Posted on 11/19/2001 6:28:43 AM PST by tberry
I was wrong about Grant on this point I was attributing Sherman's remark to Grant.
"I will not volunteer as a soldier, because rightfully or wrongfully I feel unwilling to take a mere private's place"
You forget the south frequently published such things in the North. That is because the North had freedom of the press, which the South did not. It is also true that the North had freedom of speech, which the south did not, and that if a Northerner had such views he was free to hold them and express them. As for the violence, you are over rating it. In any case, for every black who or was abused in the New York riots, there were litteraly tens of thousands who experienced such racism in the south.
Interesting quote from a Pennsylvania newspaper. Tell me, is Pennsylvania in the South? I forget. I thought it was over slavery and the utter despise that only the evil Southerners showed towards blacks.
Illiteracy and ignorance were long standards for education in the south. These things we northerners eventually just came to accept, particularly after the KKK ran off all the teachers we paid to go down and help y'all out. During the war and afterward, racist feelings were strong in the north. This is hardly surprising as for decades before the war southerners had migrated from the south to the North both to be free and to have higher standards of living as well a good education for their children. They brought with them a deep resentment for what had happened to the south as a result of slavery. Northerners who supported Abolition and equal rights were a minority, and were principally in the New England states where they had long before established that blacks were fully capable of prospering under freedom and of acquiring significantly higher levels of education than southern whites ever saw, then or now.
Why is that?
The mis-used expression "mean-spirited" comes to mind. My understanding is that most of those who actually fought for the South, including Davis and Lee, eventually recognized the nobility of their opponents.
Nobody ever pinned any personl financial impropriety on either Lincoln or Grant. If they were evil men, it wasn't for personal gain. Lincoln actually gave his life for the cause he believed in. Grant risked his many times.
(Although Grant had many subordinates who were crooked during his Presidency, apparently he was personally honest throughout.)
Illiteracy and ignorance were long standards for education in the south. These things we northerners eventually just came to accept, particularly after the KKK ran off all the teachers we paid to go down and help y'all out
LOL!!! Hold on, let me stop laughing < /wiping tears from eyes> Let's see, exactly how the north felt shall we?
To protect themselves from the dangers posed by free blacks, nonslave states began early in the nineteenth century to pass laws against black immigrants from slave states. These black codes, as they were called, showed up in the South AFTER the Civil War, BUT THEY BEGAN IN THE NORTH. Indiana and Ohio statutes were typical; NO free negroes were allowed to enter the state or own property in the state. Illinois used a different approach. Blacks could come if they posted a $1,000 bond. There were laws against blacks assembling "for the purpose of dancing or reveling" that carried a $20 fine. Illinois had a tradition, dating back to its territorial period, of restrictive and exclusionary legislation against blacks, culminiating in the 1853 black law that in effect barred black people from residing in the state.. lincoln never spoke out against this law. Oregon, a latecomer in the union, in its 1859 constitution prohibited blacks from coming into the state, holding property, even making contracts or filing a lawsuit...wasn't just the border states that suffered from Negrophobia. In Conneticut, Prudence Crandall, a Quaker, set up a small school to educate black children. It was against the law to do so, and she went to jail. When the leader of the abolition movement held a meeting in Boston and distributed his publication, the Liberator, a lynch mob formed and he barely escaped with his life.---Adams, p130Man it must have been just horrible for those northern folks. To have so many Southerners in their legislatures to pass laws, then go to Boston, form mobs to harass an abolitionist, and then not only to pass such a law in Conneticut(that's a northern state isn't it) but to also get another person elected as sheriff to put that poor teacher in jail. Gosh, so many Southerners up north to get into positions of power, makes you wonder where all the 'real' northerners were at during this time < /sarcasm>
But what did lincoln think of these people? Hmmmm..wait I've got a quote from the Tyrant himself!!
When asked if it was all right to have Abolitionists with the Republican party, he replied in the affirmative, "as long as I am not painted with the Abolitionist brush"---Johannsen, Lincoln the South, and SlaveryI will proclaim emancipation, entirely, or partially, or not at all, according to whichever of these measures shall seem to me best for the Union---Civil War Quotations, Pennsylvania, 1995
lincoln could have cared less about the slaves, from the ass's mouth shall we say, as evidenced in these two quotes. What's worse by the second one is he has deemed all by himself that not only what course is to be declared, but he chooses the course. Gosh, I guess I better read the Constitution more. I thought there were three branches of the government to decide the nation's course. But it was all over slavery. Okey-dokey
As commander of the southern districts set up after the war, Grant on several occasions toured the south. The business of segregating blacks was only just beginning in some areas, and South Carolina was one of them. One his trips there, it was not uncommon to find that Grant would take a seat on the train in the cars reserved for blacks. In the 1960's such folks were called freedom riders. This was unheard of in Southern society of the day.
