Posted on 07/26/2021 4:33:01 PM PDT by ammodotcom
The Battle of Appomattox Courthouse is considered by many historians the end of the Civil War and the start of post-Civil War America. The events of General Robert E. Lee’s surrender to General and future President Ulysses S. Grant at a small town courthouse in Central Virginia put into effect much of what was to follow.
The surrender at Appomattox Courthouse was about reconciliation, healing, and restoring the Union. While the Radical Republicans had their mercifully brief time in the sun rubbing defeated Dixie’s nose in it, they represented the bleeding edge of Northern radicalism that wanted to punish the South, not reintegrate it into the Union as an equal partner.
The sentiment of actual Civil War veterans is far removed from the attitude of the far left in America today. Modern day “woke-Americans” clamor for the removal of Confederate statues in the South, the lion’s share of which were erected while Civil War veterans were still alive. There was little objection to these statues at the time because it was considered an important part of the national reconciliation to allow the defeated South to honor its wartime dead and because there is a longstanding tradition of memorializing defeated foes in honor cultures.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammo.com ...
NORTHERN PROFITS from SLAVERY
” Even after slavery was outlawed in the North, ships out of New England continued to carry thousands of Africans to the American South. Some 156,000 slaves were brought to the United States in the period 1801-08, almost all of them on ships that sailed from New England ports that had recently outlawed slavery. Rhode Island slavers alone imported an average of 6,400 Africans annually into the U.S. in the years 1805 and 1806. The financial base of New England’s antebellum manufacturing boom was money it had made in shipping. And that shipping money was largely acquired directly or indirectly from slavery, whether by importing Africans to the Americas, transporting slave-grown cotton to England, or hauling Pennsylvania wheat and Rhode Island rum to the slave-labor colonies of the Caribbean.
Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War. The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South. But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands. William Lloyd Garrison made his first mark as an anti-slavery man by printing attacks on New England merchants who shipped slaves from Baltimore to New Orleans. “
excerpted from http://slavenorth.com/profits.htm
Silly boy. If Maryland had joined the Confederacy the war would have started there, and maybe the Confederacy would even have won. The secessionists didn't win there so there was little point in fighting there.
You seem to be the kind of person who complains about political or military crusades, but faults political movements and military actions for not being crusades. In the real world, people and countries don't fight with everyone who disagrees with them.
We could fight fascism without going to war with Franco or Salazar because they didn't join Hitler and Mussolini. We could oppose Communism and go easy on Tito, because he wasn't as much under the Soviet thumb as other dictators.
The war was about money and only money, but they launched a propaganda campaign to convince the gullible people that it was about slavery
Circular argument. You exclude non-material motives at the outset and then conclude that there weren't any non-material motives. You assume they don't exist, don't look for them, and then conclude that they don't exist and feel proud about your discovery.
Math is something else you have trouble with, along with history and economics. A slave might cost 800 dollars in 1860, and a prime field hand double that. That would be something like $25,000 or $50,000 dollars now. That is not an unreasonable price for many people now. And then, as now, credit was available as well. Also, many people inherited slaves.
There never would have been plantations in the territories, and so there never would have been any significant slave presence in the territories.
No cotton plantations in ancient Greece or Rome either, but slavery flourished there.
If you look up the Wikipedia entry on "New Mexico Territory" you will notice that when "New Mexico Territory" encompassed all the land between Texas and California, they had less than a dozen slaves in all those millions of acres of territory.
Those are apparently African-Americans. Slavery had a long history in the state going back through the Mexicans and Spanish to the Indians. It's estimated that at one point a third of the population of the area was composed of Native American slaves, convicts and indentured servants. Why wouldn't the institution have continued and been applied to Blacks if the South had legalized African slavery in the territory or if the Confederates had won?
Lincoln blockaded Southern ports in April 1861, when the South began the war.
Ex pride of the New York Yacht Club. When sailed as a slaver she had been sold to Southern owners, William Corrie and Charles A. L. Lamar. I doubt the accuracy of the rest of your link is any better.
Not sure what your point is. Northern textile mill owners profited from cotton grown by slaves. Northern bankers profited loaning money to Southerners to buy more slaves. Shipbuilders in the Baltimore and other Northern ports made money building ships used in the slave trade. Insurance companies in the North made money insuring cotton cargos to New England and Europe.
