Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
No factualy correct information regarding the improper use of words by those who use words without knowing there meaning, just as another mod used Octroon incorectly and had it pointed out, if you dont want to be corrected and want to call it flames, when shown that what is posted is incorrect, fine, J Steel had no problem when i corrected his use of octroon when he misused it, why the double standard?
All morons are the same, all idiots are the same, all imbeciles are the same, as that is the IQ clasification and no moron is smarter than another, as is no idiot smarter than another idiot and so on in the IQ scale.
Original post drew this from the mod.johan_steele
Brig. General, Mod
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South of the North 40
Posts: 3,682
You have received an infraction at The Dispatch Depot at Civil War Talk
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
You have a Moron Meter?
B-
No, he just uses words that he does not know the meaning and aplication off, its a mod thing.
All the best,
The Dispatch Depot at Civil War Talk
I request that mods who use technical terms do so correctly and that other mods dont then sanction those who point out where mods use words incorectly.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Last edited by Hanny; 07-11-2008 at 11:00 AM.
Reason: Trying to keep thread on point
Ignores the fact that "Money, power (ie self-interest)" means ownership of slaves in the South and that this is what caused the war.
Tim
No...what you (and many others here) are doing is recognizing -only- a self-interest factor for the South and ignoring that for the North.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
No...what you (and many others here) are doing is recognizing -only- a self-interest factor for the South and ignoring that for the North.
No, Battalion. If you check through the old threads, you'll find I told you long, long ago that when people are involved in a controversy, money is almost always a factor. You like to imagine something else -- but that is your problem, not mine.
Without the aggression by the Confederacy, the Civil War simply would not have started as it did. That was a deliberate decision made by Jefferson Davis and his Cabinet, with the solid support of the Confederate Congress, to assault Fort Sumter. There is no doubt of this fact: only one Confederate Cabinet member spoke against the attack.
No Northern "money" interest did that. If any "power" or "money" interst caused the war, it was a Southern one deciding to start the shooting. But in the South of that day, "money" and "power" were inextricably intertwined with slavery. The "money" interest of the South was the continuation of slavery -- and so they seceded and attacked to preserve it. The "power" interest of the South was also slavery (or the power to expand it and impose the slave in other areas that did not want slavery) -- and so they seceded and attacked to preserve it..
If you want to talk about "money", slavery is overwhelmingly the biggest money issue involved. Confederate politicians were not shy about admitting the war was about slavery -- until they lost the Civil War.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
No...what you (and many others here) are doing is recognizing -only- a self-interest factor for the South and ignoring that for the North.
This thread has been going on so long that I don't remember what about the war was in the self-interest of northern money.
Northern financiers faced immediate cessation of their prime customers. Northern manufacturers faced immediate loss of a substantial number of customers. Northern merchants faced immediate loss of many, many customers. Even New York City's mayor threatenened secession to keep his city's revenues where they were. Businessmen all over the north cautioned against going to war with the seceding south. So I'm at a bit of a loss as to why the north went to war for money.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
All morons are the same, all idiots are the same, all imbeciles are the same, as that is the IQ clasification and no moron is smarter than another, as is no idiot smarter than another idiot and so on in the IQ scale.
I suspect everyone knows that, and that you are being overly technical and have no sense of humor.
If anyone has a beef with "our morons are smarter than your morons," it would be my friend, Larry. We've been exchanging jabs (all right, jibes) for about 5 years now. If he objects, I will make the post disappear. If he doesn't, yours will disappear.
ole
Now. Back to Slavery, THE Cause?
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Trice is exactly right, If it had been up to the moneyed interests, especially those involveed in supporting slavery, they would have let 'the erring sisters' go and Yet, according to revisionist gospel, Lincoln started the war, even though opposed by the monied interests of north.
The money-interest of the slaveowning oligarchy of the south was much more directly tied to secession than those of the avg northern business men.
