Something that I found very ironic in the material covered was the 20 slave rule. For every 20 slaves owned, one white man was exempt from service in the army. The irony is that the major reason for the war was the preservation of slavery and here were the people with the most invested in this institution and they aren't even the ones doing the fighting.
This is true, the quote "its a rich mans war, and a poor mans fight," holds to be very true in this instance. A majority of the population in the south was middle-class or poor, who owned no slaves. Therefore they could not benefit from the 20 slaves rule. However, it is not to say that wealthy southerners did not fight in the war.
Yeah i think this whole war is kind of ironic. There were strong holds of unionism throughout the south. The rich, again, in american history let the poor people fight the war while they stay at home (or get high ranking positions in the army). I just think this whole war was ironic for many different reasons and ways,
and very silly.
and this is Dan Reusser by the way, i forgot my name/password so i just used my google name.
The 20 slave rule was basically created because of all the resistance to the draft (correct me if I'm wrong). That really shows that the south was almost split about wanting to actually fight the war. You would think that if they all really wanted their own country that badly, they would be more united in fighting for it.
On the other hand if you look at it from the viewpoint of the women and children on these farms, they felt like thier protection was at stake with no male influence. Very few men actually stayed home due to this law, hardly enough to affect the numbers fighting in the South. I feel this law was put into effect to make the women and children feel more like the institution of slavery, at least in the confederacy, was not in rebellion.
I agree with all of you that this whole situation was very ironic. Although I can see where the slave owners were coming from. Yes the rich slave owners were fighting for the preservation of slavery, but I they also wanted they're homes to be safe. If had 20 or more people at my house that didn't like me I would want to have someone at home to protect my family. Would you not? No matter how much or little I believed in fighting to keep slavery alive, I first would want to protect my family and home.
I agree with what everyone has to say with the exception to one point. I think the large plantations, the ones with 20-40-60 slaves would have more than one-two-three capable men from the household around. So, i don't know how much they would have felt they were hindering the war effort as much as they would have felt they were contributing by staying home and helping the home front-which needed it badly. And as it was said there weren't that many people who owned 20plus slaves, therefore i question the 20 slave rules effect on the war.
In lecture and the readings, once again to me it seemed as though the political ties between generals in the North were very important. It seemed as though there was a sort of checks and balances between the generals.
9 comments:
Something that I found very ironic in the material covered was the 20 slave rule. For every 20 slaves owned, one white man was exempt from service in the army. The irony is that the major reason for the war was the preservation of slavery and here were the people with the most invested in this institution and they aren't even the ones doing the fighting.
This is true, the quote "its a rich mans war, and a poor mans fight," holds to be very true in this instance. A majority of the population in the south was middle-class or poor, who owned no slaves. Therefore they could not benefit from the 20 slaves rule. However, it is not to say that wealthy southerners did not fight in the war.
Yeah i think this whole war is kind of ironic. There were strong holds of unionism throughout the south. The rich, again, in american history let the poor people fight the war while they stay at home (or get high ranking positions in the army). I just think this whole war was ironic for many different reasons and ways,
and very silly.
and this is Dan Reusser by the way, i forgot my name/password so i just used my google name.
The 20 slave rule was basically created because of all the resistance to the draft (correct me if I'm wrong). That really shows that the south was almost split about wanting to actually fight the war. You would think that if they all really wanted their own country that badly, they would be more united in fighting for it.
On the other hand if you look at it from the viewpoint of the women and children on these farms, they felt like thier protection was at stake with no male influence. Very few men actually stayed home due to this law, hardly enough to affect the numbers fighting in the South. I feel this law was put into effect to make the women and children feel more like the institution of slavery, at least in the confederacy, was not in rebellion.
I agree with all of you that this whole situation was very ironic. Although I can see where the slave owners were coming from. Yes the rich slave owners were fighting for the preservation of slavery, but I they also wanted they're homes to be safe. If had 20 or more people at my house that didn't like me I would want to have someone at home to protect my family. Would you not? No matter how much or little I believed in fighting to keep slavery alive, I first would want to protect my family and home.
I agree with what everyone has to say with the exception to one point. I think the large plantations, the ones with 20-40-60 slaves would have more than one-two-three capable men from the household around. So, i don't know how much they would have felt they were hindering the war effort as much as they would have felt they were contributing by staying home and helping the home front-which needed it badly. And as it was said there weren't that many people who owned 20plus slaves, therefore i question the 20 slave rules effect on the war.
In lecture and the readings, once again to me it seemed as though the political ties between generals in the North were very important. It seemed as though there was a sort of checks and balances between the generals.
Post a Comment