Lincoln holiday on its way out (West Virginia)

West Virginia Gazette Mail ^ | 9-8-2005 | Phil Kabler

[PeaRidge]

"Okay, so I'm being hyperbolic and sarcastic"

Those are the traits of many that post here, including many who have left us. Thank you for being truthful in your admission. You can depend on the promise that I will make every attempt to give you facts. In your past posts, you said I was being arrogant. That is right. I had hoped to get your attention, which I see we have.

I believe it was McPherson that said that the proximate cause of secession was the election of Lincoln. People in the South judged him to be not trustworthy. They were right.

But since you like to quote the Secession statement of South Carolina, it begins with the fact that the Constitution was ratified with the protection of the states and the people as the primary motivation, and that with the election of the Republican party, the people of the South believed that the Constitution would no longer afford the equal protections prescribed by the compact.

You must realize that among the millions living in the South in the pre-war years, that some wanted secession in order to become free of the controls instituted by the Federal government upon the people of the South to gain control of its raw materials.

Others did not want secession. It had been a 25 year struggle among the people of the South, as was true in other parts of the country.

One of the most defining points, I think, was the Northern and Western reaction to the efforts of John Brown to create a slave resurrection. For decades, people in the North had been advocating the outright killing...murder...of Southern people. That was outrageous.

When it became reality at Harper's Ferry, the people of the South steeled themselves to what they predicted would be a social and political onslaught from the North. And many predicted war.

None of this in the South had anything to do with slavery. It was sectional survival.

You must remember at the time that slave importations had been eliminated in the early 1800s. Practically all slaves were 3rd and 4th generation Americans. They were essentially stable, receiving the basic needs, and rising more and more in the overall society.

My family owned slaves. Sure they produced a net profit, but only the plantations produced the profits depicted in movies and books. Most farmers were making a good living, but it was modest.

In the 1850s, most farm owners had grown up with those that were slaves and worked for them. There were all sorts of friendships, family loyalties, and concepts of responsibilities. If as a farm owner, you told the slaves they were free and asked them to go...it was widely known that they would have very few pathways of survival. So, you let them live on your land, gave them food, clothing, and housing. They in turn worked for you. That was better than turning them out for someone else to have to care for.

The other aspect was their worth as sources of labor. That was very addictive to those needing hands on the farm as well as some city dwellers. It is no doubt true that slave owners were tied to their slaves. But it has been written that if there were a viable alternative, many would have taken it.

I can see your obsession with your concept of the evil of slavery, but rest assured that despite the fact that 1860 agrarian living was difficult and dangerous (as shown in the film "The Outlaw Josey Wales")the real motivation for most in the South was the stability of the system. The fear of slave rebellion was extreme.

I have in my possession a letter written by my great, great, great grandmother to her daughter, dated December 18, 1860. In it, nowhere does she mention the protection of the benefits of slavery as a cause of the pending secession. She expresses the deep fear of herself and her husband that the slave population will rise up and murder them. Since the major revolt in Haiti and the various murderous small revolts throughout the South, this was a real fear among the people of the time.

The protections afforded by and financial stability of the perpetuation of slavery were very strong motivating factors for many.

But you must not focus too much on slavery. Remember that according to many on your side, the North was a vibrant, rich, productive society. Why would a newly elected President risk all of that by sending a fleet to Charleston and Florida, and calling the militia up and declaring a blockade. None of that had anything to do with slavery.

I appreciate your need to be hyperbolic and sarcastic, but you are resorting to emotional responses in avoidance of the important facts of the time.

[PeaRidge]

[Pearidge] Post 803 New York shipping interests, using the Navigation Laws and in collaboration with the US Congress, effectively closed the market off from competitive shipping, and in spite of the inefficiencies, was able to control the movement of Southern goods.

[Pearidge] Post 823 With the control of the transportation trade business being dominated by Northern interests, and now being vastly aided by the Warehousing Act, southern planters began to complain. Many estimated that New York merchants were making 40 cents on every dollar, but being constantly in debt to the New Yorkers, they were hardly in a position to change this state of affairs. The Northerners were in full control of the market. This would eventually turn out to be a major cause of the secession.

Thanks Mac for those fine recapitulations. I do not have to defend those statements. They are direct quotes from the people of the times.

If you folks in the here and now would like to debate those folks, go right ahead. But it will require a Medium.

Got one handy, Mac?

[Heyworth]

"s. boats" column is something unknowable."

That is, unless, you have some other data.

