US Civil War reading Recommendations?

Free Republic ^ | 11/23/2016 | Loud Mime

[Loud Mime]

I am studying our Civil War; anybody have any recommendations for reading?

[DiogenesLamp]

Our Founders' Declaration itemizes a "long train of abuses and usurpations", none of which Canadians endured.

And why, pray tell, did the British draw a distinction between the Canadians and the Americans in how they ruled the North American colonies?

What part of British rule was different for the Canadians?

[Reily]

Canada was managed by the French & later the British to exploit the resources of the colony. People as settlers (Colonists) having independent prosperous lives was an after thought, a happy consequence but not policy. Royal French governments either made leaving for the New World difficult or discouraged it. The Indians were also not keen on the “new settler” idea. New France always had a low population problem.

The British colonies whether they be private or royal were also originally set up to be engines of natural resource exploitation. However it didn’t work out that way. Benign neglect and actively recruiting colonists created conditions where people became Americans. People had the opportunity to build their lives, have things they couldn’t have in the mother country. By the time England felt compelled to reassert control it was too late. The colonies had their own governments, strong local cultures/traditions & the will to do things their own way. England’s only choice was to continue the policy of “benign neglect”. England chose not to do so & the rest is history.

[DiogenesLamp]

The British colonies whether they be private or royal were also originally set up to be engines of natural resource exploitation. However it didn’t work out that way. Benign neglect and actively recruiting colonists created conditions where people became Americans. People had the opportunity to build their lives, have things they couldn’t have in the mother country. By the time England felt compelled to reassert control it was too late. The colonies had their own governments, strong local cultures/traditions & the will to do things their own way. England’s only choice was to continue the policy of “benign neglect”. England chose not to do so & the rest is history.

But presumably the British Colonies in Canada were under the same edicts as the British Colonies that became the USA. So why then did the Americans find them objectionable while the British Canadians did not?

BroJoeK would have us believe that the abuses and usurpations only applied to Americans, not Canadians. Unless I see evidence to the contrary, I will operate under the belief that British policy toward's North America was the same in Ontario as it was in Massachusetts. In those days, and in British eyes, there was no significant distinction between the two.

[Reily]

I think its pretty obvious Canada & the 13 colonies developed differently. Also for much of the time Canada was under French control - a radically different royal system then the English one. Remember royal charter colonies & private charter were set up to function differently. Every colony was different. England for the most part responded differently and haphazardly to each one over time.The French had a more coherent policy to its colony over time. The British did only at the end, by then it was too late.

British policy at the time of the revolution likely was the same for Ontario as Massachusetts as Virginia. However for Massachusetts, Virginia and 11 others it was a radical & intrusive change.

[DiogenesLamp]

British policy at the time of the revolution likely was the same for Ontario as Massachusetts as Virginia. However for Massachusetts, Virginia and 11 others it was a radical & intrusive change.

That Massachusetts and Virginia saw it as abusive while Ontario did not is EXACTLY my point.

"Usurpations" and "Abuse" are subjective, meaning it is up to the people who are suffering them to characterize them that way.

They are in the "eye of the beholder", just as I have been saying.

[x]

Canadian history isn't my strong point, but Ontario ("Upper Canada") didn't get its own government until after the American Revolution. Prior to 1791 it was part of the Quebec, a conquered province.

I don't think Quebec had its own provincial assembly at the time of the American Revolution, either. French Canadians had been defeated and humiliated and were grateful to be allowed to keep their property, their legal system, and their religion. They weren't going to risk all that and be defeated all over again. Nor were French Catholics and New England Calvinists willing to throw in with each other.

Nova Scotians wished to remain neutral. There's plenty of speculation about why they didn't join in America's revolution -- geographical isolation, more recent settlement, ethnic make-up, economic underdevelopment, fear of the French, fear of Britain, dislike of Yankees -- but after American privateer raids and British occupation, there wasn't much chance of its joining America's revolution.

[DiogenesLamp]

Nova Scotians wished to remain neutral. There's plenty of speculation about why they didn't join in America's revolution -- geographical isolation, more recent settlement, ethnic make-up, economic underdevelopment, fear of the French, fear of Britain, dislike of Yankees -- but after American privateer raids and British occupation, there wasn't much chance of its joining America's revolution.