Another small point about Grant: In the KKK crisis of the reconstruction, it was Grant who signed the KKK Act which put the KKK out of business as a visible power and forced it to go underground. Although this did not stop it, the Act had a very profound impact on it's course and effectively ended it's real overt threat of revolution. This act, later warm-heartedly gutted by SCOTUS, remained the legal precedent that allowed for the breakup of the KKK in the 1960's when it started to take to it's old ways of murder and arson.
Most of the hostility to Grant that you find today stems from the steps he took in his administration which no President until Truman had the nerve to even touch again. Grant's attitude to blacks and racism was extremely critical to our development into the country we are today, and it was based in large part to his feelings about how blacks had served their country loyally in the Union Army while many other whites became traitors to the nation.
Abe Lincoln had no high tariff. The tariff in 1860 (before he took office)was significantly lower than it had been in previous years. The Deep South states seceded for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with tariff rates (until after the war when they were looking around for respectable reasons that would justify secession.)
What absolutely nobody can argue with is that the Deep South states seceded quite some time before Lincoln took office, therefore secession cannot possibly be due to any action of Lincoln.
If you actually read their Ordinances or Resolutions of Secession, they wanted out because of actions or attitudes of northern states or people, not oppression by the federal government. By today's standards, the federal governemtn in 1860 was almost non-existent. It was not oppressive in any logical meaning of the term.
The 14th Congress passed the Tariff Act of 1816 levying a series of 25% duties designed to encourage domestic manufacturingHuh, guess it was over slavery after all. I mean just because the government revenue dropped by over 30 PERCENT that little fort sitting in the middle of Charleston's bay, where interestingly enough tariffs and duties were also enforced, didn't have anything to do with the 'real' reason at all < /sarcasm>Without protective duties, which accounted for an estimated three-fourths of textile manufacturing’s value added, half the New England industrial sector would have gone bankrupt, since European technology produced cloth much more cheaply than American mills could.
In fact, the tariff elevated the rate on manufactured goods to about 50% of their value, resulting in significantly greater protection for New England cloth manufacturers
In July 1832, Congress passed legislation that lowered tariff rates somewhat, but retained the high 1828 rates on manufactured cloth and iron. In November, South Carolina’s special Nullification Convention declared the Tariffs of 1832 and 1828 unconstitutional, and forbade collection of customs duties within the state.
A financial panic induced by a reduction in the flow of British capital investment triggered an extended economic depression, lasting from 1837 to 1843. The Whig Party made its greatest political gains campaigning for more active government programs to stimulate the economy along the model of Henry Clay’s American System. This platform included higher tariffs.
In an electoral sweep, the Whigs gained a congressional majority and won the presidency The party platform endorsed revenue tariffs designed to generate significant funds, part of which were to be distributed to the states to pay for internal improvements (roads and canals), another component of the American System.
Eventually Tyler, too, realized the need for funds, and signed a new bill that maintained some tariffs above 20%, while abandoning revenue distribution
1857--Democrats lowered tariffs further. An economic panic hit soon thereafter, precipitating a fall-off in imports in the wake of the recession that followed. Government revenues plummeted by 30%. In response, the nascent Republican Party called for higher tariffs
For the record quotes are found at Tax.org
For instance, during most of this period, there was no "North vs. South" alignment, as such. There was a Northeast, a Southeast and an undifferentiated West. Generally speaking, the SE and the West were allied against the NE.
It wasn't until southern politicians began campaigning hard for expansion of slavery into the territories that the West split into northern and southern segments.
It is interesting that many of those who are today most adamantly in favor of restrictions on imports are the same individuals most appalled by the fact that tariffs were used in early America to protect "infant industries."
Protective tariffs first became an issue after the War of 1812, when it became obvious that America was highly dependent on foreign sources for much of its potential war materiel.
Huh, and my history book says Kentucky stayed in the Union.
In fact, the tariff elevated the rate on manufactured goods to about 50% of their value, resulting in significantly greater protection for New England cloth manufacturers
Manufacturing interests in the United States (particularly in the West and New England) did not yet carry the political clout in Congress that mercantile and shipping interests (who tended to oppose tariffs) did
I don't know what that tells you but pretty much sums up ; north---manufacturing---tariffs--protectionist ; South---shipping---no tariffs---free trade. Really that's about as basic as you can get. Don't see any other way to read that
So therefore KY was a Northern state? You are aware that four slave states stayed in the Union (MO, KY, MD, DE), I hope. Nobody at the time, that I've read, ever claimed that this made them northern states.
