Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: The South had it absolutely right in 1861

A Peach Supreme





Posts: 2991
(2992 all sites)
Registered: 5/23/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/19/2008 at 01:23 PM
I just finished The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War by H.W. Crocker III (Regnery, 2008) and confirmed something I've gradually been realizing for several years.

The South was right, the North was wrong, in The War of Northern Aggression.

I've read the Constitution and it turns out there's nothing in there to forbid a state from seceding.

Lincoln, it turns out, was lukewarm on slavery and Blacks in general. Crocker even claims that Davis and Lee disliked the institution, but thought that it could be ended peacefully through education and leading the slaves to Christ.

The federal government was apparently growing more and more repressive toward the South, destroying its economy with tariffs, and so on.

(This is from memory. I read the relevant parts of the book really too fast, skipping the 90% or so that was detailed descriptions of the various battles.)

Check it out.

Billastro

 

____________________
Canis Major: The Original Skydog

https://www.davidmalin.com/fujii/source/CMa.html

"I can't say as ever I was lost, but I was bewildered once for three days."

—Daniel Boone

 
Replies:

A Peach Supreme



Karma:
Posts: 2142
(2142 all sites)
Registered: 5/9/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/19/2008 at 01:52 PM
They were both wrong. The country belonged to the Indians. The U.S. takes what it wants by force. If it's the cotton fields of the south or the oil fields of Iraq makes no difference.
 

Sublime Peach



Karma:
Posts: 7260
(7342 all sites)
Registered: 11/29/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/19/2008 at 02:11 PM
To seceed successfully, one must be successful in secession. Or something like that. We beat the British and thus formed our nation. The southern states could not accomplish that, but if they could have, they would have formed a new nation. Any group of people wishing to form a nation must be powerful enough economically, militarily, etc...to succeed.The south got mad and attacked a federal fort, thus starting the hostilities...and could not finish off the deal.

CSA had the right to try to form a nation and Lincoln had taken an oath to defend the nation. It's turned out all right for us southerners.

 

____________________
I have an idea: let's pretend we're real human beings.

 
E-Mail User

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/19/2008 at 02:28 PM
Lincoln, it turns out, was lukewarm on slavery and Blacks in general. Crocker even claims that Davis and Lee disliked the institution, but thought that it could be ended peacefully through education and leading the slaves to Christ.

The federal government was apparently growing more and more repressive toward the South, destroying its economy with tariffs, and so on.


Which reaffirms something we've discussed before....the war wasn't all about slavery. Thanks for the info about the book.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Peach Pro



Karma:
Posts: 395
(398 all sites)
Registered: 8/6/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/19/2008 at 02:30 PM
It may be so that the Southern states secession should have gone on uncontested.

IMHO - Too many were killed in the War between the States - Was the restoration of the Union worth all of that? Couldn't the two nations have found a way to co-exist ?

I couldn't see declaring war on any state that wanted to secede today. I am no Shelby Foote or Civil War scholar by any means. Forgive me Folks with the Confederate heritage but - I don't see how you'd want to line up with the people who were advocating continued slavery.

IMHO - Slavery was and is an abomination whether it was Thomas Jefferson, the Romans, the Egyptians etc etc who were doing the enslaving.

In the end, was this war largely about one group of rich people fighting against another group of rich people. I read somewhere once that a Southern Gentleman would not be required to go to war if he had X number of slaves..... was that true ? was the cover on that that he needed to be there to supervise the slaves ? or was it that only poor people were needed in the army ?

Looking forward to reading your informed opinions on this.



 

____________________
Well, I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it. Elwood P. Dowd

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8643
(8641 all sites)
Registered: 12/14/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/19/2008 at 02:53 PM
quote:
Was the restoration of the Union worth all of that? Couldn't the two nations have found a way to co-exist ?


Lincoln didn't think so, I think I read where he said the "preservation" of the Union was THE reason he felt so passionate about justification for war. He felt if we became two nations that all the previous work done by our founding fathers would be for naught. And he couldn't bear the thought of that.

quote:
I am no Shelby Foote or Civil War scholar by any means.


And neither am I, but I sure did enjoy that PBS show 'The Civil War' where they quoted him extensively.

I always remember him quoting a southern foot soldier, when asked why he was fighting this war (asked by a northerner) ... his response "I'm fighting because you are down here."

