PDA

View Full Version : The Washington Post: Five myths about why the South seceded




YumYum
01-10-2011, 09:49 PM
Good read. Do you all know the reason why?

Five myths about why the South seceded

By James W. Loewen
Sunday, January 9, 2011; 12:00 AM

One hundred and fifty years after the Civil War began, we're still fighting it -- or at least fighting over its history. I've polled thousands of high school history teachers and spoken about the war to audiences across the country, and there is little agreement even on why the South seceded. Was it over slavery? States' rights? Tariffs and taxes?

As the nation begins to commemorate the anniversaries of the war's various battles -- from Fort Sumter to Appomattox -- let's first dispense with some of the more prevalent myths about why it all began.

to read more....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/07/AR2011010703178.html

Vessol
01-10-2011, 09:58 PM
Meh, all I'm reading is "Rah rah Union, Confederates suck!"

I also like the nice little jibe at Republicans for supporting the continuation of the Bush tax-cuts, saying that they support it because they secretly aspire to join the upper class.

torchbearer
01-10-2011, 10:02 PM
Meh, all I'm reading is "Rah rah Union, Confederates suck!"

I also like the nice little jibe at Republicans for supporting the continuation of the Bush tax-cuts, saying that they support it because they secretly aspire to join the upper class.

I'm ashamed that this man calls himself a sociologist. that must be his code word for conflict theorist, aka marxism.
Slavery to private owners = bad.
Slavery to the state = ok.

cavalier973
01-10-2011, 10:48 PM
Typical "Sunday School version" of a complex historical event. Slavery was likely the reason for the lower South's secession (the upper South seceded only after Lincoln called for an invasion of the South), but it does not adequately explain why the Northern States invaded the South.

Flash
01-10-2011, 11:00 PM
I think supporting either side is insane. Although I'd slightly lean towards the Confederates if I lived during those times.

AGRP
01-10-2011, 11:16 PM
The Washington Post is a myth.

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years…It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

- David Rockefeller, Bilderberg meeting, June 1991, Baden, Germany.

http://www.thenorthwestreport.com/federal-reserve-bank-quotes-the-central-bank-fraud/

ironmanjakarta
01-11-2011, 03:44 AM
The main thing people should take away from the civil war shouldn't be how slavery was or was not the cause, it should be how flawed the whole federal concept was especially when it had to incorporate slavery to make it work.

SpiritOf1776_J4
01-11-2011, 04:03 AM
Just an observation: the South suceeded right after Kansas was admitted to the union as a free state, and slavery certainly was one of the causes, since the constitution of the confederation made a point of specifically adding slavery as a right. If you look at Jefferson Davis's Rise and Fall of the Confederancy, you can see a side by side copy of the constitution of the union and confederrancy, and what was different.

But some of the other things are surely true too. Salmon P Chase was chief of the carpetbaggers. He introduced the greenbacks as treasurer under Lincoln, and directed the treasury agents who went into the South to levy direct taxes against people's homes which were later auctioned off. He then sat on the Supreme Court as a radical reconstructionist. The banks liked him so much that JP Morgan added his name to their bank!!! And he stuck his face on one of the greenbacks AS treasurer!

Likely, the problem in understanding is hit from one of the above messages. Its taking sides. There was a bunch of different reasons, and some of them were for and some of them against one side or the other.

demolama
01-11-2011, 04:43 AM
Salmon P. Chase... not Samual. He was also the same man, whom as supreme court justice, would declare the very same greenbacks unconstitutional during reconstruction. Thousands of people were left holding worthless pieces of paper as a result, which helped to push the U.S. into a depression.

Live_Free_Or_Die
01-11-2011, 05:12 AM
As usual the author is not able to see the big picture of economics and can only articulate an economic war in terms of leading economic factors such as slavery.

KAYA
01-11-2011, 08:13 AM
In 1860, many subsistence farmers aspired to become large slave-owners. So poor white Southerners supported slavery then, just as many low-income people support the extension of George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy now.

These damned liberal "journalist" just can't help themselves!

lester1/2jr
01-11-2011, 08:32 AM
I agree the war was immoral. At the same time, the south should have ended slavery of it's own volition.



1860, many subsistence farmers aspired to become large slave-owners. So poor white Southerners supported slavery then, just as many low-income people support the extension of George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy now.


lol that was really weak and tacky

jmdrake
01-11-2011, 08:56 AM
Surprisingly this was a good article by the Washington Post. And unsurprisingly those who feel the need to defend "all things confederate" missed the point. The author in point #4 clearly stated that the idea that Abraham Lincoln went to war to end slavery was a myth. But just because that is a myth, doesn't give revisionists the right to pretend that, for example, "tariffs" were the reason for the war since South Carolina WON the nullification crisis and reduced tariffs to all time lows. Really, this movement is supposedly "pro nullification", yet so many people willfully choose to ignore nullification's greatest triumph because they want to continue to use tariffs as a reason to explain secession when it really wasn't a factor. (Actually the only reason the Morrill Tariff eventually passed was because of secession since the southern senators who could have blocked it removed themselves from the federal legislature.)

As for the point about the "Bush tax cuts", I think people here are missing the point. Maybe the WSJ thinks that was a bad idea, maybe not. But the point he was making is that people can support something that does not directly benefit them. Look at it another way. How many Americans own an oil well? But that didn't stop Americans from supporting a war that was essentially about oil did it? And I'm not talking about the 2nd Gulf War where the population willfully went along with the con that it was about WMDs and U.N. resolutions. I'm talking about the first Gulf War where people supported the U.S. kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. Oh sure there were the fake teary eyed stories about babies being thrown out of incubators and such. But Americans can watch human suffering on a massive scale and not necessarily be moved to demand their government do anything. (Think the Rwandan genocide for example). So when people supported Gulf War 1 they might have "claimed" it was for humanitarian reasons, but we all know the real reason. We all indirectly benefit from cheap oil. At least we think we do. The same goes for slavery and the south. The poor white guy that got the job as an overseer at least had a job. Slavery affected all parts of the southern economy. It affected parts of the northern economy as well which is why some northerners supported slavery too and were more than happy to burn abolitionist newspapers even though they didn't own slaves themselves.

This movement would do well to quit bellyaching over the civil war loss and to start celebrating the nullification crisis win. But that would make too much sense. Slavery is wrong whether it is "private owned" slavery or "state owned" slavery. We don't have to defend the adherents to one form of slavery in order to fight against the other. That is a false choice.

oyarde
01-11-2011, 03:24 PM
I think supporting either side is insane. Although I'd slightly lean towards the Confederates if I lived during those times.

Likely you would have if you lived in one of them and it was invaded ?

JustinTime
01-11-2011, 03:32 PM
But the point he was making is that people can support something that does not directly benefit them.

Those darn principaled people.

Anyway, had I lived then, I could never have supported the CSA, keeping human beings in bondage is something I could never support, but a lot of what the Union was doing planted the seeds of total Federal supremacy, and set the stage for the slow-motion decline of our nation.

YumYum
01-11-2011, 03:52 PM
Those darn principaled people.

Anyway, had I lived then, I could never have supported the CSA, keeping human beings in bondage is something I could never support, but a lot of what the Union was doing planted the seeds of total Federal supremacy, and set the stage for the slow-motion decline of our nation.

Actually, the author makes a valid point that the southern states were against states rights because they controlled the federal government. It makes sense. Why would the southern states want power to go to the states when the south was in control?

Galileo Galilei
01-11-2011, 03:59 PM
Here is the simplist and most truthful explanantion for the Civil War:

The South seceded because they hated Abe Lincoln.

The war started because Lincoln wanted it to start.

The war had nothing to do with slavery, tariffs, preserving the Union, etc.

There, we're done.

