12
   

ALL THINGS CIVIL WAR

 
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 05:47 pm
@Setanta,
The "historian" speaks, not of history and his dedication to the truth, but of his petulance and his great disregard for the truth.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 05:50 pm
@Setanta,
Carefully researched, largely from primary sources, the book includes notes and illustrations. This untold story will interest anyone exploring an alternative perspective on this period in American history.


Quote:
War Crimes Against Southern Civilians

by Walter Brian Cisco

The sobering and brutal consequences of the Civil War off the battlefield are revealed in this examination of atrocities committed against civilians. Rationale for the Union's "hard war" and the political ramifications of such a war set the foundation for Walter Cisco's enlightening research.
In a series of concise and compelling chapters, Cisco chronicles the "St. Louis Massacre," where Federal authorities proceeded to impose a reign of terror and dictatorship in Missouri. He tells of the events leading to, and the suffering caused by, the Federal decree that forced twenty thousand Missouri civilians into exile. The arrests of civilians, the suppression of civil liberties, theft, and murder to "restore the Union" in Tennessee are also examined.

Women and children, black and white, were robbed, brutalized, and left homeless in Sherman's infamous raid through Georgia. Torture and rape were not uncommon. In South Carolina, homes, farms, churches, and whole towns disappeared in flames. Civilians received no mercy at the hands of the Union invaders. Earrings were ripped from bleeding ears, graves were robbed, and towns were pillaged. Wherever Federal troops encountered Southern Blacks, whether free or slave, they were robbed, brutalized, belittled, kidnapped, threatened, tortured, and sometimes raped or killed by their blue-clad "liberators."

Carefully researched, largely from primary sources, the book includes notes and illustrations. This untold story will interest anyone exploring an alternative perspective on this period in American history.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/386395.War_Crimes_Against_Southern_Civilians
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 06:12 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Weve been attempting to provide source material that SEEMS accurate. All you seem to do is to automatically take a contrary position.


If it was [not 'were'] me only, you'd probably have a case, Farmer. In my reading, I came across this. It explains what I described for you in a previous post.

What do you think?


Quote:

All too often we assume that history is a true and faithful account of events as they actually took place and people as they actually were. We tend to forget that people who lived in the past (and recorded the events of those days), were ordinary human beings who were as vulnerable to the temptation to color events according to their own beliefs, agendas and prejudices as are people living today. For this reason, it behooves us to constantly re-investigate and re-evaluate the past in order to be certain that what we think of as the truth is, in fact, the truth. Much of how we view ourselves in the present, and how we view our path into the future, is based upon how we view the past. If that view is inaccurate, if it is tainted by the prejudices of those whose word we blindly accepted, then we ourselves are helping to perpetuate old injustices -- to say nothing of the fact that we are deluding ourselves.

The obligation to constantly re-evaluate the past is especially important where wars and other clashes of of culture, religion and politics are concerned, because they are inherently based in ideology, and thus are especially vulnerable to manipulation. You may have heard the saying, "To the victor belongs the spoil." Well, one of the spoils of any conflict is the history and dominant view of that conflict. The side that prevails always colors itself as good and noble, while simultaneously coloring its opposition as (at best) misguided or (at worst) evil; and it does its best to pass its views down to posterity so that its perspective will remain dominant.

This is a pattern that is demonstrated time and again throughout history; and yet, quick as we are to spot it in the histories of other lands, we Americans are very reluctant to acknowledge it here. We are too idealistic in our view of ourselves, too slow to believe that any kind of prejudice has colored our history.

http://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-Unmasked-Youre-Supposed-Dishonest/dp/0307338428/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b


farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 07:35 pm
@JTT,
Im kinda surprised that youre incredulous about "atrocities" in the Civil war. The Turchin affair is written up in real history books that delve into the subject as a population dynamic. You seem to be somewhat limited in only focusing on just Union atrocities. Id suggest that you do some looking into stuff like

Kansas Border campaigns and atricities

Charley Hart raids and "Bleedin Kaqnsas"

ANDERSONVILLE

Jeff Davis exemplary treatment of "black insurrectionists"

Fort Pillow.

Theres a bunch more, >BOTH SIDES had nothing to be proud of. HEy, it was a fuckin war between the states. Do you comprehend the concept?
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 08:39 pm
@farmerman,
I'm not, Farmer, not in the least. I'm aware of these things. I'm, if not incredulous, a little surprised at the tack you're taking. It's just not academic, it's not the Farmer that I've grown to admire and respect for his principled stands on seeking the truth.

By all means, explore all these topics on the ALL THINGS CIVIL WAR thread.

But let's cut out the diversions. That fella I quoted raised some very interesting and provocative thoughts on this penchant that is all too common among Americans, a perfect example is that you are doing it right now, refusing to take anything approaching an honest look at a very sordid history.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 09:10 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
HEy, it was a fuckin war between the states. Do you comprehend the concept?


I do indeed, Farmer, and it's, as you're aware, one of my contentions in this and other threads. This casual attitude you take to war crimes, as I've also mentioned more than once, comes only when it's your side that has committed the war crimes. The rest of the time, there's this pronounced fingerpointing, this incessant moralizing "Hang those dirty war criminal bastards.That's how to deal with these war criminals."
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2011 04:38 am
@JTT,
This thread, again, was started to commemorate a major event in US history. It had been initially presented in a date-event fashion. The presentations of specific personality biographies , is a deeper look into several key individuals that served or were central to the war itself.
I hope you have fun trying to continue being the troll of this thread. I dont want to trap myself into having to respond to you . SO, I hope you understand if I just ignore your efforst from hereon.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2011 09:16 am
Apr. 20 Robert E. Lee resigns commission as colonel in U.S. Army; Apr.23 accepts chief command of Virginia state forces.

Quote:
It has taken a while, but it’s about time Robert E. Lee lost the Civil War. The South, of course, was defeated on the battlefield in 1865, yet the Lee legend — swaddled in myth, kitsch and racism — has endured even past the civil rights era when it became both urgent and right to finally tell the “Lost Cause” to get lost. Now it should be Lee’s turn. He was loyal to slavery and disloyal to his country — not worthy, even he might now admit, of the honors accorded him.

I confess to always being puzzled by the cult of Lee. Whatever his personal or military virtues, he offered himself and his sword to the cause of slavery. He owned slaves himself and fought tenaciously in the courts to keep them.
He commanded a vast army that, had it won, would have secured the independence of a nation dedicated to the proposition that white people could own black people and sell them off, husband from wife, child from parent, as the owner saw fit. Such a man cannot be admired

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dispelling-the-myth-of-robert-e-lee/2011/04/25/AFrXC1kE_story.html?tid=obinsite

Agree? Or Disagree?
electronicmail
 
  0  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2011 09:43 am
@panzade,
Farmerman already answered that one on the other thread: Lee never said anything about slavery but Lincoln said plenty.

Don't worry about "dispelling the myth of Robert E. Lee". Dispelling the myth of Abraham Lincoln comes first.
Quote:
Quote:

“Lincoln believed that whites were superior and favored the deportation of freed slaves.”

Recall that this thread is entitled "The Confederacy was about SLavery". Not, "Was Lincoln an asshole". NOBODY has even taken a side (except you) about Lincoln. EVERYBOPDY who knows something about the Civil War knows that Lincolns own personal feelings stopped at ending slavery. He was no fan of citizenship for blacks. In fact he was a fan of the "Rehomelanding of freed black slaves to Africa"

http://able2know.org/topic/145429-51#post-4586611
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2011 10:07 am
@electronicmail,
first, address my discussion question. Then we'll start in on Honest Abe.
electronicmail
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2011 10:34 am
@panzade,
Your question being whether I agree or disagree with Mr Richard Cohen's article in the Washington Post? I read your link to Mr Cohen's article which concludes with
Quote:
It’s time for Virginia and the South to honor the ones who were right.

So who are they? On slavery Lee was closer to my own view that slavery was an evil to be abolished than Lincoln ever was. Do you think we should have sent all black residents back to Africa? If so you support Lincoln.