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15832
(15866 all sites)
Registered: 8/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/19/2008 at 02:58 PM
I don't think the North ever said the South was not allowed to leave the Union...just that they weren't going to let them. Each of the States entered the Union freely, and the right to leave freely would have been an assumed one. The South had some serious grievances against a government and economic system that seemed to favor the North over the South, but I think the War could have been avoided, and should have been. The final result was a huge, over-powerful federal government.

 

____________________


 

Sublime Peach



Karma:
Posts: 7168
(7166 all sites)
Registered: 4/7/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/19/2008 at 03:18 PM
Lincoln was assassinated for his refusal to bow to the Rothschilds and their bank. The real war was with the bankers while the war with the south raged on. If you break from the Federal Reserve and try to print your own money, you will end up the same fate as Lincoln and Kennedy. We never broke away from England, they have always owned us thru the banking system and do so to this day.



In 1839 the Illinois state legislature faced with gloom the complete ruin of its pioneering railroad system. The state had persisted in selling bonds for the construction of some 2,000 miles of rail lines, despite the national depression. Financial chaos had erupted with the closing of the Bank of United States, and the Bank of England stopping credit to the unprotected American economy. Quoting the Hay-Nicolay biography of Lincoln, "One banker and one broker after another, to whose hands [state bonds] had been recklessly [sic] confided in New York and London, failed, or made away with the proceeds of the sales."
The Whig Party leader in the Illinois legislature, 30-year old Abraham Lincoln, had led the fight for the state-built railroads. He was justifiably bitter against the aristocratic "free trade" faction which had brought down the Founding Fathers' economic system; the northeastern bankers, political followers of Swiss nobleman Albert Gallatin, president of John Jacob Astor's National Bank of New York; and the South Carolina-based slaveowners' secession movement, organized around the free-market doctrines of British revolutionary immigrant Thomas Cooper.

Alexander Hamilton's program of protective tariffs, government-sponsored transportation projects, and the national bank, enacted in the first Congress over the opposition of Albert Gallatin, had now been aborted. The bankers-planters alliance was rolling the U.S.A. back to colonial status, to be a mere producer of cheap raw materials for the British Empire, with themselves the colonial overseers.

Abraham Lincoln and the other Henry Clay Whigs were determined to rescue American financial, industrial, and political independence. From late 1839 through the presidential election of 1840, Lincoln led the Illinois Whig campaign by focusing his party's program around the restoration of the Bank of the United States.

Lincoln knew that national survival depended on their political success. This is the conclusion of his Dec. 26, 1839 speech on banking:


"[A debate opponent] confidently predicts, that every State in the Union will vote for Mr. Van Buren at the next Presidential election. Address that argument to cowards and to knaves; with the free and the brave it will effect nothing. It may be true; if it must, let it. Many free countries have lost their liberty; and ours may lose hers; but if she shall, be it my proudest plume, not that I was the last to desert, but that I never deserted her. I know that the great volcano at Washington, aroused and directed by the evil spirit that reigns there, belching forth the lava of political corruption, in a current broad and deep, which is sweeping with frightful velocity over the whole length and breadth of the land, bidding fair to leave no green spot or living thing, while on its bosom are riding like demons on the waves of Hell, the imps of that evil spirit, and fiendishly taunting all those who dare resist its destroying course, with the hopelessness of their effort; and knowing this, I cannot deny that all may be swept away. Broken by it, I, too, may be; bow to it I never will.
"The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me. If ever I feel the soul within me elevate and expand to those dimensions not wholly unworthy of its Almighty Architect, it is when I contemplate the cause of my country, deserted by all the world beside, and I standing up boldly and alone and hurling defiance at her victorious oppressors. Here, without contemplating consequences, before High heaven, and in the face of the world, I swear eternal fidelity to the just cause, as I deem it, of the land of my life, my liberty and my love. And who, that thinks with me, will not fearlessly adopt the oath I take. Let none falter, who thinks he is right, and we may succeed. But, if after all, we shall fail, be it so. We still shall have the proud consolation of saying to our consciences, and to the departed shade of our country's freedom, that the cause approved of our judgment, and adored of our hearts, in disaster, in chains, in torture, in death, we never faltered in defending."