You don’t suppose that the plantation owners made money from the crops that slaves tended. You don’t suppose that the Southern railroads made money transporting cotton grown by slave. You don’t suppose the ports of Charleston, Savannah, Mobile, and New Orleans profited from the cotton, tobacco, sugar and rice that flowed though their ports. If there was money to be made, people will make it. Called capitalizm, that is the way it worked in the world, in those days.
The act of hostilities were started by Lincoln through his navel blockade of the south and his fortification of sea ports located in the south (e.g. Sumter, Hampton Roads,...etc) These were more than provocative since they could be used to block commercial shipping.
Lincoln declared a blockade of deep South ports on April 19, 1861. Jefferson Davis called for Southern ship captains to take Confederate letters of Marque (illegal in international law) and attack U.S. flagged ships on April 17, 1861. Sumpter had already fallen to the Confederates, Fort Monroe in Hampton Roads was not an issues because Virginia still remained in the Union.
The United States was not his country when he took up arms against it. He resigned his commission in the U.S. Army when Virginia seceded and joined the Confederate States of America. He fought for the CSA and defended his home state, Virginia, from an invading army.
I respect the fact that you disagree on these points. I believe today, as Lee and others believed then, that secession is a legitimate response when the Federal Government abandons the Constitution. The states have no will to attempt that kind of action today, even though the Federal Government today has gone so much farther in its overreach than it had in 1861.
“when the South began the war.”
that’s laughable, Lincoln wanted the war, to “preserve the union.” The south just wanted to be left alone, and felt they could run their on economy without interference from protectionist states.
Each side greatly underestimated the severity and duration this conflict would evolve into. Read the newspaper articles of that time.
That’s from March 1861. Before the rebellion began.
Clearly before the Civil War.
“If slavery, as a national evil, is to be abolished, and it be just that it be done at the national expense, the amount of the expense is not a paramount consideration.” James Madison 1816 -1828
Again clearly before the Civil War.
The real difference of interests, lay not between large and small, but between the Northern and Southern states. The institution of slavery and its consequences formed a line of discrimination. James Madison 1817
Once more before the Civil War. Yeah I can pull quotes all day long to support my argument.
The Bleeding Kansas incident was between 1855 and 1859.
In 1859 John Brown rented the Kennedy farmhouse, four
miles north of Harper’s Ferry, to train 21 men.
On October 16, 1859 John Brown and 21 men raided Harper’s Ferry. The first man killed during the raid was Hayward Shepherd, a free black man working with the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad.
On December 20, 1860, the state of South Carolina became the first state to secede from the Union.
The Lincoln Inauguration was March 4, 1861.
Shots were fired on Ft. Sumter April 14, 1861.
The rebellion was already in full swing by March 1861.
And then there were some notable slave rebellions,
1811 German Coast Uprising
1831 Nat Turner’s Slave Rebellion
1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation
I have never took the stance that freeing the slaves was wrong, so get that out of your head right now.
That’s your opinion.
Slavery wasn’t a big deal in the 1800s. The world had seen every form of slavery and didn’t really think much of it.
But we look back with 21st century eyes and are astounded, oblivious to the fact that much of what happens today, would get your neck at the end of a rope.
States’ rights were a very big deal at one time. Passionately big. Today....not so much in a nanny state.
It was not an easy choice for Lee to make. He was offered command of the Union forces. He resigned from his command two days after the offer was made, saying that he could not go against his home state of Virginia. He did not become head of the southern forces until General Albert Johnston’s death.
If Lincoln had accepted Winfield’s offer, the “war of succession” would have likely come to a quick end.
Bull,
I am not sure what your point is? Mine is of the hypocrisy of the “northeast” in bringing the vast majority of slaves to America and selling for profit. They continued running slaves after Virginian Thomas Jefferson’s Act of 1807 Prohibiting Importation of slaves.
They were the “drug runners” of their time! But slaves instead of drugs.
And the Southerners bought every last one of them.
Yeah, not a bid deal. Except to the secessionists. Who stated it as the reason they were leaving the union.
The original constitution died that day.
I was speaking about the morality of the issue. That is why Thomas Jefferson’s initial version of the Constitution didn’t get ratified.
What does Maryland, whose leaders decided not to secede, have to do with the confederate states that did? Saying that the Civil War was not about slavery because some parts of Maryland had slaves and did not secede is like saying the American Revolution was not about objections to King George because the Canadian Colonies had taxation without representation yet did not declare independence.
Truly a dumb argument. Why do you post such crap?
It is no coincidence that no popular media depicts anyone with a Southern accent as anything other than a despicable degenerate. For twerps in NYC who rail against stereotypes, this is their only picture of the Southern Man.
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.