Posted on 02/12/2018 3:57:10 AM PST by harpygoddess
It has long been a grave question whether any government, not too strong for the liberties of the people, can be strong enough to maintain its existence in great emergencies.
~ Lincoln
February 12 is the anniversary of the birth of the 16th - and arguably the greatest - president of these United States, Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865). Born in Kentucky and raised in Illinois, Lincoln was largely self-educated and became a country lawyer in 1836, having been elected to the state legislature two years earlier. He had one term in the U.S. Congress (1847-1849) but failed (against Stephen A. Douglas) to gain election to the Senate in 1856. Nominated by the Republican party for the presidency in 1860, he prevailed against the divided Democrats, triggering the secession of the southern states and the beginning of the Civil War. As the course of the war turned more favorably for the preservation of the Union, Lincoln was elected to a second term in 1864, but was assassinated in April 1865, only a week after the final victory.
(Excerpt) Read more at vaviper.blogspot.com ...
Curiously enough, it turns out the basic math for comparing the US Revolutionary War, Civil War and today is pretty simple: Revolutionary War numbers times 10 equals Civil War equivalents and Civil War times 10 equals today's equivalents.
So, Revolutionary War total Americans served = 260,000 equivalent to 2.6 million in the Civil War and 26 million today.
Actual total Civil War service was about 3 million North & South, so the two wars were roughly equivalent in numbers of Americans who served.
Total British, allies & loyalists, including navy served = 290,000 which would be 2.9 million Civil War era, a vastly greater force than either side, however 60% of those were the British navy.
If we just look at British land forces, the total was 120,000 equivalent to 1.2 million Civil War, or roughly the size of Confederate Army served.
Total Revolutionary War deaths, both sides were ~130,000 equivalent to 1.3 million Civil War and 13 million today.
Of those, about 80,000 were British, allies & loyalist soldiers' deaths, equivalent in the Civil War to 800,000.
Many of those were British navy and not all died in the American theater of war.
Patriot soldier deaths totaled roughly 50,000 equivalent to 500,000 Civil War deaths.
Point is: compared to the populations of their day, Revolutionary War losses were in no way less than Civil War deaths, wounded & missing.
They were simply horrendous, far greater than any Americans have experienced since.
DiogenesLamp: "The South had a far harder fight than did the Colonists.
Given that the Colonists had established the new paradigm of independence being a right, the South shouldn't have had to fight for it at all."
And they may not have, except they started & declared war on the United States and that sealed their fate.
Then there was the "point of no return" question. This is something you often see in revolutions and independence movements.
By the time concessions are made and assurances are given, the discontented have already moved on to new demands and the concessions and assurances don't satisfy their new requirements.
By the time Lincoln was willing to assure the survival of slavery where it already existed, Southern militants had already moved on to demand immediate secession.
The US GDP nearly doubled during the Civil War and doubled again by 1892, during which time US Federal spending remained roughly 2.5% of the economy.
There's no statistical evidence the percentage of corruption increased, though it's entirely possible the beneficiaries changed from pre-war 100% Democrats to later include some small percentage of Republicans, and that, we can be certain, is the source of endless Democrat caterwauling about alleged "Gilded Age Corruption".
It's just like today's Democrats wailing about "Russian collusion" -- Democrats colluded with Russia for generations, going back to FDR & Stalin and that was no problem for them, ever.
But let the Dems start missing their usual perks, even a little bit, and suddenly for them "Russian collusion" is the biggest problem ever.
But it's not really.
Totally false, but what is true is that Dickens himself hated the North and loved the South.
So Dickens' report on the Civil War should no more be taken as gospel than, say, a Nancy Pelosi report on "Dreamer" legislation.
It's totally irrelevant how many warships the US sends to resupply or reinforce US troops at the US base in Guantanamo, Cuba, regardless of what noises the Commie Cubans make over it.
If they start a war because of US warships there, then the war is on them, just as the Civil War is on Jefferson Davis:
Toombs was right, Davis and DiogenesLamp wrong.
Also, it was common for the English to admire the more deferential Southern culture than the brasher, more individualistic, "pushy" Northern culture. Though Dickens had been poor, he liked the comfortable middle class environment he'd entered and picked up some of their gentry ways.