The Whig candidate, Gen. William Henry Harrison, was elected U.S. President. He appointed as Treasury Secretary Thomas Ewing of Ohio, stepfather of future Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman and co-leader of the Whigs with Sen. Henry Clay. But the boisterously healthy President Harrison mysteriously died of pneumonia complications one month after inauguration; the disloyal vice-president, John Tyler, assuming Harrison's place, vetoed the Bank. Another Whig President elected in 1848, Gen. Zachary Taylor, also died early in his term.
Lincoln was forced to watch his country fall under the complete control of the free-trade faction. Instead of government-fostered industrial development edging out the slave plantation system, plantation cotton, supported by anti-industrial bankers in New York and London, spread westward and dominated national politics. The banking system itself was an unregulated, chaotic swindle. Each bank printed its own notes, redeeming what it would. There was no national currency. Bank-fed speculation exploded in 1857, collapsing much of the factory system.

Lincoln, the respected political leader of the Henry Clay tradition, was elected President in 1860, prompting the anti- nationalists to launch secession and civil war. It was a two-front war, militarily in the South...and politically against the London-allied Northern bankers, only recently the main brokers of slave cotton. The Associated Banks of New York were led by James Gallatin, a resident of Switzerland and the son of Albert Gallatin.

The Eastern banks had agreed to a $150 million government loan package just after the Civil War commenced in 1861. They would resell U.S. bonds in England with the Barings and Rothschilds, putting the United States at the mercy of the British aristocracy.

In December 1861, President Lincoln's own financial plan was presented by Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase (a free-trade liberal sweating and agonizing in the President's harness), and by Lincoln himself. Its measures included:


a nationally regulated private banking system, which would issue cheap credit to build industry;

the issuance of government legal-tender paper currency;

the sale of low-interest bonds to the general public and to the nationally chartered banks;

the increase of tariffs until industry was running at full tilt;

government construction of railroads into the middle South, promoting industrialism over the Southern plantation system.

Lincoln spelled out his underlying republican philosophy, and shot his barbs at the aristocratic bankers, in his Annual Address to Congress, Dec. 3, 1861:

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital, producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of the community exists within that relation. .... In most of the southern States, a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters; while in the northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired....
"Many independent men everywhere in these States, a few years back in their lives, were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world, labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just, and generous, and prosperous system, which opens the way to all-gives hope to all, and consequent energy, and progress, and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty -- none less inclined to take, or touch, aught that they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which, if surrendered, will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they, and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them, till all of liberty shall be lost .... "

On Dec. 28, 1861, the New York banks suspended payment of gold owed to their depositors, and stopped transferring to the government the gold which they had pledged for the purchase of government bonds. The banks of other cities immediately followed suit.

James Gallatin headed a delegation of bankers who came to Washington to meet with the administration and Congress. His program contradicted the President's. First, the Treasury must deposit its gold in private banks, and let those banks pay the government's suppliers with checks, keeping the gold on deposit for the investment use of the bankers. Second, the government should sell high-interest bonds to these same banks, for them to resell to the European banking syndicate. Finally, a great deal of the war should be financed by a tax on basic industry.

Gallatin was shown the door. While Lincoln fought the Eastern bankers over the national banking system, the Treasury issued several hundred millions of the new green-colored currency. Banker Jay Cooke was hired to sell small government bonds to the average citizens; with 2,500 sub-agents Cooke sold over $1.3 billion worth of bonds from 1862 to 1865. President Lincoln pushed for his measure of control over the banking system, using more of his influence in Congress than on any other issue. The New England and New York bankers instructed their congressmen, such as New York's cynical Sen. Roscoe Conkling, to defeat the bill. But Lincoln's prestige and authority won out, and he signed the National Currency Act on Feb. 25, 1863, and the National Bank Act on June 3, 1864.

National Banking was, in truth, only a compromise with the old European oligarchs. But it was a bold and necessary stride toward national sovereignty.

The office of Comptroller of the Currency was established. No National Banking Association could start business without his certificate of authorization. He could at any time appoint investigators to look into the affairs of any national bank.

Regulations covered minimum capitalization, reserve requirements, the definition of bad debts, reporting on financial condition and identity of ownership, and other elements of safety to depositors.

Every bank director had to be an American citizen, and three-quarters of a bank's directors had to be residents of the state in which the bank did business.

Each bank was limited, in the interest rate it could charge, by the strictures of its state's usury laws; or if none were in effect, then to 7%. If it were caught exceeding this limitation, it would forfeit the loan in question and would have to refund to the victimized borrower twice what he had paid in interest.

