Why they fought the Civil War.

Ducken, you are a brave man.:up::theman:

With that let me say that if one believes all of the chatter taught in public school then Freeing the Slaves is the ONLY issue and all Southern Slave owners were racist. Of course that then puts the 30 % who were black slave owners in a tither of sorts.

IN point of fact the largest owner in the NO, LA area was a Black lady while one of the 5 largest in SC was also a Black man who started life as a slave. It should also be noted that there were more Free black people in the South in 1860 than there were free Black people in the North.

While all the talk was going on the truth of the matter was MONEY and GREED-new tariff that Congress laid on the southern states. The North, now that it had the votes to do so, wanted to build Railroads to California and more public schools and better roads and better harbors. All that takes money plus the fact that none of those RR's, Schools, Roads, or Harbors were to be in the Southern half of the Country while that same Southern half was going to supply 80 % of those taxes to do these improvements.

I'm ready
:crapstrom:

Vote is cast.

I would like to point out that I am from a state that said as the first to join it would be the last to leave. The civil war tore Delaware apart by and large.

Here is a link on Delaware and the Civil War. Ducken you may enjoy this:

http://www.hsd.org/civilwar.htm

Definitely states rights with slave rights as a minor factor.

"anlgp wrote:

Vote is cast.

I would like to point out that I am from a state that said as the first to join it would be the last to leave. The civil war tore Delaware apart by and large.

Here is a link on Delaware and the Civil War. Ducken you may enjoy this:

http://www.hsd.org/civilwar.htm

Fantastic!:up:

Oh and GA I forgot to mention that the reason there was probably more free blacks in the south than the north is because the vast majority of blacks lived in the south, so it was a numbers thing.

That may be wrong but that's my guess, prove me wrong as always. :up:

Oh and I think we actually agreed for once in this thread. :knucks:

"sking29 wrote:

Oh and GA I forgot to mention that the reason there was probably more free blacks in the south than the north is because the vast majority of blacks lived in the south, so it was a numbers thing.

That may be wrong but that's my guess, prove me wrong as always. :up:

Oh and I think we actually agreed for once in this thread. :knucks:

This is just some quick numbers off the top and I'll get back to this later with links as I know I have them some where.

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1860a-15.pdf

There were about 220,000 free Black people in the North while it was about 268,000 free Black people in the South for a total of 488,000 with about 3.9 million slaves as of 1860. My feeling is, and I get this thru what I've read, that the Free people in the North had it much worse than anyother free person. As you may be aware the first Jim Crow laws were started in the North to be able to "Control" those Black people who were free. There were some very harsh laws in most Northern states against black people. Some say they were treated worse that their Southern slave brothers. The City that had the most free Black people in the US was New Orleans where there were over 3,000 at that time who owned slaves out of a total of over 10,000 free black people.

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm
.

I have waited until there was some discussion before I chimed in:wink2: I have to go to work here in a bit so after work I will try to add some more.

The reason I started this pole was because of another thread and the tone from some was that slavery was THE reason for the war which is purely false, and I am pleased to see that so far we all can agree on that.

For me GA hit the nail on the head, it was mostly about money and the States rights ( more power to the state then the Feds). And in those State's rights was the right to say if that state thought it was legal or not to own slaves in that state. I believe the Southern states were sorta backed into a corner. On one hand I doubt they really wanted to split off from the US, but the recent shift in population had left the South with less say in Congress. I believe the North had made up it's mind to go forth with the stuff GA has outlined, and a large portion of that money was coming from the South, where that money was needed to make capitol improvements in the south.

And instead of a compromise, the Southern states felt compelled to stand up for what they believed was their rights granted to them by the Constitution and our counties fathers.

Time to get ready for work, Hope there is some good talk about this when I get home so I can learn something.

