Posted on 07/10/2015 5:56:03 PM PDT by Ron theDVDguy
Union troops at Tupelo, Mississippi, thought Forrest was Yankee cavalry, and let him pass through, unharmed.
In the next day's battle a Union sharpshooter, at long distance, wounded Forrest in the foot.
I'm just sayin'....
Where Jackson's troops couldn't recognize their own commander, Forrest convinced some Yankee troops he was one of their own.
You got to give the man some credit...
The 18th NC infantry, the dumb asses firing at Jackson’s Command Party was not assigned to his corp. He came at them from an odd direction must have thrown them off. No excuse.
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.
. . . look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgement of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws.
thanks for correcting with the right company’s name. trying to use my memory, sometimes I get the names messed up.
Thanks for that, I've saved the link above for future reference.
There's no doubt, when you read the words of 1860 and early 1861 just what the issues & concerns were motivating the original Deep South Fire-Eater secessionists.
Yes, by the time we reach Virginia & Upper South declarations of secession, other issues come to play, particularly the notion of Union "oppression" & "usurpation".
Those states had voted not to secede when the issue was only slavery.
But after Fort Sumter and Lincoln's call for troops, the Upper South could, in good conscience, vote to join their Slave-Power brethren in both secession and the Confederacy's now formally declared war on the United States.
Sorry, but you've got that all wrong.
Here is a brief history lesson:
The insatiable European demand for cotton was a result of the Industrial Revolution which created the machinery and factories to process raw cotton into clothing that was better and cheaper than hand-made product.
European and New England purchases soared from 720,000 bales in 1830, to 2.85 million bales in 1850, to nearly 5 million in 1860.
Cotton production renewed the need for slavery after the tobacco market declined in the late 18th century.
The more cotton grown, the more slaves were needed to pick the crop.
By 1860, on the eve of the American Civil War, cotton accounted for almost 60% of American exports, representing a total value of nearly $200 million a year."
$200 million in 1860 was a lot of money.
If we compare it to total GDP then versus now, it would equate to nearly $800 billion today.
The notion that Southerners were somehow forced to ship their product to only northern markets is pure fiction, as is any suggestion of "export tariffs".
In fact, the South shipped its cotton internationally, wherever it could get the best prices.
funny when I did my Masters thesis on root causes of the Civil war - economic factors like cotton exportation was supported by the documentation of Cotton being exported only via the North. gee I was granted my Masters of Arts in History. Just wonder did my documenation prove to be wrong and that my professors supported a false masters thesis.
I wonder.
As I recall the 3rd largest port of export for cotton was New Orleans.
Sorry, FRiend, but you're using very imprecise language here, suggesting an effort to deceive.
Did small Southern costal ships carry their cotton to New York for transfer to larger trans-Atlantic ships for Britain & France?
Is that your problem?
You think that was a cause of war?
And your professors let you get away with that?
Sounds to me like your professors were just as ignorant and biased as you are -- or, to put a finer point on it: they sound like Marxists who blame everything on economics, regardless of what people say they mean.
I remember those guys -- history professors who skipped right over the wars as unimportant to the dialectics of economic materialism!
What a bunch of idiots.
Of course, if you wish to say that Northerners owned some larger ships transporting Southern cotton to Britain and France, that's fine.
But New Orleans was the South's biggest port city, and I doubt very much if its ships stopped off in New York before steaming on to Europe.
And, of course, if you wish to explain that most wealthy Southern plantation owners were in fact leveraged to the max financially, with Northern banks pulling their strings, then I wouldn't be surprised.
But an important point to remember is that the South in general, and the Deep South especially, had never been more prosperous than the 1850s decade, peaking in 1860.
If anyone ever had cause to rejoice in a good economic plan (albeit slave-based) well executed, it was plantation owners in 1860.
Consider this example: if I owe you $1,000 and my income is just $100 per year, then we both might have a big problem.
But if my income increases to $10,000 per year, now that $1,000 debt doesn't seem so bad, does it?
Well, that was just the situation of the Southern plantation owners in 1860 versus, say, 1845.
Yes, their debts were high, but incomes & asset values growing rapidly.
Bottom line: Southern Democrats won the 1856 election, putting their own man, Dough-faced Northerner James Buchanan as President, with majorities in both houses of Congress and a US Supreme Court that voted in 1857 seven-to-two for the Dred-Scott decision.
Between 1856 and 1860 economic times in the South continued long-term improvement, such that by 1860 the Slave-Power had much to congratulate itself over.
And yet, in November 1860, with the election of Lincoln's "Black Republicans", the Slave-Power immediately began to self-destruct, starting with declarations of secession.
Why?
Well, FRiend, it simply cannot have been mysterious, abstract economic factors, it must certainly have been just what they themselves said most loudly and clearly: Republicans were both an insult and threat to their "peculiar institution" of slavery, which they could not, and would not tolerate.
Yes, after the Civil War was lost, and slavery abolished, pro-Confederate apologists looked high and low, far and wide to come up with other excuses -- anything other than the real reasons they acted so stupidly.
But it's all nonsense.
Go back to what they said at the time -- late 1860, early 1861.
Those are the real reasons.
Start here:
“Of course, if you wish to say that Northerners owned some larger ships transporting Southern cotton to Britain and France, that’s fine.
But New Orleans was the South’s biggest port city, and I doubt very much if its ships stopped off in New York before steaming on to Europe.”
Well actually you are totally wrong as usual.
All exports of cotton had to be on American owned vessels. The bulk of the shipping trade was in the NE and New England.
“Early and mid-19th century Atlantic trade was based on “packet lines” — groups of vessels offering scheduled services. It was a coastal trade at first, but when the Black Ball Line started running between New York and Liverpool in 1817, it became the way to do business across the pond.
The trick was to have a good cargo going each way. The New York packet lines succeeded because they sucked in all the eastbound cotton cargoes from the U.S. The northeast didn’t have enough volume of paying freight on its own. So American vessels, usually owned in the Northeast, sailed off to a cotton port, carrying goods for the southern market. There they loaded cotton (or occasionally naval stores or timber) for Europe. They steamed back from Europe loaded with manufactured goods, raw materials like hemp or coal, and occasionally immigrants.
Since this “triangle trade” involved a domestic leg, foreign vessels were excluded from it (under the 1817 law), except a few English ones that could substitute a Canadian port for a Northern U.S. one. And since it was subsidized by the U.S. government, it was going to continue to be the only game in town.
Robert Greenhalgh Albion, in his laudatory history of the Port of New York, openly boasts of this selfish monopoly. “By creating a three-cornered trade in the ‘cotton triangle,’ New York dragged the commerce between the southern ports and Europe out of its normal course some two hundred miles to collect a heavy toll upon it. This trade might perfectly well have taken the form of direct shuttles between Charleston, Savannah, Mobile, or New Orleans on the one hand and Liverpool or Havre on the other, leaving New York far to one side had it not interfered in this way. To clinch this abnormal arrangement, moreover, New York developed the coastal packet lines without which it would have been extremely difficult to make the east-bound trips of the ocean packets profitable.”[2]
Even when the Southern cotton bound for Europe didn’t put in at the wharves of Sandy Hook or the East River, unloading and reloading, the combined income from interests, commissions, freight, insurance, and other profits took perhaps 40 cents into New York of every dollar paid for southern cotton.”
By 1860 New York was the recipient of approx. 40% of all cotton revenues.
Gee I got through my Masters Degree. i did the thesis as required for the degree, in the late 80s. Now all of sudden I am utilizing imprecise language to deceive. When you go to college you have to regurgitate what the professors want to hear. I went to to Wisconsin State University’s for undergraduate and than a graduate degree. As a conservative and christian I was ridiculed. My masters in history was in Wisconsin - the professor whom oversaw the program was an expert in Russian History
when I got my Masters of Divinity, i was in Mississippi. I moved from the liberal bastion of Madison, WI to the south whereby I was exposed to different life than an education at liberal land of Madison. hey all I was stating was what I learned in college. Seems like some on FR forget that there are FRs whom went to college and have had to regurgitate what was necessary to get the degree granted, but does it mean that some on FR are not conservative. hey I was exposed to the liberal garbage for so long that in order to stay conservative you chose what fights to fight and what fights not too.
Thanks for your history lessons and comments, much appreciated.
I just drove past Madison yesterday, spent the night in Tomah, was very glad to see the governor there has much improved I-39/90.
Today I’m back in Sioux Falls for a nice rest...
Both of your posts deserve serious response, and I’ll make that effort, hopefully later on today.
No I need no response. I corrected your BS post because I get sick of your incessant BS on the Civil War threads. You now have accurate information which I’m sure you are not interested in. Just STFU and I’ll be happy.
No, I have it exactly right, and your analysis is... well, incomplete.
Georgia Girl 2: "All exports of cotton had to be on American owned vessels.
The bulk of the shipping trade was in the NE and New England...
...[quotoing]: 'combined income from interests, commissions, freight, insurance, and other profits took perhaps 40 cents into New York of every dollar paid for southern cotton.' "
As I said: incomplete analysis.
First of all, you left off a key element of that 40% figure:
So, important point: that 40% includes the fact that Southern planters spent some of their earnings on imported goods sold to them by New York merchants.
And this was not some new arrangement, but had been going on since the Founding of the Republic, which powerful Southern politicians had never found particularly onerous.
So that cannot have been a serious cause of secession, and was never mentioned in secessionists' reasons documents.
But an even larger point is overlooked by this 40% figure: New Orleans.
According to this report New Orleans shipped about half of all cotton exported in 1857 -- 1.5 million out of 3 million total bales.
And this report tells us where that cotton went:
Bottom line: half of US cotton shipped out of New Orleans, not New York, and of that, 85% shipped to foreign countries, not to US customers.
These economic arrangements are not mentioned as reasons for secession in any of the original seven Deep South Confederate states.
The one reason listed dozens of times is: the insult and threat of Lincoln's "Black Republicans" to the South's "peculiar institution" of slavery.
So there's just no need to look further than that.
I am rather busy taking care of my mother with Advanced Alzheimer’s Disease and recuperating from stomach surgery. i was supposed to place her in the nursing home today, but there was a foul up in the paperwork. So what is your degree in or are you so bored that you want to besmirch anyone on FR!
Your fellow poster, Georgia Girl 2, has provided us with some details of just what you may have intended to mean by your very vague words: "Cotton being exported only via the North".
But as my response to her above shows, if that is indeed your argument, then the "facts" presented are incomplete at best, misleading at worst.
hondact200: "When you go to college you have to regurgitate what the professors want to hear.
I went to to Wisconsin State University’s..."
Yes, I know all about college in general, and history professors in particular.
Mine for ancient and medieval history seriously looked like they came from those ages.
And my modern history profs were Marxists, concerned only with economics and class warfare, etc.
That Marxists would look right past 1861 Reasons for Secession documents to find "hidden" economic motives is not surprising, but it is still nonsense, imho.
hondact200: "Seems like some on FR forget that there are FRs whom went to college and have had to regurgitate what was necessary to get the degree granted..."
FRiend, far be it from me to criticize another conservative for what they have to do to make their way in a very liberal / progressive Democrat world.
God bless you, and go in peace.
If you are as interested in real, honest-to-God history as I, and many others on Free Republic, you can find an absolute wealth of it here, daily, including interesting articles and highly informed discussions.
So don't be afraid to dive right in with your own comments, whether you think they are well thought out or not, just keep a positive attitude, stay polite even when that's tough, and you'll find yourself learning as much as you have time for, and as our strictly finite minds can hold! ;-)
Bored? Besmirch?
Do you feel "besmirched" by blunt arguments?
Like you I have more than one degree, but I never discuss them here, and certainly never use them to pretend some superiority over others who may -- or may not -- have less.
All arguments here need to stand on their own, based on their clarity, accuracy, sourcing and use of understandable language, regardless of how many degrees in which subjects a poster may have.
As for "bored", no, I'm "retired" and self-employed, travel a lot, spend nights on the road without company.
And there's nothing I enjoy more than a vigorous discussion over the facts and interpretations of controversial subjects, such as: how and why did the Civil War start?
If you enjoy such conversations, then you've come to the right place, but if not, then perhaps something else interests you more?
How many foreigners does Clyde talk to lately?
Any of them much younger than himself?
And how many of them don't like any of what they call "Yankees" (including Clyde himself)?
When they say they don't like Yankees, Clyde, don't assume they're not talking about you.
You have been refuted with the facts. Get lost.
Georgia Girl 2 post #53: "Just STFU and I’ll be happy."
Ha! You're a rich one, FRiend.
I'll repeat, first, your "facts" are highly incomplete, at best, misleading at worst -- see my posts above.
But more important, your attitude here exposes you for just what you are -- a Democrat.
"STFU" ?? What kind of talk is that?
That's Democrat talk. It's the way Dems deal with issues and disagreements.
In the public market-place of ideas, Dems are the big bullies -- oh, sure, they sometimes wine and complain about "free speech" -- but as soon as they're in real power, like you, they only have one argument: "STFU".
It's why I say some of you-guys are still Democrats, who occasionally stoop to vote for Republicans, but basically your hearts & souls are still where your ancestors were 155 years ago.
"STFU" -- there it is, in a nutshell, FRiend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.