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.
Larry: Must quarrel a little on your statement that the country boys were outnumbered by the city boys, and that country boys weren't exposed to the news. If slaves could know about the Emancipation Proclamation before their masters heard about it, don't you think the grapevine would work as well among the rural whites?
__________________ 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
Larry: Must quarrel a little on your statement that the country boys were outnumbered by the city boys, and that country boys weren't exposed to the news. If slaves could know about the Emancipation Proclamation before their masters heard about it, don't you think the grapevine would work as well among the rural whites?
Ole, the cenus records stand as a monument to my part about the city boys outnumbering us country bumpkins.
As for the news, about all my mountain boys were exposed to were snow and hard work. Nope, communication lines beyond one's own holler were scarce.
Only account I've seen of slaves learning about the Emancipation Proclamation was from some Union soldiers down in South Carolina riding into the plantation and making the announcement. Later on, perhaps the communication link between plantation populations was stronger.
That doesn't negate the fact that poor whites really didn't care about slaves. They were too close that condition themselves to be worrying about some black folks on a big plantation. Neil obviously would have us believe otherwise. I don't.
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
That doesn't negate the fact that poor whites really didn't care about slaves. They were too close that condition themselves to be worrying about some black folks on a big plantation.
I used to lean that way myself, Larry, but check out the following statement:
Quote:
Most rebels were too young to own anything, let alone slaves, and like Forrest himself, many a poor Southern boy saw slaveholding as the surest path to prosperity.
For many moons now you've gotten away with stating "the fact that poor whites didn't really care about slaves." How do you know that? If you can prove it, I'll allow that it's a fact.
The quote is footnoted, although the footnote alludes to no such statement. Therefore it becomes an author's opinion only, and equally as valid as yours.
XXXOO
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
"To keep this Northern division of the continent as the field for millions of the white race to claim their natural birthright in, and exercise their energies and their talents for their own advantage and the general prosperity, it is essential that but one Government shall exercise authority from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific. What would this country be, broken up into pieces, and divided into different confederacies, with rival interests, and rival institutions? How could the enterprise and industry of the free North develope itself with another and rival government, based on principles so entirely opposite to free labor, limiting its expansion southwardly, and holding three-fourths of the line of the sea coast of the country in its own possession?....
To be cut off at one blow from this privilege, and to be deprived of the freedom of the coasting trade, would be ruinous to our commercial interests, and crippling to every other pursuit on which our prosperity is founded."
Philadelphia Public Ledger, 7 June 1861
Just found this yesterday...
...turns out I was more correct than I thought.
Actually, you've carefully cherrypicked a portion to try to create a false impression of what they were writing about. No surprise, you've done this before.
Here are some other parts of the editorial you left out.
Public Ledger (Philadelphia)
June 7, 1861
"What Are We Fighting For?"
"What are we fighting for?" We are fighting for everything for which this government was established. We are fighting to preserve our republican institutions in their purity; to maintain our Union in its integrity; to establish the authority of the Constitution and laws over violence and anarchy; to secure popular rights against aristocratic assumption; and to prove to the other nations of the earth whether we have a Government or not. The fundamental principle which is assailed in the present rebellion is the principle of equal rights as recognized under our Constitution. It is the underlying principle of our republic, and when that is destroyed, the principle which gives vitality to our democratic representative government is gone also, and with it the faith of mankind in popular government. We are fighting, therefore, to preserve the Government as it was established, on pure republican principles, in which artificial distinctions merely, shall not impair political rights. ...
[W]e are fighting for another great fundamental principle of Republican government--the right of the majority to rule. When the ballot-box was substituted for revolution, it was thought that all violent changes in established governments, all sudden overthrowing of political structures, would be obviated, for the will of the people could be peacefully known through the ballot, and their legally established rule be patiently submitted to. So long as it answered the purpose of maintaining power in the hand of the would-be-oligarchs, its decrees were acknowledged as binding; but so soon as it threatened to put power really in the hands of the majority, those who labor for their living, then the discovery is made that our institutions rest on a wrong basis, and that political equality is neither desirable for social prosperity, nor practical for political permanency. We are fighting to expunge this great political error, and to prove to the world, that the free Democratic spirit which established the government, is equal to its protection and its maintenance. If this is not worth fighting for, then our revolt against England was a crime, and our republican Government a fraud.
Actually, you've carefully cherrypicked a portion to try to create a false impression of what they were writing about. No surprise, you've done this before.
Here are some other parts of the editorial you left out.
Why would I use the other parts?
They have nothing to do with what I previously posted-
"The North's war was for the economic dominance of the continent."
The purpose of posting that part of the article was to support that statement.
cash- "false impression of what they were writing about"
Why would I use the other parts?
They have nothing to do with what I previously posted- "The North's war was for the economic dominance of the continent."
The purpose of posting that part of the article was to support that statement.
cash- "false impression of what they were writing about"
It's IN the article.
1) The quote you posted seems to say absolutely nothing about your point "The North's war was for the economic dominance of the continent." Please explain why you think it does, using your own words.
2) Cash is telling you that the article does not say what you think it does, and that the way in which you are quoting from it is deceptive about the original meaning. It is about as trustworthy as the blurbs you see in movie ads.
3) The reason you would include the other parts -- either when you are evaluating it yourself or presenting it to others as proof of something -- is to give a fair appraisal of the original author's meaning. Ignoring the parts that show he doesn't mean what you want him to mean discredits your own post.
They have nothing to do with what I previously posted-
"The North's war was for the economic dominance of the continent."That has nothing to do w/ the premise of the thread.
The purpose of posting that part of the article was to support that statement. Distortion
cash- "false impression of what they were writing about"
It's IN the article.
Cash is quite right.
__________________ Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
What exactly is an Editorial? That is your answer.
No doubt you want to discredit my sources (published articles read by tens of thousands of people)...
And later used as paper in the out house... or thought of the holy bible depending on whether it was agreed w/...
...yet you can use "songs" handwritten on scratchpaper.
John Browns Body was a popular song, as was charge of the mule brigade... I'm not certain what you're trying to do... other than perhaps hijack the thread.
__________________ Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