When you go back and truly look at the figures it still is surprising that the South pulled out at all. While the numbers of which States pulled out, on the surface, seem to say slavery was the reason. Looking deeper proves that to be false. Let me explain:

The real fear here is that the North would not return the Slaves to their owners, a States Rights problem. There were two options open to those states. 1. Stay in and fight this in court (slavery was legal in the Constitution). 2. Stay in because Lincoln himself stated that he would live by the law of the land and would not try and change the law. He even went so far as to have put into play an amemdment (secretly before he was sworn in as President) that would have guarantied slavery forever more plus reinforcing States rights.

http://www.southernmessenger.org/14th_amendment.htm

You will also notice that the northern most of the slave states didn't jump on the secession bandwagon to start with and 4 of those never did. (there are several reasons why this happened both legal and illegal) Truthfully if Lincoln had backed off I believe war would have been averted. Why didn't he? If you read anything about the man you will find that once he made up his mind to go one way you could NOT change it. Lincoln had said for months and months that he would fight to keep the Union together. He was backed by big business so the tariff had to stay; he would not lower that for any reason so War was a given. But just how to start it and look as if the victim? The Tax collecting forts were Federal land and would not be given up by Lincoln.

The South had one chance to get it right and have the world on its side and IMHO it blew it.

http://xml.education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/34530

In 1832 in response to the same type of problem SC used nullification to get a compromise from the Federal government, why didn't they use it this time and force Lincoln in making the first move?

We will never know and thus over 600,000 American lives were lost and part of this country was put under the sword for 18 years.

The very worst part in all of this is that it has left a legacy of hate and distrust that lives in some even today 148 years later. I truly wonder if Lincoln looks down and is happy with his handiwork in our history? Or is he still to hardheaded to see the division that still exist.:no:

"gafinfan wrote:

This is just some quick numbers off the top and I'll get back to this later with links as I know I have them some where.

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1860a-15.pdf

There were about 220,000 free Black people in the North while it was about 268,000 free Black people in the South for a total of 488,000 with about 3.9 million slaves as of 1860. My feeling is, and I get this thru what I've read, that the Free people in the North had it much worse than anyother free person. As you may be aware the first Jim Crow laws were started in the North to be able to "Control" those Black people who were free. There were some very harsh laws in most Northern states against black people. Some say they were treated worse that their Southern slave brothers. The City that had the most free Black people in the US was New Orleans where there were over 3,000 at that time who owned slaves out of a total of over 10,000 free black people.

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm
.

I agree GA but my argument was that because there were many more blacks in the south that a pure numbers game would lead to there being more free blacks in the south than in the north. So let's take a quick look at the numbers.

So according to what I can find you are correct that there were a total of 488,000 free African Americans during the 1860 census. However, there was roughly a total black population of 4,500,000 in the entire United States with roughly 3,950,000 in slavery. So we'll round that to about 500,000 free blacks and there we can see our agreed number of 488,000 free blacks come in. Since nearly 4 million of the 4.5 million blacks in the United States were slaves that means they lived in the south/border states. Factor in that there were as you say 268,000 additional free blacks in the south and we have only about 220,000 total blacks in the north. The final numbers through all of this leads to roughly 4.27 million blacks, both free and slave, in the south with only about 220,000 blacks total in the north. Seeing this things appear to be as I thought, that many more blacks existed in the south thus by a pure numbers game we can figure that a total number of free blacks would be greater in the south where as percentage wise they would be much less. So if we want to look at percentages 100% of blacks were free in the north versus about 16% in the south. So it comes down to a numbers game of who you want to look better on whether you use total numbers versus that in relation to the actual population (percentage wise). My final argument is that the majority of blacks being in the south, it only makes sense that more free blacks in total numbers would come from there based on pure majority.

