Freep this poll Civil War monuments

Richond Times Dispatch ^

[azishot]

I’m shocked, too. We lived in Henrico County for 15 years and still have family there. Whenever we had company the first place we’d take them to was Monument Ave. Erasing history just isn’t right and there’s NO reason to let it happen. I thought taking the Confederate flag down was supposed to resolve any and all problems. How’d that turn out? So what’s supposed to miraculously happen by removing the statues?

[DiogenesLamp]

Really? The people who fought the war would disagree with you.

If you look at the writings of some of the obsessed moralist which people have filtered history to find, i'm sure you are right, but the vast bulk of the Union army did not give a crap about slavery. Probably of the Union soldier letters, 1 in a hundred mentions slavery. I've read many that mention they believe they won't survive the war.

The notion that the Union soldiers cared about slavery is just another piece of propaganda created by the careful cherry picking of examples where some did.

Many of these very same people went back to states that banned black people from living in them. You are going to have us believe that these people invaded other people to give their lives up to rescue a people they hated?

They went because they were told to go by their superiors.

[x]

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.

What you say bears only the loosest relationship to reality, yet you keep on repeating, and repeating, and repeating it.

You've made up your mind in advance and don't let facts ever change it.

The Southern-dominated Democratic Party had controlled the Congress for most of the years 1800-1860.

They were the true "power barons" in Washington.

Democrats lost control of the House for brief periods, but retained the Senate from 1845 up to 1861 and the withdrawal of Southern senators.

Democrats and Southerners also predominated or were overrepresented in the executive and judicial branches before the Civil War.

More to the point, though. Slavery would undercut the position and rights of free labor and small farmers in the territories.

That was reason enough for opposing it in the eyes of many Northerners.

Northern "power barons" didn't really care. They could always cut a deal with the slave owning "power barons" of the South.

Farmers and workingmen knew they'd lose out if slavery were imposed on their states or on the territories.

[apocalypto]

Almost even. Keep voting. This is a slippery slope. Eventually all our monuments will be destroyed.

[jmacusa]

Excellent post ‘’x’’’. Spot on as always. You know this subject well. You've also got a very wry sense of humor. “Lampster’’ is a parrot(my apologies to parrots) facts are very inconvenient things to him. That's why he makes up his own.

[rockrr]

Sorry - Sherman was never a slave owner. I did read that he once rented one but only for a brief time - does that count?

[DoodleDawg]

The coalition of Northern states had at that time control of congress.

You continue to make this crap up as you go along, banking on the hope that if you sound authoritative then nobody will question you. Well it doesn't work.

Let's see what someone from the period had to say about who controlled government. I would think Alexander Stephens knew what he was talking about:

"But, again, gentlemen, what have we to gain by this proposed change of our relation to the general government? We have always had the control of it, and can yet, if we remain in it, and are as united as we have been. We have had a majority of the Presidents chosen from the South; as well as the control and management of most of those chosen from the North. We have had sixty years of Southern Presidents to their twenty-four, thus controlling the Executive department. So of the judges of the Supreme Court, we have had eighteen from the South, and but eleven from the North; although nearly four-fifths of the judicial business has arisen in the Free States, yet a majority of the Court has always been from the South. This we have required so as to guard against any interpretation of the Constitution unfavorable to us. In like manner we have been equally watchful to guard our interests in the Legislative branch of government. In choosing the presiding Presidents (pro tern.) of the Senate, we have had twenty-four to their eleven. Speakers of the House, we have had twenty-three, and they twelve. While the majority of the Representatives, from their greater population, have always been from the North, yet we have so generally secured the Speaker, because he, to a great extent, shapes and controls the legislation of the country. Nor have we had less control in every other department of the general government. Attorneys, Generals we have had fourteen, while the North have had but five. Foreign ministers we have had eighty-six, and they but fifty-four. While three-fourths of the business which demands diplomatic agents abroad is clearly from the Free States, from their greater commercial interests, yet we have had the principal embassies, so as to secure the world markets for our cotton, tobacco and sugar on the best possible terms. We have had a vast majority of the higher offices of both army and navy, while a larger proportion of the soldiers and sailors were drawn from the North. Equally so of Clerks, Auditors and Comptrollers filling the Executive department; the records show for the last fifty years, that of the three thousand thus employed, we have had more than two-thirds of the same, while we have but one-third of the white population of the Republic.' Again, look at another item, and one, be assured, in which we have a great and vital interest; it is that of revenue, or means of supporting government. From official documents, we learn that a fraction over three-fourths of the revenue collected for the support of government has uniformly been raised from the North." - Alexander Stephens speech to the Georgia Secession Convention, January 1861

