Posted on 08/01/2022 9:00:05 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
For some time I have wondered how to explain the cause of the Civil War in simple terms that are easy to understand. I now see that Ayn Rand did it years ago. Laws passed by a Northern controlled Congress routed all the money produced by the South into Northern "elite" pockets.
Same here.
You contradict yourself within your own paragraph. British forces, the bulk of which were engaged with the enemy elsewhere in the world, do not count as an effort to overturn the "rebellion."
Only those British forces engaged in conflict with the colonists count as fighting the rebellion, And that was a small part of the larger British forces.
And in 1861 many Confederates realized they needed foreign allies to win independence. But in 1861 no foreign powers were willing to support a nation dedicated to the proposition that:
According to another poster upthread, France was willing to recognize them if the British did as well. Attempts to speak with the British Ambassador to France were rejected, and so nothing further transpired along this avenue.
Also, the same message said that the Confederates were willing to abolish slavery within 5 years in exchange for the recognition of France. If all this is true, so much for your argument on that point.
So, the Civil War was lost by Confederates before it even began.
When someone with a potential army four times larger than any you could raise, decides they want to have a war with you, your prospects for winning such a war are bleak.
The immediate cause of Civil War was the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter, April 12, 1861, followed by the Confederate Declaration of War on the United States, May 6, 1861.
Neither of those had anything to do, directly, with slavery.
But slavery was an important part of the "mix" from beginning to end -- from Confederate "Reasons for Secession" documents to Union "Contraband of War" laws, to the Emancipation Proclamation to the 13th Amendment.
So claims that try to minimize the role of slavery are a-historical.
servantboy777: "In fact, the overwhelming majority of those brave and honorable men fighting for the cause of the South were too damn poor to own slaves.
So, what was it they were fighting to preserve?"
The usual estimate going back to Civil War times is that about 25% of Confederate soldiers came from slaveholding families. Units from the Deep South had more slaveholders, those from Upper South & Border States had fewer.
One problem with even this 25% estimate is that very few Confederate soldiers came from regions in the Confederacy with few to no slaves. Such regions typically supported the Union cause.
So even when Confederate soldiers did not themselves own slaves, most had family members and close neighbors who did own slaves and whose "way of life" depended on slavery.
So those soldiers felt a vested interest in their "peculiar institution" beyond simply their need to defend their homeland.
servantboy777: "Because of revisionism, most do not realize the so called great emancipator Lincoln” before the war and the great Northern general Grant after the war both sought to recolonizing the negro back to Afrika, Caribbean and Puerto Rico.
They believed the negro would likely not assimilate into American society."
The word for that is "recolonization" and it was official US government policy, supported by many Presidents and state governments beginning around 1820.
From roughly 1820 until the Civil War, huge sums of money were appropriated by the Federal government and state governments to support "recolonizing" freed slaves to, primarily, Liberia in Africa.
The results were always disappointing -- the numbers who volunteered to go were few, and most of them died within a few years of arriving in Africa, or elsewhere.
But the efforts continued and did not end until Lincoln's much larger projects failed on a larger scale.
And by then African-American leaders were telling their government they didn't want to "recolonize" Africa, rather they wanted full citizenship in the United States.
And so that's just what happened, eventually.
servantboy777: "Furthermore, Lincoln himself wrote to newspaper editor Horace Greeley his intentions regarding the war of Northern aggression. Preserve the Union at all costs. Freed slaves or NOT."
What Lincoln actually did in office was free as many slaves as he believed he lawfully could, beginning with compensated emancipation in Washington, DC, and "Contraband of War" confiscations, progressing to the much larger Emancipation Proclamation and then the 13th Amendment.
servantboy777: "Most do not realize that at one point, there were more white slaves than black."
But no white "slaves" in North America ever endured the degradation of permanent inherited chattel slavery based solely on their race.
The typical "white slave" was an indentured servant who had contracted for a period of years to work off their debts.
The other major category were convicted prisoners serving long sentences, to be freed if they survived their term.
servantboy777: "It was the black man who first sold the black man into slavery."
Because there was a market for slaves, with white buyers -- the buyers came first, the slaves were captured to satisfy their demands. No reason to sugar-coat any of this.
The term for Buchanan was first coined by Virginia Representative & Senator, John Randolph, who called himself an "Old Republican" so as to distinguish his strict constitutional views from those of Democratic President Thomas Jefferson -- Randolph coined the term, "Doughfaced Northerner" to suggest someone like Pres. Buchanan who was eager to serve "Southern interests" especially regarding slavery.
In 1860 the US GDP was around $4.4 billion, of which roughly 15% came from "the South", or around $650 million.
Of that about $200 million came from the export of cotton, plus some portion of circa $20 million from tobacco exports.
Nearly all of the money earned by Southerners from exports went to pay for "imports" of common manufactured items from the North, NOT for luxury goods from abroad.
Ah, come on, FRiend, tell us how you really feel! ;-)
James Madison
Known early Nazi
Who knew
I swunny
You have never given any support for your assertion that “60% of all your money” of any form was taken/provided from the South. Even your own graph of income from import tariffs shows the South gave virtually NOTHING of value to the national coffers, compared with the North.
The South lived off the tariff income produced by the North, as supporting the US government, and your own posts prove this.
And now our FRiend, DiogenesLamp, has just admitted there was no "Lincoln's war fleet" at Charleston Harbor when Confederates decided to begin Civil War, only one small revenue cutter, which fired warning shots at a civilian ship.
The ratio of Union to Confederate soldiers from Kentucky was over three to one:
Infantry
Cavalry
Mounted Rifles
Mounted Infantry
Partisan Rangers
Horse Artillery
Brigades
Yet, all I stated was that when the South was invaded Southerners fought back for that reason.
More sophistry. Lincoln decided to start the civil war when he *SENT* the war fleet. The Harriet Lane was merely one of the first to arrive. The rest were still in Transit when Sumter started.
Beauregard's whole intent was to prevent the fort from attacking them at the same time the fleet did. In order to make that happen, he had to attack *BEFORE* the entire fleet showed up.
How many Irish soldiers served the Union?
More importantly, Why?
Likely the same thing with Kentucky.
The South wasn’t ‘’invaded’’ Reb.
The bastards opened fire on Ft. Sumter and the fight was bought to them,
And nothing is going to change that or the outcome of 1865.
So stop the semantics.
thanks
As simple minded as people to this day are, as seen in the "man on the street interviews" such as Jessie Waters did, do you think most people back then understood the issues of the day? Not a chance! Southerners fought an invading army.
So stop the shit with the semantics.
You Rebs and your bullshit about “Northern Aggression’’, grow the f up and accept the fact the South started the war AND LOST AND NOTHING, NOTHING ON GOD'S EARTH IS GOING TO CHANGE THAT!
So it was fine for our Original Thirteen Colonies to release themselves from the oppressive British government but when the Federal Union became oppressive, it's fair game to kill the treasonous "Rebs."
I know what every soldier knows: the only thing that counts in the end -- is Power! Naked, merciless Force!
Major fail on your part. Try again.
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.