I personally agree with Mr Cohen "it’s time for Virginia and the South to honor the ones who were right." Imo Gen. Robert E. Lee was right. Virginia and most of the country seem to agree with that as well.

I'm happy to support your freedom of speech enabling you to adopt the opposite view but I don't have to agree with it.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2011 10:58 am
@panzade,
I agree with it. When Lee took up his post at Washington College (now Washington and Lee University), several (relatively) young former officers came voluntarily to act as his "military family" (which is how southern officers often referred to their military staff--a quixotic notion for a body of men whose purpose was to find the best way to slaughter their enemies). Among them was William Preston Johnston, whom Lee had invited to come to the college to be a professor (Johnston later acted as President of Lousiana State University and Tulane University). His father, Albert Sidney Johnston, had been considered the best of the southern soldiers in 1861, and his name was first on the promotion list to "full" general when the C S Congress authorized the rank--that made him the ranking general officer in the South. He died of a wound at Shiloh (a stupid, needless death, too, because none of his "military family" apparently thought of putting a tourniquet on his leg while someone found a surgeon--so Johnston bled to death).

That did not leave Lee the ranking general in the South, but it left him as the highest ranking southerner to retain his reputation (although at the of A. S. Johnston's death, many were still calling him "Granny" Lee or "the King of Spades" because he actually made white men dig trenches). After the war, the best candidate for genuine military hero from the South, Thomas Jackson, had been dead for almost two years. If for no other reason, Lee became the military hero of the South by default.

All of these young former officers wrote reminiscences of their conversations with Lee, but W. P. Johnston kept notes at the time, and became the accepted "authority" on Lee's oral "memoirs." Lee did not write any memoirs. The Lee version of events (as revealed truth from the scripture of W. P. Johnston) became the accepted version of events, the more so as Lee was considered an exemplary gentleman, who never spoke ill of anyone, even of his enemies. Johnston wrote a life of his father, but never one of Lee, and his notes on his conversastions with Lee were only seen by a handful of people before his death.

One of them was Jubal Early. Jubal Anderson Early had served throughout the war, and after the surrender of Lee and Joe Johnston, he fled to Texas, but found no coherent Confederate force, and so by way of Mexico and Cuba he finally settled in Toronto. After being pardoned by Andrew Johnson, he returned to Virginia, and the occasional practice of law. He was what was usually referred to as an "unreconstructed rebel," and an early proponent of the "Lost Cause" myth. In the terms of that myth, the hagiography of Lee was very important, and Early toured the South delivering the gospel to the veterans of the war and their families, eager to hear of their own excellence and nobility, even in defeat. Lee and Early had not actually gotten along well during the war, although Lee trusted Early in the military missions he gave him, and not unreasonably.

To assuage their shame, the veterans of the war in the South embraced the "Lost Cause" myth enthusiastically, and the image of the southern soldier as bold cavalier and preux chevalier, with Lee as the most "preux" of them all. In this post earlier in this thread, i also looked at the Lost Cause myth and Lee's actual military performance. Douglas Southall Freeman was a journalist in Richmond, and in the 1930s (don't have the book to hand for an exact date), he wrote a paper which very accurately criticized the military performance of the South. The strategic defense with which the insistence of state governors that every inch of soil be defended meant that literally tens of thousands of regulars and militia sat out the war contributing nothing. One Federal staff officer writing just after the war stated that 15,000 regulars and militia alone sat on their hands in Florida throughout the war. Most state militias only became involved when the regular forces had been routed, and they were completely unable to deal with the veteran Federal troops who just brushed them aside, if they were smart enough to skedaddle--otherwise they were annihilated. When Sherman followed Hood south from Atlanta, and arrived in Milledgeville (then the capital of Georgia), they found about 40,000 stand of muskets and an equal number of new uniforms--at a time when so many veteran Confederate soldiers marched the roads in their bare feet and wearing rags. He also criticized the insistence on the tactical offensive, savagely attacking the Yankees wherever they found them in their territory. (See the earlier post for the mention of the book Attack and Die.)