Travlyr
01-11-2011, 04:31 PM
Wars are not easy to start without preparation. There is a lot of evidence that the Civil War was incited by wealthy powerful people wanting to take control of the young republic.

Less than 1/2 of the Southerners were slave owners.
Expansion of slavery into the Federal territories was impractical and held only 14 slaves.
John Brown was financed by Gerrit Smith, et al.
Salmon Chase, the face on the $10,000 bill, arranged the war financing.
The National Bank Act of 1864 was passed while Chase was Secretary of Treasury.
Harriet Beecher Stowe's incendiary novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was heavily promoted by wealthy interests. Southerners knew it was a lie; Northerners believed the lie.
The open and shut Dred Scott case was appealed and taken all the way to the Supreme Court, where it was finally overturned, even though both sides were paupers.
The 4th Clause of the 14th Amendment guaranteed the war financiers would get paid back even though the national debt had risen more than 50 times from 1860 - 1866.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. ...
The 14th Amendment was unconstitutionally ratified as the Southern states were placed under martial law until they adopted the 14th Amendment.
President Grant authorized their payments in gold rather than greenbacks.


And the list goes on.

John Remington Graham documents these points and more in his book,
"Blood Money - The Civil War and the Federal Reserve." (http://www.thedailybell.com/amazon-blood-money.asp)

lester1/2jr
01-11-2011, 04:56 PM
gailelo- but the south could have ended it and called lincolns bluff if they ended slavery on their own!

Galileo Galilei
01-11-2011, 05:01 PM
gailelo- but the south could have ended it and called lincolns bluff if they ended slavery on their own!

They could have, but they didn't. The South would have won the war if Stonewall Jackson had not been killed.

jmdrake
01-11-2011, 05:52 PM
Wars are not easy to start without preparation. There is a lot of evidence that the Civil War was incited by wealthy powerful people wanting to take control of the young republic.


Both sides were funded by London bankers. Non sequitur.



Less than 1/2 of the Southerners were slave owners.


And most northerners didn't own factories. Most Americans don't own oil wells. Non sequitur.



Expansion of slavery into the Federal territories was impractical and held only 14 slaves.


Let's say you're right. That doesn't change the fact that all of the states that seceded listed restrictions on the expansion of slavery as a reason for secession. Allowing slavery into any new territory was also part of the confederate constitution. Non sequitur.



Harriet Beecher Stowe's incendiary novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was heavily promoted by wealthy interests. Southerners knew it was a lie; Northerners believed the lie.


You do know that the book was a novel right? You know what the word novel means? Anyway, her book showed both slave owners who were kind and slave owners who weren't. Anyone who believes there were no mean slave owners is leaving in la la land. Non sequitur.



The open and shut Dred Scott case was appealed and taken all the way to the Supreme Court, where it was finally overturned, even though both sides were paupers.


The southern justices on the supreme court could have voted not to grant certiorari (in other words they could have blocked the case from being heard). Non sequitur.



The 4th Clause of the 14th Amendment guaranteed the war financiers would get paid back even though the national debt had risen more than 50 times from 1860 - 1866.
The 14th Amendment was unconstitutionally ratified as the Southern states were placed under martial law until they adopted the 14th Amendment.
President Grant authorized their payments in gold rather than greenbacks.


As I pointed out, both sides were financed by London bankers. It's a bit disingenuous to only look at the financing from one side.

See: http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/10/was-the-confederacy-a-tool-of-international-finance-1/

jmdrake
01-11-2011, 05:55 PM
gailelo- but the south could have ended it and called lincolns bluff if they ended slavery on their own!

That and simply following the example of South Carolina in the nullification crisis. They could have not fired on Ft Sumpter and waited the Union out.

torchbearer
01-11-2011, 05:56 PM
Both sides were funded by London bankers. Non sequitur.


I was under the impression the french were backing the south, not england. is that incorrect?

torchbearer
01-11-2011, 05:59 PM
and let me add, this guy that wrote the article doesn't know much about louisiana history, nor what the union soldiers were here to do.
Steal cotton and ship it back to nothern textiles. They'd often times leave the very slaves that helped them behind to face retribution, while they packed their boats with cotton.
I have an interesting news report of the burning of alexandria, la. i don't see anything moral and righteous about what the union troops did to the people in this town.
Add to that the reconstruction period- and you can see why such hatred persisted for so long.

most southerners fought in this state at least, to protect their property. only the uber rich had slaves here. the big plantation owners. equaling about 2-3 plantations per parish. everyone else worked for a living.

jmdrake
01-11-2011, 06:00 PM
I was under the impression the french were backing the south, not england. is that incorrect?

Neither nation officially recognized the south, but "influential citizens" from both France and England were sympathetic. Here's what the "Museum of the Confederacy" has to say on the issue.

http://www.moc.org/site/PageServer?pagename=abt_faq_main
Did any foreign countries recognize the Confederacy?
In effect, no. The closest thing to foreign recognition that the Confederacy achieved was when the German state of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha appointed a consul to Texas in July 1861 and the Confederate government accepted his credentials (all other foreign consuls operating in Southern states had applied to the U.S. government before the war). Although the appointment of the consul could be interpreted as de facto recognition of the Confederacy, Confederate officials did not make that claim during or after the war. Confederate diplomatic efforts concentrated on seeking recognition from Great Britain and France. Influential Britons and French were sympathetic to the South, but their governments did not recognize the Confederacy and the Confederacy never attained official status among the nations of the world.

jmdrake
01-11-2011, 06:05 PM
and let me add, this guy that wrote the article doesn't know much about louisiana history, nor what the union soldiers were here to do.
Steal cotton and ship it back to nothern textiles. They'd often times leave the very slaves that helped them behind to face retribution, while they packed their boats with cotton.
I have an interesting news report of the burning of alexandria, la. i don't see anything moral and righteous about what the union troops did to the people in this town.
Add to that the reconstruction period- and you can see why such hatred persisted for so long.

most southerners fought in this state at least, to protect their property. only the uber rich has slaves here. the big plantation owners. equaling about 2-3 plantations per parish. everyone else worked for a living.

Sorry, but I missed any mention in the article about Louisiana history. And what does actions of Union troops after the civil war started have to do with the reasons for the south seceding in the first place? The south seceded because they could look into the future and see that if they did secede the union troops would have an excuse to steal cotton? That doesn't even make sense. And if the cotton was being stolen from the "big plantation owners" (after all you mentioned that it was their slaves loading the cotton on the ships) then why would the small guys even care? It wasn't their property right?

torchbearer
01-11-2011, 06:08 PM
And if the cotton was being stolen from the "big plantation owners" (after all you mentioned that it was their slaves loading the cotton on the ships) then why would the small guys even care? It wasn't their property right?

DId I mention the union soldiers burned the entire city of alexandria to the ground. no slave owners lived here. they lived in the rural areas. Why would they care if people were burning their homes?

torchbearer
01-11-2011, 06:11 PM
Sorry, but I missed any mention in the article about Louisiana history.

Louisiana's government was owned by the uber rich, started with the french nobility when we were a colony. A nobility of sorts that kinda persist today.
I would say that government was there to protect the interest of those few. But everyone else had to protect their property from troops with liscense to destroy anything they felt like destroying.
Didn't seem like anything happening on the ground was about slavery at all.

jmdrake
01-11-2011, 06:12 PM
DId I mention the union soldiers burned the entire city of alexandria to the ground. no slave owners lived here. they lived in the rural areas. Why would they care if people were burning their homes?

