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.
And frankly, the editorials are simply the opinon of the editor or the writer of the article.
And we all know that every editor had his opinion, just like every human being has a certain part of the lower body and I ain't talking about toes.
I could do exactly the same thing Battalion is, except in reverse, but thank GOD! Cash and Trice seem to have enough good human and time to dig out articles, in quanity, that do the same thing.
I have copes of the books, Northern Editorials On Secession, by Perkins, Volumes 1 & 2. I can play the game and pick and choose the editorials I think would best support my postion and views on the causes of the Civil War.
How about this one?
PAYMENT OF SOUTHERN DEBTS TO THE NORTH
(Boston Daily Atlas and Bee, December 3, 1860)
"There is, doubtless, not a little appreshension in the minds of many northern merchants relative to the payment of debts due them in the South. That the payments must necessarily be deferred in many cases, owing to financial difficulties, is to be expected, but back of that comes the fear of final loss, should a disruption of the Union take place. As a general rule, mercantile honor is presumed to be as sacred among the merchants in the South as in the North, allowance always being made in the case of newer and ruder business localities, where more adventurers are to be expected, as compared with well established business communities. As a class it may be said that southern merchants are, or would be, if not acted upon by politicians, less under the influence of selfish motives in their political action than are the merchants of the North...."
The editorial above goes on for about two more pages in the book. What is intersting is the last paragraph.
"...The latest intelligence from Georgia furnishes an illustration of a higher sense of honor among merchants than is found among the politicians. The Legislature has in contemplation the passage of laws staying execution in the collection of debts. The merchants of Columbus promptly and unequivocally denounce all measures having for their object release from, or abatement of, their obligation as debtors at home or abroad. Such a step, they say, "would destroy all credit abroad and annul all confidence at home."
Now, I am to infer from this single editorial, that all Southern merchants do NOT want to be released from their financial obligations? Do I infer that even though 100s of millions of unfair tariff collections and debt collections from those greedy blood-sucking importers, shippers, merchants, etc., ALL Southern merchants are actually UPSET with their state and revolutionary secessionist leaders for trying to make them STOP making payments on their debts?
So how seriously do I take this editorial without economic, historical, census, and other data? How seriously do I take a FLOOD of these types of editorials who reflect the same story or who reprint it in other papers? Am I to infer if the same editorial is reprinted in several cities or states that it is an historical fact?
Or do I base it on the same criteria as Battalion has and says it must be true because it made it into an editorial of a single newspaper and there are other simillar editorials in other newspapers?
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
And frankly, the editorials are simply the opinon of the editor or the writer of the article.
And we all know that every editor had his opinion...etc
These are reports of events...not opinions-
25) "The New York Journal of Commerce thinks it would probably be no exaggeration to estimate the number of persons thrown out of employment since election day 25,000, a large portion of whom are young women. One clothing establishment in New York has discharged 1,000 workmen; a hat establishment has discharged nearly 1,000; a saddlery firm has reduced its force about 500, and curtailment is very general. At Newark, especially, the crisis is severely felt, on account of their extensive connections with the Southern trade."
"OUT OF WORK.-- The Philadelphia Press, commenting on the effect of the panic, says that within six weeks not less than 15,000, and perhaps 20,000 persons in that city have unexpectedly been discharged from situations where they enjoyed the privilege of earning their bread by the sweat of their brows. Directly and indirectly, probably not less than 50,000 persons depended upon the exertion of these operatives for subsistence."
Come on, no comment on the newspaper article concerning the desire of Southern merchants WANTING to pay their debts? In spite of their political leadership wanting to stop payments of debt?
Don't you think this kind of upsets your applecart, even a little bit?
And the last two articles you submit above proves HOW that the cause of the war was Money and it being the North's fault or reason to go to war? You have this continual habit of justing cutting and pasting part of an article and by simply posting it you have made some significant point. I'm sorry if I come across as dull and slow-witted, but what are YOU trying to say by posting these stand-alone articles? Please EXPLAIN what you think these reports show or how they prove your point that 'Money; THE Cause?' was THE CAUSE of the war. This is your theory and you should be able to make it crystal clear to all us Northern cohorts.
I mean, if all your going to do is list newspaper articles, you could have went to the old thread under this forum that was doing that already.