As for treatment, it is no doubt that treatment was not great for blacks in the north and there was in fact more chance for economic growth in the south for free blacks because the north had more competition. Here's a quick overview of treatment in North and South and neither are great:

Although free blacks did not have owners who controlled their movements, state law and widespread discrimination greatly restricted their freedom. All of the southern and some of the midwestern states prohibited African‐American immigration, and other states had laws greatly limiting it. Ohio, for example, required free blacks to post a $500 bond assuring good conduct and means of supporting themselves before they could settle there. Southern states required African Americans to carry proof of their freedom; if they did not possess the correct papers they could be sold as slaves. Many lived under the constant threat of kidnapping and enslavement. In the North, African Americans were required to have a pass to enter any town in some parts of New England. The rising number of free blacks led to further restrictions of their activities. In almost every state they were denied the right to vote and hold public office. They were usually excluded from white schools and churches as well as restaurants, hotels, theatres, museums, and all forms of public transportation. In the South free blacks had curfews and restrictions against purchasing alcohol and firearms. They were not allowed to testify in a court case against a white person. In Florida and Georgia free men had to report to white guardians periodically. All of these laws and codes were designed to keep African Americans in a subordinate role in US society.

Most free blacks, denied the education and opportunities open to whites, lived in poverty. Despite antislavery sentiment in the North, free blacks were more prosperous in the South, with many more opportunities to practise their trades. In the North they had to compete against European immigrants for many jobs and were barred from joining trade unions. Some of the wealthiest free blacks in the South were slave owners themselves. Others grew wealthy through new businesses. Sea captain Paul Cuffe became a wealthy shipbuilder and merchant. Sailmaker James Forten from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, hired workers of all races in his plant.

http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/encyclopedia/article_show/free_blacks/m0097376.html

I suppose its all how you look at it but I feel we can agree to at least a draw on the lives of free blacks in the north and south. I am going to favor the north as a better place for blacks because at least there wasn't the fear of being forced into slavery for not having proper papers and the very fact of being put into slavery would make me think the south was the worse of the two places to be. Neither place was great and the north was not the wonderful place history textbooks make it seem.

Also you are partially correct on the Jim Crow laws from what I can find. You are right that the laws' name originated in the north because of the use of separate facilities for blacks and whites, but the actual Jim Crow laws began in the south.

The term Jim Crow probably originated in 19th-century minstrelsy, and it had some pre-Civil War usage, not in the South but in the North, to describe separate facilities for blacks and whites, including steamboats, hotels and restaurants. In the late 19th century, however, the term Jim Crow took on a new meaning, symbolizing the southern, and eventually national, system of legal segregation.
http://www.heritagecenter.com/Museum/Exhibits/blackedu/jimcrow.htm

From all the evidence I have ever found, although the treatment of blacks in the North was never the paradise our History textbooks have made it out to be, the north still gave blacks the better overall lifestyle namely not being sold as slaves (which included selling children from their parents and other despicable acts).

Please GA don't take this lengthy post as a way for us to re-enter the whole discussion of the right to secede, etc. but rather my post is just to show that from the evidence I have found the south was not your favorite place to be if you were a black American even if you had more economic freedom if you were lucky enough to be free (~16% of the southern black population).

Here's some links from where I got my numbers for my numbers game :wink2::

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080105170123AAN9tDl

Yours truly,
The Lone Union Supporter :wink2:

I believe it was more state rights oriented though I suppose slavery could be considered inclusive under that category as far as they were concerned. But I'm sure there were several other cultural issues that also played a part.

"Regan21286 wrote:

I believe it was more state rights oriented though I suppose slavery could be considered inclusive under that category as far as they were concerned. But I'm sure there were several other cultural issues that also played a part.

Most definitely, slavery just seemed to get lumped in with the overall cultural differences between the south and north. :yes:

"sking29 wrote:

I agree GA but my argument was that because there were many more blacks in the south that a pure numbers game would lead to there being more free blacks in the south than in the north. So let's take a quick look at the numbers.

So according to what I can find you are correct that there were a total of 488,000 free African Americans during the 1860 census. However, there was roughly a total black population of 4,500,000 in the entire United States with roughly 3,950,000 in slavery. So we'll round that to about 500,000 free blacks and there we can see our agreed number of 488,000 free blacks come in. Since nearly 4 million of the 4.5 million blacks in the United States were slaves that means they lived in the south/border states. Factor in that there were as you say 268,000 additional free blacks in the south and we have only about 220,000 total blacks in the north. The final numbers through all of this leads to roughly 4.27 million blacks, both free and slave, in the south with only about 220,000 blacks total in the north. Seeing this things appear to be as I thought, that many more blacks existed in the south thus by a pure numbers game we can figure that a total number of free blacks would be greater in the south where as percentage wise they would be much less. So if we want to look at percentages 100% of blacks were free in the north versus about 16% in the south. So it comes down to a numbers game of who you want to look better on whether you use total numbers versus that in relation to the actual population (percentage wise). My final argument is that the majority of blacks being in the south, it only makes sense that more free blacks in total numbers would come from there based on pure majority.

As for treatment, it is no doubt that treatment was not great for blacks in the north and there was in fact more chance for economic growth in the south for free blacks because the north had more competition. Here's a quick overview of treatment in North and South and neither are great:

I suppose its all how you look at it but I feel we can agree to at least a draw on the lives of free blacks in the north and south. I am going to favor the north as a better place for blacks because at least there wasn't the fear of being forced into slavery for not having proper papers and the very fact of being put into slavery would make me think the south was the worse of the two places to be. Neither place was great and the north was not the wonderful place history textbooks make it seem.

Also you are partially correct on the Jim Crow laws from what I can find. You are right that the laws' name originated in the north because of the use of separate facilities for blacks and whites, but the actual Jim Crow laws began in the south.

From all the evidence I have ever found, although the treatment of blacks in the North was never the paradise our History textbooks have made it out to be, the north still gave blacks the better overall lifestyle namely not being sold as slaves (which included selling children from their parents and other despicable acts).

Please GA don't take this lengthy post as a way for us to re-enter the whole discussion of the right to secede, etc. but rather my post is just to show that from the evidence I have found the south was not your favorite place to be if you were a black American even if you had more economic freedom if you were lucky enough to be free (~16% of the southern black population).

Here's some links from where I got my numbers for my numbers game :wink2::

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080105170123AAN9tDl

Yours truly,
The Lone Union Supporter :wink2:

you are right, its all a numbers game, thats true. Also true is just how and who we talk about as to which person North or South was better off. You could point to your Northern Ship owner or many others while I could point to any one of, who knows how many, Southern Blacks who arose from slavery to wealth. Both you and I know we do this to try and prove our points to eachother while the diehards, on both sides, do this to trade tit for tat. This is why I've always said that the distinctly anti-southern slant of taught history gives rise to distrust and division which is the very last thing most southern leaders, after the war, wanted to happen. From Lee and Davis, who both loved their country, to most others they all wanted the the country to come back together as a strong nation without division. Yet some also warned that history taught the wrong way would lead the the very division that we still have of both North to South and Black to White. Which to one who loves his country today makes me so very sad; but it is what it is.:no::up:

I had to come back and add: To me History should be taught as it truly happened, no I was right; you were wrong, to get the true flavor, meaning if you will, of what and why something happened. To embelish one side or one person with saint like qualities, which are not true only gives rise to the very division of which I speak.:lol:

If you bother to read the articles of secession it's plainly obvious the South seceded because of slavery.

There were plenty of non-political people writing in the 1850s that war was coming and it was coming because of slavery, North and South of the Mason Dixie line.

The contemparaneous documents written prior to and during the war put slavery as the reason for war.

States rights in and of its self is not a causis belli. "States Rights" was an 1850s spin doctor's way of renaming the issue to make it more palatable.

"Pauly wrote:

If you bother to read the articles of secession it's plainly obvious the South seceded because of slavery.

There were plenty of non-political people writing in the 1850s that war was coming and it was coming because of slavery, North and South of the Mason Dixie line.

The contemparaneous documents written prior to and during the war put slavery as the reason for war.

States rights in and of its self is not a causis belli. "States Rights" was an 1850s spin doctor's way of renaming the issue to make it more palatable.

You have the right to believe that which you will but the slavery issue "causis belli" is THE 1865's+ spin doctor's way of making 630,000 military and 30,000+ southern civilian deaths and the coming Military overlord reconstrution's legality not only palatable but defensable. Which is the most dishonorable thing done, not only to the South, but the Country as a whole. Only IMHO of course.

"gafinfan wrote:

You have the right to believe that which you will but the slavery issue "causis belli" is THE 1865's+ spin doctor's way of making 630,000 military and 30,000+ southern civilian deaths and the coming Military overlord reconstrution's legality not only palatable but defensable. Which is the most dishonorable thing done, not only to the South, but the Country as a whole. Only IMHO of course.

cmon now, he was making a point.. you have now embellished it with things he did not say... I do not see his comments as defending deaths, simply countering your point. I'm to lazy this a.m. to go back through them, but it seems to me that slavery was mentioned in many of the articles of seccession. My memory could be failing, but I think he has a valid point. The feds said no slaves, the southern states said yes slaves.. so it was a matter of states rights... over slavery....

"cnc66 wrote:

cmon now, he was making a point.. you have now embellished it with things he did not say... I do not see his comments as defending deaths, simply countering your point. I'm to lazy this a.m. to go back through them, but it seems to me that slavery was mentioned in many of the articles of seccession. My memory could be failing, but I think he has a valid point. The feds said no slaves, the southern states said yes slaves.. so it was a matter of states rights... over slavery....

Marty he has a valid point because its true in and of itself that most of the States Articles of secession do in fact point to slavery as one of the issues that were the cause of the states to leave the Union. If that is as far as one takes it then it is a good and morally right cause for the North to act as it did. But I ask you this, forget what is written for just a moment, if you are accused of breaking the law yet you know its legal do you run away and hide or do you go to court and and prove the other party wrong? Why would you go and run away knowing that you had the law of the land on your side? Do you think that those who owned slaves, remember they are only 3% of the population, held sway over the other 97 %? and that they were ignorant of the laws of the land, also? Plus taking into account that, at that time, there was not a white man in all the land, North, South, East, or West who did not believe himself to be better than the black man. Yet in the South of that day even the Black slave looked down upon the poor white person. Also if that is the major cause just why did it take Lincoln 2+ years to declare it so?

Of course the slavery issue was used to inflame the masses by raising the fear that freeing them all at once would put every life into question, it was the white's worse fear. Yet when you see what really happened during the war the Black people of the South both free and slave, for whatever reason, did not "raise hell" but became even more a part of Southern effort. 1863 thru 1865 prove that beyond any doubt when all of the ablebodied men were fighting and the women were left alone to raise the crops with their slaves and they did just that; for the most part. There is no way the South could have fought as long as it did without the very real help of the Southern black, both free and slave and I'm sure that their reasons were as varied as there are reasons that today people join up into our military, don't you think?

You are right, in that I did enbellish, but I did so not to make light of his comments, which are right in and of themselves if you don't want to take it any farther or better see the whole picture. But I ask you this what better way to embellish the loss of over 310,000 Northern boys to their mothers than to give their deaths a cloak of moral good and righteousness by saying that they died to free others making the ending justify the means. To put those numbers into some sort of prospective the invasion of Europe cost some 6000 allied dead on the first day. Grants repulse at Vicksburg cost 5000 in less than two hours. Good lord Marty in the several months leading up to that day Grant lost 17,000 troops to sickness/death in trying other ways to try and just get to Vicksburg to be able to fight. Would the American public stand for such losses today without the head of that general on a silver platter? The 630,000 dead total in that four years is more American blood shed than in all other wars combined fought by us Marty, in how many years? The numbers are so very great that today they seem to become just numbers because of the very real fact that the mind can't get a handle on them yet to those living during that time, both North and South, those same numbers were very real and had to be lived with and there is no way that the words Tariff or States rights will ever override the Righteousness of "making men free" thus Slavery and saving the Union had to become the only true reasons for the war or the people would have demanded their right to have the Governments head.

