Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
Thousands? Maybe if you include everyone who sold food and goods to plantations and insured slaves and provided smilar services. But, it wasn't Northern states that continued legal slavery, as all of the Northern states had banned slavery before the Civil War. The only reason a handful of unscrupulous Northerners could make money in the slave trade is because Southerners kept slavery legal in their states.
.(in point of fact, the PERCENTAGE of northern & southern slavers was about the SAME. = about 6 percent of the populus.)
Nonsense. Are you really claiming that about 1.3 million people in the North owned slaves?
(hint: MANY of the northern elite's fortunes were based upon buying, selling, shipping,renting, leasing & EXPORTING slaves to other countries AFTER slavery was outlawed in the USA.= it was a classic case of, "Do as i say, not as i DO".)
Even if that is the case (which it isn't), the only reason Northerners could make money off of the slave trade was because Southerners continued to keep it legal.
You can redact, re-frame, claim his message was taken out of context....whatever.
It does not change the fact that Lincoln ordered a “re-supply” effort and expected by the South Carolinians to arrive at Charleston, consisting of eleven ships carrying troops, munitions, and supplies.
Did Lincoln mention troops and munitions in his message?
Sure it wasn’t Auburn? It’s so hard to keep up some one with as...varied a background as you have.
Those analogies are false and irrelevant.
There was nothing threatening the safety of any citizens except the batteries of Ft. Sumter aimed at downtown Charleston, and the guns of the Harriet Lane and Baltic.
"After you shall have read this to Governor Pickens, deliver to him the copy of it herein enclosed, and retain this letter yourself..." Link
Like I said, didn't you read it?
What, exactly, were Northern elites doing to the South that was so oppressive? Given that more than a fair share of Presidents in the antebellum period came from the South, it doesn't seem like Southerners were kept out of the halls of power.
the reason for the WBTS is the SAME as it is in our dealings with the northern/socialist leviathan NOW = GET OUT of our LIVES, tend ONLY to your own business & leave us ALONE.
How, exactly, was the North pushing its nose into Southern business in the antebellum period?
Yes he did. Didn't you read it? "...expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort-Sumpter with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or amunition, will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the Fort."
Your answer is to always argue the validity of the assertions based on your own concepts of Constitutionality and/or morality.
Secession was peaceful. Commerce continued after January 1861. Banks lent. Shipping and railroads moved passengers and freight. Newspapers published, and manufacturing moved forward.
What stopped all of that was Lincoln's orders for armed ships to invade Charleston and Pensacola harbors.
So, the real question is what were Lincoln's reasons for beginning a war.
The Powhatan left the docks with orders to sail to Charleston.
But I see that you do not dispute the fact that it was an armed vessel that reached a Southern port with orders to land war materiel by force, if necessary.
And I see you do not dispute the fact that the name was painted out and that it was disguised as British shipping.
Not dealing with the important facts, there, sir.
when slavery became UNPROFITABLE in the north (it had NOTHING to do with morality = just MONEY.), the vast majority of northern slave-owners SOLD their slaves (instead of freeing them!) to places where slavery was still profitable.
then, they "invested in" slave-trading/slave-owning, in places that slavery was still profitable/lawful through insurance companies, holding companies, banks, stock companies, etc. (for example Garrison "the famous abolitionist lion" & and publisher of THE LIBERATOR was heavily INVESTED IN a holding company that both SOLD & LEASED slaves in "the sugar islands". Stanton too was "invested heavily in" a company that OWNED slaves in the Caribbean.)
tell us all that it's BETTER & MORE MORAL to be "invested in" slavery & make money on the "flesh trade" (regardless of where the slaves ARE) than it is to directly own slaves, PLEASE, so we can all see your "selective morality".
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
So why the sudden need to force the issue over Sumter instead of allowing the status quo to continue? You said yourself that everything was peaceful, the confederacy wasn't threatened, commerce continued, and life was good. Had Lincoln resupplied Sumter with food then none of that would have changed and the South could have continued operating in peace, and would have eventually gotten all they wanted merely by waiting Lincoln out. But all of a sudden everything changed and posession of Sumter was worth starting a war over. So when you ask what the reasons were for beginning the war you should be directing it to Jefferson Davis.
