Posted on 08/31/2006 9:07:31 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
On Sunday afternoon at Old Union Cemetery in southern White County, over 180 people gathered to pay a debt owed nearly 80 years. The group included members of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, Sons of Confederate Veterans, family and friends, all there to memorialize the service of Pvt. Henry Henderson, a black Confederate soldier.
Henderson was born in 1849 in Davidson County, NC. He was 11 years old when he entered service with the Confederate States of America as a cook and servant to Colonel William F. Henderson, a medical doctor. Records show Henry was wounded during his service, but he continued to serve until the war's end in 1865. He was discharged in Salem, NC, age 16.
After the war, Henry married Miranda Shockley, of White County, TN. The couple raised five children.
"We're here to honor him," said his great-grandson, Oscar Fingers, of Evansville, IN. "I think he would be proud his family has come this far and to know all we have done." Several other family members made the trip with Fingers from Indiana for Sunday's ceremony.
Sons Dalton and Lee received Henderson's first and last Tennessee Colored Confederate pension check upon their father's death in September 1926. The check provided enough funds to bury their father, but not enough to buy a headstone for his grave.
The 60,000-90,000 black Confederate soldiers are often called "the forgotten Confederates," but through the concerted efforts of the Capt. Sally Tompkins Chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy along with the Sons of the Confederate Veterans, several graves have been found in the Upper Cumberland and have been or will be marked.
Pvt. Henry Henderson's service was finally recognized and his grave officially marked on Sunday, all to the snap of salutes from the grandsons of fellow Confederates, volleys of gunfire and cannons shot toward the distant hillsides of his final resting place.
Official U.S. government grave markers are available to all Confederate veterans. For additional information, contact Barbara Parsons, 484-5501.
Here here!!
And your only method of response is to attack and throw insults at anyone who disagrees with you?
How chidish.
You were asked to defend a specific set of assertions you made regarding 19th century US economic policy. You are still apparently unable to do so. I have no knowlege that the book you referenced is a college level textbook or not. It is not relavant to you inability to defend your previous assertions.
your only method of response is to attack and throw insults at anyone who disagrees with you?
I asked you to cogently present a set of facts that logically support the [absurd] conclusions you asserted. Your failure to provide that modicum of support for your position while nebbishly maintaining that the rest of us should "read this book you might learn something", is beneath contempt. You earned the ridicule I leveled in your direction.
How chidish.
Run along then, you are dismissed.
With no disrespect intended, but who the hell do you think you are? I have absolutely no compulsory reason to answer any questions coming from you, especially when asked in such a rude arrogant and condescending tone. I don't care that your lack of knowledge leads you to the conclusion that I am wrong. That is just your arrogance raising it's ugly head.
I have no knowlege that the book you referenced is a college level textbook or not.
Then you did not read my post, as I clearly stated that fact.
It is not relavant to you inability to defend your previous assertions.
The book I referenced has over 140 footnotes just on the chapter where he discusses the lead up to the CW. I suppose none of those references would be relevant to you either.
Your failure to provide that modicum of support for your position while nebbishly maintaining that the rest of us should "read this book you might learn something", is beneath contempt.
There is nothing I can reference that will satisfy you, unless it agrees with your position.
Run along then, you are dismissed.
Your arrogance is astounding and exceeded only by your high opinion of yourself.
I repeat my suggestion that you're better off pontificating on the college football threads, then remaining here to be ridiculed.
Have you NO sense of shame?
The Nazis had Jewish Policemen in the Warsaw Ghetto.
As in the phrase: "Never argue with an idiot, people won't know the difference"
I would say to you, Since you are the only one ridiculing me, there is no need for me to feel shame.
I would only be embarrassed, only if their existed a reason to respect your opinion.
http://www.etymonline.com/cw/economics.htm
Here is what that source says:
Was the South economically backwards? Statistical tables can't compete with harrowing narratives of runaway slaves. Perhaps that's why economic history isn't taught in our schools. Yet the economic picture is essential for anyone who wants to really understand, rather than simply be entertained. Turner's image of ante-bellum America was an empire like the British, whose "sections" took the place of "individual kingdoms." The role of the South was to devote itself to pouring out the raw material for New England's looms and for the bulk of America's export trade. This was laid out by Alexander Hamilton's "Report on the Subject of Manufactures" (1791, the blueprint for young America's economic program), and enshrined in Henry Clay's "American System," enacted in the mid-1820s with the support of Midwestern farmers as well as North Atlantic manufacturers.
That this was done most effectively by slave labor plantations was, after about 1800, no secret to anyone -- North, South, American, British. Robert Russell, the observant British traveller, wrote that slavery was "a necessary evil attending upon the great good of cheap cotton."
The shift of so much land and effort into cotton-growing meant that the people of the South relied on the West for much of their food and livestock, and on the North Atlantic states for most of their clothing and machinery. In turn, they provided more than two-thirds of the entire nation's exports, which brought in the specie that allowed commerce and growth in all sections.