Still boils down to the "Usurpations and Abuses" were tolerable from a Canadian perspective. BroJoeK is saying the founders had a right to leave because the abuses they suffered were intolerable. The fact that the Canadians remained with the Crown demonstrate that "intolerable" is a matter of opinion, and in the US Colonists eyes they were, but in the British and Canadian eyes, they weren't.

My point stands. What constitutes intolerable conditions is completely in the eye of the beholders. It is up to those who are suffering the abuse to decide if it is tolerable or not.

[x]

My point stands. What constitutes intolerable conditions is completely in the eye of the beholders. It is up to those who are suffering the abuse to decide if it is tolerable or not.

Your own principle defeats your wretched argument.

Slaves were suffering abuse.

Slaves thought your Confederacy was intolerable.

It was.

[DiogenesLamp]

Your own principle defeats your wretched argument.

It is the principle of the Declaration of Independence, and yes, it eventually defeated slavery, but when it was initially written it was intended to ignore the condition known as slavery.

Slaves were suffering abuse.

Slaves thought your Confederacy was intolerable.

I'm sure they didn't think much of the slave owning US Confederacy either.

Slaves had no say in the Union at that time. It wasn't until they served the purpose of propaganda that they ever got a say in anything.

Pointing out the condition of slavery as an argument against independence merely argues against the Colonists right to have independence because they too were slaverholders at the time.

The point here is that you cannot impugn the legitimacy of Southern states gaining Independence without damaging the legitimacy of the original thirteen colonies gaining independence. Whatever applies to the Southern states, must also apply to the original colonies four score and seven years" earlier.

If slavery delegitimizes the Southern state's right to independence, then it must also delegitimize the original Colonies right to independence.

They too were a slave owning Confederacy seceding from a Union and led by a slave owning General from Virginia.

[jeffersondem]

“Every post of yours on this thread reflects your firm Democrat belief that your feeeeeeeeelings trump facts, and if you or anyone else feeeeeel like declaring secession, well, that's all that matters, right?”

The facts are contrary to your representations.

Take my post number 404, for example. It reads in its entirety: “So you would have something to waste in addition to time.”

That comment didn't address secession.

This is just one example of you making broad, general claims that are not consistent with documentary evidence. You really should think about not doing that anymore.

[PeaRidge]

I think that the subject of the CSS Planter has run its course.

For the record,the SS Planter was built in 1860 by Charleston shipbuilder F. M. Jones at Haddrell’s Point for Charleston businessman John Ferguson. It was a shallow draft 147 ft., 300 ton displacement sidewheeler used as an inland transport in river waters. Records show she picked up cotton and produce from plantations between Charleston and Georgetown for a few weeks before she was pressed into service for the Charleston harbor guard and used as a dispatch boat.

WE have seen many posts and photographs of the CSS Planter used as an example of shipbuilding in the state of SC.

Somehow the presence of this inland steamer leads to the conclusion that boats were built in SC and that therefore, the “North could not and did not control transcontinental shipping."

You have pointed out several times the fallacy and failure of logic of this argument.

For the record, just the shipbuilding in Charleston, which began in the late 1600s is well documented because of the requirements of the Navigation Act of 1696. In 1698, there were ten ships registered in this port, most likely all having been built in that city.

Probably the first transoceanic trading vessel built in the colonies was the “Princess Carolina”, finished in 1715 and displacing 1143 tons, matching the size of any others that docked in Charleston.
This proved that builders such as Benjamin Austin of Charleston could produce international scale traders.

Other ships made in Charleston were “Friendship”, “Liberty”, “Carolina”, “Fair America”, and dozens of others.

Due to financial consequences, the ship building industry in Charleston sized downward in the early 1800s and eventually concentrated only on river traders, such as the SS Planter, essentially a small barge.

[x]

If slavery delegitimizes the Southern state's right to independence, then it must also delegitimize the original Colonies right to independence.

Not necessarily. Slavery was a centerpiece -- the cornerstone -- of the CSA, but not of the American revolutionaries of 1776.

Everyone knew the attitude of the CSA government towards slavery. Things were more ambiguous in the 1770s.

African-Americans were fighting in the patriot Army. Pennsylvania committed itself to the abolition of slavery in 1780, Massachusetts in 1783 (based on the 1780 state constitution).

It wasn't clear to everyone in the Revolutionary era that independence would mean the continuation of slavery. It was in the Confederate states in the 1860s.

[HandyDandy]

No person who can make a statement like this:

DL: They too were a slave owning Confederacy seceding from a Union and led by a slave owning General from Virginia.

Could be able to understand one word of your post. None of what fellow Americans hold to be self-evident is evident to him. His is caught in a prison of his own device.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Except those many millions of dollars of Federal subsidies holding up Northern Shipping's bottom line."

Between 1788 and 1860, all such "subsidies" were demanded or approved by Southern controlled congresses and administrations.
So nothing happened in Washington DC which Southerners didn't want.

DiogenesLamp: "You do have a problem grasping the economics this situation, don't you?"

You do have a problem grasping the politics of this situation, don't you?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "But the Unionists, then and now, are DEATHLY AFRAID of admitting their reasons for forcing an unwilling population back in. "

Total rubbish and nonsense.

DiogenesLamp: "They go to great lengths to disguise the fact that Southern Independence represented a horrific financial threat to the power bloc of the Washington/Boston power corridor."

No disguise because all that is pure fantasy on DiogenesLamp's part.

DiogenesLamp: "They prattle on endlessly about slavery in the hopes no one will notice that their own bread was being buttered by the economic conditions created through a captive Southern market."

Total nonsense.
First, nobody "prattles" about slavery except the Deep South Fire Eater secessionists themselves in their "Reasons for Secession" documents.
Second, Deep South exports were certainly important, but not as important as you pro-Confederates claim -- not important enough to, by themselves, start war.
As Lincoln promised, Civil War could only come if secessionists themselves started it.
Which they did, at Fort Sumter.

DiogenesLamp: "The War was about money.
It was about who would control the European trade, and who would profit most from it."

Only in your own wild fantasies, not in the minds of those who actually fought it.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "So the Canadians were living under a different standard of treatment than those colonies that became the US?
Why would they treat the Canadians better than the other North American colonies?
On what basis do you allege they treated the Canadians differently?"

The fact is that Canadians had no list of "abuses and usurpations" equivalent to that in the Declaration of Independence.
Make of it whatever you wish.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "It started because both the Federal Government and the New York centric power barons were both going to lose a hell of a lot of money.
Ft. Sumter was a pawn."

Jefferson Davis' assault on Fort Sumter was the trigger, just as Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor triggered US entry into WWII.
As a trigger, Fort Sumter demonstrated that secessionists were not about to leave peacefully, but rather in rebellion, insurrection and "domestic violence" against the United States.

DiogenesLamp: "They didn't care about the slaves.
They cared about the money and the power it gave them."

No, they cared first of all about the Constitution and the rebellion being waged against it.

[DiogenesLamp]

Other ships made in Charleston were “Friendship”, “Liberty”, “Carolina”, “Fair America”, and dozens of others.

Do not forget "The Horizon" which was a Charleston built ship, and famous for being the very first American ship seized by Napoleon's Berlin Decree. It was a transoceanic vessel. It foundered on the rocks near Calais, and it's remains and cargo were seized by the French under the Berlin Decree. (because it was carrying British goods) It caused great consternation in Congress just prior to the war of 1812.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "So we are intended to believe that all British acts and edicts had a clause 'except for the Canadians' in them?
And you wonder why you aren't taken seriously."

Nobody takes DiogenesLamp seriously, but regardless, your prattling should still be answered.

So the answer is: of course they did.
And the burden of proof is on DiogenesLamp to demonstrate how many, if any, of the "long train of abuses and usurpations" listed in the Declaration of Independence were also visited on Canada.
To my knowledge, none were.

[jeffersondem]

“Not necessarily. Slavery was a centerpiece — the cornerstone — of the CSA, but not of the American revolutionaries of 1776”

You make it sound like the South was fighting for slavery.