You are the one who wants to keep casting the entire issue of tariffs into hard and fast North vs. South categories. All I am trying to say is that for most of the period in question, these categories are misleading.
For instance, in your post #408, the link you posted had some interesting info. One of the highest tariffs included tariffs on hemp. As it turns out, the #1 product of both MO and KY (both slave states) was hemp, used to make rope. So these southern slave states were protected by the tariff from foreign competition.
I'm not saying many southerners were not upset by the protective tariffs. I'm sure many were. It's just that by 1860 this was just not that much of an issue, as can be seen by its relative lack of importance in their various Resolutions of Secession.
How exactly was the Confederacy planning to finance its new government, if it had been allowed to leave in peace? It is highly likely that any such government would have required high military expenses due to the potential for conflicts with the US. It is very likely that the total expenses for the Confederacy would have been at least as high as the $60,000,000 pf the US in 1859. There is little doubt this amount would have been financed by tariffs on imports, which are far and away the cheapest forms of taxes to collect. Thus the South would have had much higher taxes than when it was part of the Union.
To quote your tax.org link, "The antebellum south enjoyed one of the lightest tax burdens of all contemporary civilized societies."
Doesn't sound like excessive taxation drove them to secede.
LOL. The South before the war had it's onw black codes called slavery. Any white man could kill any black for any reason at any time, and provided he owned him, the state would compensate him for the trouble and the loss. Stop dreaming.
Indiana and Ohio statutes were typical; NO free negroes were allowed to enter the state or own property in the state.
Some obscure law never really enforced. By 1860, these two states had nearly as many free blacks (and not one slave) as Florida had slaves. How do you account for that? Perhaps they moved in during the night?
Illinois used a different approach. Blacks could come if they posted a $1,000 bond.
Since you have dated any thing, we must guess. The 1000 dollars is a giveaway though, as Federal Law after 1850 meant that any white with a Black found on it could be charged with harboring a slave, and the penalty was 1000 dollars. Many of these laws were enacted to placate the bastard southern flesh mongering barbarians, but they were never enforced by the states themselves.
There were laws against blacks assembling "for the purpose of dancing or reveling" that carried a $20 fine.
Probably still are. If you have a loud enough party the cops will come for you too. Whoopee doo, and you equate that with the right to void all contracts or kill a white man for marrying a black! Wierd. That's weird.
Illinois had a tradition, dating back to its territorial period, of restrictive and exclusionary legislation against blacks, culminiating in the 1853 black law that in effect barred black people from residing in the state..
Same thing. Many awful and horrifying incidents occurred under the Fugitive Slave Act and most good folk were appalled and disgusted. The laws were on the books to placte the slavers and to discourage the flesh mongers from coming North to abduct free blacks back into horrid slavery. The Federal flesh mongers had unlimited compensation for their troubles from the Federal government, and this was indeed abhorrent to the free people in the North.
lincoln never spoke out against this law.
It was not enforced consistently by any means. Mostly it was enforced in communities along the border as they were largely populated by black hating southern racists who had moved out of the south to avoid the economic collapse and state governments with few civil rights. It did hold down the black population some, but Illinois still had a black population proportionately larger than Massachusetts by 1860.
Oregon, a latecomer in the union, in its 1859 constitution prohibited blacks from coming into the state, holding property, even making contracts or filing a lawsuit...wasn't just the border states that suffered from Negrophobia.
The Oregon government under 'Old Buck' was a railroad job to make the state slave so that southern dominance of Congress would not be lost. Hence the BS constitution and laws which were overthrown by the free citizens after Lincoln's election.
In Conneticut, Prudence Crandall, a Quaker, set up a small school to educate black children. It was against the law to do so, and she went to jail.
She was not sent to jail, but she was harrassed out of the state by some morons. This happened in the 1830's, and afterwards the state apologized to her for the extremely bad 'southern type' behaviour of a few bigots and gave her a lifetime pension to support her work and herself until her death many many years later. It was a rare case.
When the leader of the abolition movement held a meeting in Boston and distributed his publication, the Liberator, a lynch mob formed and he barely escaped with his life.---Adams, p130
Nice reference. Given that blacks were free and full state citizens in the state by law from 1780 on, it's a bit of twist, even for a trash fabricator of junk books like Adams. No names, no dates, no facts just fiction.