I give you two links to read and ponder:

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/economics.htm

http://www.tagate.com/wars/page/american.shtml

While doing so let me state here and now I'm glad we are who we are A united states, I would want it no other way, yet it is and always has been my feeling that the pat answer to the whole history of slavery in our country and the question of righteousness and use of racism to give one part of the country a leg up over another part, North or South/Black or White, does a disservice to us all and only causes a division which I feel should not be. As one who has lived in the South all of my life and have been around, worked with, and socialized with African Americans and count many as my closest friends I am saddened by it. It is MHO that unless or until we understand and know the complete history, and embrace it that division will remain.

Pauly if I slighted you in any way you have my utmost apology, I hope you will forgive me. That was not my intent.

Marty I hope this explains my actions and I also hope you enjoy the two links.

Ron

You know I just want to add that there was no real good guy in the Civil War because both sides had their own motives and those motives resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Clearly we all favor different sides because we think they were more right than the other, but I think we can all agree that had both sides been more willing to work together rather than to fight, lives could have been saved (although clearly I think one side should have gave in more than the other but oh well). :shifty:

However there will always be a division over the north and south's views on slavery because there was a difference that can't be ignored. The north may have not treated African Americans well but there still wasn't the trade of slavery. The north's hands weren't free of the blood from that trade and for whatever reason (I say economic more than moral) the north moved away from slavery while the south kept it. That is a fact no matter what the spin and a division will always exist. That division does not mean that there will forever be a cultural division of race created by treating the Confederacy as the "slave trade supporting nation" because that is not true because as we have seen in the last year blacks and whites are closer than anyone ever thought (we elected an African American as president). The south being treated as a place that favored slavery does not stop the advancement of no racial division but rather it is more a statement of fact. Slavery was not the cause of the Civil War but clearly it was a factor and there was a clear division between slavery and abolition in the US in 1861.

Some interesting talk going on here. Ga I agree with what you are saying, but after reading some of the links I may have to change my mind. It is great when you can learn something new.

For those interested in reading the Ordinances of Secession here is a link.

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/ordinance_secession.html

South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia and Texas Declaration's of Causes

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_south_carolina.html
http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_mississippi.html
http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_georgia.html
http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_texas.html

Well just when you are ready to change your mind you read South Carolina's Address to the slave holding states.

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/south_carolina_address.html

Some really good links to other documents on the war.

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/

One Thing is for sure, the War was a complex result of some complex issues. It is a shame the winner gets to write the history, I have read some good books made up from letters home. From those letters you really do not get the impression those boys were fighting to keep/free slaves. The impression you get was one of wanting to fight for their state, or to keep our country intact.

"gafinfan wrote:

You have the right to believe that which you will but the slavery issue "causis belli" is THE 1865's+ spin doctor's way of making 630,000 military and 30,000+ southern civilian deaths and the coming Military overlord reconstrution's legality not only palatable but defensable. Which is the most dishonorable thing done, not only to the South, but the Country as a whole. Only IMHO of course.

gafinfan,

Just to give a bit of my background. I'm an aussie so I've never been indoctrinated with the schoolbooks that seem to offend you, and my reading on the ACW is based on my interest in the subject coming to it as an adult and wanting to know more about the single most important defining episode in the world's most important nation.

I was shocked at the emphasis placed on Slavery in Burns' "Civil War" so I've looked further into that aspect.

I have legal training, although not a lawyer, but I have always found that the best evidence is what people wrote down at the time, so I have looked back into and read the documents created at the time by the people involved in the events. I really don't care what post war historians have said about the issue.