Just making sure you aren't throwing another school into the mix.
The truth is that slavery was illegal in the North, but not in the South. You can't squirm away from that fact. Northerners couldn't make a profit on slavery where it was illegal.
when slavery became UNPROFITABLE in the north (it had NOTHING to do with morality = just MONEY.), the vast majority of northern slave-owners SOLD their slaves (instead of freeing them!) to places where slavery was still profitable.
I'm sure they did. But slavery wasn't banned in the North based on profitability, it was banned for moral reasons. If Northerners didn't find slavery abhorent, they wouldn't have bothered to outlaw the practice.
tell us all that it's BETTER & MORE MORAL to be "invested in" slavery & make money on the "flesh trade" (regardless of where the slaves ARE) than it is to directly own slaves, PLEASE, so we can all see your "selective morality".
It isn't. But the fact that a relative handful of rich, unscrupulous Northerners made money off of slavery doesn't change the fact that the South's entire economy, culture and society was based on slavery.
I'm making no excuses for Northerners who profited from slavery, but that doesn't change the fact that the only reason they could make such profits is because Southern States kept slavery legal.
The relevance is that secession can be for a number of reasons, shouldn’t the congress have a say over what reasons are valid since first and foremost we are US citizens?
I asked before where our citizenship lies with the state where we are born or where we live? Am I a Texas citizen or am I a US citizen?
Lee’s assumption that he was a citizen of Virgina first was something he later regretted.
in other words buying/selling/shipping/trading/breeding/leasing/owning slaves in places where slavery was still LAWFUL (while railing against it's immorality) was better from a moral standpoint that actually directly owning slaves???
and you don't think that the "abolitionist leaders" (who were "so totally against slavery" on moral grounds) weren't HYPOCRITES???
also, the northern states outlawed slavery in the north ONLY after it wasn't profitable there. the DAMNyankee elitists of big business,academia, "smart society" & the financial industries have ALWAYS been TWO-FACED.
face it, Blackacre, you've been sold "a bill of goods" by the PROAGANDA machine out of the NE & you don't even know it.
free dixie,sw
by the way tell us all about your education. (you know, those HISTORY credentials that you do NOT have.)
if i remember correctly, you say that you have nothing more than a MBA.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
There's no reason to believe anything other than what Lincoln told the governor of South Carolina--that if the landings were unopposed only food supplies would be landed. If the situation was to be truly escalated to shooting, it would be the south's choice.
And I see you do not dispute the fact that the name was painted out and that it was disguised as British shipping.
Not having a copy of Klein's book handy, I'm not going to argue one way or the other, but I've never heard that information anywhere else. And given that the rest of the ships were not disguised or falsely flagged, and that Lincoln informed the governor that they were on their way, what possible reason would there be to disguise one of them?
What I have found in investigating your story is that you seem to be cut and pasting your information verbatim, typos and all, from some 7 year old posts on this History Channel message forum.
Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not defending the morality of Northerners involved in the slave trade. But that fact that a handful of Northerners made profits from slavery pales in comparison to the fact that the entire Southern economy, culture and political system was based around the maintenance of slavery.
and you don't think that the "abolitionist leaders" (who were "so totally against slavery" on moral grounds) weren't HYPOCRITES???
Anyone who railed against slavery while making money off of it was a hypocrite. But you could probably count on the fingers of one hand people who fell into that category.
also, the northern states outlawed slavery in the north ONLY after it wasn't profitable there. the DAMNyankee elitists of big business,academia, "smart society" & the financial industries have ALWAYS been TWO-FACED.
What factor magically made slavery nonprofitable in the North where it previously had been? And, even if what you say is true, Northerners did outlaw slavery while Southerners didn't, regardles of the reasons for doing so.
face it, Blackacre, you've been sold "a bill of goods" by the PROAGANDA machine out of the NE & you don't even know it.
What propaganda would that be? Can you refute the fact that antebellum Southern culture, economy and politics were all based on slavery?
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.