Money, Money, Money Makes the Secession Go Round

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
You know--I know---and folks back in the day knew as soon as more free states were admitted to the union and the South was out voted slavery would be under threat. Secession was not mentioned therefore it was deemed a state option reserved to the state. Was any compensation ever given to anyone who lost their property during this era?
Well stated.:thumbsup:
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
That is a great quote suze. I can not recall ever reading it before. It is certainly far more detailed and matter of fact about the reasons that confederates fought than Mosby's oft repeated one.

For those who are not aware, it took me a minute, that was written by Colonel and later Governor of Alabama William C. Oates, who led the 15th Alabama against Chamberlain's Maine boys at Little Round Top. A man that would know what he was talking about and was not afraid to state it.

William C. Oates
TITLE
Colonel
Confederate
DATE OF BIRTH - DEATH
November 30, 1835 - September 9, 1910
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/biographies/william-c-oates
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
It appears, then, Lincoln was keenly aware that the war would commence upon sending warships to the harbor.
Could is better than would. Davis had options. Land based artillery would have made toothpicks of wooden ships so warning shots would have been sufficient to deter the expedition. Davis could have let supplies land at the isolated fort. The ships were scattered by weather so Davis could have waited to see what happened. Even starving Sumter out was likely. Lots of things short of a direct attack on Ft. Sumter which was perhaps the worst strategy and typical of Davis.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
It appears, then, Lincoln was keenly aware that the war would commence upon sending warships to the harbor.



Lincoln was keenly aware that certain slave state gov'ts, and citizens, had been acting aggressively in taking over Federal property and threatening Federal officials and troops, since at least the beginning of the year(even firing upon unarmed supply ships flying the United States Flag.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
Fun to write about the social and political status of African-Americans. Writing about whose financial interest might have prospered from the Civil War is a nice distraction.
But the fact is that slavery, cotton and an agricultural economy with a very low population density, heavily dependent on steamboat navigation on the rivers and coasts, was an extension of the colonial era and the past.
As Rhett Butler stated, in lines brilliantly left in Gone With the Wind by David O. Selznick, this, referring to the devastation of Atlanta, is what comes of living in the past instead of engaging the future.
The aim of the Confederacy was to create a nation which resembled a giant heritage park. The history of the South after the Civil War includes a huge effort to turn back the clock to an agricultural era when cotton ruled and blacks were submissive.

The social order that was coming was based on railroads and telegraphs, clocks and schedules. When McClernand, McPherson, Sherman and Grant synchronized their watches before the second assault on Vicksburg, this was a manifestati0n of the new order.

The new order was going to be based on national markets. It was going to controlled by Vanderbilt, Gould, Carnegie and JP Morgan.

The coal industry, the locks as Sault St. Marie, the Bessemer process, nationally chartered commercial banks in New York City, that was the order that was competitive in the world that was coming.

In that brave new world, it was Germany, England and the north of the United States that were going to emerge as world powers, based on steel and railroads and manufacturing capability. Russia, France and Japan struggled to keep up.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness---Happiness meaning property. If government takes your property should not the government be expected to reimburse you at fair market value? What plans did Lincoln have to reimburse Southern planters for loss of their property? Did the Constitution allow that some states could ruin other states economies-- no matter how noble the cause? Was not the rights of the individual to be protected from mob rule? Were the rights reserved to the states not sacred also?
Silverfox,

Aren't you aware of the compensation plans to slaveholders before and during Lincoln's administration?

And as I recall, Lincoln had stated he had no plans to interfere where slavery already existed, so how was those state economies going to be ruined by other states?

And what rights reserved to the states were being violated before secession?

Unionblue
You know--I know---and folks back in the day knew as soon as more free states were admitted to the union and the South was out voted slavery would be under threat. Secession was not mentioned therefore it was deemed a state option reserved to the state. Was any compensation ever given to anyone who lost their property during this era?
Silverfox,

Seeing how you never answered my post above, I'll ask again. Did you know that no one proposed to get rid of slavery where it already existed? So how was slavery to be voted out?

"Secession was not mentioned therefore it was deemed a state option reserved to the state?" Really? When was that?

Compensation had been offered to the slaveholding South, over and over again, before the war and during it. IT WAS ALWAYS REFUSED BY THE SOUTH. So, yes, compensation was offered during this era.

Too bad the South turned it down every time.

Unionblue
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Could is better than would. Davis had options. Land based artillery would have made toothpicks of wooden ships so warning shots would have been sufficient to deter the expedition. Davis could have let supplies land at the isolated fort. The ships were scattered by weather so Davis could have waited to see what happened. Even starving Sumter out was likely. Lots of things short of a direct attack on Ft. Sumter which was perhaps the worst strategy and typical of Davis.
I doubt the Confederates had their torpedo technology in April 1861 but they could have sunk obstructions blocking access to the fort and thereby forcing Lincoln's hand.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Silverfox

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 8, 2012
Location
Georgia Coast
Silverfox,

Seeing how you never answered my post above, I'll ask again. Did you know that no one proposed to get rid of slavery where it already existed? So how was slavery to be voted out?

"Secession was not mentioned therefore it was deemed a state option reserved to the state?" Really? When was that?

Compensation had been offered to the slaveholding South, over and over again, before the war and during it. IT WAS ALWAYS REFUSED BY THE SOUTH. So, yes, compensation was offered during this era.

Too bad the South turned it down every time.

Unionblue
I know that no politician ever said that slavery would be abolished where it exists---However that could be changed in a heart beat and in fact was---I would never bet the farm on the word of any politician. I wonder if Grant was compensated for his slaves?

All rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution were reserved to the states period.

Was the compensation offered based on FMV? And what was offered to help with their making a living?