But what did lincoln think of these people? Hmmmm..wait I've got a quote from the Tyrant himself!!
When asked if it was all right to have Abolitionists with the Republican party, he replied in the affirmative, "as long as I am not painted with the Abolitionist brush"---Johannsen, Lincoln the South, and Slavery
I will proclaim emancipation, entirely, or partially, or not at all, according to whichever of these measures shall seem to me best for the Union---Civil War Quotations, Pennsylvania, 1995
Lincoln was a southerner. Like many hundreds of thousands, his family moved north to find freedom. The concepts of the founders were rather obscure to him in his early days, but he gradually learned to become more civilized. He never became a Abolitionist, and no Abolitionist ever pretended that he was, but it was clear that he was not just some simple southern racist. In many ways, one could argue that the best thing that ever happened to blacks in this country was his assasination. In no way did Abolitionists count him among them as one of them, but they did find him a practical man to deal with.
lincoln could have cared less about the slaves, from the ass's mouth shall we say, as evidenced in these two quotes. What's worse by the second one is he has deemed all by himself that not only what course is to be declared, but he chooses the course.
Lincoln did not believe that segregation was practical or possible, though by the end of the war he thought it desireable. Like I said, he was a southerner. So much so that he did not even run on the Republican ticket in 1864.
Gosh, I guess I better read the Constitution more. I thought there were three branches of the government to decide the nation's course. But it was all over slavery. Okey-dokey
Yes, indeed it was over slavery. It was over the destruction of freedom by illiterate overbearing psychopaths, of the destruction of prosperity by a leacherous and defunct lazy people, and of the destruction of the dream of the founders by a southern dominated federal government which believed not in democracy but in slavery, rigged elections and control by armed militia.
It was a glorious revolution by a God fearing and morale people for the soul and future of a country with the potential to be a great nation instead of a hopeless failed anachronism. The revolution is not completely over, as you stand in testimony of that fact, but it is slowly being won. It has been a long road, and it will continue.
Because most attacking us seek to do so from the alleged moral high ground.
"While most of those defending the Union position are perfectly willing to recognize that many Southerners, such as Lee and Davis, were noble individuals fighting for an inherently ignoble cause"
We do not believe it to be an inherently ignoble cause. I am not sure noble men would remain noble if they did that would they?
Well, the problem there is that that at the time of secession, it was pretty well unanimously stated that secession was necessary to protect the institution of slavery. Those of us who disapprove of that institution have a problem seeing these attempts to protect an evil institution as anything but ignoble.
However, certainly not all who fought for the South were conciously fighting to protect slavery, just as not all who fought for the North were fighting to end it, especially in the early years.
There were men with ulterior and ignoble motives on both sides, just as there were men of nobility and honor on both sides.
I just object to the continuous attacks on the integrity of Northern heroes when similar attacks are not made on Southern heroes. If you have genuine evidence of genuine corruption or evil on the part of Grant or Lincoln, I'd be interested to see it.
Not evidence that they waged war ruthlesssly. That is how war works. Those responsible are those who start wars, not those who end them. I find it interesting that some of those most appalled by Grant's or Sherman's brutality are presently wanting to kill anybody who wears a turban or speaks a language they don't understand. Makes it look like they're not opposed to brutality, just brutality practiced on "their people."
Not evil, but indifferent to slavery as an institution, and on human rights in general. The North was no more moral than the South.
I think you are obviously incorrect about Lincoln. It is obvious from many of his speeches that he had given a great deal of thought to the whole "Negro Issue."
By today's standards, he was a racist, as indeed was (almost) everybody at the time.
However, he was unalterably opposed to slavery and especially to its spread into new areas. He believed that the federal governmenthad no power to end slavery in the slave states, but that it had every right to prevent its spread into the territories.
He did not believe that blacks were fully equal to whites, but he was adamant that they had every right to live their lives without being mistreated and to enjoy the fruits of their own labor. For the time, that was pretty advanced.
I guess this is where we part company. It's the same old tune. If a person or institution isn't perfect, then it cannot be spoken of as any better than another that is completely corrupt or evil.
In Turkey, until recently, women had some minor disabilities under the law. Therefore, I guess they were no better than the taliban, since women were not absolutely equal to men.
I think this line of "reasoning" is just silly. It is highly relevant to compare societies and individuals. Even though none of them are perfect, some are much more imperfect than others. And that comparative imperfection is important.
This is all based on the theory that since all humans contain both good and evil, there is no relevant difference between them. So Hitler and Mother Theresa were morally equivalent, to use a little hyperbole, since both were composed of both good and bad.
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.