I thought the idea was to present historical evidence that the Civil War was caused by, 'Money; THE Cause?' Anybody can cut and paste parts of the articles they think supports their position. How about something original, something fresh, something startling?
How about something that isn't Tom DiLorenzo or Charles Adams inspired to sell books that included no cost for research and something with some economic facts behind it?
You claim '100s of Millions' and don't track any money or show the amounts or even fix which companies, agencies, shipping companies, importers, jobbers, transport companies, railroads, canal boats, aliens, something, somewhere to someone in particular.
The long newspaper vent is no longer interesting nor does it prove anything concerning the title of your thread. Put some 'meat' on the table backed up by some historical evidence and fact, because we're all starving to death for something substansial to feast upon.
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
28) "New England, New York and Pennsylvania which have derived more direct benefit from the Union than any other section, will suffer most in the breaking up and rearrangement of the elements."
Portland (Maine) Eastern Argus, 12 December 1860
Let's take a look at what the rest of the editorial says.
It starts out:
"Many speak of the withdrawal of four or five States from the Union as comparatively a trifling matter. 'If they want to go, let them go; we can do well enough without them.' Such persons do not appear at all to realize the tremendous import of the proceeding of which they thus flippantly speak. Such a separation of five or more cotton Stats, will be but the first step in the certain downfall of the Republic. It will be a blow, the inevitable effect of which will be destruction to the national government."
So they aren't saying the departure of the south by itself would lose all the money you referred to earlier. They are saying it will lead to the complete breakup of the Union, and it is THAT which will cause loss of benefits to New England, New York, and Pennsylvania.
And what are those benefits? It continues after the small part you carefully cherrypicked out of context:
"Their interests would be too antagonistic for union and harmony in one confederacy. The article which we copy from the Albany (N.Y.) Atlas & Argus in another column, shows what the interests of New York would demand, and indicates the course she would probably pursue. State can well afford to make sacrifices to belong to great confederacy like the United States. The importance it gives them among nations, the security against invasion by foreign armies, the protection of its flag to commerce, the advantages of internal free trade over so great a territory abounding in almost every variety of production, the sope it affords to manly ambition and far-reaching enterprise--all these and many other considerations make membership in the great Republic of incalculable advantage."
So the benefits they speak of in the part you carefully cherrypicked out of context are more than just financial, as you would like us to believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
29) "The shrewd men of the North are fully aware...and no doubt have already made a calculation of the profit and loss which will inure to them by a dissolution of the Union. They cannot but foresee a very large dimunition, if not an entire loss, of their Southern trade."
Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, 28 December 1860
Another piece carefully cherrypicked out of context.
Prior to that small out-of-context snippet, it said:
"It may be well for Western States bordering on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers to carefully scrutinize the ocnduct of those who have an interest in throwing obstructions in the way of navigting these natural highways. The North-eastern States, it is well known, have lavished their treasures for the purpose of drawing trade from these channels, and, in a great measure, have succeeded in accomplishing their object. They, to a very large extent, are the proprietors of the main railroads running East and West, which now carry the bulk of Western produce. Their charges of transportation rise and fall with the ebb and flow of water in the rivers.
"Such being the case, it is submitted whether, under these circumstances, this conduct of these North-eastern States in the present critical condition of our Union is entirely above suspicion, and whether it is not based upon and controlled by a desire of bringing about a separation of the States! This done, the West, if joined to the North, will be entirely dependent upon artificial channels for her connection with the seabord. It may be replied that, in case of a separation of the States, the mouth of the Mississippi will not be obstructed, and that we can use it as now; this may be so, and it may not be. Who knows? Who is willing to risk the great interests of the producing States to a may-be-so? All over the commercial world, without exception, national lines offer more or less obstructions to trade. Such would be the inevitable result if the Mississippi should become part of a Southern Confederacy; in thatevent Western commerce would of course seek an unobstructed channel, even at a greater cost."
Now we come to the paragraph containing the sentence you cherrypicked and removed a part of:
"The shrewd men of the North are fully aware of theabove result, and no doubt have already made a calculation of the profit and loss which will inure to them by a dissolution of the Union. They can not but foresee a very large diminution, if not an entire loss, of their Southern trade;"
and now more of what you left out:
"but they flatter themselves that this loss will be more than repaired by the large addition expected to come from the Great West. They know that should the West adhere North (as they anticipated) her entire manufacturing interest would be broken up, because with the loss of her Southern customers the West would be so crippled that she would be compelled to stop manufacturing.