Well, I think that the very heading of the table including the word "steam boats" would point to the column labelled "s. boats" to be a more likely candidate for that data than the one marked "st. ships". Furthermore, if multiple sources mention 3000+ steamboat arrivals a year in that period, I would contend that the column headed "s. boats" and showing 3000+ arrivals indeed represents steam boats, if it's rival for that position shows only 300 arrivals.

Begging your pardon, but I think you're being willfully obtuse on this point.

[Heyworth]

Perhaps you have more accurate data.

I presented the data from the same source that you presented. In post #779 you give the link to the information. I merely looked at a different table in that document than the one you were talking about at the time.

[Heyworth]

Well stated, in general, and I appreciate that there were sectional differences and economic tensions which played into the south's decision to secede.

Your comments about the fear of a slave rebellion certainly rang true. A college professor I was talking to a couple of years ago said that there's growing study of that aspect, with a lot of original letters and sources turning up showing just how paranoid that south had become, with masters essentially locking themselves away every night with a pistol under their pillow for fear of their own slaves.

But you consistently fail to credit the north with any sort of idealism. For instance, you say "some wanted secession in order to become free of the controls instituted by the Federal government upon the people of the South to gain control of its raw materials." In the version of history you present, the north's motivations are always base and money-grubbing. Navigation Acts aren't designed to benefit American commerce and shipping in general, but are a scheme to line the pockets of a few wealthy New Englanders. New York's well-sited port and entrepreneurism become sinister. Surely the fact that men volunteered for service in the north in such numbers must point to some sort of idealism beyond simply trying to gain control of the south's raw materials and force them to use New York warehouses and New England ships.

Why would a newly elected President risk all of that by sending a fleet to Charleston and Florida, and calling the militia up and declaring a blockade. None of that had anything to do with slavery.

Maintaining Sumter and Pickens was Lincoln's responsibility under the Constitution. They were federal property by deed. And the call for volunteers and the establishment of the blockade came after Sumter had been fired upon. At that point, the south was seen as being in rebellion. Again, the numbers of men flocking to the colors after Sumter points to something more idealistic than mere economic dominance.

[Heyworth]

Post 803 New York shipping interests, using the Navigation Laws and in collaboration with the US Congress, effectively closed the market off from competitive shipping, and in spite of the inefficiencies, was able to control the movement of Southern goods.

And yet according to the Statistical Abstract, a full one-third of all shipping tonnage entering US ports from foreign ports was foreign-flagged. That doesn't sound like a closed-off market.

[mac_truck]

They are direct quotes from the people of the times...if you folks in the here and now would like to debate those folks, go right ahead.

We all know direct quotes are supposed to be identified as such using quote marks, name assignations, and referenced sources. You've provided none of these, preferring to pass the remarks off as your own until you were no longer competent to defend them.

Of course I don't believe they are direct quotes at all [something you could easily disprove if true, but won't]. Either way you have abused the common rules of debate and argument on this forum, and proven beyond any shadow of doubt that you neo-rebs are basically asshats.

[stand watie]

MOST of the STATIST, ARROGANT DYs on the forum are TOO DUMB to know GOOD & CORRECT DATA when they read it.

i used to footnote all my statements but finally quit, when several DYs said that the OFFICIAL US ARCHIVES on the WBTS could not be believed, as they were just "southern propaganda".

that's what i call DUMB & ARROGANTLY IGNORANT!

free dixie,sw

[Heyworth]

that's what i call DUMB & ARROGANTLY IGNORANT!

Tell us about the U-Boat on display in Galveston. Tell us which college the professor who said the oft-repeated "only 10,000 people gave a damn about the plight of the slaves" quote taught at (Grambling, Tulane, or Tuskegee--you've had him at all three). Tell us about the 1851 Moline steam tractor, made by a company that wouldn't be founded for another 15 years and wouldn't make their first tractor for 65 years. Tell us the name of your 8-year-old ancestor who was killed by the yankees (be careful, you've given her two different names over the years). Tell us why "Yachts Against Subs" and "The Annals of Old Missouri" don't appear in any library catalog or bookseller listing. Put up the e-mail I allegedly sent to you saying I'd never address you on these threads again. Show where I've said anything remotely racist as you've accused.

Oh, I picked up a copy of "Blacks in Blue and Gray" the other day. A rather slender volume, I have to say. The most interesting thing, though, was the discovery that H.C. Blackerby (the H is for Hubert, by the way, and he also wrote "Great Civil War Stories" in 1961), wasn't the chair of the history department at Tuskegee. Instead he turns out to be the publisher of "mass market publications" as it says on the book jacket. A little more research uncovers some of his titles:

[PeaRidge]

Like I said. You have only guesses and speculation.

s could stand for sail, steam, side paddle, stern-wheel...take your pick.

