Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Southern Jews and the Confederacy
Jewish Press ^ | Jul 28 2010 | Lewis Regenstein

Posted on 08/04/2010 5:34:10 AM PDT by SJackson

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-193 next last
To: AnalogReigns
Lincoln and the North only pushed emancipation mid-war, when they saw they were losing...

Lincoln issued the first Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862, 18 months after the war started. The US had just defeated Lee's attempted invasion at Antietam and the blockade was in full swing. In the west, New Orleans had fallen, Grant had already occupied Memphis, had troops in Mississippi and was about to begin the Vicksburg campaign. Now, in what sense were they losing?

81 posted on 08/04/2010 9:44:27 AM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: I Buried My Guns

Yes, there were drafts on both sides with the south commencing in 1862 and the north in 1863.


82 posted on 08/04/2010 9:45:32 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: central_va

No idea. It is a bastardizations of Proverbs 1:7


83 posted on 08/04/2010 9:45:32 AM PDT by rmlew (There is no such thing as a Blue Dog Democrat; just a liberals who lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: I Buried My Guns
Wasn't there a draft in effect part way through the war?

The south instituted conscription first and a higher percentage of southern soldiers were draftees than US soldiers.

84 posted on 08/04/2010 9:51:26 AM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
Wasn't it Sherman who (ironically despite his middle name) said "the only good Indian is a dead Indian?"

No, that was Sheridan.

I stand corrected and apologize for the error.

85 posted on 08/04/2010 9:57:06 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Re'eh, 'Anokhi noten lifneykhem hayom berakhah uqelalah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Yeah because being a slave is awesome. Gotcha.


86 posted on 08/04/2010 10:00:33 AM PDT by VanDeKoik (Iran doesnt have a 2nd admendment. Ya see how that turned out?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
I would too, but it's a faulty premise. There would never be two self-sustaining nations. The south simply could not stand on its own. It lacked the infrastructure and the resolve to build the infrastructure necessary to provide for itself.

I am sure you feel the same way about the south in 2010. Arrogant SOB you are.

87 posted on 08/04/2010 10:02:46 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

Lincoln was running out of Irishmen to send to the slaughter so he emancipated a new batch of fresh meat.


88 posted on 08/04/2010 10:04:31 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca
All I remember is thinking the Gatlin Gun was really, really, cool.

Both sides had access to rapid fire weapons, neither side used them.

89 posted on 08/04/2010 10:07:34 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
It would be interesting to consider what this country would be like now if the Confederacy had won and its Constitution were used as the basis for governance:

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=353

The use of tariffs to shelter domestic industries from foreign competition had been an important issue since tariffs were first adopted in 1816. Southern states had borne heavy costs since tariffs protected northern manufacturing at the expense of Southern imports. The South exported agricultural commodities and imported almost all the goods it consumed, either from abroad or from Northern states. Tariffs drastically raised the cost of goods in the Southern states, while most of the tariff revenue was spent in the North.
90 posted on 08/04/2010 10:07:45 AM PDT by Zalmon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: central_va; Vigilanteman

And, as usual, you would be wrong. Even the simple-minded (like you) can see that the south has strong industry now and that the north - especially the northeast - is in decline.

But it wasn’t that way 145 years ago. As much as I rue the possibility of the Union breaking up, I wonder what might have happened if the south had built up industry and self-sustainability and then properly sued for secession. In this way Vigilanteman’s premise of a partnered ally would be valid.


91 posted on 08/04/2010 10:10:02 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Robe

Would we could relive them. There are a couple of Mass senators in line for a drubbing even as we speak.


92 posted on 08/04/2010 10:14:49 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell (They are the vultures in Dark Crystal screeeching their hatred and fear into the void ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik
Yeah because being a slave is awesome. Gotcha.

Like I said, powerfully ignorant. You were a virtual slave when you were a child. Other people told you what you had to do, and what you could not do. If you disobeyed you were punished. But somehow kids find a way to be happy, make their own friends, etc.

My guess is that a third of the world's population, given the opportunity, would trade their current existence for that of a slave at Monticello.

I guess you can live in your imaginary world if you wish, but you might have a look at Fremantle's Three Months in the Southern States. Don't know who Fremantle was? That's because you never went beyond the cr@p we were all taught in high school.

ML/NJ

93 posted on 08/04/2010 10:16:35 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
No issue but Slavery lead men to political violence in the antebellum period.

Thanks for your post. And I would like to add that Big Cotton was making a fortune. There was no need for slave labor.

94 posted on 08/04/2010 10:33:03 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Politicians exist to break windows so they may spend other people's money to fix them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
But it wasn’t that way 145 years ago.

You know you may be right, a country that had no Army or Navy or National Govt at all, built an industrial infrastructure up from nothing held off the entire Union Army for four years. Either the North was TOTALLY incompetent or you are full of Sherman.

95 posted on 08/04/2010 10:42:40 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
...the truce [Sherman] offered Joe Johnston was so lenient it would have allowed them to keep their slaves.

When I first read your post that Sherman and Johnston negotiated a truce, I couldn't believe it, thinking that it was Grant and Lee who did it at Appomattox Court House.

But I looked to try to check it out in an old book, The Story of the Confederacy originally written in 1926 by Robert Selph Henry, I was surprised to find that you were correct. Sherman and Johnson did meet and talk in North Carolina, near Durham's Station. That was a week after Appomattox, and after both had gotten word of Lee's surrender to Grant. By then, they had both known as well that Lincoln was assassinated.

Wonder why it took so long for Johnston to surrender and why Sherman took it upon himself to enter into a detailed agreement with Johnston without authority from Washington (DC, that is).

Incidentally, the mobile Confederate "government" - or what was left of it - approved of the terms of the Sherman-Johnston pact. No mention in the book, though, about its terms regarding slavery.

96 posted on 08/04/2010 10:43:13 AM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

If the North was not trying to end slavery why would the south need to secede to preserve it?


97 posted on 08/04/2010 10:48:02 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell (They are the vultures in Dark Crystal screeeching their hatred and fear into the void ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: central_va

The build-up of infrastructure didn’t occur until after the Civil War. During the war the south ate itself alive.

As for heroism and incompetence, there was plenty to spare an both sides.


98 posted on 08/04/2010 10:52:32 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
I know you are IQ challenged but try to learn something:

By 1860, the Tredegar Iron Works was the largest of its kind in the South, a fact that played a significant role in the decision to relocate the capital of the Confederacy from Montgomery, Alabama to Richmond in May 1861.[10]Tredegar supplied high-quality munitions to the South during the war. The company also manufactured railroad steam locomotives in the same period.

    * Tredegar Iron Works made the iron plating for the first Confederate ironclad warship, the CSS Virginia which fought in the historic Battle of Hampton Roads in March 1862.
    * Tredegar is also credited with the production of approximately 1,100 artillery pieces during the war which was about half of the South's total domestic production of artillery between the war years of 1861-1865.
    * Tredegar also produced a giant rail-mounted siege cannon during the conflict.

99 posted on 08/04/2010 10:59:57 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Alabama played a key role in Confederate naval operations because of the state's strategic and economic importance and its role in the defense of the Gulf Coast

The production of iron for ships was very quickly understood to be one of the keys to naval victory in the Civil War, and Alabama was among the most important producers of iron in the South. Indeed, Alabama contributed more iron ore than any other Confederate state and by the end of the war was also producing more coal (which is essential in producing iron from ore) than any other state. Iron was used in naval ships in a variety of ways, including in the creation of fasteners such as nails, bolts, and nuts; in weapons such as heavy iron cannons, cannonballs, and shells; for rams used to sink enemy ships; and for engines, chains, and anchors.

The state was home to four of the 39 iron furnaces in the Confederacy in 1860, and an additional 13 furnaces were built before the end of the war in 1865. Among the best-known manufacturers were the Bibb Iron Company, which was owned by the Confederate government, and the privately owned Shelby Ironworks, Cane Creek Iron works, and Brierfield Furnace. All but one of Alabama's strategically significant iron furnaces were destroyed during the war; Hale & Murdock Ironworks in Lamar County escaped detection.

100 posted on 08/04/2010 11:07:56 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-193 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson