Posted on 11/23/2016 6:01:04 PM PST by Loud Mime
I am studying our Civil War; anybody have any recommendations for reading?
All this talk about the CSS Planter is essentially straw-man argumentation. The presence of one flat bottom ship that could be used for short haul trade service has no impact on the major issue of transcontinental trade.
Your point that the trade was dominated by Northern companies is exactly correct. That dominance began with laws restricting trade practice and financial contracts which rewarded established as well as new companies in New York City.
Total rubbish & nonsense.
In 1860 Washington D.C. had been under firm control of the Southern Slave Power since Day One.
So there was no "abuse" or "usurpation" except as demanded or approved by Southerners.
In 1860 there had never been an anti-South administration, Congress or Supreme Court.
And yet the 1860 election of abolitionist "Ape" Lincoln's Black Republicans was enough to drive Deep South Fire Eaters to declare their secessions at pleasure before Lincoln even took office!
You will have to get to 1,745 posts and beat that last thread without me.
It is the *ONLY* thing your side will claim. You will not entertain a discussion of any issue EXCEPT slavery, and you hypocritically ignore the fact that Union slave states continued to be Slave States throughout the War.
Your entire F***ing argument orbits the slavery issue in the manner the planets of the solar system orbit the Sun. The reason you do this is because it is the *ONLY* ex post facto morality upon which you have a leg to stand.
Take away your precious slavery issue, (which is nothing but an after the fact morality) and it becomes clear that the Union was an evil agent of invasion and conquest of a people who had done it no wrong. It was an invasion to restore the money stream (tribute) to which the Northern power interests had become accustomed.
You gravitate towards the slavery issue like a moth to a flame because without it there is no way to justify the murders and destruction caused by forcing Federal control on people who did not want it.
Focusing on slavery is nothing but salve for your side's conscious. It is a fake issue. The real issue was money and control.
Good reading in preparation would be “Southern Wealth and Northern Profits” by economist Thomas Kettell, a book written just before the war began with an emphasis on the financial relationship of the two sections.
Then, as the prelude to the beginning of the war, I would heartily suggest “Allegiance” by David Detzer.
If you only have time for one, I would strongly recommend “Days of Defiance” by Maury Klein, who I think is one of the best American historians.
Let us not get into a definition game. What the Soviet Union had was a system of deliberate lying of which the closest analogy in this nation is "political correctness" but the Soviet system of forced lying exceeded it greatly.
Am I correct in assuming the USSR was before your time?
Well I wasn't around when it started, but I was certainly around long before it stopped.
No, like everything else DiogenesLamp posts, it's pure rubbish & nonsense.
That's because there was nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- nothing preventing Southerners from building, owning and operating their own shipping, if they wanted to.
So SS Planter merely proves the point, beyond dispute.
And the fact is that nobody today knows what percent of US shipping in 1860 was owned by Southerners, in such major Southern ports as New Orleans and Baltimore, and there's no reason to think it was not substantial.
No. That's why I want the Costal part of California *OUT* of the Union. They need to be treated adversarially as befits their Communist/Socialist political makeup. No more influence by Ultra Left wing Billionaires in US politics. No more massive streams of propaganda coming from Los Angeles and intending to influence our culture and our elections.
There are good people in CA, will you not fight for them and their property?
Not till after we reconquer California. Let the Liberal parts of California get a dose of "reconstruction" for a change. :)
Do you think the problem goes away by getting rid of CA?
I think *MANY* Long term problems will be resolved by allowing Liberal California to exit. No more 55 electoral votes going to Democrats, No more Liberal Congressional delegations to drag legislation ever leftward.
Give us a 20 year break from California's influence, and perhaps the nation can be set right fiscally and socially, after which the ruins of what California has become can be razed and a new outpost of Civilization can be reconstructed there.
Now I suggest that *you* put on your thinking cap and consider the long term ramifications of ejecting/keeping California in the Union. You don't appear to have considered the factors I've mentioned above.
Yeah, cause if they had accepted Lincolns' offered 13th amendment, they could have kept slavery permanently, and with his blessing.
And you people are so gullible that you think this war was about slavery.
As the London Spectator so accurately summed it up after the Emancipation Proclamation:
"The principle asserted is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States."
Unlike today's pro-Confederates, secessionists of 1861 were not ashamed to publish their reasons for secession.
Those reasons were 100% focused on protecting slavery against abolitionists Republicans.
Really, the truth is not that hard to find if you make the effort to learn it.
DiogenesLamp: "Your entire F***ing argument orbits the slavery issue in the manner the planets of the solar system orbit the Sun.
The reason you do this is because it is the *ONLY* ex post facto morality upon which you have a leg to stand on."
Take a pill, pal.
The fact is that your entire argument is a crock of nonsense, an a-historical fantasy.
In truth, protecting slavery was the key reason, if not the only reason, secessionists gave for their actions.
That Lincoln in 1860 did not threaten slavery in the South made no difference.
But Lincoln was certainly anti-slavery, and that was enough for Deep South Fire Eaters.
DiogenesLamp: "Take away your precious slavery issue, (which is nothing but an after the fact morality) and it becomes clear that the Union was an evil agent of invasion and conquest of a people who had done it no wrong.
It was an invasion to restore the money stream (tribute) to which the Northern power interests had become accustomed. "
Total rubbish & nonsense.
Yes, slavery drove secessionists, but it did not start Civil War.
Jefferson Davis started Civil War at Fort Sumter.
The Confederate congress then declared war, on May 6, 1861.
So tell us why you so loathe & despise the truth.
That the Canadians did not see it as a "necessity" appears to be lost on BroJoeK.
The fact that the Canadians saw the conditions as tolerable, makes it pretty clear that the founders were leaving the United Kingdom "at pleasure."
.
.
"Empire Loyalist Flag" of Canada, 1763-1801
You realize that you are utterly insane, don't you, and as such not a credit to Free Republic?
And who gets to decide if these are abuses? Certainly the Canadians did not agree that this "long train of abuses and usurpations" justified independence.
Why is the Founder's characterization of them as "abuses" valid? Why isn't the Canadians, who presumably suffered under the exact same "long train of abuses and usurpations", view valid?
Are these "Schrodinger's abuses"? Do they exist in a quantum state of superposition, both tolerable and intolerable at the same time?
How do you explain the Canadian acceptance of these abuses if they were so bad as to justify the Founder's decision to leave the United Kingdom?
More rubbish & nonsense.
The fact is that Canadians never had a long "train of abuses and usurpations" such as listed in the Declaration of Independence.
So Canadians could only secede "at pleasure", which nobody then or now considered legitimate.
With Canadians, there was no such list, period.
But we should take note that Canadians did, in effect, secede from Britain, over time and fully by Mutual Consent.
"Mutual Consent" is the other reason considered legitimate by our Founders, and practiced by them in 1788.
Rational and objective people recognize this on the face of it. It is but another straw towards which BroJoeK is grasping.
Your point that the trade was dominated by Northern companies is exactly correct. That dominance began with laws restricting trade practice and financial contracts which rewarded established as well as new companies in New York City.
I have also learned about one aspect of this that I did not quite grasp before. People ask, "Why didn't the South build it's own ships and run it's own shipping companies?"
Because the New York Centric shipping industry was heavily subsidized by the Federal government, (mail delivery contracts among other subsidizations) and any Southern built/based shipping industry would not be able to compete with the existing and subsidized industry.
The laws and governmental policy gave the Northern Shipping industry an unfair and insurmountable advantage.
I wouldn't want to argue from your position either. It cannot be made to square with the demonstrable facts.
Posting in big-ass font only makes you look like a moron (we already knew that).
Do not forget the Anti-Federalist papers. We would have been in a better position had more heed been paid to the anti-federalist arguments.
Thirdly, the absolute command of Congress over the militia may be destructive of public liberty; for under the guidance of an arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny. The militia of Pennsylvania may be marched to New England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided by the standing army, they will no doubt be successful in subduing their liberty and independency. But in so doing, although the magnanimity of their minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner passions of resentment and revenge will be increased, and these in turn will be the ready and obedient instruments of despotism to enslave the others; and that with an irritated vengeance. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism on their fellow-citizens, and on one another. This power can be exercised not only without violating the Constitution, but in strict conformity with it; it is calculated for this express purpose, and will doubtless be executed accordingly.
Prophetic.
You keep repeating this, apparently oblivious to the fact that nobody is buying this load of crap. If the Southern States were in control, how then did Lincoln become President? Does this look like the Southern States were in Control?
Looks to me as though New York and Boston were in Control.
Why do you waste our time with these demonstrably false claims?
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.