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.
Just hooking this phrase to chime in ... again, surprise, surprise!
All of this discussion smacks of southern resentment over the fact that the manufacturers were in the north. Rather than kvetching about it, there was a simple remedy -- industrialize. Outside of that revolting idea, there was no solution -- and its basic silliness resulted in an even sillier notion of secession.
...
Ole,
Yes, all these arguments tend to circle back. Southerners looked down their noses at "free labor", regarded a race of mechanics-shopkeepers-factory workers as inferior, refused to fund public education the way the North did, avoided the use of labor-saving equipment, etc., etc. If you don't wish to do the work required to become bankers, engineers, businessmen, etc. you come off looking mighty poor when you complain about the other guy making money by doing it.
I am reminded of an episode on Bill Cosby's show years ago. He goes to his son's room, where Theo is studying with his friend (named Scrap-iron?). Scrap-iron doesn't want to study math. Says his dad owns the junkyard, and he'll own it after him; why should he. Cosby asks him a series of questions, and it develops that Scrap-iron will be depending on his book-keeper and his foreman to know math; he's planning on just being rich. Cosby tells him that if the book-keeper knows math and the foreman knows math and Scrap-iron doesn't know math, pretty soon Scrap-iron will be poor.
Much more to it then that, of course. Slave labor was generally unproductive unless intensely managed (yes, there really was a basis for the claims about shucking-and-jiving Ol' Massa). Uneducated whites and unmotivated slaves with no background in such work are poor choices for building manufacturing businesses. Also, Southern society generally felt a man had to own his own production to be considered a man; hired labor was derided.
In reference to your post #120, again, I claim conclusion based on research and study, your sadness over that is an issue you must deal with, if you so decide.
I will admit to you it will take new information based on the power of a small nuclear bomb to convince me the tariff had anything to do as a cause of the Civil War. Simply taking the same old argument, whipping it into a new format, holds not charm for me. That will not convince me to change my mind on the subject. But again, that is my choice, just as it is yours not to be convinced by the vast amount of historical record that slavery was the primary motivating factor behind the cause for the war. You have conceded more than once it was a contributing factor, but not the sole one, as is your conclusion based on your study and research.
Yes, the charm and allure of your debate is that you do quote from the historical record, much like Battalion does, but only to reinforce your own conclusions (in my own humble opinion). My views are not open to modification when the same old song is sung merely in a new pitch.
Show me something different, something that provokes reexamination, and I will reconsider my position. But as of yet, you have not provided such, and again, I confess that I am a very stubborn man.
My views have changed on this subject once before, when I at one time believed the tariff and states rights were the causes of the war. I do not hold that to be true now because I did change my mind after much study and research. Because I value that research and study I hold to it, as it seems to be more in line with what I consider the historical record than others. Again, my own stubborn views.
In the meantime, I enjoy the debate that goes on between yourself and new members and this and other threads that you participate on with them make it an enjoyable experience for me.
Until next time,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
No...no...no...it is you who do not understand or that is unwilling to understand.
The North did NOT go to war with the South over any form of 'gold coin.' The myth that the North had to 'keep it's money cow, the South' in order to survive is more modern-day agenda than historical fact. And this highly unlikely theory has yet to be proven to anyone's satisfaction, including my own.
How is it on one hand Lincoln catches so much grief for trying to keep the Union together when it is brought up by the Southern view that according to the newspapers, most Northern editorial comments were for letting the South go, or at least this is what they claim when they say most Northerners said 'let the erring sisiters go.'
Then when this argument falls apart after Ft. Sumter, Now it is the greedy North who can't let the wealthy South leave for fear of lossing it's greedy Capitalist's profits? Sometimes you boys switch songs so quick, its hard to tell if its a waltz, two-step, or square dance.
No, the 'gold coin' factor, as far as I and Lincoln are concerned, has much more to do with the South being afraid of losing it's free labor force and all the investment and wealth that comes with working slaves for almost next to nothing in wages, expenses, etc., and giving up the enormous profit in such 'immense pecuniary interest.'
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Neil, thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I understand that your views come from much research and thought. Fair enough. That is as it should be. Convictions based on knowledge are good things.
I was just worried that your mind was absolutely closed, and the historical record would make no dent.
I respectfully disagree with the idea that "it was all about slavery," and will keep trying to show you and others that there was more to it, and will continue to base my arguments on the historical record, which is the only legitimate place to base it.
Until the next time, I am,
Respectfully yours,
John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
I thank you for your reply and with your continued patience with me.
I also wanted to inform you that as part of our posts above, I will be posting what I consider to be approbriate quotes that it was about slavery on the "Slavery, THE Cause?" thread, so as not to clutter up this thread.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Numbers alone often make little sense unless you drill down to see what they mean and how they are being used. In this case, tou would need to determine how all sides are determining prices and values before you can really even begin to compare them.
For example, my wife and I once bought a dining room set. We found one we liked, made by Thomasville, and in the local furniture chain it cost roughly $10,000. My wife loved it, I liked it, but I was gulping a bit over the cost.
One day I was at lunch with a couple of the programmers who worked on my team. One had previously worked in a furniture business. She had a source in NC she bought from directly and recommended; we decided to try it. We got the identical set from them for roughly $6,000, delivered and set-up in our house.
The middleman in NC bought that somewhere else, presumably from Thomasville directly. I presume they paid between $3,000 and $4,000; call it $3,500.
Now if you are totalling the manufacturing value, which figure will you use: $3,500 or $6,000 or $10,000? if you are totalling the "import" value, which figure will you use?
If you want to compare the "import" value to the manufacture value, the numbers need to be the same. Yet the manufacture value should be no more than $3,500 if that's what they sold it for and I actually paid $6,000 to "import" it. Someone else might have "imported" the same set at Huffman-Koos for $10,000 -- but you might choose to use only the price paid by H-K, which was probably less than my $6,000. The price you use to value the goods will cause great differences in your totals, yet this is all for the same Thomasville dining room set, bought at the same time, in the same area.
What this all really means in this case is that dollars is probably a bad way to compare "imports" or "use" of products such as these. Some other unit of measure would be required to level the playing field.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
