Posted on 07/10/2015 7:40:04 AM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
In the first reissue of these documents since 1865, A City Laid Waste captures in riveting detail the destruction of South Carolina's capital city. William Gilmore Simms (1806-1870), a native South Carolinian and one of the nation's foremost men of letters, was in Columbia and witnessed firsthand the city's capture by Union forces and its subsequent devastation by fire. A renowned novelist and poet, who was also an experienced journalist and historian, Simms deftly recorded the events of February 1865 in a series of eyewitness accounts published in the first ten issues of the Columbia Phoenix and reprinted here. His record of burned buildings constitutes the most authoritative information available on the extent of the damage.
Gee...what will they do with that leftist flagpole?
Ten bucks says the rainbow flag ends up there.
Take it up with Reverend Baldwin.
I do not modify people’s words when I quote them.
There also was another 13th amendment, long before, that passed both houses, and was ratified by every state, and then disappeared. It forbid any member of the Temple Bar from holding any position of public trust. (easy to see why it disappeared)
Thank you for that long list of historical facts. I am dismayed that the most critical cause is not listed.
As previously mentioned, the industrial north derived a substantial part of the government's "income" from taxing the South. And the South was prohibited by law to industrialize. Machinery, and even essential household items could not be manufactured in the South, and the South was prohibited from buying machinery and manufactured goods from cheaper foreign sources. An obvious way to force millions to remain employing the only means of income they had. Foreign goods desperately needed by the South was taxed to make them as prohibitively expensive as the same manufactured items from the North.
It is astonishing that, otherwise intelligent Freepers choose to remain ignorant of historical facts, and choose to attack the messengers instead. Or choose to continue using puerile comparisons.
What law prohibited southerners from industrializing? Can you provide a link?
General Sherman’s thoughts. “War is the remedy our enemies have chose, and I say let us give them all they want.”
“This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor feel the hard hand of war.”
“War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”
Obviously a lie or a forgery!
Our resident do-gooders, safe in their politically correct cocoons, will dismiss Lincoln's Presidential papers similarly. An obvious forgery! Fake Facts. Manufactured history!
Sometimes I despair for our dystopian well-meaning PC culture. Overeducated ignorance.
OK, then the Reverend Baldwin is a liar.
Or possibly misinformed. In any case, he owes Lincoln an apology.
"Passed both houses" True.
"ratified by every state" Untrue. Got within two states twice, but never reached 3/4.
"It forbid any member of the Temple Bar from holding any position of public trust." Untrue. It forbade acceptance of titles of nobility from foreign governments.
Also pretty idiotic notion to begin with, since probably a considerable majority of Congressmen and state legislators were attorneys. Does it seem logical they'd vote to prohibit themselves from holding office?
Could you be kind enough to tell us who Reverend Chuck Baldwin is, and where and when this speech (sermon?) was delivered?
Of course they are Lincoln’s words! This has been known forever and accepted by all historians.
In fact, given the period when he said it, can you really disagree with him?
His plans for colonizing some black freedmen foundered on the fact that there were few volunteers, and he had never even suggested, unlike Jefferson some decades before, that colonization be compulsory.
This is another example of you coming up with a fact from the past as if, A. you’re the first person to find it; or, B. it makes some obvious point.
Please tell us what you think Lincoln saying these words tells us about the War, or the Union, or the CSA or about Lincoln himself.
Many intelligent men, north and south, were concerned about the aftermath of freeing the slaves. That it would cause turmoil and distress far into the future.
Seeing as how we’re still dealing with the issue today, can you really say they were wrong to be concerned?
The pole will come down. Then the mob, including some here, will begin their campaign to bring down the memorial itself and any like it.
The declarations of secession for the states in the Confederacy clearly stated the need to preserve slavery from being forcibly ended. IDK, but there seems to be plenty of Paulites out there who expect me to not read actual historical documents. But given the loss of money and business that would happen upon the immediate abolition of slavery, sounds like a goid motivation to me.
It was not a single law, it was an endless series of them.
I did the original searches about ten years ago. I originally found the facts in a series of books and on line, including the U.S. Congressional Record of the period. I did not feel it necessary to save the links, because if I could find the data on line, anyone else also can.
And of course, I never anticipated that this bogus transcendental issue would resurface after the expenditure of a trillion$ to ameliorate (exacerbate?) the issue...
In 1860 the value of the slaves in the slave states was 48% of the value of all wealth in those states, and something like 19% of all wealth in the nation.
The value of the slaves was greater than the value of all land and buildings in the slave states. And it was far greater than that in the Deep South, the seven states that seceded first.
There’s a state park not too far from me here in FL where they raised sugar before the War. I forget all the numbers, unfortunately, but he had something over 200 slaves. Their value, when the plantation went broke, was a multiple of the value of the land, the machinery and the buildings, including a 7,000 SF mansion that still stands and is the centerpiece of the state park.
https://www.floridastateparks.org/park/Gamble-Plantation
Look at the enormous financial uproar we’ve had in the last decade with a drop in wealth by 10% or so.
Imagine the consequences of a loss of 48% of invested capital!
Slaves were worth somewhere around $3B. At a time when the federal budget was $60M for 1860.
Nobody’s asking you to produce an endless series of laws prohibiting southerners from industrializing. One or two of them will be fine.
I’ve repeatedly seen CSA apologists claim there were exorbitant tariffs on exportation of cotton, when of course there were never any.
What you are probably thinking of is protective tariffs on importation of machinery. But of course any northern firm that needed such machinery faced exactly the same increased costs, just as an Iowa farmer faced exactly the same tariffs as an Alabama planter.
The plain and simple truth is that nothing stopped southerners from building industries.
A major proponent of their doing so was De Bows Review, published in New Orleans. You can search their archives, I suspect, without finding a single reference to federal laws prohibiting southerners from creating industries.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moajrnl/browse.journals/debo.html
You must be an attorney or an academic, so you leave me no recourse but to use the same tools you enjoy so well.
Deny, change the subject, and demand proof while simultaneously failing ever to provide any for your statements or assertions.
Do your own damned research.
Ahh.
Say X, then when asked to produce proof for X, insist that the questioner do his own research.
You may not have noticed, but I generally, though not perhaps always, provide a link in my posts to evidence.
For instance, in a recent post I provided a link to 20-some years of De Bows Review, published in New Orleans from 1848 on. Surely there is discussion in it of the invidious laws prohibiting southerners from building factories.
Unless of course there were no such laws.
BTW, let me know which claims I have made you consider untrue, and I’ll be happy to provide proof that they are indeed facts.
If it turns out anything I’ve said in untrue, I’ll cheerfully admit it on this forum, as I have in fact done in the past. Will you agree to do the same?
Interesting.
I’ve studied the Civil War for a number of years and have a fairly healthy assembled library but I’ve never encountered any reference to any prohibition against any commerce in any region - except perhaps the bootleg distillery business.
One would think that one could fond some reference - any reference - to it if it were such a prominent thing.
“in the 1800s, up to 75% of the South was Scotch, Scotch-Irish. U.S. Census data between 1800 and 1860 puts the Black population of the South at between 35 and 36.8%. I suppose if you didn’t count blacks as people, then maybe the 75% figure may be correct.
Bump
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.