But that would never do, not in the South of the 1930s, and it especially wouldn't have done in the 1880s when Freeman was born, a son of a veteran of the Army of Northern Virginia. Freeman soon changed his tune, and he became the great modern biographer of Lee, with his four volume biography, followed by his three volume study, Lee's Lieutenants. In much of the Old South, Lee's birthday was a state holiday. One spoke ill of him at one's peril.

As i said, in the earlier linked post i have given my criticisms of Lee as a commander. I also briefly referred to my belief that the war slightly unhinged him. He wore the rank ensigna of a colonel while on Confederate service, the highest rank which he had attained in the United States Army before resigning.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USACWlee.jpg

Note Lee's collar insignia, three stars. In Confederate service, that was the rank insignia of a colonel. Furthermore, he referred to the Federal troops, never as Federal troops (except in correspondence) nor as the United States army, but usually as "those people over there." More odd still was how he referred to the enemy officers. He would occasionally refer to the commander of the Army of the Potomac as "General," but he usually simply used their last name. He also referred to Federal generals by their rank in the "old army." When some matrons in Culpeper, Virginia complained that young women in the town had attended balls given by the Yankees when they had occupied the area, Lee replied that he thought it a harmless enough entertainment, and that "I know the Major, and he will have nothing but gentlemen around him." He was actually referring to an officer who was a Major General in Federal service. During the battle of Chancellorsville, a chaplain rode up to Lee's headquarters all in a lather to report that Federal troops had taken Fredericksburg and were driving on his flank. He replied: "I have just sent General McLaws (CS Major General Lafayette McLaws) to call on Major Sedgwick." Sedgwick had been a Major in the old army, but now held the rank of Major General.

During the Wilderness campaign, when Lee learned that James Longstreet had been wounded, he became distraught, and suddenly rode towad the firing line. Seeing Field's division, and the Texas brigade moving toward the sound of the guns on the Orange Plank Road, he took off his hat, waving it and shouting: "Hurrah for Texas, Hurrah for Texas, I will lead you, boys." This was very uncharacteristic, and the Texans stopped in the road and began shouting: "Lee to the rear, Lee to the rear." Several NCOs ran out the ranks and took the reins of Lee's horse, and lead him to the rear. I have no doubt in my mind that he contemplated suicide by combat.

Much of Lee's behavior in that war was very strange, quite apart from his poor to non-existent staff work, and i have become convinced that the war deeply affected his mind.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2011 03:59 pm
@electronicmail,
Quote:
With that in mind, I ask you to fairly consider what so many seem prepared to dismiss out of hand: namely, the idea that Abraham Lincoln might not have been the towering giant of greatness and goodness that he was made out to be by the generation that won the War of 1861-1865. In "The Real Lincoln" and "Lincoln Unmasked", Thomas DiLorenzo has done a fine of job of re-evaluating Lincoln and demonstrating that neither he, nor the war he inaugurated, are as we have been led to believe.

For instance, were you aware of the following facts about Lincoln and the war?

- He did not believe in racial equality, and stated this publicly a number of times (such as when he pledged to uphold Illinois' law against interracial marriage).
- As a lawyer, he once defended a slave owner's right to keep his slaves, but never defended a runaway slave.
- Lincoln and Republicans opposed the extension of slavery because they wanted to keep the territories free for white settlement.
- He favored a constitutional amendment (the Corwin Amendment) that would have guaranteed the existence of American slavery in perpetuity and would have been irrevocable.
- He was willing to leave every slave in slavery if it would "help save the Union".
- He preferred that all American blacks be "colonized" outside of the United States, and actively worked for this - including during his time as president.
- The Emancipation Proclamation was strictly a military measure designed to "suppress said rebellion", not a humanitarian gesture; and it freed only those slaves in parts of the Confederacy that were not under Union occupation. Slaves in the border states and occupied areas were unaffected by it. As his own Secretary of State said, it applied to slaves where Lincoln could not reach them, but left them in bondage where he could have easily freed them.
- He ordered the arrest of the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Roger Taney, when Taney referred to Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus as an act of despotism.
- He and his military machine closed down anti-war newspapers; censored telegraphs, sermons and sheet music; unlawfully arrested thousands for expressing anti-Lincoln or anti-war sentiments (including in the Northern states); and made pitiless war against Southern civilians in an effort to win this "peoples' contest". Entire towns and cities, such as Meridian, Mississippi and Atlanta, Georgia, were laid waste, their inhabitants left destitute and starving.
- Secession is not forbidden by the Constitution, and is a more American ideal than that of Union by force. The United States of America came into existence as an act of secession, justified by the Declaration of Independence, which states that all people to have a right to a government of their consent.


http://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-Unmasked-Youre-Supposed-Dishonest/dp/0307338428/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2011 04:36 pm
@electronicmail,
Quote:
I'm happy to support your freedom of speech enabling you to adopt the opposite view but I don't have to agree with it.

Thanks. That's what these threads are all about. I didn't state my view. I presented Cohen's view. Thanks for your reply.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  3  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2011 04:43 pm
@JTT,
publishers weekly on Di Lorenzo's Lincoln Unmasked:

"In this laughable screed, a senior fellow at the libertarian/free market Ludwig von Mises Institute charges that most scholars of the Civil War are part of a "Lincoln cult" and determined to fool the American public into thinking that our 16th president was a hero.

At the root of the author's loathing of Lincoln is an ideological commitment to states' sovereignty, a doctrine largely undone by the Civil War. DiLorenzo believes that the centralized nation-state that emerged after the war is incompatible with true democracy.

His supposed revelations–-that Northerners owned slaves into the 19th century; that Lincoln advocated the relocation of black Americans to Liberia; that Lincoln did not, at the outset of the war, aim to end slavery—are well known to anyone who has read one of the many recent books on Lincoln. But Lincoln is not DiLorenzo's real target; he saves his most vitriolic bombast for the scholars who dominate American universities (most notably Eric Foner) and who, he charges, are "cover-up artists" and "propagandists." DiLorenzo accuses them of using their Lincoln mythology to advocate big government and other "imperialistic" and "totalitarian" policies. DiLorenzo accuses the "cultists" of having a political agenda. He may well be hoisted by his own petard."

...uhmmm. I think I'll pass on that book!
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2011 05:31 pm
Frankly, i'm appalled. My experience is that Publisher's Weekly never met a book they didn't like. It must really be bad for that publication to give it a bad review.

I know of no one here who denies the enormities committed by both sides--and the more than two centuries of abuse and murder by slave owners hardly entitles them to some special pleading for what they suffered in an unnecessary war that they started themselves without a hope in hell of winning it. I also know of no one here who has indulged any hero worship of Lincoln.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2011 05:37 pm
@Setanta,
History is a dispassionate analysis of happenings , reasons, consequences etc. , all done with a passionate involvement in scholarship . What JTT is involved in is a hunt for a conspiratorial soap opera.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2011 10:12 pm
@farmerman,
Just makes me all that much more happy that i've stopped reading the hateful drivel of that member.

J. B. Bury wrote: "History is a science, no more and no less." One can probably excuse that as he was a child of the 19th century, but he lived long enough to know the 20th century meaning of the word. History is more like forensic investigation, and the practice of prosecutorial law--it is only genuine when it is dispassionate, and when the goal is to establish fact as well as can be done.

Bury ought to have known better. As an editor of Edward Gibbon, he ought to have seen how far even a great scholar can be lead astray by his prejudices. Gibbon considered the Imperium to have become corrupt. Not because of the practice of slavery in the ancient world in general and the western portion of the Empire in particular--Gibbon can be forgiven for not understanding the economic consequences in an age which only dimly understood economics. But Gibbon condemns Roman society for being sybaritic, and later viciously sneers at "primitive christianity." That's why i have often referred to the Decline and Fall as a pot-boiler. While there is a place for historical commentary, analysis and synthesis, there is no place for the condemnation out of hand of entire peoples over thousands of years because one is offended by their wealth, or their superstition. Superstitious man labored on from the trogloditic condition right up to the present day, accomplishing so much despite the condition of superstition.