"The gain and loss to the North-east may, then, be summed up thus, to-wit:
"Loss of Southern trade.
"Gain, the residue of Western trade, now enjoyed by the South, to which add all her manufacturing."
In other words, the editorial is actually claiming the so-called "North-eastern" interests calculate they will GAIN by a disruption of the Union. So this editorial actually says the OPPOSITE of what you're claiming.
Another piece carefully cherrypicked out of context....the editorial is actually claiming the so-called "North-eastern" interests calculate they will GAIN by a disruption of the Union. So this editorial actually says the OPPOSITE of what you're claiming.
Cherrypicked? Out of context?
It sums up very well what the primary issue in the Northern mind is...
...How did you miss this part?-
"...We do not desire to attribute selfish motives as being the controlling principle of New England; but we cannot believe that so shrewd (not to say so selfish) a people would adopt any course which, in their minds, would not lead to pecuniary gain.
As an evidence that the foregoing deductions are properly drawn, we submit whether any man conversant with New England character would for a moment believe that her people would, for principle, do any thing injuriously affecting their pecuniary interest..."
In your zeal to present your case, don't you realize that you go from one cherrypicked part of an article and then use another part out of context section to claim it wasn't about slavery? You do see the contridiction in that, do you not?
You've got to take those binders off or at least credit the members of this board having the energy and interest to check out these articles for themselves for what is NOT being presented and how out-of-context your posts are.
It's selective history you are attempting every time you do this and it hurts your case.
Battalion, please understand. I WANT this thread to continue. I want to see evidence that gives merit to your claim that money was the cause of the Civil War. I want you to have a thread that brings up debate, post after post, give-and-take, with all of us here on the board learning something we did not know before.
None of us who view the history of the Civil War with one view on it cause are going to make one thin dime or lose any sleep if you present compelling evidence that Northern money interests were so threatened that they compelled Northern politicians to go to war without any regard to the institution of slavery, that the Emancipation Proclamation was all a cover to rob the South of her wealth and maintain the financial control of the region. That the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution was part of that massive federal coverup to gain wealth by declaring war on the Southern half of the nation.
I know for a fact, NONE of the articles and posts you have given are false and that they are taken from historical documents of the time. I would not and could not accuse you of using false information because this is simply not your style nor have you done so in the past.
But for a fact, you have presented nothing new, nothing that we didn't already know, from sources we already had access to. samgrant has already more than once alluded to the idea that this is becoming simply an exchange of newspaper editorials between you and others, each refuting and cancelling out one another. It does not prove the premise of your thread and it doesn't lend credibility when you limit your articles to out-of-context snippets.
Give us something, please.
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
It sums up very well what the primary issue in the Northern mind is...
No, in fact it doesn't. It shows one issue in some minds. It doesn't show the overriding issue of enforcing the law and preserving the supremacy of the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
...How did you miss this part?-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
"...We do not desire to attribute selfish motives as being the controlling principle of New England; but we cannot believe that so shrewd (not to say so selfish) a people would adopt any course which, in their minds, would not lead to pecuniary gain.
As an evidence that the foregoing deductions are properly drawn, we submit whether any man conversant with New England character would for a moment believe that her people would, for principle, do any thing injuriously affecting their pecuniary interest..."
I didn't miss it. It conforms to what I posted. They were saying the exact OPPOSITE of what you claimed. They were saying that the so-called "North-eastern" interests had calculated a GAIN from the south seceding due to adding the Western trade that would have gone to the south and the addition of the manufacturing capability the West would lose and they would gain. That would mean that their interest would lie in ALLOWING the south to remain separated, not in forcing a reunion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
"Crusade" against slavery?
Humbug!
That's a fallacious straw man argument.
It's a straw man because nobody is claiming the Federals had destruction of slavery as a goal at the beginning of the war.
It's fallacious because, as has been pointed out repeatedly, it was the confederacy who started the war. They started it because they wanted to preserve slavery.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