After 1830 the industrial North had become wedded, not only to the South's production of cotton, but to the institution of slave labor which made such valuable production possible." Northern factories based their profits on a steady flow of cotton.[6] The price of raw cotton was low during this period, and lagged behind the price of cotton goods. Northern bankers grew rich by extending liberal (but risky) credit to Southern planters against next year's crop. Cotton was already America's leading export by 1821. By 1850, Southern cotton accounted for nearly 60 percent of the nation's total exports, and was a major factor in Northern shipping prospects. While the looms of Lawrence and Lowell sucked up raw cotton, the ships of Boston bulged with it as they crossed the Atlantic, and their owners looked forward to increasing production on the slave plantations, which meant increased profit for them.
Northern politicians were ever ready to sacrifice whatever anti-slavery sentiments they had for the sake of a tariff deal. Rumors after the Compromise of 1850 linked it to logrolling for tariff protection. Illinois votes for the Compromise were connected to railroad land grants that Illinois obtained in 1850. Southern congressmen claimed to have won over Pennsylvania's delegation by promising to repay a vote for the Compromise with "adjustments" in the tariff rates. At the same time, the Pennsylvania legislature voted to repeal laws that handicapped efforts to recapture fugitive slaves
Observers in Britain looked beyond the rhetoric of "preserve the Union" and saw what was really at stake. Charles Dickens views on the subject were typical:
Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel
I suppose Charles Dickens is a fool.
The Panic of 1857 breathed new life into the protectionists' sails and sparked a movement for a revived tariff.[39] The Morrill Tariff passed the House of Representatives on a strictly sectional vote on May 10, 1860. Pressures to pass the bill in the Senate quickly became a campaign issue for the Republican Party in the Northeast, while the Southern delegation sought to delay its vote in the Senate until the following year. A heated battle of rhetoric from both sides compounded the tariff issue. Economist Henry C. Carey led the protectionist charge in Northern newspapers by blaming free trade for the economic recession and accompanying budget shortfalls. Southerners circulated copies of Thomas Prentiss Kettell's 1857 book Southern Wealth and Northern Profits, which argued that protective tariffs unduly burdened the slave states to the benefit of the north. The Morrill Tariff finally passed after the South seceded--it was signed by President Buchanan (a Democrat) in March 1861 and took effect the same month the fighting started. The tariff was rarely mentioned in the heated debates of 1860-61 over secession, although Robert Toombs of Georgia did denounce "the infamous Morrill bill" as where "the robber and the incendiary struck hands, and united in joint raid against the South."[3] The tariff also appeared in two secession documents of the states. South Carolina's secession convention published a declaration by Robert Barnwell Rhett that listed as its reason for secession "the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and Slavery issues."[4] Georgia also published a declaration listing economic grievances such as the tariff [5], though it emphasized the future of slavery as the main cause.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
Just doing the research that some are too lazy to do themselves.
"The Nazis had Jewish Policemen in the Warsaw Ghetto."
A good analogy for the bees that come a buzzin' where there's honey...
Great novelist. But not even on the radar as an expert on American society, economics or politics any more than the Dixie Chicks are experts on the Iraq War.
and the other multiple of references given?
I must have missed the law that forced the south to give up all their other crops and any more than a token attempt at industrialization in order to grow cotton. No, the south willingly turned to cotton, because it was more profitable than anything else they could grow, and they were apparently unwilling to diversify their economy.
Northern factories based their profits on a steady flow of cotton.
And auto plants rely on a steady flow of steel. What's your point?
Northern bankers grew rich by extending liberal (but risky) credit to Southern planters against next year's crop.
Again, I'm missing the law that forced southerners to borrow money. And why were there no southern banks from which they could borrow?:
The ships of Boston bulged with it as they crossed the Atlantic, and their owners looked forward to increasing production on the slave plantations, which meant increased profit for them.
So? Any shipper at any time hopes for lots of cargo. That's their business. And why were there no southern ships for them to ship on?
All you've done is point to an integrated national economy in which everyone was profiting. If cotton farming was such a money-losing proposition, why was so much of the south dedicated to it?
I made the statement in an earlier post that one of the multitudes of cause for the CW was based on economics and that the North profited from the slave trade, from slavery, from cotton and from the south in general.
I was attacked and ridiculed for saying that. I was accused of lacking intelligence and of making absurd claims.
Now, you are responding to say "so what" when I give documentation and credible evidence that what I said was true. I cannot explain, in this limited forum, nor do I want to take the time to explain all of the whys and wherefores of the economic interdependency between the North and the South. Instead I will state what should be obvious to any historian of the war, but seems to not be to many who post here on the side of the North:
" The North and South's economies were dependent upon each other to a significant degree. The South grew tired of the fact that much of their money flowed North and wanted to seek ways to have a greater control over their money. This factor was one of many that led to the decision to secede."
Although one that barely made it into the "Declarations of Causes" that four of the states issued, with the exception of Georgia's, where it's still clearly secondary to slavery.
You say that the south wanted more control over their money and you point to northern factories, northern banks, and northern shippers. But you have yet to explain why the south failed to create any of these institutions themselves, instead of blaming others. The answer is that they were making so much money off cotton that they didn't want to do anything else.
That is an incorrect statement. Less then half of the cotton plantations were profitable on an annual basis, as several of the above references attest to.
It is common practice for ag. based economies, even today, to receive "seed" money to get by.
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.