Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Untold Story of the Civil War
Jackson Jambalaya ^ | December 2, 2008 | Kingfish

Posted on 12/02/2008 6:57:32 AM PST by prplhze2000

came across an article from an old issue of U.S. News & World Report commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Civil War. What was interesting was that it compared the treatment of the South for decades after the war's end to the millions of dollars and additional support given to Germany and other European countries through the Marshall plan and concluded the South's fate was a drag on the rest of the country as it remained the poorest section of America by far.....

U.S Treasury agents streamed through the South in 1865 grabbing cotton, land, anything that they claimed to have been the property of the Confederacy. They took cotton valued at $30 million. Behind them came hordes of carpetbaggers (With the Wall Street Journal's blessing I'm sure. They'll invent some economic theory to justify it while professing to hate the looters in Atlas Shrugged) from the North to drain away any Southern Capital they could lay hands on..."

The Southern steel industry, doing a booming business in 1900, was virtually stopped in its track, Southerners said, by a rate structure imposed by the North. The rates required payment of price differentials so sharp that it became cheaper for an industry in New Orleans to buy steel from Pittsburgh than from Birmingham. Not until World War II were changes made in this system."

Such policies created a region so poor and under-educated that FDR called the South the "nations number one economic problem" in 1938...

(Excerpt) Read more at kingfish1935.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: Government; History; Politics
KEYWORDS: civilwar; civilwarsouth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 441-448 next last
To: Non-Sequitur
And at a time when the South was solidly Democratic. Probably why he didn't go there.

I believe he too was a Democrat at the time.

181 posted on 12/03/2008 6:27:07 AM PST by TWfromTEXAS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
Don’t confuse Non-Sensical with facts.

Something we have never have to worry about with one of your posts.

He has his @ss handed to him every time but will NEVER reconsider his points or his position...

Still a legend in your own mind, I see.

...just like a liberal

Southron Desperation Act #297: When in doubt accuse your opponent of being a liberal.

182 posted on 12/03/2008 6:28:09 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: TWfromTEXAS
I believe he too was a Democrat at the time.

But when Reagan saw the light and came over to the GOP it was to follow Goldwater's limited government philosophy. When the Southern Democrats started switching they brought their big government, big spending beliefs with them. The party hasn't been the same since.

183 posted on 12/03/2008 6:30:08 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Jeez, man. At least get the points correct.

“Something we have never have to worry about with one of your posts.”

True. I get MY facts straight.

“Still a legend in your own mind, I see.”

Damn straight.

“When in doubt accuse your opponent of being a liberal.”

I didn’t call you a liberal. I said your inability to recognize facts and reconsider your points is the SAME as a liberal. Your inability to make THAT distinction proves my first point.

As always, thanks for playing and thanks for proving me right.

This is SO easy.


184 posted on 12/03/2008 7:03:44 AM PST by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
True. I get MY facts straight.

False. You and facts almost never collide in the same sentence.

This is SO easy.

And entirely predictable. At least as far as your responses go.

185 posted on 12/03/2008 7:36:37 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

LOL! Whatever. Chump.


186 posted on 12/03/2008 8:04:49 AM PST by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
LOL! Whatever. Chump.

Don't go away mad, etc., etc.

187 posted on 12/03/2008 8:07:03 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Dude. Give it up. On second thought...keep going. It really exposes you for the person you are.

See ya.


188 posted on 12/03/2008 8:12:36 AM PST by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
Dude. Give it up. On second thought...keep going. It really exposes you for the person you are.

Factual? Authoritative? Everything you're not?

189 posted on 12/03/2008 8:17:44 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: manc

Drugs, money and political ideology is what it has become over the last 50 years, but it started and was maintained for many years as catholic vs protestants.


190 posted on 12/03/2008 11:11:58 AM PST by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000

Allowing states that signed onto the constitution to leave abbrogates and effectively subverts the union of states specified in the constitution. If states could leave then there was no effective union. That matter was decided when the confederacy was defeated. Left undone in 1865 was outlawing the democrat party and hanging the party leadership.


191 posted on 12/03/2008 11:18:08 AM PST by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

Comment #192 Removed by Moderator

Comment #193 Removed by Moderator

To: HistorianDorisKearnsGoodwad
Don't you remember reading that everybody, I said EVERYBODY advised Lincoln against sending ships to Charleston...all saying that it would be the beginning of the war. Leaders of the Confederacy, such as Davis and Beauregard flatly stated that it would begin the war. Abraham Lincoln's closest advisors, such as Seward, General Scott, Meigs in Pensacola, Anderson at Ft. Sumter, and practically every man in the Cabinet said the same..

I know you said EVERYBODY, and then you promptly hedge and say practically everybody. Par for the course for you. The first of your many errors. The cabinet was split from the beginning, with Montgomery Blair firmly supporting resupply of Sumter, others like Smith being uncertain, and the rest being opposed. But by the time Lincoln sent the ships to resupply Sumter, however, the cabinet supported Lincoln's decision. As did General Scott.

They all predicted ahead of time that Lincoln's action would be the beginning of war.

Others, like Robert Toombs, knew what the cause of the war would really be - firing on Sumter. Toombs prophetically predicted that firing on Sumter was suicide for the Davis regime. He was right.

Shortly after Lincoln's initiation of hostilities in Charleston, he issued a proclamation of a troop call up. He then issued orders for a formal blockade of Southern ports.

Another one of your errors, and in keeping with your role as court jester of the Southron historians. Lincoln did not initiate hostilities at Sumter, Davis did. And once hostilities had broken out then calling up troops was an appropriate act. And as always you fail to point out that Lincolns call up was both smaller and occured weeks after the confederate troop callup was initiated.

These were acts of war, and caused Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee to secede from the union.

Nonsense.

Later, US courts found that Lincoln's actions were the formal beginning of the war.

Cite the case please.

It was his written order to the Naval yard in New York to loose the lines to the warships that was the beginning.

Oh barf.

And you know that Dearie. Why continue your whining when you know you are wrong?

Because I'm neither whining or wrong.

194 posted on 12/03/2008 2:01:38 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: HistorianDorisKearnsGoodwad
Perhaps you have the Charleston to Cincinnati railroad project confused with the Northeastern to Chicago transcontinental railroad, to be funded with US Treasury money, as per the Republican platform of 1860.

You mean the plank that reads "Resolved, That one of the necessities of the age, in a military, commercial, and postal point of view, is speedy communications between the Atlantic and Pacific States; and the *********** party pledge such Constitutional Government aid as will insure the construction of a Railroad to the Pacific coast, at the earliest practicable period."? Guess what the missing word is. Oh, and the railroads paid back the government bonds and the US government ended up making money on the deal.

The Charleston project was a locally funded venture by regional investors.

Maybe to start with, but there's ample evidence that work stopped when the SC legislature decided that the million dollars they'd already sunk into the project was enough and refused to give them more.

largely items for Southern and Midwestern consumption,

And what items were those that the Midwest and South, with a much lower population than the Northeast, imported and consumed in such quantities?

An article in the Charleston Mercury described the early effects of secession on the business interests:

You'll have to excuse me if I find the Charleston Mercury's bragging to be less than convincing.

195 posted on 12/03/2008 2:04:55 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: RedMonqey
Being taxed by one's own government for it's defense is wholly different than being taxed by an hostile, army of occupation to pay for the occupation, don't you agree?

For a lot of Southerners, the Confederacy wasn't "their" government. But they were taxed anyway.

And drafted. When big slaveowners were exempted.

The idea that Washington was and is tyrannical, and Richmond wasn't and wouldn't have been doesn't pass muster.

196 posted on 12/03/2008 2:22:41 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: x
For a lot of Southerners, the Confederacy wasn't "their" government. But they were taxed anyway.

And drafted. When big slaveowners were exempted.

You forgot to mention how unfairly the draft worked in the North (a big cause of the New York draft riots) [Link]:

The most contentious aspect of Civil War conscription was its unfairness, heavily favoring the wealthier classes. In the North a drafted man could purchase commutation with $300 or hire a substitute. In the South one slaveholder or overseer was exempt for every 20 slaves owned or supervised.

197 posted on 12/03/2008 7:57:59 PM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: slnk_rules
In the trial of fire your Confederacy proved itself to be no good

Now THERE is perfect moral reasoning for ya. If I mug you in the alley, and have the force necessary to take your money, it just proves I had a right to it all along.

I think it's perfect reasoning with regard to the legitimacy of a revolution. The secessionists presumed to act for a new nation. The test of a new nation is whether they can sustain the birth of the new nation. The secessionists failed because their Confederacy did not represent a separate nation at all but a power grab of a certain slave holding class trying to rip apart a single existing nation to further their own interests.

198 posted on 12/04/2008 12:39:10 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

you can come to any conclusion you want but you have been corrected many times though I have a feeling you never have gone to school for history and you have no degree infact I would assume you have not really done that much research what so ever...
Those who do not have an open mind will never learn.
I’ve come across many people like that in school.

Like I said I have been an historian for some years now, travelled up and down this country , lived up north and down south to get different views and have the degree in the war between the states.
Maybe you won’t interested in a book from me in the future(LOL) as it will not say what you like

As for the riots and the biggest race riots ever in this country , then yes it was by union soldiers after the war and if you want to find out about it then guess what??

Use the Internet , it is a great source of info, go to a library. I am not going to go around and get you books , links etc and waste my time as if one is too lazy to find out what is being said to them then they will never learn anything.

Read a book called civil war archives, it contains letters form union and confederate soldiers plus letters and notes of non soldiers who witnessed the war.

You’ll learn something about how the shots were fired , how the Charleston people took the union soldiers food etc, you’ll read about union soldiers who returned to NY and never liked what they saw They saw blacks now working and they thought they the blacks were doing their jobs.
It tells of the biggest industry in the north was slave ship building and tells of a couple of those elected were disgusted with the industry in the north.
Another good learning point for you would be to talk to people who had their ancestors there, Like in my town where there is black families who had their black ancestors fight for the south and they fought without being ordered too, they volunteered like so many did.
Then take a trip to Cherokee where I have just come from and find those people like I did after a lot of research about their ancestors and how they fought the north.

AGAIN I said
hey it is liberals who try and change history and never let the facts get in the way of their good myths(Clinton being a prime example) but I wasn’t on about you but hey if you think I was so be
and you still harp on like this what you wrote

Southron Desperation Act #297: When in doubt accuse your opponent of being a liberal.

Why?????????????????????????????????, does it not state it easier enough for you or something?

I’ll say it again for you as I did before
I wasn’t on about you.


199 posted on 12/04/2008 5:40:07 AM PST by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman no sick MA,CT sham marriage end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: RJS1950

sort of but a little more complex .


200 posted on 12/04/2008 5:44:55 AM PST by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman no sick MA,CT sham marriage end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 441-448 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson