war. But before diving into any of that, it might help you to just get an idea of exactly how corrupt and misguided reconstruction was in general. That makes understanding the specifics a lot easier. And ties a lot of things together.
The Lincoln getting shot thing is significant. Really significant. It's hard to say exactly how it would have gone better with Lincoln, but it was so bad that everybody generally agrees that no matter what, his leadership would have helped unify the chaos. And the chaos is what led to different policies being put in place in different areas, as well as the crazy power struggles that started. Which besides prison-labor in some places, led to one of the other reasons racism got worse (and might address your question about Wilmington, I don't really know specifics).
The flip side of the prison-labor stuff, is of course, all the black discrimination that somehow happened where there were no prison-camps. Sure, some of it is exactly what most northerners assume: Whites resisting Reconstruction and still wanting to own slaves and just being racist in general. (See: John Wilks Booth). But that was a much smaller group than most realize.
A large number of southerners weren't racist, at least in the same way that Lincoln and Grant weren't racist. Remember that the vast majority weren't ever slave owners. They had lost the war, slavery was over, and everyone just wanted to move-on. There still might have been white superiority, but this was still an idea held by many, including northerners, and even Lincoln and Grant. This did not mean that blacks should be slaves or even shouldn't have equal rights. And there wasn't really any "hatred" behind it. With that in mind, you might describe this as the point of minimum racism during the whole thing. This was probably the best chance to implement policies that would quickly lead to equality.
But then Reconstruction fell into chaos. As the Radical-Republicans gained power, Congress started implementing "punishment" with reconstruction, as well as blocking previously passed reconstruction policies. Keep in mind, during this time, it was generally Republicans that were anti-slavery, like Lincoln. Related Video. The Radical-Republicans were for punishing the south, mostly as a way to "prove" that the war was about the morality of slavery, and somehow punishing the sinners proves this. Also, they were pretty much against southern re-admission, so that they could control the south as territories, preventing representation in congress. Union Generals sometimes followed the old policies that were still law, sometimes the new ones, and sometimes interpreted them into their own policy. Part of the "punishment" was to discriminate against southern whites. (Ironic, I know.)
This discrimination wasn't nearly as long lasting as the discrimination against blacks, but was significant in the mindset that led to it. Many whites were denied citizenship, prevented from owning property, not allowed to vote or run for office... Mostly by troops refusing to let them swear (re)allegiance. The troops had a stranglehold on everything, especially elections. As governments were elected/installed, whites got seriously pissed off about being excluded. (Again, ironic.) People that could run generally had to be a citizen that never was a confederate, or an ex-confederate that had serious Union connections. This is what led to underground political groups to form. Some only wanted to get to vote, some wanted to overthrow politicians that were a result of illegitimate elections, some wanted to get their property back, and some just find a way back to normalcy. They were all viewed by the North as organized insurrections. Which only re-polarized everything.
At the same time, you still have Carpetbaggers. You have Troops generally helping blacks build homes and schools, but in many areas, because of either asshole generals or asshole Congress, whites weren't getting any of the help they were supposed to get. They're poor because their confederate money is worthless. The Generals and new governments are foreclosing on property everywhere to be able to sell it (usually to Carpetbaggers), or give it to Reconstruction projects. So people started getting really pissed. Who did they now see as the enemy? Not only the north and carpetbaggers, but also the blacks, who were benefiting from the same policies that were screwing over the whites.
Black-hate didn't lead to organized insurrections, as much as organized insurrections led to black hate. And the power grabbing, election fixing, wealth redistribution, and chaos that was Reconstruction led to these organized insurrections.
In my opinion, this is what really changed the mindset from a "relatively benign" superior-racism (that Northerners also had) into an us-vs-them hatred-racism. Yes, people were racist before the war. But they generally were fond of blacks, even if it was in a belittling way. They might have thought of them as lessor, whether a slave or freeman. But they generally didn't hate them. At least until Reconstruction gave them a reason to.
Does this give southerners a free pass for racism? Nope. But just like the Prison-Labor, it implicates the North in a way that most people aren't aware of. It caused the us-vs them that went on through the civil rights movement. It explains why the south is still leary of federal control. And is a reason one can be for equality, but against affirmative action.
/rant Didn't intend to type all that. Really just meant to give those sources way up at the top... Hope it ties some stuff together for you.
