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.
Rob,
I have no idea why the asterisc appeared between the letters of the word sal****er.I think the site itself did that when I posted the reply.That's kind of strange though.
Ashley
Ole,
Try if you put the word together.It is a compound word.Let's try again sal****er.We'll soon see.Is there a bad meaning associated with sal****er.I don't get it.There is certainly no spellcheck.
Ashley
Take the letters represented by the asterisks and you get a naughty word. The propriety of linguistic rules do not apply when approaching the electronic censor. Therefore, at least in the case of our censor, it is understood that you may use the less grammatical further instead of its alternative, or you may simply do a typo and use "far ther."
It is occasionally difficult to determine what the censored word was. Just substitute a naughty word and it's usually possible to figure out the intended word.
Ole,
Send me a private message.I really have no idea what word is bad that starts with salt.I do go to church often, but I didn't always have this lifestyle.I went to bars plenty in college and I'm still utterly clueless as to what word.Maybe poeple in Alabama don't use the word I don't know.Let me know my curiosity is peaked.
Thanks,
Ashley
I think I figured it out.But I am correct in my belief that the word doesn't start or have any relation to salt ?I apologize to everyone else for taking up this thread with this nonsense.Thanks Ole for helping me understand.
Back to the thread, gentlemen. (MobileBoy, no apologies accepted. Every now and then a light-hearted aside is quite welcome.)
As we're on another page, and flipping back and forth is taxing, you might consider that I'm responding to someone who didn't say what I think they said.
Keeping Missouri and Arkansas in the slaveholding ranks by enveloping Kansas was a nangle I overlooked. Thanks for that.
In no way were cereal crops "cash" crops. The selling of surplus financed such subsistence staples as another cow, a horse, a few yards of cotton, needles, thread, a bucket or shovel, a jug of whiskey (for medicinal purposes), and the like.
Land exhaused by repeated crops of cotton could be quickly reclaimed ("quickly" is relative) by the application of manure and crop rotation. Farmers, even then, knew that you can't plant corn in virgin ground for more than two years without experiencing a dramatic decline in fertility. You plant that cornfield in a cereal grain the second or third year, and grow hay for a year or two after that before you replant corn.
Abandoned (fallow) cotton fields returned rather quickly to trees. I've seen little evidence of a serious attempt to turn those acres into something useful -- amounting to an almost criminal waste of resources. As I've mentioned, you didn't make a bunch of money raising corn or wheat or oats or barley, and it probably didn't pay the cost of the labor required -- if you had to pay for the labor.
So, it follows that virgin ground suitable for CASH crops was heading south (no pun intended). To me, it seems that the planter was looking forward to an eventual collapse. West of east Texas, there was nowhere to reliably expect a consistent, successful cash crop. To be sure, crop failures happened under the best circumstances in the black belt, but they were to be expected and they were catastrophic. The PROBABILITY of crop failures in the new territories were a very real constriction.
So it comes back to why and how the slaveocracy expected expansion to solve their very present problems. It doesn't make sense to me. I'd appreciate any and all explanations.
I see slavery in the territories as the chief and most effective weapon used by either side in the struggle for advantage and influence in the US government.