MODERATOR's NOTE Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Joseph E. Johnston
- Please take this to private email. The thread on Joe Johnston can continue, but this concerning slavery is off limits.Thank you.Pat----- Original Message -----From: Tom MixSent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 2:50 PMSubject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Joseph E. Johnston
So, youre counting slave ownership as property and property as a means to achieving the middle class standard then I guess they were. If you want to count that as middle class go ahead. But they sure were not middle class when those slaves were no longer property. That was not nor could it ever be viewed as developing a middle class when they went straight to the bottom with out the slave labor and with the need to pay workers, which led to the poverty stricken share croppers throughout the South. They sure were not middle class. You ever seen share croppers homes? Sure some isolated ones would be considered nice but most about 80-90% were poverty level shacks. Where as the North was in the process of developing a thriving middle class that would get better as time wore on where as the South took about another 50-60 years to get a defined middle class.
No reason to get in a snit though. If your values are the type to reflect the southern aristocracy and total class based system as a fine society, go ahead.
From: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:civilwarwes t@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of James W. Durney
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 9:04 AM
To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroupscom
Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Joseph E. Johnston
--- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@...> wrote:
> They had a developing one, yes. True growth would come in the later
> but it was clearly on its way in New England and else where, like
> mills in Pennsylvania and Indiana for example. They provided
> so a middle class could develop as opposed to slave labor in the
> When, T.R. took over as President his trust busting efforts
> growth. The advent of the assembly line affording more work
> in Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Illinois created employment
> enhanced the growth of the middle class and was a great part of the
> exodus of black southerners to the north for these better paying
> all started around this time period. The South on the other would
not have a
> fully developed middle class until after WW II.
Tom, you damned the South for having no middle class prior to the
war. Yet you say that New England had a "developing one" and it
would not be until TR that this happens in much of the nation. The
South had a higher average income than the North in 1860. Slave
ownership, a major sign of wealth, was more common than ownership of
stock was in the 1950s. The shops, businesses and factories were
owned and managed by the middle class just as they were in the rest
of the nation.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "ks" <ks@...> wrote:
>continue, but this concerning slavery is off limits.
> Please take this to private email. The thread on Joe Johnston can
>Pat, I am sorry for continuing this. I read from where I left off and
> Thank you.
answered then read your message. Please delete my prior post.