Again, what does that have to do with the reasoning for the secession in the first place? You can say "Did I mention that Union troops took babies and barbecued them and ate them?" That would have nothing to do with the reason why the south seceded, unless the south had some sort of clairvoyance to know ahead of time that this would happen. And if they did have such clairvoyance then that would make setting such events in motion through succession even more questionable. (Unless their clairvoyance told them that it would happen anyway). If you're looking for reasons for secession you need to talk about stuff that happened before secession, not after.

torchbearer
01-11-2011, 06:15 PM
Again, what does that have to do with the reasoning for the secession in the first place? You can say "Did I mention that Union troops took babies and barbecued them and ate them?" That would have nothing to do with the reason why the south seceded, unless the south had some sort of clairvoyance to know ahead of time that this would happen. And if they did have such clairvoyance then that would make setting such events in motion through succession even more questionable. (Unless their clairvoyance told them that it would happen anyway). If you're looking for reasons for secession you need to talk about stuff that happened before secession, not after.


For the average person in this state, the war wasn't about slavery. That is the point.
YOu can say louisiana seceded because of the slavery issue, but that would be incorrect. A few assholes decided to secede to protect their interest. Everyone else had little choice in the matter.
It is insulting to the memories of the people in this area to paint their reasons with such a brush. that is basically my point.

torchbearer
01-11-2011, 06:20 PM
And the prick in the article presumes that the lil' people fought "with" the slave owners in the hopes that one day they could be slave owners... wtf?
the "same" reason why middle class people vote for rich tax breaks? supposition much? the guy isn't a scientist, he is joke writting an editorial about a subject he knows little about.

jmdrake
01-11-2011, 06:22 PM
For the average person in this state, the war wasn't about slavery. That is the point.
YOu can say louisiana seceded because of the slavery issue, but that would be incorrect. A few assholes decided to secede to protect their interest. Everyone else had little choice in the matter.
It is insulting to the memories of the people in this area to paint their reasons with such a brush. that is basically my point.

And here ya go. At the end of the day "protecting peoples memories" is more important to you than the truth. Drop the emotionalism for a moment. The people who eventually shot at some Yankees coming down the road had nothing to do with the decision to secede in the first place. They were used just like the soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan have been used. Should we quit telling the truth about those wars just because it might make some dead veteran's family feel bad? Pat Tillman and others died for nothing. Osama Bin Laden had been allowed to escape already. And the reasons war in Iraq was a total joke. Some brave and well meaning men and women have fought and died in that war. Their sacrifice was honorable. The men who sent them there were not. The same goes for the men in leadership on both sides of the war between the states. And there were good union troops too.

jmdrake
01-11-2011, 06:24 PM
And the prick in the article presumes that the lil' people fought "with" the slave owners in the hopes that one day they could be slave owners... wtf?
the "same" reason why middle class people vote for rich tax breaks? supposition much? the guy isn't a scientist, he is joke writting an editorial about a subject he knows little about.

Even some slaves eventually became slave owners after gaining their freedom, so it's not really that inconceivable that some poor dirt farmer that didn't own slaves might aspire to have a big slave owning plantation someday.

torchbearer
01-11-2011, 06:27 PM
And here ya go. At the end of the day "protecting peoples memories" is more important to you than the truth. Drop the emotionalism for a moment. The people who eventually shot at some Yankees coming down the road had nothing to do with the decision to secede in the first place. They were used just like the soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan have been used. Should we quit telling the truth about those wars just because it might make some dead veteran's family feel bad? Pat Tillman and others died for nothing. Osama Bin Laden had been allowed to escape already. And the reasons war in Iraq was a total joke. Some brave and well meaning men and women have fought and died in that war. Their sacrifice was honorable. The men who sent them there were not. The same goes for the men in leadership on both sides of the war between the states. And there were good union troops too.

Um, its not an emotion plea. Its a plea for the truth. Despite the lies everyone keeps repeating that the people in this state fought to protect slavery. false.
The people in this town were not gungho warriors looking to kill yanks. They were actually very cowardly in that regard.

torchbearer
01-11-2011, 06:31 PM
Even some slaves eventually became slave owners after gaining their freedom, so it's not really that inconceivable that some poor dirt farmer that didn't own slaves might aspire to have a big slave owning plantation someday.

Hard to prove a negative. But reading the writings of the educated of that time, like some of the doctors in town who tried to plead with the union soldiers to leave the town alone, these people were really no different than the people living here today. They were artisans, tradesmen, labor, hunter/trappers, fishermen. not many small farmers at that time, unless they were farming produce like tomatos to sell at a farmers market. None of the above ever mentioned in their letters of aspirations of slave owning. TO say they had them is disingenuous. not saying that if a shit load of money landed in their laps, they wouldn't have done it. Just saying i've never read a single letter from that time period, from people in this area, that indicated their involvement with the war was some kind of secret desire to own slaves themselves.

torchbearer
01-11-2011, 06:36 PM
I often place myself in this town at the time period. I would have fought the yanks, especially after hearing the reports of the burning of towns, the theft of property, etc.
Not one strand of me would have thought, I'm fighting to keep slaves. But people today would say I was.

jmdrake
01-11-2011, 06:41 PM
Um, its not an emotion plea. Its a plea for the truth. Despite the lies everyone keeps repeating that the people in this state fought to protect slavery. false.
The people in this town were not gungho warriors looking to kill yanks. They were actually very cowardly in that regard.

No. It's not the truth. It's a straw man argument. Nobody in this thread has said that the majority of the people in your state or any other state fought to protect slavery. The author of the WSJ article didn't say that. So you're arguing against an argument that nobody has made. But the "little people" in your town, and in every other town had no real say in the decision to secede. Pointing out the truth about that in no way dishonors the memories of the people you are trying to protect. Your ancestors fought against the Union? Fine. I have no beef with that. They may have very well have been honorable. I know nothing about them. One of my ancestors fought for the union. And I believe he was honorable. And I could care less if you think he was honorable or not. But if we're going to discuss what the reasoning of the people who actually set this country on its path to war, then the reasoning of the folks who were not privy to that information really isn't important in the least.

I gave you the Iraq example. I'll go a little further. A couple of summers ago my kids took a karate class. The head teacher was an Iraq war vet. I knew this from pictures of him serving in Iraq. In all of the pictures he was in full battle gear. (He looked to be infantry). A couple of pictures showed him smiling as he was giving toys or food to some Iraqi children. My first thought was "This is some gung ho pro war jackass that just things we should kill Muslims". I never talked to him about his service. But I came to realize that he was really a nice and honorable man. I overheard him talking to another parent about Iraq and expressing his concern about what would happen to the people once we eventually pull out. Now he and I probably disagree a lot about the Iraq war. But I know he's honorable. I know his reasons for serving are honorable. But my knowledge of that doesn't mean I can't still criticize the decision to send him to that war in the first place and realize that the Iraq war ultimately did more harm than good both to the Iraqi people and the American people. So if you can separate out criticism of our government about the war in Iraq from criticism of the soldiers who fought in it, then you should understand how someone else can criticize the leaders on both sides of the WBTS without denigrating the memory of the poor saps on both sides that had to bear the brunt of those decisions.

jmdrake
01-11-2011, 06:43 PM
Hard to prove a negative. But reading the writings of the educated of that time, like some of the doctors in town who tried to plead with the union soldiers to leave the town alone, these people were really no different than the people living here today. They were artisans, tradesmen, labor, hunter/trappers, fishermen. not many small farmers at that time, unless they were farming produce like tomatos to sell at a farmers market. None of the above ever mentioned in their letters of aspirations of slave owning. TO say they had them is disingenuous. not saying that if a shit load of money landed in their laps, they wouldn't have done it. Just saying i've never read a single letter from that time period, from people in this area, that indicated their involvement with the war was some kind of secret desire to own slaves themselves.