Banks could not hold real estate for more than five years, aside from bank buildings.

A national bank had to deposit with the Treasury, U.S. bonds amounting to at least one-third of its capital. It would receive in return government-printed notes, which it could circulate as money. Thus the banks would have to lend the government substantial sums for the war effort, to qualify for federal charters, and a sound currency would be circulated to the public for an expanding economy.

Meanwhile, national banks could not circulate notes printed by themselves. In order to eliminate all competition with the new national currency, the notes of state-chartered banks were hit with a massive tax in the following year.

Most large commercial banks organized themselves according to the new system, and many new large banks were formed, as national banks. Despite historically unprecedented financing needs, the government raised, and printed, the cash to fight and win the Civil War. With the combination of banking, tariff, educational, and agricultural measures enacted under Abraham Lincoln, the United States began the greatest period of industrial development ever seen anywhere.

But the banking system was only a compromise, a truce between Lincoln and the Eastern bankers. The free-trade New York Times, whose owner Leonard Jerome was closely identified with the British and Austrian oligarchies, publicly supported the passage of the National Banking Act. As part of the bargain, an open enemy of the new system, Hugh McCulloch, was appointed first Comptroller of the Currency! The Times printed a letter from McCulloch on May 21, 1863:


"Dear Sir: From what you may recollect of the opinions I have heretofore expressed to you upon the subject of the currency, you may be surprised at my acceptance of the office of 'Comptroller' under the National Banking law enacted by Congress at their last session...."

In a position similar to that of Salmon Chase at Treasury, McCulloch enforced the regulations as the National Banks came into the system, all the while blasting "paper money as evil" in public reports.
Lincoln appointed McCulloch as treasury secretary in March, 1865. The following month the war ended, and Lincoln was assassinated. McCulloch and his international banking allies quickly went on the offensive against Lincoln's entire economic program. Secretary McCulloch called for the greenbacks to be retracted, so that only gold would once again be legal tender -- and so that farm prices and other values would fall so fast that the country could be bought for a song by the British banking syndicate. (McCulloch later helped the syndicate destroy the patriotic banker Jay Cooke, and took over Cooke's company when it failed.)

The calling-in of greenbacks, and the redemption of Civil War bonds for gold, were fiercely debated until 1879. The growing power of the British banking syndicate finally passed Specie Resumption over the dead body of Lincoln's chief financial adviser and teacher, Henry Carey. Tariffs and government-sponsored development of the West survived longer, until Teddy Roosevelt's presidency. The American industrial system was never allowed to spread to the tropical countries, as Lincoln and his allies had planned.

Today, 125 years after President Lincoln's inauguration, the world is divided between a slave-system -- the Soviet bloc -- and the Western area dominated by a lawless banking system, a system more criminal and unstable than that of the King Cotton era of the 1850s. Illegal narcotics profits pour through the system as its major prop of liquidity. Over 100 major American banks have been found guilty of "money laundering" for the dope mob. Speculation increases in hot Eurodollars and in the worthless debts of starving tropical countries, while industrial plant construction is simply not funded. Since the Kennedy administration, debt-service payments have climbed from 6% to about 30% of the national income. In this destructive work the de facto privately controlled Federal Reserve Board is complicit.

The present, chaotic tyranny of unregulated international banking creates, in Lincoln's words, a "great volcano at Washington, aroused and directed by the evil spirit that reigns there, belching forth the lava of political corruption." Have we the courage, and can we revive the cultural and political heritage of Lincoln's day, to restore freedom to our country?

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 18593
(18594 all sites)
Registered: 11/20/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/19/2008 at 03:33 PM
quote:
Lincoln was assassinated for his refusal to bow to the Rothschilds and their bank. The real war was with the bankers while the war with the south raged on. If you break from the Federal Reserve and try to print your own money, you will end up the same fate as Lincoln and Kennedy. We never broke away from England, they have always owned us thru the banking system and do so to this day.
LOL!!! Goodness, JPB! Still with the Rothschilds and the New World Order theories???

 

____________________
"Come on down to the Mermaid Cafe and I will buy you a bottle of wine, and we'll laugh and toast to nothing and smash our empty glasses down..."