Sorry but I cannot play after 10:00 pm---The boss will not let me.:smoke:
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Silverfox

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 8, 2012
Location
Georgia Coast
That is a great quote suze. I can not recall ever reading it before. It is certainly far more detailed and matter of fact about the reasons that confederates fought than Mosby's oft repeated one.

For those who are not aware, it took me a minute, that was written by Colonel and later Governor of Alabama William C. Oates, who led the 15th Alabama against Chamberlain's Maine boys at Little Round Top. A man that would know what he was talking about and was not afraid to state it.

William C. Oates
TITLE
Colonel
Confederate
DATE OF BIRTH - DEATH
November 30, 1835 - September 9, 1910
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/biographies/william-c-oates
You should read his after action report on LRT----It was a close affair---His brother Stephen took command of Co. G after its captain was killed early in the battle. Stephen was shot 7 or 8 times and his men dragged him behind a big rock to keep him from being shot again. His men that night tried to go get him but the fire was too great. He actually lived for two weeks and with the help of a Southern nurse living in Pa. wrote letters home. He actually died of blood poisoning.
 

suzenatale

Sergeant Major
Joined
May 25, 2013
That is a great quote suze. I can not recall ever reading it before. It is certainly far more detailed and matter of fact about the reasons that confederates fought than Mosby's oft repeated one.

For those who are not aware, it took me a minute, that was written by Colonel and later Governor of Alabama William C. Oates, who led the 15th Alabama against Chamberlain's Maine boys at Little Round Top. A man that would know what he was talking about and was not afraid to state it.

William C. Oates
TITLE
Colonel
Confederate
DATE OF BIRTH - DEATH
November 30, 1835 - September 9, 1910
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/biographies/william-c-oates
Oh thanks. Someone had posted the first half stopping at the war was not about slavery and it prompted me to find the full quote. It also is a rare admittance of what the first Klan was all about.

Another quote that looks at why non slaveowners fought comes from Georgia Senator Robert Toombs farewell address to the senate.
IMG_2024.PNG
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
I doubt the Confederates had their torpedo technology in April 1861 but they could have sunk obstructions blocking access to the fort and thereby forcing Lincoln's hand.
I doubt that too, but they had Heated shot tech.
The Civil War era torpedo technology went back a long way. It is said to have been the word David Bushnell used for the explosive device on his submarine in the American Revolution. American inventor Robert Fulton used the name "torpedo" (somehow related to a type of fish, apparently) back in the Napoleonic Wars / War of 1812-- he was developing what we would call a naval mine. Later wrinkles included the "spar torpedo" (essentially an explosive charge or mine mounted on the end of a long pole hung forward of the bow of a small vessel) set to detonate on contact. "Torpedo" was also used for floating and fixed mines, floating barrels of pitch, etc. All of this was available well before the Civil War. Torpedo was a generic name for any type of naval explosive charge at the time.

Torpedoes as mines (some detonated mechanically or electrically) were very common in the Crimean War of 1854-56 (the American commission member Delafield reported on them) and in the 1859 Austro-French War in Italy). Military engineers and ordnance men would have been very familiar with them. Beauregard certainly would have had knowledge of them.

The Confederate innovation of the Rains brothers was to use torpedoes on land (i.e., what we call land mines or booby-traps). This is in early 1862.

A British engineer named Whitehead invented the first successful self-propelled torpedo in 1866. This is what we think of as a torpedo today.

Only about half the Confederate artillery near Charleston was sited to fire on Ft. Sumter. The rest was sited to fire upon any vessels entering the harbor.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
The Civil War era torpedo technology went back a long way. It is said to have been the word David Bushnell used for the explosive device on his submarine in the American Revolution. American inventor Robert Fulton used the name "torpedo" (somehow related to a type of fish, apparently) back in the Napoleonic Wars / War of 1812-- he was developing what we would call a naval mine. Later wrinkles included the "spar torpedo" (essentially an explosive charge or mine mounted on the end of a long pole hung forward of the bow of a small vessel) set to detonate on contact. "Torpedo" was also used for floating and fixed mines, floating barrels of pitch, etc. All of this was available well before the Civil War. Torpedo was a generic name for any type of naval explosive charge at the time.

Torpedoes as mines (some detonated mechanically or electrically) were very common in the Crimean War of 1854-56 (the American commission member Delafield reported on them) and in the 1859 Austro-French War in Italy). Military engineers and ordnance men would have been very familiar with them. Beauregard certainly would have had knowledge of them.

The Confederate innovation of the Rains brothers was to use torpedoes on land (i.e., what we call land mines or booby-traps). This is in early 1862.

A British engineer named Whitehead invented the first successful self-propelled torpedo in 1866. This is what we think of as a torpedo today.

Only about half the Confederate artillery near Charleston was sited to fire on Ft. Sumter. The rest was sited to fire upon any vessels entering the harbor.
A good source for the Confederate use of torpedoes and mines would be William F. Perry's Infernal Machines: The Story of Confederate Submarine and Mine Warfare.
 

John S. Carter

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Says one man's unproven, unsourced, opinion.

Unionblue
Question '.Does this sound similar to those who speculate that the wealth merchants and plantations owners desired freedom to void their heavy debts owed to British banks and merchants? The British navy was interfering with Hancock's smuggling business.Washington finally had enough of receiving second rate merchandise and clothing.Jefferson was a Romantic who copy righted the Declaration from the Virginia Resolutions for independence/Speculation can be turned to truth if it solves ones reasoning .This may be right in their own reason.It is the general overall reasons that bring people together ,to oppose a wrong or support a right that they justify to themselves and to their fellow civilians.Last certain gentlemen had investments in Western lands but the British void their taking any further lands,creating a loss in future investments.Remove the British control and these lands will make these men wealthier.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top