To say that slavery was not THE major driving force behind the Civil War is to deny what the actors in the events were saying themselves. Non-slave owning southerners still wanted slavery to be kept because of their denial of blacks as having the full rights of man, and exactly that same attitude can still be found today in the remnants of the KKK.

"Pauly wrote:

gafinfan,

Just to give a bit of my background. I'm an aussie so I've never been indoctrinated with the schoolbooks that seem to offend you, and my reading on the ACW is based on my interest in the subject coming to it as an adult and wanting to know more about the single most important defining episode in the world's most important nation.

I was shocked at the emphasis placed on Slavery in Burns' "Civil War" so I've looked further into that aspect.

I have legal training, although not a lawyer, but I have always found that the best evidence is what people wrote down at the time, so I have looked back into and read the documents created at the time by the people involved in the events. I really don't care what post war historians have said about the issue.

To say that slavery was not THE major driving force behind the Civil War is to deny what the actors in the events were saying themselves. Non-slave owning southerners still wanted slavery to be kept because of their denial of blacks as having the full rights of man, and exactly that same attitude can still be found today in the remnants of the KKK.

We shall agree to disagree.:up: As for being offended, you misread me my friend, saddened yes offended no.:wink2: I was not there to take part so there could be no offense given or recieved. I love my country, with all of its warts, and I'm here; that being the case I wish to make it better.:up:

Ducken, two more links you might enjoy::up:

http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/topics.html

And from down under:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4404/The-Blue-and-Grey_Links.html

I had to come back and add this from Northern Newspapers of 1861.

http://www.geocities.com/confederate_cause/Quotes.htm

Read below the reasoned thought of the time...

The predicament in which both the Government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly understood the world over....If the manufacturer at Manchester can send his goods into the Western States through New Orleans at less cost than through New York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage...If the importations of the counrty are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel. The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons, to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets. With the lost of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many huindred millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior? They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers...Once at New Orleans, goods may be distributed over the whole country duty-free. The process is perfectly simple... The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North...We now see clearly whither we are tending, and the policy we must adopt. With us it is no longer an abstract question---one of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated powers of the State or Federal government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad.....We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched. ---New York Times March 30, 1861

The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing....It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No---we MUST NOT "let the South go." ----Union Democrat , Manchester, NH, February 19, 1861

From a story entitled: "What shall be done for a revenue?"

That either revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad....If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe.....Allow rail road iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten per cent, which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York; the railroads would be supplied from the southern ports. ---New York Evening Post March 12, 1861, recorded in Northern Editorials on Secession, Howard C. Perkins, ed., 1965, pp. 598-599.

I had to bump this thread up and add my two cents. The War of Northern Aggression is something I've always been interested in. In fact, I live less than 20 miles from Brices Crossroads here in Mississippi where Nathan Bedford Forrest lead his Confederate troops against the Union in Baldwyn, MS.

This war was not fought over slavery. It was fought over money and states rights. The southern states seceeded from the union because the federal government was overreaching their limitations and infringing upon states rights. The kicker to seccession was the Morrill Tariff, and it is quoted by Abraham Lincoln that if the Southern States would pay the 40% tarriff the federal government wanted, the federal government would allow the Southern States to keep their slaves.

Slavery would have eventually ended anyway with the invention of the reaper. The north has put out so much misinformation though that people have a skewed view of what really happened.

The thing is, can you see this coming full circle. Today, we are once again faced with a federal government that has gone far beyond their limitations as they are written into the constitution, and I think people are finally waking up an realizing what this centralized body of government has been gradually doing ever since April of 1865.

History is repeating itself.

Deo Vindice!

Deo Vindice!

Indeed Sir, :hi5:

"gafinfan wrote:

Deo Vindice!

Indeed Sir, :hi5:

You know, the more I learn as I grow older, the more pissed off I become at the rubish I was taught in school.