Well in this case I have a counter example. I've read of black slaves in some areas who, after gaining their freedom and reaching some measure of success, bought slaves themselves. I find it totally incredulous that no poor white people would do the same once they gained some measure of success. I'm sure there were some whites who didn't own slaves based on principle. But I'd bet you all the money the fed can print that there were poor whites that would have bought slaves if they had the money. Hell, just look at the overseers, slavebreakers and slave catchers. You think that they were willing to beat slaves but weren't willing to own them?

Churchill2004
01-11-2011, 06:46 PM
The causes of the war were complicated, but the proximate cause was undeniably the Deep South seceding because they (wrongly) thought Lincoln a threat to slavery. One can, and should, oppose the many bad precedents set by Lincoln, while still drawing a sharp distinction that one does not sympathize with or support the Confederacy, a thoroughly evil entity built on the foundation of human slavery.

A war to stop secession might not have been legally or morally justified, but a war to end slavery (which would have meant suppressing this instance of secession) would have been justified. Lincoln's confusion and authoritarianism doesn't diminish the fact that his influence was ultimately for the good- ditto with George Washington.

And those who want to make Jefferson Davis into some kind of libertarian hero are like those who glorify Hitler because he fought Stalin and the communists. Yes, poor white Southerners generally (and rightfully) thought of themselves as defending their right to self-government from an invading army. That doesn't change the fact that they had forfeit their right to self-government by using it deny the same to their fellow men, the same way a criminal who murders people has forfeited his right to individual freedom.

torchbearer
01-11-2011, 06:47 PM
No. It's not the truth. It's a straw man argument. Nobody in this thread has said that the majority of the people in your state or any other state fought to protect slavery. The author of the WSJ article didn't say that. So you're arguing against an argument that nobody has made. But the "little people" in your town, and in every other town had no real say in the decision to secede. Pointing out the truth about that in no way dishonors the memories of the people you are trying to protect. Your ancestors fought against the Union? Fine. I have no beef with that. They may have very well have been honorable. I know nothing about them. One of my ancestors fought for the union. And I believe he was honorable. And I could care less if you think he was honorable or not. But if we're going to discuss what the reasoning of the people who actually set this country on its path to war, then the reasoning of the folks who were not privy to that information really isn't important in the least.

I gave you the Iraq example. I'll go a little further. A couple of summers ago my kids took a karate class. The head teacher was an Iraq war vet. I knew this from pictures of him serving in Iraq. In all of the pictures he was in full battle gear. (He looked to be infantry). A couple of pictures showed him smiling as he was giving toys or food to some Iraqi children. My first thought was "This is some gung ho pro war jackass that just things we should kill Muslims". I never talked to him about his service. But I came to realize that he was really a nice and honorable man. I overheard him talking to another parent about Iraq and expressing his concern about what would happen to the people once we eventually pull out. Now he and I probably disagree a lot about the Iraq war. But I know he's honorable. I know his reasons for serving are honorable. But my knowledge of that doesn't mean I can't still criticize the decision to send him to that war in the first place and realize that the Iraq war ultimately did more harm than good both to the Iraqi people and the American people. So if you can separate out criticism of our government about the war in Iraq from criticism of the soldiers who fought in it, then you should understand how someone else can criticize the leaders on both sides of the WBTS without denigrating the memory of the poor saps on both sides that had to bear the brunt of those decisions.

I could have sworn, the implication was that the civil war was over slavery. maybe i misread.
And whether or not someone fought in the union army, doesn't make one honorable or dishonorable. It is what they did when they were in that army that determines their honor.
DId they participate in the theft and destruction, or did they truly fight only to free those who were imprisoned in slavery?
Did the southerner fight for lust of battle and hatred of yanks, or did he fight to defend his home.
Each man judge by his own merits despite which army he fought in...

It just seems the entire implication of the article is that the civil war was about slavery. an initial decision by state governments does not make for the reason of the people to fight.

Travlyr
01-11-2011, 06:48 PM
Both sides were funded by London bankers. Non sequitur.
How is it non sequitur?
The inference from the documentation is that some wealthy people who incited the war profited handsomely from it. B follows A.

What were the names of the London bankers?


And most northerners didn't own factories. Most Americans don't own oil wells. Non sequitur.
Huh?
Why would a Southerner who did not own slaves want to go to war to keep slavery? Please explain how you miss that connection.


Let's say you're right. That doesn't change the fact that all of the states that seceded listed restrictions on the expansion of slavery as a reason for secession. Allowing slavery into any new territory was also part of the confederate constitution. Non sequitur.
Again huh?
Are you of the opinion that slavery, even though it was waning because of new technology, and was a dying institution throughout the rest of the world, would have been expanded if the South would have won? Seriously? Please explain how the expansion of slavery being impractical was a valid major issue to save it.


You do know that the book was a novel right? You know what the word novel means? Anyway, her book showed both slave owners who were kind and slave owners who weren't.The point is that people were being prepared for war before 1860 and Uncle Tom's Cabin was one tool used to incite hatred between the North and South.


Anyone who believes there were no mean slave owners is leaving in la la land. Non sequitur.No one said that... no one at all. And you are being disingenuous by introducing the notion.


The southern justices on the supreme court could have voted not to grant certiorari (in other words they could have blocked the case from being heard). Non sequitur.It was a southern circuit court that freed Dred Scott in the first place. Why would a poor slave owner appeal a lawsuit where the outcome had 200 years of precedence against him? The appeal was a certain loser. The cost would have been prohibitive if not for wealthy interests financing it. Plus, the final outcome was Dred Scott and his family ended up free anyway. The Scotts were just used as pawns.


As I pointed out, both sides were financed by London bankers. It's a bit disingenuous to only look at the financing from one side.
I have nothing to gain by being disingenuous, and it is not my intention. I am simply reporting on a book I read, I did not write it. You seem well versed in the Civil War. Have you already read "Blood Money?"

torchbearer
01-11-2011, 06:49 PM
Well in this case I have a counter example. I've read of black slaves in some areas who, after gaining their freedom and reaching some measure of success, bought slaves themselves. I find it totally incredulous that no poor white people would do the same once they gained some measure of success. I'm sure there were some whites who didn't own slaves based on principle. But I'd bet you all the money the fed can print that there were poor whites that would have bought slaves if they had the money. Hell, just look at the overseers, slavebreakers and slave catchers. You think that they were willing to beat slaves but weren't willing to own them?

I did concede that some of those very people could have owned slaves given the means. Just stated, they never expressed in their letters their desire to do so.
It doesn't irk you when shills declare the reason you don't want tax hikes on the rich is solely because you aspire to be in that tax bracket? Doesn't that sound stupid?

torchbearer
01-11-2011, 06:51 PM
The causes of the war were complicated, but the proximate cause was undeniably the Deep South seceding because they (wrongly) thought Lincoln a threat to slavery. One can, and should, oppose the many bad precedents set by Lincoln, while still drawing a sharp distinction that one does not sympathize with or support the Confederacy, a thoroughly evil entity built on the foundation of human slavery.

A war to stop secession might not have been legally or morally justified, but a war to end slavery (which would have meant suppressing this instance of secession) would have been justified. Lincoln's confusion and authoritarianism doesn't diminish the fact that his influence was ultimately for the good- ditto with George Washington.

And those who want to make Jefferson Davis into some kind of libertarian hero are like those who glorify Hitler because he fought Stalin and the communists. Yes, poor white Southerners generally (and rightfully) thought of themselves as defending their right to self-government from an invading army. That doesn't change the fact that they had forfeit their right to self-government by using it deny the same to their fellow men, the same way a criminal who murders people has forfeited his right to individual freedom.

Don't know anyone who looks up to the acts of Davis, just Lee and Jackson.