Interesting point about Germany and Japan. It's easy to forget the success stories sometimes. Interesting to think about what the reasons for success vs failure tend to be. I have heard parallels drawn between post-civil war and Germany post-WWI though, with the major common element being excessive punishment leading to instability and hate. Just don't extrapolate this one too much.
If you really want to get a better picture of Reconstruction, or the war in general, the best place to start is reading about the people. Read both perspectives about one person, then move on. Especially [Lee] (www.amazon.com/Lee-Richard-Harwell/dp/0684829533/). Or his [letters] (www.amazon.com/Recollections-Letters-General-Robert-Lee/dp/1146396341/). He might be the most misperceived person in recent history. Plus he's documented enough to make you realize exactly how one-sided "mainstream" history can be, even when it's not controversial.
Some other popular "non-northern" views. Alternate them with the "mainstream" stuff. You'll quickly get an idea of what was going on.
The South Was Right! by Kennedy
The Real Lincoln by DiLorenzo
When in the Course of Human Events by Adams
Blood Money: The Civil War and the Federal Reserve by Graham
War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Cisco
Lincoln Über Alles: Dictatorship Comes to America By Emison
Everything You Were Taught About the Civil War is Wrong by Seabrook
As a general rule I expect that they, lacking knowledge of the bigger picture, would side with the people closest to where they each appeared.
That being said, here is where I would think it would be most interesting to see them:
RWBY has an industrialist's daughter and an oppressed racial minority in their group. This would normally indicate a pro-abolitionist slant. However, there was a significant number of wealthy free blacks who owned slaves during that time. Further, Blake's ability to "pass" was an earlier plot point (and parallels a number of mixed-ancestry people at the time); so the most interesting place to put this group is in one of the Confederacy's larger cities (Richmond, Atlanta, Charleston, New Orleans, etc.) And see how that affects their dynamics.
JNPR is perfect for the Shenandoah and Tennessee Valley theatres. Two scions of respected, if not powerful, families; a cherished but tough daughter, and an orphan of the back woods. They are, by definition, more morally ambiguous; so they could fall on either side of the conflict.
CRDL makes the most sense in one of two forces: those of William T. Sherman (who is still hated by many Georgians for his March to the sea) or those of Nathan Bedford Forrest (who thought that political terrorism in the form of the original KKK was a good idea... Asshole.) In either case, they are bullies, bad news for whoever isn't actually fighting the war.
CVFY and SSSN both belong in the Western Theatre. The two sides of the conflict we're far less defined out there, and there were two other parties involved as well (Mexico and the Tribes with a Frenchmen or two thrown in). Think "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" or "A Fistful of Dollars" or "Magnificent Seven" for reference.
Really looking forward to reading this! I also highly recommend Sylviane Diouf's book Dreams of Africa in Alabama: The Slave Ship Clotilda and the Story of the Last Africans Brought to America; she puts together all the different accounts of the prisoners of the Clotilde (including Barracoon).
>How about the tens of millions (being generous) that died? How was their standard of living increased?
That's why I initially asked if we're talking a specific band of time. It is UNDENIABLE that post Holodomor the Soviets were way better off than they were under the Czars. It's ALSO undeniable that one of the largest drops in standards of living in the history of the world without a domestic war was the fall of the USSR. I'm not some crazy tankie, Holodomor was a real ass thing, but so was the American genocide of 40-50m native americans and slave trade, both of which were classically liberal lines of enlightenment thinking that were precursors to neoliberal ideology.
> By you own India link, it says less than half the number you cite.
>
You literally denied slavery in tons of countries, including the US, and when presented with evidence of it you have no counter argument other than to cite that different sources cite different numbers on slavery in the same country, in large part because estimates and censuses are hard to find often due to the nature of it. Take some ownership of shit.
>If you were skilled labor pre-NAFTA and lived along the US border it was heaven, but for the vast majority of others it has meant ultimately lower wages or meager gains
>Which is funny because if you look at literally any source, really most of the gains were made near the border.
That's literally what I said...NAFTA was sold in part saying it'd make lives better for Mexican citizens in unskilled manufacturing and agriculture. It has made it worse on both fronts, and the gains of it have gone almost entirely to people who were already well off. Walmart was literally trying to get away with not paying it's labor which I cited, and the vast concentrations of wealth in Mexico have lead to much much stronger cartels as vast changes in income inequality has made it very easy to capture locals to make them sex slaves in both Mexico and the US as well as to own local governments and even buy legitimate businesses ala the Maquiadoras.
