Virginia apologizes for slavery

[shanek]

I've personally always found it incomprehensible how the Southern elite managed to get the rest of their countrymen to support them in a war that was against their interests.

Because it was about a whole lot more than just slavery. The protectionists tariffs hurt the poor farmers and families a lot more than it did the elites. In fact, the biggest reason for the increasing rift between the northern and southern states throughout the first half of the 19th century was the tariff issue.

Then there was the issue of creeping Federal power, which the northern states liked because they were the majority in both houses and the southern states didn't like for the same reason.

But even then, they ultimately didn't cry war, just secession. If Lincoln hadn't sent in the troops, and had surrendered Fort Sumter like he did the rest of the military bases, no one would have been attacked. The South was on the defensive.

ETA: Hmmm. I don't always express myself in a tactful way and I just realized that my post probably could have been written more diplomatically considering that you said you traced your family roots back to the 1700s and that chances are high, that even though they didn't own slaves, they still fought for the Confederacy.

No, you're fine. No problems here.

 

[Lonewulf]

well no doubt there will be a call for reparations since the state admitted guilt by apologizing, so I doubt the other states will follow. What a huge, stupid mistake. Because they are going to have to say "oh, we ARE sorry, just not THAT sorry" and look like idiots for apologizing in the first place.

Y'know, this is actually a decent point. I didn't think about that...

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Uh-huh. And does anyone think this is anything but a political move? I mean, it's not like any white people alive today enslaved any black people alive today, so there's no one left from whom an apology would matter.

So, what's next, Brits apologizing for George III and Oliver Cromwell? Italians apologizing for the destruction of the Library at Alexandria? Men apologizing to women for cavemen hitting them on the head and dragging them home by their hair?

Do you feel that the Japanese government should apologize officially for Japans attrocities during WWII? After all, none of the Japanese power structure (that I'm aware of) is still alive today.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Do you feel that the Japanese government should apologize officially for Japans attrocities during WWII? After all, none of the Japanese power structure (that I'm aware of) is still alive today.

And then there's Turkey and the Armenian Genocide. That was what, 1915? People born then would be in their nineties, so most involved are long dead. Yet Turkey still denies it. And it's not just a quibble over history--this topic has seriously impacted international relations. Not to mention domestic ones.

Without confession there can be no absolution. As long as people deny what they did, they are presenting the image that they're wholly capable of doing it again.

Which seems more likely to commit another genocide, Germany or Turkey?

 

[Darat]

I think there is a big difference between denying and not accepting certain historical facts and not making an apology for a historic event by people today.

I live in a country that has been complicit in some very grim historical events (by historical I mean not in living memory), I have no problem at all at saying "that was wrong and should never have happened", I do however have a problem with accepting that I should apologise for those events either personally or by proxy via my government.

 

[bigred]

I, for one, happen to think this is a Good Thing.

I think it's asinine. But that's Virginia all over.

 

[bob_kark]

I wonder when we'll apologize for banning gay marriage.

 

[Skeptic]

Interesting point. I've often wondered about this, how there could have been so many slaves in the South, but there could have been so few slave owners or slave masters.

That makes sense, actually: slaves were expensive to keep, and essentially the only people who could afford them were the small part of the population who were plantation owners. While there were more slaveonwers than people would admit, it's true most southerners never owned slaves.

One of the things that ended slavery was the fact that it became, after the industrial revolution, economically unviable.

 

[Skeptic]

Well, for all those who don't think Virginia needed to apologize for slavery, I ask you: honestly, now, how do you feel about Japan's take on the Rape of Nanking? They're still calling it an "incident". Do they owe an apology? Should they issue one, whether owed or not? How about a statement of regret? Or even an acknowledgment of what happened?

Yes, but I don't think anybody in Virginia today either denies slavery happened or that it was bad. So the apology, here, serves no purpose.

 

[Mike B.]

That makes sense, actually: slaves were expensive to keep, and essentially the only people who could afford them were the small part of the population who were plantation owners. While there were more slaveonwers than people would admit, it's true most southerners never owned slaves.

One of the things that ended slavery was the fact that it became, after the industrial revolution, economically unviable.

Actually according to the University of Virginia it was hardly a tiny part of the population:

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/stat.html

From the site:

"Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five. (A complete table on slave-owning percentages is given at the bottom of this page.)

For comparison's sake, let it be noted that in the 1950's, only 2% of American families owned corporation stocks equal in value to the 1860 value of a single slave. Thus, slave ownership was much more widespread in the South than corporate investment was in 1950's America."

One of the statistical tricks that people use to make slave-owning less common is to count the ENTIRE population as opposed to households. This is very mis-leading.

For example television ownership in the US is around 98-99 percent. However, if you counted each member of a family of five and they had one television in their home/apartment then you would get a much lower figure of 20%. Counting households is the only realistic way to do it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I think there is a big difference between denying and not accepting certain historical facts and not making an apology for a historic event by people today.