Finally, just about everybody in England or America back then would be considered "racist" by today's standards. Whether or not Britons protested against American slavery, they had their own attitudes about the Irish, the Indians, the Africans, and the Chinese. It would be hard to find anybody who didn't.
Anyway, Dickens wasn't the best judge or commentator when it came to American matters.
In 1860 it was Democrats, Northern & Southern, who'd been making money off Federal spending for generations.
Dems ran the place, they were the Deep State swamp.
In 1861 for the first time ever outsiders took over the swamp, fired all the swamp critters and just like today drove Democrats berserk.
Southern Democrats went screaming & wailing "we-we-we" all the way home.
Northern Democrats looked around and, finding no allies for sympathy, grumpily complained about rascally Republicans taking over Dems usual Federal graft.
It wasn't necessarily true, just partisan politics.
Thanks for a great series of posts, very enjoyable & informative.
God made us all free.
The point that was attempting to be made was that many people have done fer better here than if they’d been left on the other continent. The horror stories from the day were the exception, not the norm.
It's true that many slave-holders claimed their "property" was treated better than Northern wage-workers.
But everyone knows (because the epithet is thrown around even these days), the difference between "house slaves" and "field slaves".
"House slaves" comparatively treated quite well, but under threat that if they didn't behave they'd quickly become "field slaves".
And on a large plantation the percentages were what?
Maybe 10% house slaves, 90% field slaves.
Field slaves were not necessarily abused, but they were certainly treated no better than absolutely necessary to keep them healthy enough to work.
Such people were not better off than Northern wage-workers except to the degree warmer Southern weather suited them better.
But regardless of how well some slaves were treated, freed wage workers had the right to quit their jobs & seek a better life elsewhere.
And if you think the question might even be controversial, then answer this: how many freed Northern blacks ever voluntarily returned to Southern slavery?
Right: none, zero, nada.
End of argument.
But Bull Snipe's post was far from ad hominum.
If anything it was simple reductio ad absurdum.
Except if that were thought necessary to preserve the Union.
Turns out it was irrelevant to preserving the Union and so went nowhere.
What was necessary was to defeat the military force then trying to destroy the Union and also to abolish the "peculiar institution" on which that military & economic force was based.
The union pressed them into service for cannon fodder hence the reason many escaped into Canada.
While we’re on topic, let’s talk about how many more white slaves there were and how much more poorly treated they were.
Slavery is wrong regardless of skin color, but I’m tired of hearing about one small percentage of it, and how everyone should owe them.
There’s a few prominent black folks that are thankful their ancestors got on the boat.
Not true in the least.
Every war, without exception, had some elements of nobility on both sides simply because no population can be driven into war otherwise.
What exactly those elements of nobility were varied from war to war and side to side.
"King and country" were typical rallying cries, but there were many others including religion, secular philosophy and ethnicity.
Those would be the noble motives, but even gross economics can be dressed up as a noble war-cry, for examples: international socialism or national socialism.
But the idea that only gross economics drives people to war is simply absurd.
If it were true, then for example, the Second World War in Europe would have started with the Great Depression, perhaps 1930.
But economics alone won't push countries to war, there has to be something more, something noble to fight for.
And DiogenesLamps insane devotion to belittling the nobility of Northern motives, while extolling the Confederates' is simply false as well as distasteful.
Thanks, regardless of whatever else you might read, you're always welcome here!
.
It was necessity.
The majority, voting a tax upon the minority to which they themselves would not be subject.
The only just solution to that was separation.
Instead the constitution was demolished, and made subject to whim through ratification of amendment by the press (16th).
.
>> “Stop being so damned juvenile and argumentative.” <<
Command the blind to see; the wingless to fly!
.
Every ex slave that served in Mr. Lincoln’s Army enlisted into that army. The were not “pressed” into the army.
“The reason many ex slaves escaped into Canada” was because of the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dred Scott Decision. Neither of which could be enforced in Canada.
Are you a history professor? I surmise you live in North, however, you are extremely knowledgeable about South.... and our Civil War. And you also understand other countries/wars. Details tell me you have studied these things extensively?? am I wrong?
.
You swim in foolish ignorance!
The abundance of the west is what made railroads fiscally feasible.
Only Moonbeam Brown can pull a railroad from nowhere to nowhere out of his hat.
.
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.