>Income inequality is not a measure of poverty. Good God.
There's literally no definition of poverty that's stable. It's almost always a relativistic metric. As such, income inequality is an aspect of it whether you deny it or not.
Here's a link to a proper version of the print
It might not be anything special
Part of the image is used as a cover for the book Slave Narratives of Texas.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Slave-Narratives-Texas-Tyler/dp/1933337036
You might be able to find a credit for the image that way.
Read Bound of Canann, which details how many early Christian Americans were abolitionists, even before the South started to develop. For example, there were early Puritans in New England who argued for equality among the races, and Quakers did the same, with their intentions focused on using Christianity to be a force for equality. Their early intentions had little to nothing to do with the South and were purely religious and social justice oriented.
Completely off topic, I had to read a book called "The Peculiar Institution" in college. Quite the interesting read, and I hadn't even thought about it in decades. https://www.amazon.com/Peculiar-Institution-Slavery-Ante-Bellum-South/dp/0679723072
Also: "peculiar" is a hard word to type.
I love your question! /u/dick_long_wigwam and /u/ty_bombadil seem to have most of your "Golden Age" books covered, so here's my offering:
If you want to get into the "Belle Epoch" that Adriana finds so arresting, you ought to read The Greater Journey: Americans in Paris by David McCullough. It offers a brilliant look into the Paris of the 19th century and features a brilliant cast of historical American and French characters.
Happy Reading!
Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:
amazon.co.uk
amazon.ca
amazon.com.au
amazon.in
amazon.com.mx
amazon.de
amazon.it
amazon.es
amazon.com.br
amazon.nl
amazon.co.jp
amazon.fr
Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, amazon.nl, amazon.co.jp, amazon.fr, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.
I did provide a source, in the very first comment I made here, which you responded to, with some nonsensical comment about wikipedia being unreliable and something nonsensical about fucking soup.
Here's a link again, with another quote:
> The primary catalyst for secession was slavery, most immediately the political battle over the right of Southerners to bring slavery into western territory that had hitherto been free under the terms of the Missouri Compromise or while part of Mexico. Another factor for secession and the formation of the Confederacy, was white Southern nationalism.
That wikipedia page has more than 150 sources in the event that you want rid yourself of your nativist ignorance. Personally, I'm a fan of David Potter's The Impeding Crisis, but there are plenty of other books and publications to chose from there. Potter's book might enlighten you about the basic historical facts of the antebellum period, which includes the Kansas revolts, John Brown, Lincoln's platform and election, the Dread Scott case and a long list of political conflicts attributable directly to slavery that drove the war.
Your argument here boils down to 1 part semantics. "It was about secession, not slavery", is a bit like saying "this person wasn't killed by that gun, it was the gunshot wound that killed them." It's moronic. But mostly, the argument you're making relies on verifiably false information.
The point you and others are making here boils down to the fact that you all are nativists, who are propagating a revisionist version of history. Take your bigotry to a more appropriate forum, or educate yourself. None of this issue is open to interpretation, there are verifiable historical facts here which you have chosen to willfully disregard.
Also you do know that Stanford is a "school" (country club) built on the exploitation of immigrants and the proletariat...ie Irish and chinese railroad workers...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1608194027/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?qid=1409021664&sr=8-2
And napalm was invented at Harvard... shit without tobacco, in the early 1600s the america colonies would have failed...I love duke university too!
I've read books on it, here's a new comprehensive one you can buy right now!
https://www.amazon.com/This-Vast-Southern-Empire-Slaveholders/dp/0674737253
Its been in print for over half a century but you cannot ignore The Peculiar Institution.
edit:The African Burial Ground Cemetery discovered in New York City in the early 1990s and now a national monument also tells a lot.
I'm no history buff, but everyone's motivations are questionable depending on who you're talking to. There's people like Lerone Bennett, who have written entire books on how Lincoln was racist and had very little interest in abolition.
Moderators, we need to get the list nailed down and stickied or on sidebar.
Oh yeah, we need to add Matt Karp. This Vast Southern Empire: Slaveholders at the Helm of American Foreign Policy.
