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 ...
If you think Southerners volunteered to fight to protect slavery then that is an insult to my ancestors. Quit re writing history it's dangerous and foolish, it's what the left does.
After two years of crushing defeats the abolitionists took over the northern cause and re packaged it into a war to free the black man to get the Goon re- elected.. Hence the need for the conscription act. Nobody wanted to die to either keep the black man enslaved or to free them.
Go to the DU, they'd love you.
No law specifically said that, but the manner in which it was enforced resulted in exactly that situation.
You keep throwing that number around, without any documentation.
I gave you documentation. Look in the thread up above. This is just another example of how you don't actually read what has been written.
And no, another poster’s comments do not constitute a legitimate source.
The source I cited above was from Thomas Prentice Kettel's book written in 1860 and using official government numbers to provide his data.
Other people have cited the official records, and they show exactly the same thing Kettel's book shows. The South was producing 73% of the total trade with Europe, and 60% of the money was ending up in New York and Washington DC.
Now its very interesting that you admit that “You cannot pay people to grow cotton cheaper than you can do it with slave labor. It's economically impossible.” Again, you're words. Now the implication of that is that Southern plantations would be at a HUGE competitive disadvantage if slavery was abolished. Now, as you always say, follow the money. The Fire Eaters and their ilk were DEATHLY afraid that the abolitionists would have their day, amendment or no, as they had in the free states by 1861.
“Yeah, I think there was that little matter of a war going on to spur this development. They had their very own closed system and economic demand for that production. Would that have occurred with the Northern system still controlling shipbuilding and shipping? Probably not.”
Exactly, necessity is the mother of invention. If the shipping fees charged by Northern interests were so onerous, would Southern plantation owners and shipping companies NOT gone to the shipyards and asked them to start building ships to carry cotton across the Atlantic?
Probably not.
I’m not going to DU. I’m not secesh so I’ll hang around. As for your ancestors, their own words said slavery was the reason, so go to the graveyard and take up with them.
Whatever. A year here, a year there, pretty soon you're talking about some real time.
Again, you're words. Now the implication of that is that Southern plantations would be at a HUGE competitive disadvantage if slavery was abolished.
Well yeah, and they would have been at a severe disadvantage if you burned all their homes and crops and murdered many hundred thousands of them, but what is your point? None of that would have happened without a war that Lincoln started to protect the money supply of his corrupt power barons of the North.
Slavery was *NOT* going to get abolished in a "preserved" Union.
Now, as you always say, follow the money.
Absolutely! Nothing was going to change so long as the Northern Mafia continued getting it's money from the South. What caused the war was the threat of cutting off the money going to the Wealthy men of the North.
The states comprising the Union in 1860 accounted for $175 million in exports in 1860, mostly farm products and manufactured goods.
The states comprising the CSA in 1860 accounted for $225 in exports, much of it cotton.
That’s 56.25%.
In the words of the Bloody Goon from Illinois the war was not about slavery. Do some research.
That's not true. New Orleans also had shipyards, but they only built riverboats as I mentioned. But they quickly began building warships in 1861. They could have built ocean going cargo ships too, but the South just didn't BOTHER to for fifty plus years. They were never coerced or subjugated by law. You've given no coherent reason why the South didn't simply bypassed Northern shippers but just regurgitated made up claims of legislative fiat.
“Slavery was *NOT* going to get abolished in a “preserved” Union.”
You mean like in all the free Northern states?
My research tells me the Southern states in rebellion seceded to defend slavery.
“The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.”
Alexander H. Stephens
Vice President, Confederate States of America
And Lost Causers.
So then when the Confederacy adopted conscription the year before the North passed their conscription act, was it because nobody wanted to fight for Southern independence?
198,389,351 from the South.
78,217,202 from the North.
276,606,553 total for both.
198,389,351 divided by 276,606,553 = 0.717225781
Add in the portion of Northern exports fed by Southern material sent to the North, and it goes over 73%.
The states comprising the CSA in 1860 accounted for $225 in exports, much of it cotton.
That’s 56.25%.
71.26 % at least. Check my math above.
If that is the only thing you are going to look for, that is the only thing you are going to find. And it's irrelevant anyways. The Southern states had a right to leave for any reason they liked, even if it was a reason of which *YOU* disapproved.
The Northern states had no right to invade and murder them because they were leaving and the Northern states had no right to pretend they did it because of "slavery", when they really did it because of money.
The deceitful Northern states passed the Corwin Amendment which would have protected slavery indefinitely. The Northern states would give them all the slavery they could want, but they would *NOT* allow the Southern states out of their economic control.
The War was about money which would have been lost to the north.
Even so, unless those "free" northern states seceded from the Union, (Like Massachusetts and Connecticut tried to do in 1814 at the Hartford convention) the Union would have remained a slave Union indefinitely.
Even worse, all of those "free" state reps and senators voted to enshrine slavery in the US Constitution by passing the Corwin amendment.
(And I don't want to hear any of your excuses saying that was justified. It wasn't. )
I guess you need a refresher on this. For the government that believed in slavery, Conscription is not hypocrisy. For the government which claimed to be against slavery, conscription is slavery and that government is a hypocrite.
Also, those defending themselves from aggression and invasion should get more leeway than those who are instituting the aggression and invasion.
I would forgive the Poles for being brutal in putting down the Nazi invaders too.
Oh barf.
Also, those defending themselves from aggression and invasion should get more leeway than those who are instituting the aggression and invasion.
We're talking about motivation for those fighting, not for those forcing them to fight.
I would forgive the Poles for being brutal in putting down the Nazi invaders too.
Yeah, and I imagine you call it the War of Polish Aggression, too.
Wow, 18 slaves in New Jersey in 1860! You consider that “plenty.”
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.