Churchill2004
01-11-2011, 06:55 PM
Don't know anyone who looks up to the acts of Davis, just Lee and Jackson.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/ff/STNmtn_closeup.jpg/800px-STNmtn_closeup.jpg

Legend1104
01-11-2011, 06:58 PM
Those darn principaled people.

Anyway, had I lived then, I could never have supported the American Revolution, keeping human beings in bondage is something I could never support, but a lot of what the Union was doing planted the seeds of total Federal supremacy, and set the stage for the slow-motion decline of our nation.

fixed that for ya.

the British offered freedom to slaves that fought for them too. The fact is it was not fought over slavery. That was used as a tool. As bad as keeping slaves was, there was a bigger struggle at hand and if the north had won in year one, slavery would have still existed. It was only added later to gain European support.

torchbearer
01-11-2011, 06:59 PM
http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/large/897816bf-2b78-40ee-bb4c-a8624879eab5.jpg

In Louisiana, we honor only one.
Lee, with his back turned permanently to the north.

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM14Q9_Lee_Robert_E_Monument_New_Orleans_LA

Legend1104
01-11-2011, 07:01 PM
If you think slavery was the issue then look up the corwin amendment (orginial 13th amendment).

Travlyr
01-11-2011, 07:05 PM
In Louisiana, we honor only one.
Lee, with his back turned permanently to the north.
While I do not fault you for that, nonetheless, it is the hatred that keeps the truth suppressed.

Legend1104
01-11-2011, 07:07 PM
Actually, the author makes a valid point that the southern states were against states rights because they controlled the federal government. It makes sense. Why would the southern states want power to go to the states when the south was in control?

That is an insane statement. They never had control of the senate, lost the long held tie in the house, and Lincoln was elected without a single southern state. Talk about control. It is true that a large majority of presidents where southern but the congress was the most powerful branch back then and the south gained nothing from the union.

torchbearer
01-11-2011, 07:08 PM
While I do not fault you for that, nonetheless, it is the hatred that keeps the truth suppressed.

And what truth is suppressed?
THe louisiana government seceded to protect its plantation owner's businesses because it was the plantation owners that ran the government.
THe people of my town didn't fight, and got everything they owned destroyed.
My ancestors who did fight yanks, weren't a part of the "confederate army", they were local militias with local leaders.

Travlyr
01-11-2011, 07:12 PM
And what truth is suppressed?

The truth is that everyone except the wealthy elite lost their liberty from that war, and it was waged as such.

torchbearer
01-11-2011, 07:16 PM
The truth is that everyone except the wealthy elite lost their liberty from that war, and it was waged as such.

oh, the south wasn't a haven for liberty. its governments were probably more corrupt than they are today.
but going from a republic to an empire happened in that war. that truth is not misunderstood.
the devolution of power would have been better served with a republic.
states lost all their sovereignty after the war. at first, just the southern states during the reconstruction... but once the camel's nose gets under the tent- the rest of the states became wards to the federal government too.
The nothern states were stupid in their decision to fight for a united empire of a monolithic state. what other reason would their be for an INvoluntary union?

Travlyr
01-11-2011, 07:23 PM
but once the camel's nose gets under the tent- the rest of the states became wards to the federal government too.
True, but it is even more than that. That is when bankers took control of the republic.


The nothern states were stupid in their decision to fight for a united empire of a monolithic state. what other reason would their be for an INvoluntary union?Just like the people of today, the northerners were duped into believing that it was their duty to fight the evil southerners who owned slaves. It is sickening.

AxisMundi
01-11-2011, 07:27 PM
Good read. Do you all know the reason why?

Five myths about why the South seceded

By James W. Loewen
Sunday, January 9, 2011; 12:00 AM

One hundred and fifty years after the Civil War began, we're still fighting it -- or at least fighting over its history. I've polled thousands of high school history teachers and spoken about the war to audiences across the country, and there is little agreement even on why the South seceded. Was it over slavery? States' rights? Tariffs and taxes?

As the nation begins to commemorate the anniversaries of the war's various battles -- from Fort Sumter to Appomattox -- let's first dispense with some of the more prevalent myths about why it all began.

to read more....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/07/AR2011010703178.html

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The author's point number one is derived from cherry picking the document. And quite obviously too. It was not that northern states opposed slavery (there were over a thousand slaves listed in the NYC tax rolls for 1960) but that they wished to remove a state's right to vote on the matter. The Articles of Succession, and the comments the author cherry picked, were directed towards the simple fact that the citizens of Kansas were not permitted to vote on the matter of slavery when they gained their statehood.

Point number two - Tariffs forced Southerners to buy northern made farm equipment and machinery, more expensive and far less well made than European machinery/equipment. The author also completely ignores the freemen who volunteered to fight in the south, or the CSA field generals who ignored Congressional orders and included freemen in their units where they enjoyed the same exact pay as their white comrades, unlike Northern black segregated units, and enjoyed no limits on rank.

Point number three - Total BS. Less than five percent of Southerners owned people. Of that percentage, a disproportionate number of slave owners were themselves black. The entire premise of this point is utterly false, a "majority of Americans supporting tax cuts for the rich", to paraphrase, is simply BS. The poor do not look up to the rich in such a manner. The author also ignores the fact that there were more freemen in the South than the North, (261,918 & 226,152 respectfully). One could easily assume that if conditions were so poor for blacks in the South, that freemen would be found primarily in the North. The author also ignores the fact that white Northern congressmen supported legislation to force all freemen to be deported to Africa, including Lincoln.

Point number four - Bingo, the author managed to get at least one right. If the war had been about abolishion, then the five "border states" fighting for the Union would have had to give up their slaves, and the Emancipation Proclamation would have attempted to free slaves in the north as well. Something he does not mention that few people also never realize, the Underground Railroad began in the South, and not operated by Yankees moving south. The Abolishion Movement had a strong base in the South as well.

Point number five - Oops, he was going in the right direction and then blew it. Slavery is not a sustainable economic model. Slaves may be unpaid, but their costs of upkeep, which is the sole reason one did not see more in northern agriculture as they would be idle for the winter months, can be quite high. There were also many laws on the books in some states designed specifically for the care and upkeep of slaves, ranging from laws regarding basic literacy (so as to be able to read the bible) to laws outlining, or eliminating, corporeal punishments. The increase in such laws would have made owning and using slaves prohibitively costly, especially as the Abolishion Movement gained more ground unless said movement managed to eliminate slavery all together in a state. And while the South did account for so much production of agricultural goods, the author also fails to mention the significant contributions of freemen and whites to that percentage as well.

Of a historical note, the last bastion of the Confederacy is found in Townline, New York, which succeeded in 1861 and was never repatriated until January 26th, 1946.

erowe1
01-11-2011, 07:33 PM
The Washington Post is a myth.

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years…It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

- David Rockefeller, Bilderberg meeting, June 1991, Baden, Germany.

http://www.thenorthwestreport.com/federal-reserve-bank-quotes-the-central-bank-fraud/

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Rockefeller#Attributed

Flash
01-11-2011, 07:35 PM
Well like I said earlier, if I were around back then I wouldn't cheer for either side. The north at least had a strong abolitionist movement. And the Confederacy supposedly wanted to create an empire of it's own further down south on the continent. I believe Davis wanted to conquer the Caribbean or something crazy like that.. and create his own empire. It's a silly issue to get emotional about, and unfortunately the Tenth Amendment movement is still demonised to this day because of this war. :(

torchbearer
01-11-2011, 07:40 PM
Well like I said earlier, if I were around back then I wouldn't cheer for either side. I've heard rumors the Confederacy was planning on becoming an empire anyways. Didn't Davis want to conquer the Caribbean or something crazy like that? Why would anyone support that?

the confederate government was so weak, it wouldn't have had much success controlling louisiana and texas.

AxisMundi
01-11-2011, 07:41 PM
Well like I said earlier, if I were around back then I wouldn't cheer for either side. I've heard rumors the Confederacy was planning on becoming an empire after the war was over. I believe Davis wanted to conquer the Caribbean or something crazy like that.. and create his own empire.

Why would anyone support the United States expanding all the way west to the Pacific Ocean, and take over parts of Mexico in the process?

There may have been some in the CSA who proposed expansion, but it was hardly national policy.

jmdrake
01-11-2011, 08:10 PM
I could have sworn, the implication was that the civil war was over slavery. maybe i misread.


Myth # 4 from the WSJ article. 4. Abraham Lincoln went to war to end slavery. The WSJ article attacked by the argument that the civil war was about slavery and that the civil war was about tariffs.



And whether or not someone fought in the union army, doesn't make one honorable or dishonorable. It is what they did when they were in that army that determines their honor.
DId they participate in the theft and destruction, or did they truly fight only to free those who were imprisoned in slavery?
Did the southerner fight for lust of battle and hatred of yanks, or did he fight to defend his home.
Each man judge by his own merits despite which army he fought in...


I totally agree. That's why I said that your ancestor may have been honorable and I believe that my ancestor was honorable. I'm pretty sure my ancestor wasn't involved in any theft or murder. That said it was a fight for personal liberty as opposed to some grand high brow fight to end slavery in general. He was a slave from Kentucky and they were offered freedom for them and their families if they fought for the union.



It just seems the entire implication of the article is that the civil war was about slavery. an initial decision by state governments does not make for the reason of the people to fight.

Yes. That's what I've been trying to say for several posts now. Talking about the decisions of some rich guys on both sides says little to nothing about the reasons for fighting for the people in the trenches.

oyarde
01-11-2011, 08:15 PM
Myth # 4 from the WSJ article. 4. Abraham Lincoln went to war to end slavery. The WSJ article attacked by the argument that the civil war was about slavery and that the civil war was about tariffs.



I totally agree. That's why I said that your ancestor may have been honorable and I believe that my ancestor was honorable. I'm pretty sure my ancestor wasn't involved in any theft or murder. That said it was a fight for personal liberty as opposed to some grand high brow fight to end slavery in general. He was a slave from Kentucky and they were offered freedom for them and their families if they fought for the union.



Yes. That's what I've been trying to say for several posts now. Talking about the decisions of some rich guys on both sides says little to nothing about the reasons for fighting for the people in the trenches.

JMDrake , guess your ancestor had an easy choice to make . I would have done same .

jmdrake
01-11-2011, 08:43 PM
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The author's point number one is derived from cherry picking the document. And quite obviously too. It was not that northern states opposed slavery (there were over a thousand slaves listed in the NYC tax rolls for 1960) but that they wished to remove a state's right to vote on the matter. The Articles of Succession, and the comments the author cherry picked, were directed towards the simple fact that the citizens of Kansas were not permitted to vote on the matter of slavery when they gained their statehood.


Total nonsense. Regardless of how many slaves may or may not have been on the NYC tax rolls in 1960, slavery was banned in New York (and you've provided no link for that), slavery was banned in New York in 1827 (http://www.slaveryinnewyork.org/about_exhibit.htm). Some bureaucratic snafu didn't change that. Further Kansas was allowed to vote on whether or not to have slaves. That was the whole reason for "bloody Kansas". Pro slavery and anti slavery forces fought each other in anticipation of the vote. Besides, if the south didn't care about the expansion of slavery then it shouldn't have mattered whether the new territory of Kansas was allowed to vote on the issue or not.



Point number two - Tariffs forced Southerners to buy northern made farm equipment and machinery, more expensive and far less well made than European machinery/equipment. The author also completely ignores the freemen who volunteered to fight in the south, or the CSA field generals who ignored Congressional orders and included freemen in their units where they enjoyed the same exact pay as their white comrades, unlike Northern black segregated units, and enjoyed no limits on rank.


Total nonsense again. Tariffs were at historic lows right before the civil war and lower than they were anywhere else in the industrial world. By propagating this myth you are taking away from the victory of the brave South Carolinians who stood up to Andrew Jackson.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnTlmznJTXo



Point number three - Total BS. Less than five percent of Southerners owned people. Of that percentage, a disproportionate number of slave owners were themselves black. The entire premise of this point is utterly false, a "majority of Americans supporting tax cuts for the rich", to paraphrase, is simply BS. The poor do not look up to the rich in such a manner. The author also ignores the fact that there were more freemen in the South than the North, (261,918 & 226,152 respectfully). One could easily assume that if conditions were so poor for blacks in the South, that freemen would be found primarily in the North. The author also ignores the fact that white Northern congressmen supported legislation to force all freemen to be deported to Africa, including Lincoln.


More total nonsense. Large slave holds were rare, but many southerners owned 1 or 2 slaves. By some accounts over 50% of southern households at one point owned at least 1 slave.

See: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=653


Further it's laughable that the generous offer of resettlement for the former slaves who wanted it was somehow racist or bad. And it was voluntary, not mandatory.

See: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/dc_emancipation_act/



Point number four - Bingo, the author managed to get at least one right. If the war had been about abolishion, then the five "border states" fighting for the Union would have had to give up their slaves, and the Emancipation Proclamation would have attempted to free slaves in the north as well. Something he does not mention that few people also never realize, the Underground Railroad began in the South, and not operated by Yankees moving south. The Abolishion Movement had a strong base in the South as well.


The one point whether the author agrees with your worldview and you say "bingo". :rolleyes:



Point number five - Oops, he was going in the right direction and then blew it. Slavery is not a sustainable economic model. Slaves may be unpaid, but their costs of upkeep, which is the sole reason one did not see more in northern agriculture as they would be idle for the winter months, can be quite high. There were also many laws on the books in some states designed specifically for the care and upkeep of slaves, ranging from laws regarding basic literacy (so as to be able to read the bible) to laws outlining, or eliminating, corporeal punishments. The increase in such laws would have made owning and using slaves prohibitively costly, especially as the Abolishion Movement gained more ground unless said movement managed to eliminate slavery all together in a state. And while the South did account for so much production of agricultural goods, the author also fails to mention the significant contributions of freemen and whites to that percentage as well.


Gee. Slavery was so unsustainable that it lasted in ancient Rome for centuries. It's so unsustainable that southern legislators were willing to demand that it be allowed to expand to new territories where it didn't already exist. And you'd have everyone believe that these same southern legislators wouldn't have the power to structure the laws to make their enterprises sustainable just because some very powerless abolitionists were somehow structuring the laws against them? Are you serious?

The fact is that slavery was quite sustainable especially in the south. As you have already pointed out, the further south you go the milder the winters. And many slave owners allowed their slaves to have garden plots. So the slaves would grow much of their own food to feed themselves. And there were no laws that required slave literacy. You just made that crap up. There were, however, laws that forbade slave literacy.

jmdrake
01-11-2011, 09:02 PM
How is it non sequitur?
The inference from the documentation is that some wealthy people who incited the war profited handsomely from it. B follows A.

What were the names of the London bankers?


The Rothchilds. They fund both sides of a lot of wars. I don't know why you think the civil war would be different...but it wasn't. I already provided a link on this, but here is another one.

http://hidhist.wordpress.com/banksters/the-rothschilds-the-civil-war/

And the reason for London bankers supporting the south should be obvious. They wanted cheap southern cotton. But they also supported the north. The house of the Red Shield always hedges its bets.



Huh?
Why would a Southerner who did not own slaves want to go to war to keep slavery? Please explain how you miss that connection.