> The Majority Finds Its Past: Placing Women in History
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Majority-Finds-Its-Past-Placing/dp/0807856061/
May I guess you never read the book ? She was a radical socialist and feminist, with the title almost surely like this because it plays on the contradiction of women being a minority group despite being a numerical majority.
>Gerda Lerner. One of the most influential feminist historians, Lerner is often credited with being the first to offer college courses in women's history. Lerner was a giant in her field: she rose to prominence in the 1960s, a time of tremendous expansion in the field of history. During this time, social history became popular: increasingly historians began to pay attention to every-day people, including women, the African Americans, the poor, and other minorities, as opposed to the ''great men'' embodied in generals like Robert E. Lee. and politicians like Thomas Jefferson.
You can read maybe The Creation of Patriarchy :P To make sure that she would probably have no issue with describing women as a minority group and would surely understand.
>Of course I do, people in this country do, I don't think I know anyone in my social or professional life who doesn't use minority to use statistical minority (I did a STEM PhD).
Why do you use statistical majority, when you mean numerical majority ? This is the second time now and it's confusing me a bit. And again, sure you and your friends might use the colloquial definition of minority. Which is totally fine, but pretending that women can't be called a minority is just wrong and shows that you have no understanding of minority groups and the social sciences.
>Basic knowledge of sociology as used by a particular part of the field..... Outside of that field, people would not get what your are saying as most people only deal with statistic majorities.
Is what we are discussing right now related to the social sciences or more to numerics ? Also you are kinda not telling the truth when you talk people are dealing with statistic majorities. Because which groups are you dealing with ? Blonde people ? They are a statistical minority. Would you want to give me a list of minorities you are thinking of when you talk about minority ? Because I seriously doubt it coincides with "statistical minorities"
>It seems the term minority has been used to equate/compare women to statistical minority groups. As someone
No, it seems like you don't understand what minority groups are. Like most of society. The term comes from academia, and people just perverse the meaning.
It's a lie to claim people think of "statistical minorities" because then they would think of blonde people, brown eyed people, people with super high IQ, aristocrats, etc etc. There are many many people that you are almost surely not thinking about when talking about minorities. Maybe you mean ethnic minorities. Maybe.
>It is strange to use it when the exact opposite is true statistically.
It's stranger to use it in a way that's completely inconsistent. And ignores the history of the word. Even stranger to not know the multiple meanings of the word, and defend your ignorance like the problem is people who spent decades on this topic know less than you.
This Vast Southern Empire is literally the best book written about the politics/economics behind slavery and everything surrounding the succession.
go for it. I'm not renting a book out from the library (in the unlikely event my local one even has it) for a Reddit conversation.
Two really good books on the topic are, The Gray and the Black and Confederate Emancipation: Southern Plans to Free and Arm Slaves during the Civil War.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0807125571/ref=rdr_ext_tmb
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195315863/ref=rdr_ext_tmb
Did you just call for experts but not actually advocate any experts?
Here, read This Vast Southern Empire by Matt Karp, which does a good job of showing how the arguments that it wasn't about slavery were made up after the fact, and pretty shitty arguments as well.
Saying that we may need violence to solve our political crisis is instigating violence.
Here are some good books for you and others to read
You weren't alive during those two eras.
I'd be glad to discuss this with you after you've done a bit more reading on the topics.
Them how do you explain the thousands of “black” slave owners in the American south? https://www.amazon.com/Black-Slaveowners-Masters-Carolina-1790-1860/dp/0786469315/ref=nodl_
No, slavery was the over-riding issue, and States Rights was a justification. How could you expect anything else when an entire economic structure is challenged? Ideas like States Rights come from the material world, not the other way around. To start a discussion with an idea, and proceed to its affects is to turn the entire dialectical exchange on its head.
Regarding the "many" blacks who served in the Confederate Army: Where are the enlistment records for black confederates? Where are the muster rolls? Where are the reliable eyewitness accounts? Why did the Confederate Congress debate recruiting blacks and authorized that recruitment, in the closing days of the war, if there were already black regiments?
Here's a book and a comic.
Yes, all the way up until the war, there were thousands of slaveholders who themselves had been slaves. https://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436/amp
And there is a book just about “black” slave owners in SC: https://www.amazon.com/Black-Slaveowners-Masters-Carolina-1790-1860/dp/0786469315