[DiogenesLamp]

What you say bears only the loosest relationship to reality, yet you keep on repeating, and repeating, and repeating it.

You've made up your mind in advance and don't let facts ever change it.

I didn't make up my mind in advance. I once believed as did you, that the war was just and fought to end slavery. I was shown the error of my beliefs, first by my friend, and eventually by learning more about what happened.

You keep missing/ignoring the significance of this Map. You don't seem to grasp what it represents.

This map shows how the natural trade between the South and Europe was deliberately skewed to benefit New York and Boston. That map represents 200 million dollars in trade value that should not have gone through New York, and should instead have gone through New Orleans, Savanna, Charleston, and so forth.

People don't understand that the South produced the vast bulk of that money that shows up as coins on top of New York.

More to the point, though. Slavery would undercut the position and rights of free labor and small farmers in the territories.

Is the concern for undercutting the rights of free labor a concern for the slaves, or a concern for the white laborers? Let us make the motivation here clear. You are trying to claim a moral reason for opposing slavery, but you are offering an economic one. You are just about admitting that the opposition to slavery was one of self interest, not a greater moral good.

Northern "power barons" didn't really care. They could always cut a deal with the slave owning "power barons" of the South.

You are right to recognize that there were indeed "Power Barons" in the South, they did indeed exist, but they didn't matter as much. The votes in Congress would go along with the disposition a territory chose in becoming a state. The "Free Soil" movement was an effort to make certain that newly acquired states would vote with the North Coalition, and not with the South. It was an attempt at a coalition of big business interests with that of free labor to secure new states in their orbit.

The Whole thing about opposing expansion was to maintain the Northern power coalition. This is why Southern independence put such a monkey wrench into things. With the money diverting to the South, and Europeans able to sell merchandise up the Mississippi river, the economic allegiances would slowly shift to favor the South over the people who then controlled it. (New York, Chicago, Boston.)

If States could chose to leave the Union, than many of the territories-becoming-states might very well do that as well.

Farmers and workingmen knew they'd lose out if slavery were imposed on their states or on the territories.

Well they were certainly told that, a lot. Yes, there was a lot of resentment directed at Wealthy slave owners who prospered by the sweat of other people's brows instead of their own, but this is a variation of the hate the rich mantra that the modern Democrats constantly use.

Yes, the same groups of people (demographically and philosophically) were stirring up the same animosities back then.

[jmacusa]

“Lincoln did that war as a PR move’’. That is without a doubt THE DUMBEST thing I have ever seen posted on the internet.

[Timpanagos1]

“Nope, it was about who would control the money that the slaves produced.”

Where in your Confederate Apologetics Economics textbook did you learn to separate slavery from the value that slavery produced?

[JBW1949]

Sherman had a slave while he was stationed in Alabama and South Carolina in the 1840s, according to John F. Marszalek, Sherman: A Soldier’s Passion for Order, p. 45. The citation is to Sherman’s own letters, although I don’t have access to the letters to check them myself. Marszalek’s statement that Sherman “had” a slave does not necessarily mean that he “owned” one; he could have been renting the slave, a common practice at the time. Sherman was assigned to California in 1847, in the middle of the Mexican War, and apparently did not bring the slave with him on the long voyage around Cape Horn. I know of no evidence that he ever held a slave again after leaving South Carolina.