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 24400
(24575 all sites)
Registered: 3/31/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/19/2008 at 03:37 PM
was Belize in existence back then ...

 

____________________


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 18593
(18594 all sites)
Registered: 11/20/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/19/2008 at 03:46 PM
quote:
was Belize in existence back then ...


I Belize so....

 

____________________
"Come on down to the Mermaid Cafe and I will buy you a bottle of wine, and we'll laugh and toast to nothing and smash our empty glasses down..."

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5944
(6041 all sites)
Registered: 1/24/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/19/2008 at 03:55 PM
Economics played a large--perhaps dominant--role in the evolution of the Civil War. Manufacturing states need the protection from competition provided by a high tariff,
agricultural states depended on world trade, need more of a Nafta approach in order to sell abroad and buy farm machinery as cheaply as possible. Of course, the slave labor situation had major economic ramifications.

Talks were underway to deal with secession, but when Beauregard decided to begin bombarding Ft. Sumter, the talking stopped.

A very key point here....IMO, it's pretty hard to get people to start shooting each other, getting shot, over a tariff. Much emotion is required, thus the promotion of the slavery issue, on both sides. The lesson is, pay attention when you get all bent out of shape.
Look deeper. Often, you're being used. Being led by your emotions. Works today as well as in 1861.

Having said that, I still don't see John W. Booth as a pawn of the Rothchilds. He acted on emotion, but I believe he had another agenda.

 
E-Mail User

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/19/2008 at 04:06 PM
Main article: Abraham Lincoln assassination: William H. Seward

On April 14, 1865, Lewis Powell, an associate of John Wilkes Booth, attempted to assassinate Seward, the same night and at the same moment Abraham Lincoln was shot. Powell gained access to Seward's home by telling a servant, William Bell, that he was delivering medicine for Seward, who was recovering from a recent near-fatal carriage accident on April 5, 1865. Powell started up the stairs when then confronted by one of Seward's sons, Frederick. He told the intruder that his father was asleep and Powell began to start down the stairs, but suddenly swung around and pointed a gun at Frederick's head. After the gun misfired, Powell panicked, then repeatedly struck Frederick over the head with the pistol, leaving Frederick in critical condition on the floor.

Powell then burst into William Seward's bedroom with a bowie knife and stabbed him several times in the face and neck. Powell also attacked and injured another son (Augustus), a soldier (Private George Robinson), who had been assigned to stay with Seward, and a messenger (Emerick Hansell), who arrived just as Powell was escaping.[13]

During the attack Seward was wearing a jaw splint (often incorrectly reported as a "neck brace") as a result of the carriage accident, and it is said that this saved his life. However, he carried the facial scars from the attack for the remainder of his life. The events of that night took their toll on his wife, Frances, who died June 1865. His daughter Fanny died of tuberculosis in October 1866.

Powell was captured the next day and was executed on July 7, 1865, along with David Herold, George Atzerodt, and Mary Surratt, three other conspirators in the Lincoln assassination.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

A Peach Supreme



Karma:
Posts: 2055
(2055 all sites)
Registered: 12/1/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/19/2008 at 04:35 PM
quote:
Lincoln, it turns out, was lukewarm on slavery and Blacks in general. Crocker even claims that Davis and Lee disliked the institution, but thought that it could be ended peacefully through education and leading the slaves to Christ.




Lincoln was never luke warm about the institution of slavery; he was against slavery and most importantly the expansion of slavery. The Lincoln Douglas Debates are pretty clear about that if you care to go through the transcripts, the debates all seven of them were all centered on slavery and it was the pinnacle issue of that election.

What Lincoln was luke warm about was defending his reasoning in regards as to equal rights of a black vs. white. As an example at one debate in South Carolina a drawing was passed around with a white man & a black woman = a mulatto child and Lincoln at that point basically said he believed that blacks should be free however that a white man would be still be superior to a black man and that freedom for blacks did not mean that he advocated mixing of races or the black man to hold power over the white man, etc. He was firm in his opposition to slavery but was luke warm on equal rights, two different issues.

There were seven debates and of those seven debates the overwhelming issue was slavery, to stop the expansion of slavery and to end it. The issue of slavery would lead to succession not the other way around, as every article of succession from each succeeding states clearly states. They succeeded because the institution of slavery was in jeopardy, the one particular state right that was everything to them, the right to own, buy, sell, breed, have runaway slaves returned, slave trading markets, and to have these people viewed as personal property no more no less. The firing of Fort Sumter On April 10, 1861, Brig. Gen. Beauregard, in command of the provisional Confederate forces at Charleston, South Carolina, demanded the surrender of the Union garrison of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. Garrison commander Anderson refused. On April 12, Confederate batteries opened fire on the fort, which was unable to reply effectively. At 2:30 p.m., April 13, Major Anderson surrendered Fort Sumter, evacuating the garrison on the following day. The bombardment of Fort Sumter was the opening engagement of the American Civil War. Although there were no casualties during the bombardment, one Union artillerist was killed and three wounded (one mortally) when a cannon exploded prematurely when firing a salute during the evacuation.


 

____________________
Copying from a single source is called plagiarism, copying from multiple source is called research.....

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9142
(9141 all sites)
Registered: 8/16/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/19/2008 at 06:36 PM
When one of us is chained, none of us are free.

 

____________________

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4622
(4622 all sites)
Registered: 8/15/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/19/2008 at 08:45 PM
quote:
When one of us is chained, none of us are free.

D@mnstraight

 

____________________
To put someone in isolation, is an act of hostility





 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5138
(5137 all sites)
Registered: 4/18/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/19/2008 at 10:27 PM
quote:
In the end, was this war largely about one group of rich people fighting against another group of rich people. I read somewhere once that a Southern Gentleman would not be required to go to war if he had X number of slaves..... was that true ? was the cover on that that he needed to be there to supervise the slaves ? or was it that only poor people were needed in the army ?

Looking forward to reading your informed opinions on this.



Actually, very few well-to-do people were in uniform, unless they were officers, on either side.

In the Confederacy you could "purchase" your way out of serving by hiring someone to serve for you.
In the Union army, you could pay a "draft fee" to keep from being called up.

The cavalry, on both sides, was different. While most of the officers were well off, a large number of the cadre (Sargents and corporals) and a lot of the troopers, were from well to do families. They were the ones who actually had the free time to learn horsemanship.

Folks here will remember that I've put forward that secession was about slavery, but the war was fought for economic reasons.

 

____________________
All photos posted of family, friends, and places, including those of historic ABB value, by this poster are copyrighted by the poster, or posted by permission of the copywriter.
None of those photos may be reproduced for commercial gain.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3070
(3075 all sites)
Registered: 5/30/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/20/2008 at 10:44 AM
The Indians had as much right to this country as a flea does to a dog. They lived a hand to mouth existence and they were not these peaceful sages that are portrayed in Dances with Wolves. Contrary to popular belief they did not live in harmony with nature in fact they scorched the earth and then would move on different hunting grounds which usually meant that they were at war with other tribes over resources. They made nothing sustainable and their societies were cruel and dark. Prior to 1492, what is now the United States was sparsely inhabited, unused, and undeveloped and there was virtually no change, no growth for thousands of years. With rare exception, life was nasty, brutish, and short: there was no wheel, no written language, no division of labor, little agriculture and scant permanent settlement; but there were endless, bloody wars. Whatever the problems it brought, the vilified Western culture also brought enormous, undreamed-of benefits, without which most of today's Indians would be infinitely poorer or not even alive.
Bottom line is some cultures are better than others: a free society is better than slavery; reason is better than brute force as a way to deal with other men; productivity is better than stagnation. In fact, Western civilization stands for man at his best. It stands for the values that make human life possible: reason, science, self-reliance, individualism, ambition, productive achievement. The values of Western civilization are values for all men; they cut across gender, ethnicity, and geography. We should honor Western civilization not for the ethnocentric reason that some of us happen to have European ancestors but because it is the objectively superior culture.

And no the South was not right in its efforts to maintain the institution of slavery.

Thankfully Sherman's March, which resulted in more property damage than bloodshed, helped bring about a conclusion to the darkest blemish on our Nation's history.

