If this were a thread about British colonialism in general, then I’d say discussions on how the Irish, etc, were treated would be entirely relevant. In a thread about American chattel slavery, it’s not.
11 Likes
No. I think they’re trying to say “my people were treated badly too, please don’t forget this.”
4 Likes
Even Mel Brooks parodied the construct of ‘unwanted Irish’ in Blazing Saddles:
13 Likes
Mel Brooks was merciless in parodying prejudices, but Blazing Saddles is where he was, IMHO, at his best.
13 Likes
He also had, in that movie and in Young Frankenstein, and entire cast with absolutely perfect, impeccable comedic timing.
8 Likes
“And… Methodists!”
I fully agree.
9 Likes
Why is it when I hear the word Methodist my teeth clench up?
5 Likes
Forgot about this thread! Cross-posted:
10 Likes
Majorly intersectional!
7 Likes
I would argue that it’s relevant to a conversation about our country’s origin, in that it directly led to the establishment of the Barbados slave system on which our own was based, and was a significant contributing factor both in our separation from England and the willingness of Appalachia to align with southern slavers.
It also goes to the inherent masters and servants mentality behind the cognitive dissonance in slaveowners who spoke so eloquently about justice and liberty. There’s a pretty direct line of reasoning from the idea of the king only exploiting the peasants because they’d be lost without his guidance, to the one that Africans were actually better off working for the white man than fending for themselves.
The idea of a divinely ordained hierarchy certainly peaked with American slavery, but it didn’t start there. By the time of our founding fathers, the concept was an ingrained and forgone conclusion that few people with roots in Western Europe would have ever even considered questioning.
If the point of this conversation was supposed to be about how many of our founders supported or opposed slavery or changed their minds over time, it absolutely is relevant to look at where those ideas came from and why they were so prevalent.
The South may have been backwards compared to the North, but Virginia and Georgia at least had sufficient miles of the then cutting-edge new tech known as railways for Sherman’s neckties to have become a thing. I would say only the UK and France had a possibly higher standard of living.
1 Like
I’m not sure the connection you’re trying to make with the UK and France and would welcome a citation for the claim, but the railroad stuff is easily verifiable. First, “Sherman’s Neckties” were a Georgia and South Carolina thing, not a Virginia thing. And it mostly started around Atlanta as part of the Atlanta campaign.
In terms of miles of railroad, Virginia had around 1500 miles in 1860. That’s about what Massachusetts had. But there were some big differences in what those railroad miles did. Railroads in the “free” states were designed as much to move people from one place to another as to move manufactures from one place to another-- within the state, to other states, and to ports. The railroads connected everything to everywhere. In contrast, railroads in the slave states mostly moved things from the upland areas to the coasts or to the major rivers that connected to the coasts. There wasn’t as much concern about connecting areas to each other, or for moving people and goods either within a state or to another state. Look at the path to get between Mississippi and South Carolina. It’s not easy. Aside from fewer routes, it was made more difficult by the variety of railroad gauges. In the North this was true to some extent, but there were enough railroads that ran across several states that one could stay in the same car, or keep manufactured goods in the same car, from Illinois to New York City. This was not true in the South, where one would have to switch cars several times to get from New Orleans to Norfolk. And in 1863 the oppressive Union government forced everyone in the North to standardize. In the South this didn’t happen until the 1880s. [Fun fact, it was all done in 36 hours starting the night of May 31 1886.]
This map is a good visual representation of the difference in total miles as well as the issue of interconnectivity and also how it changed prior to the Civil War. While railroad mileage grew in both areas between 1850 and 1860, the difference in the rate of growth is stark. Americans in the northern areas were becoming more and more connected in that decade. In the 1850s railroads had begun to knit the North together into one huge market place. Philadelphia became famous for its workshops, making everything from hosiery to machinery, which was sold around the North and across the world. Cincinnati became known as “porkopolis,” the first “hog butcher for the world,” and lard and soap-maker to boot. Manufacturers in those areas read newspapers that detailed prices in New York, Boston, London, Berlin, and Paris.
That interconnectivity was critical. It meant that in northern states, people in New York had a tangible connection to people in Ohio and Indiana, and even to other places in the world. People and goods moved between those places constantly. Cultural ideas and fashion moved easily between the various regions of the North. If not a common identity there was certainly a common idea that was developing.
Except in the South, where there were far fewer railroads, far less interconnectivity, and far less interest in integrating into a national and world market. When the South changed its gauges over in 1886, it had a dramatic effect on the availability of goods to ordinary people, as well as on shipping companies, who suddenly lost a great deal of business to the railroads.
6 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