[DiogenesLamp]

Again, look at another item, and one, be assured, in which we have a great and vital interest; it is that of revenue, or means of supporting government. From official documents, we learn that a fraction over three-fourths of the revenue collected for the support of government has uniformly been raised from the North." - Alexander Stephens speech to the Georgia Secession Convention, January 1861

It would certainly appear that way, wouldn't it?

The truth is, all revenue raised for the US Government at this time came from import tariffs. Imports are a function of Exports. They are the means by which export trade is balanced.

The South produced 3/4ths of all exports, therefore the South's returning money is represented by 3/4ths of all imports, which somehow ended up coming into the nation through New York, and therefore being counted as revenues having been produced in the North.

Your attempt to explain this away by quoting someone "doesn't work."

Here are some numbers for you from Official US Government sources that shows the real picture.

The South was creating the Trade economy that helped to make New York rich.

[DiogenesLamp]

Where in your Confederate Apologetics Economics textbook did you learn to separate slavery from the value that slavery produced?

I didn't. I learned it in the Union economic textbook which kept this system going so long as the right people were collecting the money.

You aren't getting this. The Union didn't despise slavery, they despised loss of control over the money.

They didn't fight a war to stop an evil, they fought it to perpetuate a different one, and ever since the Nation's destiny has been guided by whatever happens to be good for power brokers of New York and it's allied cities.

We call these people the "Establishment", and they rule Washington.

[x]

Is the concern for undercutting the rights of free labor a concern for the slaves, or a concern for the white laborers? Let us make the motivation here clear. You are trying to claim a moral reason for opposing slavery, but you are offering an economic one. You are just about admitting that the opposition to slavery was one of self interest, not a greater moral good.

You are a slippery liar. Your idea was that opposition to slavery in the territories had to do with Northern "power barons" losing control. I pointed out that ordinary Northerners had good reason to oppose the expansion of slavery into the territories and you simply duck out of you original assertion. Was it true? No, it wasn't. But you won't admit it.

Did New York and the declining city of Boston and the upstart city of Chicago exercise control over Iowa or Indiana or Minnesota or Michigan in 1840 or 1850 or 1860? No. Something like that was coming after the war your slave owners started, but it wasn't a reality in the antebellum North.

New York was the country's financial center, but didn't have much control over how a farmer in Michigan or Iowa lived. Jackson had smashed the national bank, and the big corporations and financial institutions were still to come after the war.

The "Free Soil" movement was an effort to make certain that newly acquired states would vote with the North Coalition, and not with the South. It was an attempt at a coalition of big business interests with that of free labor to secure new states in their orbit.

Rather than in the orbit of the slave owners? Sure. Why not? But you probably had a Marxist view of the Cold War as well, with capitalists calling the tune. Maybe you think that about the Second World War as well.

You probably think it was all about markets and economics. The rest of us believe that freedom was at issue and that slave owners or Communists or Nazis should have been opposed in the name of liberty.

You are trying to claim a moral reason for opposing slavery, but you are offering an economic one. You are just about admitting that the opposition to slavery was one of self interest, not a greater moral good.

Moral and economic arguments aren't easily separated. You want to define morality as some unattainably pure state of altruism, so that every real world motive turns out to be economic, that is, materialistic and self-interested.

But morality isn't only about pure love and absolute self-abnegation. A preference for free labor over slavery is a moral preference. What are you doing here if you think it isn't?

Yes, there was a lot of resentment directed at Wealthy slave owners who prospered by the sweat of other people's brows instead of their own, but this is a variation of the hate the rich mantra that the modern Democrats constantly use.

That is truly whackadoodle. Do you really deny that slave owners "prospered by the sweat of other people's brows instead of their own?"

Are you really going to defend slavery and the proposition that slave owners are entitled to force others to work for them?

Yes, the same groups of people (demographically and philosophically) were stirring up the same animosities back then.

Yes, I guess you were abused as a child by a nineteenth century Yankee abolitionist. It's hard to get over something like that. Was it Horace Greeley?

[Timpanagos1]

Where did I say that the Union despised slavery?