 

____________________
"What we do in life echoes in eternity."




 

Peach Head



Karma:
Posts: 126
(126 all sites)
Registered: 2/23/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/20/2008 at 11:06 AM
quote:
The Indians had as much right to this country as a flea does to a dog. They lived a hand to mouth existence and they were not these peaceful sages that are portrayed in Dances with Wolves. Contrary to popular belief they did not live in harmony with nature in fact they scorched the earth and then would move on different hunting grounds which usually meant that they were at war with other tribes over resources. They made nothing sustainable and their societies were cruel and dark. Prior to 1492, what is now the United States was sparsely inhabited, unused, and undeveloped and there was virtually no change, no growth for thousands of years. With rare exception, life was nasty, brutish, and short: there was no wheel, no written language, no division of labor, little agriculture and scant permanent settlement; but there were endless, bloody wars. Whatever the problems it brought, the vilified Western culture also brought enormous, undreamed-of benefits, without which most of today's Indians would be infinitely poorer or not even alive.
Bottom line is some cultures are better than others: a free society is better than slavery; reason is better than brute force as a way to deal with other men; productivity is better than stagnation. In fact, Western civilization stands for man at his best. It stands for the values that make human life possible: reason, science, self-reliance, individualism, ambition, productive achievement. The values of Western civilization are values for all men; they cut across gender, ethnicity, and geography. We should honor Western civilization not for the ethnocentric reason that some of us happen to have European ancestors but because it is the objectively superior culture.

And no the South was not right in its efforts to maintain the institution of slavery.

Thankfully Sherman's March, which resulted in more property damage than bloodshed, helped bring about a conclusion to the darkest blemish on our Nation's history.



Holy Sh*t. This is probably the most arrogant, ignorant and offensive post I've ever read on this site.

That's Hitler sh*t . . . Bin Laden sh*t. That's the National Guard gunning down organized workers. That a slave trader buying 3 times more slaves than he needed because it was understood 2/3's of them were going to die during the voyage.

I don't know who has gotten into your head, ScottyVII. But that is some backward, reactionary thinking. I hope you find Jesus . . . or the Dalai Lama, or somebody that can bring you some peace and respect for humanity.

 

____________________
Chuck Norris smells what the Rock is cooking... because the Rock is Chuck Norris' personal chef.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5822
(5827 all sites)
Registered: 7/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/20/2008 at 05:21 PM
quote:
The Indians had as much right to this country as a flea does to a dog. They lived a hand to mouth existence and they were not these peaceful sages that are portrayed in Dances with Wolves. Contrary to popular belief they did not live in harmony with nature in fact they scorched the earth and then would move on different hunting grounds which usually meant that they were at war with other tribes over resources. They made nothing sustainable and their societies were cruel and dark. Prior to 1492, what is now the United States was sparsely inhabited, unused, and undeveloped and there was virtually no change, no growth for thousands of years. With rare exception, life was nasty, brutish, and short: there was no wheel, no written language, no division of labor, little agriculture and scant permanent settlement; but there were endless, bloody wars. Whatever the problems it brought, the vilified Western culture also brought enormous, undreamed-of benefits, without which most of today's Indians would be infinitely poorer or not even alive.
Bottom line is some cultures are better than others: a free society is better than slavery; reason is better than brute force as a way to deal with other men; productivity is better than stagnation. In fact, Western civilization stands for man at his best. It stands for the values that make human life possible: reason, science, self-reliance, individualism, ambition, productive achievement. The values of Western civilization are values for all men; they cut across gender, ethnicity, and geography. We should honor Western civilization not for the ethnocentric reason that some of us happen to have European ancestors but because it is the objectively superior culture.

And no the South was not right in its efforts to maintain the institution of slavery.

Thankfully Sherman's March, which resulted in more property damage than bloodshed, helped bring about a conclusion to the darkest blemish on our Nation's history.



You sir are a very very uniformed person who spouts garbage from your mouth. Contrary to what you may have read in your 3rd grade primer about Native Americans at the time Columbus blundered into the Cuban Islands from the North pole to Tera Del Flegothere were in excess of 130,million Native Americans in North and south America ,they had built civilizations that were far far in advance of the white European cultures the cities of the Aztecs,Incas,Mayans in the south and the mound builders of the North like the Cahokia,s of the Ohio valley and the Anasazi's of the west were better farmers,hunters,and better people than their European counterparts.

The dramatized plains Indians were hunter gatherers who did indeed move from place to place and did indeed scorch the prairie because they were smart enough to know that a fresh burned prairies would have more buffalo the next year than a over grazed prairie.

Native American people are not all about themselves they care about family and everyone took care of each other unlike their European counterparts who were selfish arrogant thugs who's only claim to anything here was because of what some think superior know how.. so what!.