Why would someone who didn't own oil fields support a war for oil? There were southerners who benefited from slavery without owning slaves themselves. Overseers didn't own slaves. (They were dirt poor themselves and looked down upon by the slave owning class that used them.) Slave catchers didn't own slaves. A gin owner may or may not own slaves. Someone working on a loading dock helping to put cotton on ships bound for England might not own slaves. Why would any of these people want to upset the system that was helping to put bread on their tables?



Again huh?
Are you of the opinion that slavery, even though it was waning because of new technology, and was a dying institution throughout the rest of the world, would have been expanded if the South would have won? Seriously? Please explain how the expansion of slavery being impractical was a valid major issue to save it.


Do you think the southern legislators who demanded the right to expand slavery in there declarations of secession were doing this out of sheer stupidity? You are operating off of 20/20 hindsight. The "new technology" that made slavery obsolete came after the end of slavery. The same thing would happen to the fresh fruit industry if illegal immigrant labor became impractical. Necessity is the mother of invention. As long as slavery was profitable (and at the time of the civil war it was certainly still profitable, or else the border states would have taken Lincoln's offer of compensated emancipation) there was no need for mechanization.



The point is that people were being prepared for war before 1860 and Uncle Tom's Cabin was one tool used to incite hatred between the North and South.


Whether Uncle Tom's Cabin was incendiary or not is irrelevant to whether or not it portrayed an accurate portrait of the various types of slave owners that existed.



No one said that... no one at all. And you are being disingenuous by introducing the notion.


You claimed UTC was a "lie". So how exactly was it a "lie"? If you agree that some slave owners were as mean as the worst one mentioned in the book and that slavery did indeed break up families and that slaves really didn't want to be sold further "down south" and that some would try to escape, then what's left for you to call a "lie"? The portrait of the nice slave owners?



It was a southern circuit court that freed Dred Scott in the first place. Why would a poor slave owner appeal a lawsuit where the outcome had 200 years of precedence against him? The appeal was a certain loser. The cost would have been prohibitive if not for wealthy interests financing it. Plus, the final outcome was Dred Scott and his family ended up free anyway. The Scotts were just used as pawns.


Yes, I'm aware of the southern circuit's brave stand. But that doesn't change my point. It was southerners on the U.S. Supreme Court that ultimately voted to hear the case and ultimately voted to rule the way they did. They could have simply agreed with the southern circuit that freed Dred Scott and not heard the case or affirmed the lower court ruling. They didn't. Somehow I don't see them as being part of some grand scheme to force the country into war in order to hurt the south. But I could be wrong.



I have nothing to gain by being disingenuous, and it is not my intention. I am simply reporting on a book I read, I did not write it. You seem well versed in the Civil War. Have you already read "Blood Money?"

I haven't read it. I'll check it out.

Aratus
01-12-2011, 01:29 PM
like didn't British spies give the new "de facto" nation a few professional pointers in anticipation
of Queen Victoria's government giving an official recognition to the new nation? was it the very
lack of an official British back-up that let the Union after gen'l u.s grant took vicksburg sit back
an' tally what a more serious peninsula campaign could amount to? methinks the support of the
U.K was as critical to Jeff Davis as was the support of the French to the Continental Congress!
you had the politics north and south being polarized and totally dysfunctional as the moderates
on both sides were often physically assaulted and vilified for trying to talk sense to their peers!

Aratus
01-12-2011, 01:34 PM
henry clay's backers tended to be more 'high tariff' or moderately high & selective tariff

i believe easily half of our govt's tariff revenues were from the port in NYC during the 1800s

by 1860 any hope for any monitary compensation for slave or master was not opted for at all

xd9fan
01-15-2011, 12:21 PM
Interesting that this article comes out now.....IMHO the stress factures in this country are growing...

Aratus
01-15-2011, 03:03 PM
one of the reasons thusly was that the southern states had the resources to be
a viable government had abraham lincoln not done the call ups. the confederacy
initially was strong enough to repell most colonialist invaders. had south carolina left
the union in the 1830s, had gen'l jackson held back, had he let south caronlina go,
unless the new fledgling country kept diplomatic and military alliances up with the
rest of the union, the odds are an episode like what mexico experianced under the
french could have happened. one of the unionist arguments was that the south
upon leaving left the union much weaker. the monroe doctrine fear of outsiders
weighed with what a viable framework for a sitting government entails triggered
the northern response. the 1850s politically polarized as they went along. the very
word nullifier does say that low tariffs was an understanding arrived at by both
sides. indirectly the tariff rate as well as the spread of slavery are factors. directly
stated, the fugitive slave act and the dred scott decision changed the unspoken
groundrules in place since the missouri compromise. yes, more northerners became
abolitionists in the five decades before the civil war even though many of their
native states had outlawed slavery. we could also say the mexican war and the
louisiana purchase directly helped trigger the civil war, or even go back to the
english civil war where roundhead fought cavalier. a marxist sees two power elites.

Aratus
01-15-2011, 03:11 PM
the biggest plumpest political plum prior to and after the civil war
was the port of auld new york. methinks indeedy tweed ring, yes...

Vessol
01-18-2011, 03:59 AM
Another Court Historian’s False Tariff History

The only thing worse than a historian who calls himself a "Lincoln scholar" is a sociologist who does the same. This truth was on display recently in a January 9 Washington Post article entitled "Five Myths about Why the South Seceded" by one James W. Loewen.

In discussing the role of federal tariff policy in precipitating the War to Prevent Southern Independence Loewen is either grossly ignorant, or he is dishonest. He begins by referring to the 1828 Tariff of Abominations, which led to South Carolina’s Ordinance of Nullification, whereby the state rightly condemned the 48 percent average tariff rate as a blatant act of plunder (mostly at the South’s expense) and refused to collect it at Charleston Harbor. Loewen writes that "when, after South Carolina demanded the right to nullify federal laws or secede to protest, President Andrew Jackson threatened force." That much is true. "No state joined the movement, and South Carolina backed down," Loewen then writes. This is all false. It is not true that "no state joined the movement." As historian Chauncy Boucher wrote in The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, and Alabama joined South Carolina in publicly denouncing the Tariff of Abominations, while the Yankee bastions of Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Indiana, and New York responded with their own resolutions in support of political plunder through extortionate tariff rates.

Nor is it true to say that "South Carolina backed down." South Carolina and the Jackson administration reached a compromise in 1833: Jackson "backed down" by not following through with his threats to use force to collect the tariff, and South Carolina agreed to collect tariffs at a much lower rate. Jackson "backed down" as much (or more) as South Carolina did, but the Official Court Historian’s History of the War, as expressed by Loewen, holds that only South Carolina retreated. The reason for this distortion of history is to spread the lie that tax protesters such as the South Carolina nullifiers, or the Whiskey Rebels of an earlier generation, have never successfully challenged the federal government’s taxing "authority." But of course they have succeeded; The Whiskey Rebels ended up not paying the federal whisky tax, and the Tariff of Abominations was sharply reduced over a ten-year period.

Loewen next spreads an egregious falsehood about the tariff: "Tariffs were not an issue in 1860, and Southern states said nothing about them," he writes. "Why would they? Southerners had written the tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning. Its rates were lower than at any point since 1816." Every bit of this narrative is false.

Tariffs certainly were an issue in 1860. Lincoln’s official campaign poster featured mug shots of himself and vice presidential candidate Hannibal Hamlin, above the campaign slogan, "Protection for Home Industry." (That is, high tariff rates to "protect home industry" from international competition). In a speech in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ("Steeltown, U.S.A."), a hotbed of protectionist sentiment, Lincoln announced that no other issue was as important as raising the tariff rate. It is well known that Lincoln made skillful use of his lifelong protectionist credentials to win the support of the Pennsylvania delegation at the Republican convention of 1860, and he did sign ten tariff-increasing bills while in office. When he announced a naval blockade of the Southern ports during the first months of the war, he gave only one reason for the blockade: tariff collection.