[DiogenesLamp]

facts are very inconvenient things to him. That's why he makes up his own.

I didn't make up this one.

This one was made by a Union supporter on a blog called "Dead Confederates." He created it to demonstrate that the South was an economic backwater and that the vast amount of money to pay the taxes to run the Federal Government came from the North.

I believed his claim until I ran across the fact that the vast bulk of all export money was produced in the South, then I realized the map signified a very different truth than what he wanted it to portray.

I didn't make up this piece of the puzzle either.

[JBW1949]

Excellent post......

[Psalm 144]

True.

[DiogenesLamp]

I pointed out that ordinary Northerners had good reason to oppose the expansion of slavery into the territories and you simply duck out of you original assertion.

I don't duck out of it, we've had this discussion before I think, and I've already said many times that most Northerners opposed slavery, but not for moral reasons. (Some did.) Most opposed it for economic reasons having to do with their own self interest, but the effort to portray this as a great moral issue has always misled everyone on this point.

Did New York and the declining city of Boston and the upstart city of Chicago exercise control over Iowa or Indiana or Minnesota or Michigan in 1840 or 1850 or 1860?

As much as they could, and the rest of the region as well. This is what empire builders do.

New York was the country's financial center, but didn't have much control over how a farmer in Michigan or Iowa lived.

They didn't need much. A finger in every economic pie that distributed materials to these farmers were enough.

Jackson had smashed the national bank, and the big corporations and financial institutions were still to come after the war.

They blossomed into full flower as a result of the war. Corruption ran rampant, and the United States was run by a government full of cronyism and kickbacks. This is why this era is known as the "gilded age." You should look at how New York fixed the price of coal, and created our first labor strikes and bloodshed. Excesses by these people are what created the modern left in this country.

Teddy Roosevelt was a shock to the system. He was of them, but immediately started attacking their power over the Government and Industry.

But you probably had a Marxist view of the Cold War as well, with capitalists calling the tune.

Here we go with this "Marxist" crap again. Run out of arguments, so you have to start calling people names?

Moral and economic arguments aren't easily separated. You want to define morality as some unattainably pure state of altruism, so that every real world motive turns out to be economic, that is, materialistic and self-interested.

I think this one is pretty easily separated. Ask the average Northerner of the time what they wanted to do with Black people and they would have said "send them out of the Country. I don't care where they go so long as it isn't here."

Their objection to slavery was not based on a concern for the slaves, it was based on the economic threat that slaves would pose to wage earners like themselves. Their objection were based on self interest, not on love for their brother. Some were, but most were not.

But morality isn't only about pure love and absolute self-abnegation. A preference for free labor over slavery is a moral preference.

Not when you advocate it to protect your own pocket rather than to right a wrong. It is a calculated self interest. It is only when your concern is for the wrongness of coercing someone that it becomes a moral preference. Look up "mens rea".

That is truly whackadoodle. Do you really deny that slave owners "prospered by the sweat of other people's brows instead of their own?"

I absolutely do not deny that, I consider that immoral even today, and I note most of our "rulers" in Washington and New York do this very thing now. I simply pointed out that some of the hatred for these people was born of envy, which is the strongest motivating force that the left uses to gain support.

Yes, I guess you were abused as a child by a nineteenth century Yankee abolitionist. It's hard to get over something like that. Was it Horace Greeley?

Mock as you like, but I note the same regions of the country still rule us today as ruled in 1865, and the same sort of people are still looking down their noses at any of us people who do not share their latest newfound morality such as "gay marriage" and that they still control government policy in such a way that the rest of us pay so that they can can continue to borrow and spend themselves into wealth and power.

They control the broadcast networks because that is necessary to keep so many people asleep. It is not an accident that the center of the broadcast Universe is New York.

[DiogenesLamp]

Where did I say that the Union despised slavery?

One would think that if they went to war to fight over it, then it is natural to believe they despised it. Isn't that what you believe? That the Union despised slavery?

Are you now trying to say they didn't? If so, what of your asserted reason for fighting the war?