Posted on 05/25/2017 11:20:02 AM PDT by PATRIOT1876
Sorry my post was a bit lengthy... I wanted to cut it down a good bit, but I guess once its posted...you’re done! :(
Hit the Abuse button the Mods will delete it and then you repost it edited.
Paragraphs are yer friend.
Why is that?
That's odd, because the Union *HAD* slavery. As a matter of fact, Slavery lasted longer in the Union than it did in the Confederacy. If the Union was fighting to stop slavery, why didn't they destroy their own states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware?
As a matter of fact, Lincoln supported the Corwin amendment which would have made it impossible to prohibit slavery in the Union.
So what was the Union fighting for? Why did they invade and kill all those people?
The one thing that it was clearly not about was slavery.
It was about money. The South leaving cost the North 200 million dollars in European trade. The South also payed 3/4ths of all the taxes of the Nation in 1860.
So yeah, the Union invaded the South to keep them from taking that 200 million dollars per year in trade away from the North, and to keep the South from undercutting their markets in the US.
And there is the truth of it. The power brokers of New York and Boston were the "Globalists" of their time period. They controlled the international trade between the US And Europe, and 3/4ths of all that trade was produced by the South.
The South leaving was going to cost them millions in lost business and revenue, and they would lose much of the economic power they then possessed.
The South could not be permitted to effectively establish a free trade zone with Europe, because this would heavily damage Northern industry, and it would take away the economic control of the Nation from New York and Boston, where it has been ever since.
And so the Empire Struck back.
Out of the 21 total declarations, ordinances, and other secession documents only 6 mention slavery in any context beyond a geographical reference (and only 5 of them mention it at substantial length - the sixth is in a single brief clause). 14 of those documents specify other causes, either in addition to slavery (as in the 6) or without mentioning it at all. The remaining 7 do not list any causes.
Tough to do when wave after wave of armies come marching into your land killing your people and destroying your stuff, and eventually evaporate 4.5 billion dollars of all the assets you had spent your life building up.
If people had left them alone, there is a very good chance that the "technology" would have developed in the South.
BTTT ‘NO’ slightly ahead
This is correct. It was all about the money and who was going to control it.
The Southern states wanted to assert their authority over the federal government so they could abolish federal laws they didn’t support, especially laws interfering with the South’s right to keep slaves and take them wherever they wished.
You focused on the wrong laws. They wanted to abolish the "Navigation act of 1817" that forced them to use North Eastern Shipping monopolies and made it illegal in some cases and prohibitively expensive in others to use foreign ships. They wanted import tariffs to be low so that European Ships would have a profit advantage to trade at Southern ports instead of sending the bulk of their commerce to New York.
They wanted to get out from under laws that had the effect of transferring 60 million of their dollars to the North Monopolized/Government Subsidized industries every year.
Another factor was territorial expansion.
The South wished to take slavery into the western territories, while the North was committed to keeping them open to white labor alone.
Not because of moral objections I assure you. The coalition of Northern states had at that time control of congress. If slavery expanded to the territories, those states would likely vote as a coalition with the other slave states, and thereby deprive the North Eastern power barons of their control of Washington.
The Issue of who would control Washington and therefore Government power hinged upon whether the states would vote with the Northern Coalition or the Southern one, and for that reason the Northern power brokers absolutely did not want Slavery to expand to the territories.
The War was about Money and Power, and who would control it.
You aren't seeing the distinction between slavery and the money. Yes, the slaves produced the money, but the war wasn't about whether there was going to continue being slavery. For the first two years of the war, Lincoln had every intention of keeping slavery exactly as it was.
The War was about whether the money produced by the South (The South produced 3/4ths of *ALL TRADE REVENUE* for the nation.) would be controlled by the people of the South, or by Washington D.C.
The South produced 200 million dollars per year in trade exports in 1860, and 40% of that money was captured by middlemen in New York, and the vast bulk of the Taxes paid to operate Washington D.C. came from that same source of money.
The South was paying most of the taxes to run the government, while the North, which was four times larger in population, was only paying 25% of the taxes to operate the Federal government.
You might want to read this. It goes into the South's economic gripes about how Washington taxed them excessively and spent the money in the North for the benefit of the North at the expense of the South.
Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is stupid and ignorant and un-American.
The Union did not fight a war for that reason. The Union fought the war to control the money produced by the South. The South was going to destroy the money flow into New York if they had been allowed to remain independent, and the power barons of the North could not allow that to happen.
The "We are fighting to end Slavery" claim was simply mid-war propaganda designed to disguise the truth about why 750,000 people had to die to stop the South from being independent.
The Union fought the war to protect the financial interests of Wealthy industrialists/power barons who's descendants still run Washington today. Nowadays we call them "The Establishment."
Slavery continued in the Union until banned by the 13th amendment December 6, 1865. Six months after slavery had been abolished in the South. If the Union was fighting to end slavery, don't you think they would have ended it in their own States first?
Nope, it was about who would control the money that the slaves produced. Slavery was making the Union a lot of money, and so long as that continued, there was no problem.
The problem arose when the South wanted to stop so much of that money from going to the North.
The North wasn't going to tolerate that, and so they launched a war against the South to stop them from stealing the European trade away from their control.
So the war was about money and power. "Slaves" were only incidental to the larger struggle taking place.
I am shocked at how close it is. I would have thought the no’s would be far ahead.
But the possibility of losing 3/4ths of all European trade (and potentially more) was the reason why the North could not allow the South to leave in peace.
There was simply too much money at stake.
Really? The people who fought the war would disagree with you.
"The South had always been solid for slavery and when the quarrel about it resulted in a conflict of arms, those who had approved the policy of disunion took the pro-slavery side. It was perfectly logical to fight for slavery, if it was right to own slaves." [John S. Mosby, Mosby's Memoirs, p. 20]
It doesn't filter by IP address. You can vote as many times as you like. One fanatic can make the poll swing either way if they are dedicated to doing it.
It is a meaningless poll in terms of accurately reflecting the opinions of the larger public.
Thomas Jackson owned as many as 11 or 13 slaves at any given time, and was a slave owner the day he died. And while it is true that Jackson ran a Sunday school for blacks, free and slave, it was not that unusual. Southern churches saw it as one of their responsibilities to educate blacks on scripture.
William Sherman never owned a slave in his life. Grant freed the one slave he owned in 1859 when he moved to Illinois.
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.