To choose to see the evil of vengeful warfare, but not to see the evil of the institution of slavery is as surely a perversion of history as it is to condemn the virus for the havoc it wreaks in it's host. There is nothing scientific there. That it was evil for Sherman to "make Georgia howl," and to lay waste South Carolina for reasons of revenge cannot be denied. That South Carolina and Georgia, and their nine state companions in the war deserve condemnation for launching a great and bloody war to protect the centuries old institution of slavery ought never to be denied either.

As a person, i think Robert Lee was an admirable man for many of his parts. But his casual acceptance of the institution of slavery is not admirable. Neither is he admirable for his many failures of method as a commander of armies. It is as foolish to make a hero of Lee because of the superficial appearance of military success as it would be to make a hero of Lincoln while ignoring his contribution to the misery of the war by his bumbling interference in military matters. It is as historically false to perpetuate any part of the Lost Cause myth as it would be to deny what Sherman's army did in the Old South.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2011 05:10 am
@Setanta,
Slavery,child labor, racism,and the suppression of womens rights of property seem to be common to much of the development of Western Society even into the last century . (I guess I can also add to that list, the eschewing of simple hygiene )
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2011 05:39 am
Slavery seems to have been common to many cultures. Child labor has been an economic necessity in many cultures, because of the reality of the situation of peasants and a poor laboring class. Rather than racism, i would say the tribalism is common to all cultures. Racism in the English and German speaking worlds i believe arises because they were not commonly exposed to people of other "races" until quite recently in their histories. When the English were not a commercial, sea-going people, other nations such as the French, Spanish and Italians had regular commercial intercourse with Africa and southwest Asia, and were, therefore, less likely to judge on the basis of appearance. The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, for example, was in constant commercial, social and military touch with North Africa and the middle east, and it was not until it became an Angevin kingdom that its cosmopolitan nature began to fall off. In the middle ages, Salerno was the home of a great university, where Christian, Muslim and Jew met in equality. This was also true of the kingdoms of the Iberian peninsula until the Reconquista of the late 15th century, and the subsequent expulsion of the Jews and Muslim. Prior to that, the great universities of Andalusia (roughly, southwest Spain) were similarly a melting pot of races and religions.

I'd say that the suppression of or outright denial of women's rights in property has been common to almost all cultures, too--with some interesting exceptions.

The matter of personal hygiene is interesting, and sometimes hilarious. Public bath houses were common in Russia for many, many centuries, and when Petr Alexeevitch (Peter the Great) made Russia a European power to reckon with, western European nations sent their diplomats there in droves. They often wrote to their masters to comment on Russian society, and the public bath houses were often mentioned as an example of how the Russians were barbarians. Winston Churchill, writing of the Gothic age and the middle ages which followed commented that "the lights went out in Europe" and that people stopped bathing for more than a thousand years.

When we had our revolution, that gabby old fool Samuel Johnson wrote about the irony of a demand for liberty on the part of "the drivers of negro slaves." What a hypocrite. The English pushed slavery onto the American colonies because of its value as a leg in the trade cycle, one part of which was for the planters of the West Indies to sell slaves on the mainland of the continent. The Americans were not the only "drivers of negro slaves" in 1775. When a Dutch captain was blown off his course by a storm in the middle passage in 1609, he made a landfall at Jamestown. He tried to sell of his human cargo, who were otherwise going to die before he could beat back to the West Indies, and he found few takers. There was little enough with which to feed the few surviving settlers, and they didn't need more mouths to feed, nor did they yet have a monoculture which made slavery more attractive. It was after the Restoration (1660) that slavery really took off on the mainland of North America, and it was then that the English began to press the sale of slaves on the colonies. The Carolina colonies were named for King Charles II, the Stuart monarch who was restored in 1660. South Carolina soon plunged into the slave culture whole-heartedly, planting rice as a valuable cash crop to sell to the slave owners of the West Indies.
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 03:11:00