Source:Slavery in America
Posted on 05/23/2008 6:54:17 AM PDT by mainepatsfan
May 23rd
1861:
- Virginia voters approve secession by a vote of 97,750 to 32,134.
- Union Gen. Benjamin Butler declares three runaway slaves "contraband of war" establishing a precedent for slaves to escape behind Union lines.
- Confederate Gen. Benjamin Huger takes command at Norfolk, VA.
1862:
- Confederate forces under Gen. Thomas Jackson surprise and rout a Union outpost at Fort Royal, VA. The action threatens the rear of Union Gen. Nathaniel Banks army forcing him to race Jackson's army back towards Winchester.
1863:
- Confederate secretary of war John Seddon suggests to President Davis that an offensive against Helena, AK as a way to relieve pressure on Vicksburg since it partially serves Grant as a supply base.
- Confederate Gen. Richard Ewell is promoted to lieutenant general.
- Union Gen. Nathaniel Banks Army of the Gulf continues encricling Port Hudson, LA in preparation for an assault.
1864:
- The Army of the Potomac continues to move into position for a crossing of the North Anna River in Virginia.
- Union Gen. William T. Sherman's army advances towards Dallas, GA where he intends to cross the Etowah River.
1865:
- Unionist politicians from Virginia occupy the state capital at Richmond.
- In Washington there is a mass review of the Grand Armies of the Republic.
- The British blockade runner Sarah M. Newhall is captured off Savannah, GA by the USS Azalea.
presupposes a degree of political maturity and restraint which the Confederates lacked in 1860-61.
I took that as an insult to the South and responded with a response dripping with sarcasim.
Regretably, a sarchasim was created.
I never used the word "feelings", I used the word "felt", you made an incorrect assumption as to the intended use of that word.
I cannot select language in every case that could not be potenially, subject to misinterpretation. Given the context of the word in this discussion I was rather surprised that you jumped to the conclusion that you did.
The Declaration states:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed"
The rebs not only tore up a long established government, they attempted to tear apart one nation. All upon the pretext of an election result they didn't like. If dismemberment was the potential outcome of every election, chaos, fragmentation and anarchy would have been the result until the day Europe returned to the continent to restore order.
1. Anything by Stephen Sears. Mr. Sears is the preeminent historian on the eastern theater of war during the civil war. His books are well researched and he is such a good writer that the narritive reads more like an adventure story rather than dry history.
2. Fighting for the confederacy by Edward Porter Alexander. Alexander was an arillery general for the south and participated in virtually every major battle in the eastern theater of war. His book is easily my favorite by a civil war participant. Not only does the book contain brilliant insights by this talented soldier, Alexander focuses very much on day to day events and anecdotes rather than what regiment did what in the various battles. Thus, you get a very good idea of what the war was like for the participants from the lowly foot soldier to the major generals. A great read.
Do you really mean to say that you believe the reasons for the war between the states boils down to one lost election?
It was a pretext. A pretext that provided a golden opportunity to inflame their despised mudsill element that would have to do the their fighting for them. But a pretext that would have set a fatal precedent. Of course the underlying reason was a desire to remove all obstacles to slavery rampant in North America.
That election was essentially a national referendum on the question: should slavery be expanded to the federal territories?
Those voting for Lincoln and Douglas - the candidates who were opposed to expansion of slavery into federal territories - constituted 70% of the electorate.
Only 30% of the American people voted for Bell and Breckinridge - the candidates amenable to such an expansion.
The Southern grandees saw the writing on the wall - they would no longer have enough votes in the Senate to block the admission of new free states.
So yes - it all boiled down to a single issue and the 1860 election revealed that the electorate was no longer willing to kowtow to a shrinking minority.
Thanks for the EP Alexander rec. I’ll check it out. You and I are on the same page with Sears.
True, and if economic issues really drove the secession as confederate defenders maintain, Douglas was the man the South should have rallied behind.
They should have, but they could not because he opposed the Lecompton farce that was so popular in the South.
And, of course, it had nothing to do with economics.
Between 1850-1860 the price of cotton had run up to previously undreamed-of levels and Southern GDP per capita had increased 75% in the same period. The years before the war were one long economic boom for the South.
If there was any economic cause to the Civil War, it would have been that the South was wading in such a deep pool of cash that they believed they really could take on a section that had three times their white population.
Do you have a source to back that 'fact' up?
Indeed I do. Allow me to consult an offline source, and I will cite it for you presently.
In his book The Science Of Wealth his analysis of customs statistics reveals that US cotton exports in 1850 yielded $71MM in revenue and US cotton exports in 1860 yielded $191MM in revenue.
During the same period, bale production rose from 2.1M to 4.7M.
So prices of cotton increased more than 30% even while production increased by 170% - a pretty incredible growth in value.
And then Douglas was of no use to them. The rebs would have dropped Democratic stalwart Douglas for any high tariff, big government Whig had that man gone for slavery everywhere. I suspect that if Douglas had somehow been elected there would have still been a secession eventually. Once the slave interest got their heart set on the territories, a conflict was inevitable whether the rebs were in or out of the Union.
If there was any economic cause to the Civil War, it would have been that the South was wading in such a deep pool of cash that they believed they really could take on a section that had three times their white population.
The 1850s had spoiled them, emboldened them and finally infuriated them as the belated reaction from the nation threatened their dreams of a slavery utopia just when it seemed in their grasp.
Few people realize that the Confederacy's ultimate goal - as articulated by the fire-eaters and proclaimed by David Atchison - was to seize as much federal territory as they could, annex California, annex Baja California or all of Mexico, annex Nicaragua and Honduras and also Spain's Caribbean possessions - especially Cuba and Puerto Rico.
All of this with the eventual goal of reopening the slave trade.
The only reasons why the Confederate Constitution excluded the reopening of the slave trade were the knowledge that Virginia would not secede unless it were excluded (VA had a slave surplus and profited from sales of excess slaves to the deep South - a reopened slave trade would have caused prices to plummet) and the UK would never intervene.
Your math, and your earlier statements are wrong. I will site numerous sources, with links to refute it.
But the more striking and noticeable fact is, that, while the production had increased at this enormous rate, the prices also had advanced twenty-five per cent. According to the financial report of 1861, the average price of cotton from 1840 to 1850 was but 8.2 cents per pound; while, from 1850 to 1860, the average price was 10.5 cents per pound, — a difference, it will be seen, of a little over twenty-five per cent.
Taxation of Cotton - Amasa Walker
However, even with this "25%" increase cotton prices were no where close to what they were 20-30 years earlier.
Source:Slavery in America
Here are two examples of higher prices:
1800 - 37¢
1801 - 44¢
By 1850 the price had plummeted to about $.10 dollars per pound. In 1857, it rose to $.15, a fifty per cent increase, but still significantly below earlier years.
As opposed to President Grant who almost succeeded in making Santo Domingo a state?
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.