As I have written numerous times, in his first inaugural address Lincoln announced that it was his duty "to collect the duties and imposts," and then threatened "force," "invasion" and "bloodshed" (his exact words) in any state that refused to collect the federal tariff, the average rate of which had just been doubled two days earlier. He was not going to "back down" to tax protesters in South Carolina or anywhere else, as Andrew Jackson had done.

The most egregious falsehood spread by Loewen is to say that the tariff that was in existence in 1860 was the 1857 tariff rate, which was in fact the lowest tariff rate of the entire nineteenth century. In his famous Tariff History of the United States economist Frank Taussig called the 1857 tariff the high water mark of free trade during that century. The Big Lie here is that Loewen makes no mention at all of the fact that the notorious Morrill Tariff, which more than doubled the average tariff rate (from 15% to 32.6% initially), was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives during the 1859–60 session of Congress, and was the cornerstone of the Republican Party’s economic policy. It then passed the U.S. Senate, and was signed into law by President James Buchanan on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration, where he threatened war on any state that failed to collect the new tax. At the time, the tariff accounted for at least 90 percent of all federal tax revenues. The Morrill Tariff therefore represented a more than doubling of the rate of federal taxation!

...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo199.html

jmdrake
01-18-2011, 06:54 AM
That's all true. But here's what Mr. Dilorenzo misleads through omission. I don't know if his omission is through ignorance, dishonesty or carelessness. The Morrill Tariff passed after secession and only because of secession! Fourteen southern senators removed themselves from the senate (http://books.google.com/books?id=4tdCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=morrill+tariff+southern+senators+withdraw&source=bl&ots=JJd1KIbz2M&sig=7vczHd8Xms53Ya-K5a9suxKTX1w&hl=en&ei=XIw1TfmyCoK8lQeR0dG9Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=morrill%20tariff%20southern%20senators%20withdra w&f=false) before the vote. Had they stayed in they would have been able to block passage in the senate.

It's sad how historians on both sides omit key facts in order to push a particular agenda. Nullification beat the high tariffs the first time and just good legislative common sense could have beat it the second time. Secession wasn't at all necessary to beat the Morill Tariff. Nullification >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> secession. The one thing the southern states did not have the power to do was to force slavery to be opened up to new territories.





Another Court Historian’s False Tariff History

The only thing worse than a historian who calls himself a "Lincoln scholar" is a sociologist who does the same. This truth was on display recently in a January 9 Washington Post article entitled "Five Myths about Why the South Seceded" by one James W. Loewen.

In discussing the role of federal tariff policy in precipitating the War to Prevent Southern Independence Loewen is either grossly ignorant, or he is dishonest. He begins by referring to the 1828 Tariff of Abominations, which led to South Carolina’s Ordinance of Nullification, whereby the state rightly condemned the 48 percent average tariff rate as a blatant act of plunder (mostly at the South’s expense) and refused to collect it at Charleston Harbor. Loewen writes that "when, after South Carolina demanded the right to nullify federal laws or secede to protest, President Andrew Jackson threatened force." That much is true. "No state joined the movement, and South Carolina backed down," Loewen then writes. This is all false. It is not true that "no state joined the movement." As historian Chauncy Boucher wrote in The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, and Alabama joined South Carolina in publicly denouncing the Tariff of Abominations, while the Yankee bastions of Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Indiana, and New York responded with their own resolutions in support of political plunder through extortionate tariff rates.

Nor is it true to say that "South Carolina backed down." South Carolina and the Jackson administration reached a compromise in 1833: Jackson "backed down" by not following through with his threats to use force to collect the tariff, and South Carolina agreed to collect tariffs at a much lower rate. Jackson "backed down" as much (or more) as South Carolina did, but the Official Court Historian’s History of the War, as expressed by Loewen, holds that only South Carolina retreated. The reason for this distortion of history is to spread the lie that tax protesters such as the South Carolina nullifiers, or the Whiskey Rebels of an earlier generation, have never successfully challenged the federal government’s taxing "authority." But of course they have succeeded; The Whiskey Rebels ended up not paying the federal whisky tax, and the Tariff of Abominations was sharply reduced over a ten-year period.

Loewen next spreads an egregious falsehood about the tariff: "Tariffs were not an issue in 1860, and Southern states said nothing about them," he writes. "Why would they? Southerners had written the tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning. Its rates were lower than at any point since 1816." Every bit of this narrative is false.

Tariffs certainly were an issue in 1860. Lincoln’s official campaign poster featured mug shots of himself and vice presidential candidate Hannibal Hamlin, above the campaign slogan, "Protection for Home Industry." (That is, high tariff rates to "protect home industry" from international competition). In a speech in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ("Steeltown, U.S.A."), a hotbed of protectionist sentiment, Lincoln announced that no other issue was as important as raising the tariff rate. It is well known that Lincoln made skillful use of his lifelong protectionist credentials to win the support of the Pennsylvania delegation at the Republican convention of 1860, and he did sign ten tariff-increasing bills while in office. When he announced a naval blockade of the Southern ports during the first months of the war, he gave only one reason for the blockade: tariff collection.

As I have written numerous times, in his first inaugural address Lincoln announced that it was his duty "to collect the duties and imposts," and then threatened "force," "invasion" and "bloodshed" (his exact words) in any state that refused to collect the federal tariff, the average rate of which had just been doubled two days earlier. He was not going to "back down" to tax protesters in South Carolina or anywhere else, as Andrew Jackson had done.

The most egregious falsehood spread by Loewen is to say that the tariff that was in existence in 1860 was the 1857 tariff rate, which was in fact the lowest tariff rate of the entire nineteenth century. In his famous Tariff History of the United States economist Frank Taussig called the 1857 tariff the high water mark of free trade during that century. The Big Lie here is that Loewen makes no mention at all of the fact that the notorious Morrill Tariff, which more than doubled the average tariff rate (from 15% to 32.6% initially), was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives during the 1859–60 session of Congress, and was the cornerstone of the Republican Party’s economic policy. It then passed the U.S. Senate, and was signed into law by President James Buchanan on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration, where he threatened war on any state that failed to collect the new tax. At the time, the tariff accounted for at least 90 percent of all federal tax revenues. The Morrill Tariff therefore represented a more than doubling of the rate of federal taxation!

...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo199.html

specsaregood
01-24-2011, 11:25 AM
Jason lewis had Lorenzo on to discuss this article.
Fairly interesting.
Jason Lewis Show 1/20/11 - 3rd Hour
Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:50:03 -0500
Professor Thomas DiLorenzo is our guest to discuss some truths and myths about the Civil War.
Download link:
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MINNEAPOLIS-MN/KTLK-FM/LEWIS012011_HR3_Thomas%20DiLorenzo.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=MINNEAPOLIS-MN&NG_FORMAT=&SITE_ID=3359&STATION_ID=KTLK-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=News_Talk_100.3_FM&PCAST_CAT=Talk_Radio&PCAST_TITLE=Jason_Lewis
http://www.ktlkfm.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=jasonlewis2.xml

raiha
01-24-2011, 03:52 PM
If the South seceded, New Orleans would have become the richest port in the Americas.
New York (built through slavery remember), and Boston (which made a killing earlier, remember, in the manufacture of slave ships and the slave trade generally) would have languished in the doldrums. And what would they have done with all those miles and miles of extremely lucrative textile factories in the Puritan states producing cotton goods on their looms of misery? The manufacturerers indeed were adept at maintaining their mealy- mouthed hypocrisy about the bad 'ole South while their voracious appetite for yet more an more cotton perpetuated the supply and demand for more and more slaves.
Those looms were very versatile looms because they spun all sorts of myths and fairy tales and assorted bullshit also which the WP continues to perpetuate