And the Only way we could be poorer or not alive is if the government took the rest of our land and ruined it and or killed the few who are left alive that have avoided the White exportation of alcohol and the white diseases.

We were here 12,000 years before the Europeans and what they found was a paradise,if discovered today it would be a toxic dump! wonder who did that?

 

____________________
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the
Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." -Henry Ford

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/20/2008 at 11:09 PM
quote:
It may be so that the Southern states secession should have gone on uncontested.

IMHO - Too many were killed in the War between the States - Was the restoration of the Union worth all of that? Couldn't the two nations have found a way to co-exist ?

I couldn't see declaring war on any state that wanted to secede today. I am no Shelby Foote or Civil War scholar by any means. Forgive me Folks with the Confederate heritage but - I don't see how you'd want to line up with the people who were advocating continued slavery.

IMHO - Slavery was and is an abomination whether it was Thomas Jefferson, the Romans, the Egyptians etc etc who were doing the enslaving.

In the end, was this war largely about one group of rich people fighting against another group of rich people. I read somewhere once that a Southern Gentleman would not be required to go to war if he had X number of slaves..... was that true ? was the cover on that that he needed to be there to supervise the slaves ? or was it that only poor people were needed in the army ?

Looking forward to reading your informed opinions on this.






Many rich people fought and many more not rich people fought. This happenes to be true of any war. This particular war happened to preserve the United States of America and just as a by product led to the abolition of slavery as well as the 14th amendment which (ultimately) placed the individual rights of the people under federal protection as the framers originally intended.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/20/2008 at 11:11 PM
quote:
I don't think the North ever said the South was not allowed to leave the Union...just that they weren't going to let them. Each of the States entered the Union freely, and the right to leave freely would have been an assumed one. The South had some serious grievances against a government and economic system that seemed to favor the North over the South, but I think the War could have been avoided, and should have been. The final result was a huge, over-powerful federal government.


That issue was fought and resolved during the Nullification crisis during the term of Andrew Jackson. Jackson was a states rights man and also a slave holder but he would not countenance secession and he threatened to hang John C. Calhoun for treason. The entrance into the Union was and is binding and states do not have any right to secede.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/20/2008 at 11:13 PM
quote:
There is an excellent book called Manhunt which is the story of Lincolns assassination and the hunt for Boothe. He was a vain egotisical man who acted on his own, with some help from people he knew. He thought he was committing a heroic act for the Confederacy. There was no other reason.


Ironically, his actions, as his fellow southerners soon realized, destroyed the South as Lincoln was the one man who intended magninimity.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 25201
(25201 all sites)
Registered: 9/7/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/21/2008 at 12:38 AM
quote:
To secede successfully, one must be successful in secession. Or something like that. We beat the British and thus formed our nation. The southern states could not accomplish that, but if they could have, they would have formed a new nation. Any group of people wishing to form a nation must be powerful enough economically, militarily, etc...to succeed.The south got mad and attacked a federal fort, thus starting the hostilities...and could not finish off the deal.

CSA had the right to try to form a nation and Lincoln had taken an oath to defend the nation. It's turned out all right for us southerners.


I don't think it has turned out all right. there is too much power in the central gov't and not enough
at the state level. The size and scope of the federal gov't continues to grow out of hand.

That's really what the war was about, who controlled the power to set the price of cotton exports.
Slavery was the emotion issue used to get those to fight that didn't feel strongly enough about
preserving the union.

They didn't get mad and attack a fort for no reason!

taxes on tea dumped in a boston harbor? or tarrifs on cotton? wott's the difference

 

____________________
Keep on Smiling


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/21/2008 at 11:36 AM
Putting the period of time leading up to the war in context, it had only been less than 75 years since the Constitution was ratified by the last state and one of the big issues was states rights versus a more powerful federal government. During the Adams / Jefferson, it became bitter over that very issue with Adams wanting more federal control and Jefferson advocating more states rights.

So, at the time when the nation was relatively new, states rights was very much an issue at the forefront and much of the problem in the South was chafing under a stronger federal government and the tarriffs, as just mentioned. was a way for the federal government to exert control over the South. That was pretty much a lit match being held to a tinder box.

Spacemonkey is right.....slavery was the emotional issue that rallied people to fight...the real issue was federal vs state control.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 
<<  1    2  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software


Privacy | Terms of Service
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com