Whatever your choice, it is still a guess, so don't go off the deep end.

[PeaRidge]

Then you have no other data to support any other contentions.

[Heyworth]

Then by what certainty do you declare that "st. ship" means steam boat? "st. ships" meaning steam boats only works if the number of steam boat arrivals in N.O. were one-tenth of what multiple sources point to them being. Do you really believe that less than one steam boat a day docked at New Orleans?

[Heyworth]

Then you have no other data to support any other contentions.

I have data from the same reports that you submitted, but found on different tables than the ones you directed readers to. Are you claiming that your source is reliable when it supports your arguments, but unreliable when it supports mine?

Additionally, there are the Statistical Abstract numbers, which collaborate the other data. Together they show that New Orleans, far from being some backwater which only saw coastal packet traffic (and 300 steam boat arrivals), was a thriving international seaport--the third busiest in the US by tonnage and to which almost a third of the ships arriving from abroad carried foreign flags. That's my contention, and its amply supported by sources which you originally cited.

[Gianni]

I think Heyworth hit an important point, which is that the men who fought for the North largely did so for love of country.

While that is true, the motivations of the collective were less than noble.

[Heyworth]

While that is true, the motivations of the collective were less than noble.

So you're basically saying that everyone who fought for the Union was deluded.

[Gianni]

So you're basically saying that everyone who fought for the Union was deluded.

Society doesn't work that way.

[stand watie]

my MAJOR problem with the DY/REVISIONISTS insistence that "slavery was ALL" as THE or even a MAJOR cause of war is that they ignore the FACTS that:

1.lincoln said he would support a Constitutional amendment to PERMANENTLY protect slavery in the USA,

2.slavery was DYING an UNlamented natural death by 1860, due to advancements in agriculture,

3.only about 5-6% of Americans EVER owned a slave AND that the PERCENTAGE of slave-ownership were about the same in the north & south,

4. that BOTH lincoln & u.s. grant stated that the war was ONLY to preserve the union.

ending slavery ONLY became a "noble crusade" after it appeared that France & Great Britain might join the CSA in her war for independence.

free dixie,sw

[Heyworth]

ending slavery ONLY became a "noble crusade" after it appeared that France & Great Britain might join the CSA in her war for independence.

That's a laugh. Britain and France were never even close to recognizing the Confederacy, much less intervening militarily. Of course, it is funny that such an irrelevant factor, to your way of thinking, as slavery was in the war, it was enough to turn European public opinion away from any notion of supporting the southern cause.

[stand watie]

mac, i'm sitting here reading the BILGE you posted in #1107, and rotflmRao.

it's hard to recall ANYTHING posted on WBTS threads by ANY of the members of the DAMNyankee coven, which are NOT either:

personal (ad hominum) attacks on the southerners here,

KNOWING lies

arrogantly ignorant NONSENSE,

overtly bigoted & RACIST comments,

unthinking parroting of the most extreme, south-HATING, REVISIONIST propaganda,

UNinformed personal opinion

OR some combination of the above.

in point of fact, one of the unionist "band of wierdos" stated a few threads ago that the OR & the service records at the US Archives in Washington, DC "could never be believed, as you damn rebs just go change the records to suit yourselves". (i THINK, though i am not sure, it was #3fan who posted THAT piece of incredible STUPIDITY!)

lol AT the "members in good standing" of the DY coven! PLEASE tell me why anybody with an "above room temperature IQ" should NOT be filled with MIRTH & should NOT RIDICULE the DY nonsense that passes for discourse on these threads.

free dixie,sw

[mac_truck]

i'm sitting here reading the BILGE you posted in #1107

There's nothing bilgeous about it. Pearidge tried to pass off his own comments as direct quotes from people of the times. I called him on it. He's either a liar or a plagerist take your pick.

it's hard to recall ANYTHING posted on WBTS threads by ANY of the members of the DAMNyankee coven, which are NOT either:

Both Heyworth and I have spent a fair amount of time on this thread using sources provided by your side to present our case. At no time did we perjur ourselves or pretend that "up was down" the way Pearidge has. That you have a hard time recalling this fact is..meaningless, other than to inform others of your own ignorance and bias.

personal (ad hominum) attacks on the southerners here, KNOWING lies arrogantly ignorant NONSENSE, overtly bigoted & RACIST comments, UNinformed personal opinion OR some combination of the above.

I actually find it ironic that an imbecile like you would choose to post at all on this subject matter, knowing that your own phony FR posting history has been well documented..recently IIRC. Perhaps you should clean up your own [pathetic] act before passing judgement on others. How about that chief?