Lincoln was much more interested in saving the Union, rather than saving the investments of northern businessmen. If only it had been so, with Davis and the other slave owners.
according to revisionist gospel, Lincoln started the war
...and they are correct.
Quote:
even though opposed by the monied interests of north.
Only for a while...
"We learn through private sources that there are indications of a marked change of sentiment on the part of those connected with the great commercial interest of New York city. Heretofore that class have been the staunchest upholders of the pro-slavery policy of the Democracy....
But these great interests have become seriously alarmed at the present aspect of commercial affairs....By the adoption of a lower tariff of duties than is in force in the United States, foreign imports are likely to seek the ports of the seceding States, and the commercial supremacy of New York is seriously threatened. This is more than the flunkeys of that city bargained for or expected. The objection to enforcing the laws is daily growing weaker. The very men who clamored so lustily against their execution thirty days ago, now begin to ask, 'Have we a Government?' We shall be surprised if, within the next thirty days, the merchants of New York are not calling loudly upon the Administration to enforce the laws, to blockade the ports of the rebel States, to reinforce the forts, and to disperse the rebels who have taken up arms against the Federal Government."
Chicago Tribune, 27 March 1861
~
"...a committee of New York merchants had visited President Lincoln to learn what was to be the policy of the government. There is no way of discovering exactly what was discussed at the conference, but a Washington correspondent, who interviewed the committee after the White House conference, wrote that the merchants had placed great emphasis upon the fact that 'the present uncertainty as to the new tariff is destroying trade and legitimate speculation.' Then he added:
It is a singular fact that merchants who, two months ago, were fiercely shouting 'no coercion' now are for anything rather than inaction. 'Let us know what to expect,' they say; 'if we are to have war we can adjust our business to that condition of things; but if the government lies upon its oars with a high tariff in New York and a low one in New Orleans we are undone.' " *
* New York Evening Post, 29 March 1861
Philip S. Foner, Business and Slavery, The New York Merchants and the Irrepressible Conflict, p.301
~
"This Day With President Lincoln" :
29 March 1861
At early morning cabinet meeting President announces decision to reinforce Fort Sumter...
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
No, Battalion. If you check through the old threads, you'll find I told you long, long ago that when people are involved in a controversy, money is almost always a factor. You like to imagine something else -- but that is your problem, not mine.
Without the aggression by the Confederacy, the Civil War simply would not have started as it did. That was a deliberate decision made by Jefferson Davis and his Cabinet, with the solid support of the Confederate Congress, to assault Fort Sumter. There is no doubt of this fact: only one Confederate Cabinet member spoke against the attack.
"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Ft Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."
--Lincoln to Capt. G.V. Fox (leader of the Fort Sumter relief expedition), 1 May 1861
Quote:
No Northern "money" interest did that.
see answer previous post (#3077)
Quote:
If you want to talk about "money", slavery is overwhelmingly the biggest money issue involved. Confederate politicians were not shy about admitting the war was about slavery -- until they lost the Civil War.
Tim
The money lost to the North because of the 'new arrangement' (independent South) would eclipse the value of slaves in ten years or less.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Ft Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."
--Lincoln to Capt. G.V. Fox (leader of the Fort Sumter relief expedition), 1 May 1861
So? What conspiracy is it you see here? I've asked you this before, and you have always avoided answering. What is it you are afraid to say?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
see answer previous post (#3077)
Stop trying to avoid saying something clearly. No Northern "money" interest started the war: Jeff Davis did that. If you think not, step up and say what you mean clearly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
The money lost to the North because of the 'new arrangement' (independent South) would eclipse the value of slaves in ten years or less.
Nonsense. The South would have found they still had to do business with the North (their 2nd biggest cotton customer, for example) in those ten years. The South would have found their jolly "King Cotton" view of the world was wrong. The South would have found the British and French and the rest were just as willing to gouge them as anyone else, and the South would have found that running a government and a nation is very, very expensive.
But if you are talking about Southern threats to default on honestly-owed debts, then you are simply painting the South as a bunch of extortionists.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