I live in a country that has been complicit in some very grim historical events (by historical I mean not in living memory), I have no problem at all at saying "that was wrong and should never have happened", I do however have a problem with accepting that I should apologise for those events either personally or by proxy via my government.

Alright, then, how about the grim historical events your country was complicit in in living memory, then? How about Diego Garcia?

 

[shanek]

One of the statistical tricks that people use to make slave-owning less common is to count the ENTIRE population as opposed to households. This is very mis-leading.

I don't see how. It seems to me that counting households is going to give you an idea of there being many more people with slaves than there were. Why? Because those who owned slaves tended to be the elite, the rich, who had smaller families. The poorer families tended to be larger, with 10-15 children or even more common from a single couple. Also, poorer households tended to have multiple family units living together--grandparents and grandkids together, or brothers with their wives and children, etc. This means that the non-slave-owning households were much bigger than the slave-owning households, both in terms of the number of individuals and the number of families.

 

[Tmy]

I remember this story. In the debates didnt some hillbilly senator complain about the apology and asked "when will the jews apologize for killing Jesus?"

 

[WildCat]

I agree with this. People of the present are not guilty of the crimes of their ancestors.

However, if the State of Virginia apologizes officially, as in a government-type apology, then you could say that it's apologizing as a government body moreso than it is as a group of people. Thus, it's apologizing as an institution, which is a bit longer-lasting than the individuals that run it.

So then, to whom are they apologizing?

 

[Mike B.]

I don't see how. It seems to me that counting households is going to give you an idea of there being many more people with slaves than there were. Why? Because those who owned slaves tended to be the elite, the rich, who had smaller families. The poorer families tended to be larger, with 10-15 children or even more common from a single couple. Also, poorer households tended to have multiple family units living together--grandparents and grandkids together, or brothers with their wives and children, etc. This means that the non-slave-owning households were much bigger than the slave-owning households, both in terms of the number of individuals and the number of families.

You are making a lot of assumptions here.

If you look at the data, the "elite and rich" slave-owner who owned a large plantation with many slaves was indeed a very small group.

However, most slave-owners were not the "elite and rich" and owned less than five slaves. They used them as labor, often working next to them.

Besides if a man owned a slave and was married with children, they all were living off the labor of the slave ultimately and any price that the slave fetched.

Do you really think counting a two year old for example and factoring that into the total population vs. slave owners is going to give you a more realistic view of the situation?

BTW,
How would you count home ownership in America or any other big ticket item statistically? Would you count a family of three with a car as 33% car ownership and think that would give you a realistic view of it?

 

[Mike B.]

I don't see how. It seems to me that counting households is going to give you an idea of there being many more people with slaves than there were. Why? Because those who owned slaves tended to be the elite, the rich, who had smaller families. The poorer families tended to be larger, with 10-15 children or even more common from a single couple. Also, poorer households tended to have multiple family units living together--grandparents and grandkids together, or brothers with their wives and children, etc. This means that the non-slave-owning households were much bigger than the slave-owning households, both in terms of the number of individuals and the number of families.

Your whole premise is wrong. Here is some data from ante-bellum North Carolina:

Number of families, Number of members, Average per family
Slaveholding -14,945, 87,121 - 5.8
Nonslaveholding - 33,076, 178,077 - 5.4

It seems in Caswell, Granville, and Orange County, the idea of the tiny "elite and powerful" few and the enormous amounts of poor in one house just doesn't add up. Your "10-15" number was simply pulled out of the air. It seems slave-owning families were actually larger on average than non-slaveholding.

Here is the link:

http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/johnson/chapter8.html

 

[Tmy]

Whats the downside of the apology? Truth is the state did help support and benefited from slavery.

If a company does somthing wrong, and the executives in charge all quit. Does the company no longer bear any responsibility since the guys who did the bad deed are gone?

 

[Checkmite]

So then, to whom are they apologizing?

"They" are not apologizing at all; Virginia is expressing regret for past atrocities it participated in.

You guys are looking at this entirely the wrong way. We may not see much meaning in this; perhaps none of us views American slavery in any different light from any other historical event from which we are seperated by time. But others may not view it exactly the same way. People who weren't slaves, of course, but feel a stronger connection to that particular past event because they are in a few ways closer to it than we are. It was at these folks that this gesture was directed - and they seem to be grateful for it. Sometimes the thought really is what counts.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Prior to the Civil War, the census had to count the number of "negroes" separately since, for enumeration purposes, they counted 4/5ths towards the number of representatives a state had in Congress.

So it's pretty easy to go back and see if a particular household had any slaves. Each entry had the head of household, other people in the house (wives, children, etc.), and the number of slaves.

Shane, that was the Three Fifths (3/5ths) Rule aka the 3/5ths Compromise, not the 4/5ths rule.

Otherwise, enjoyed the post.

DR

 

[Lonewulf]

So then, to whom are they apologizing?

To those that suffered under that very institution, and to the family members that have experienced an impact under that institution.

This is fairly straight forward.

(And yes, you can apologize for actions where everyone involved is actually dead.)