Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,339
There may be more to it in the international-law area, but my reading of "belligerent" is "a party to active fighting, whether we actually officially recognize them or not."
Yes. Boiled down, this is exactly what International Law is saying about the American Civil War in 1861. The declaration of a blockade makes it apparent that a war is going on (an "insurrection" may or may not rise to the level of a "civil war" and a "civil war" is not necessarily a "war", although it may become one). Federal declaration of the "blockade" forced France, Britain and the others to officially take notice of and establish a position on the situation in America.
 

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,833
Louisiana State University
LSU Digital Commons
LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School
2014

More Than Met the Eye: Industry in the Antebellum Gulf South
by Michael Sean Frawley

Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, mfrawl1@lsu.edu
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contactgradetd@lsu.edu.

ABSTRACT
1860 was a census year. Census marshals spread out across the United States to record many different aspects of American society, including information on population, agriculture and, most importantly for this study, manufacturing. The antebellum Gulf South has traditionally been viewed as a region with little industrial development. But, both contemporaries and historians based their view of industry in the Gulf South on what was recorded in the census schedules. Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas were portrayed in the census
as areas with little industrial development. But, as many historians have discovered, there were errors in the 1860 census, especially errors of omission. The geography, resources, and people of the Gulf South gave the region the potential to create many manufacturing concerns that could have supported economic development and perhaps the future war effort.


This dissertation argues that the census understated industry in the Gulf South states of Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas. This has given us a distorted view of the antebellum South. The region was not as agrarian as the census would lead us to believe. Other primary sources, such as newspapers, journals, local histories, city and county directories, and the R. G. Dun credit reports allowed the recovery of many of these missing firms. Census marshals missed almost 20% of the industrial concerns that existed in these three states. Moreover, the Gulf South depended less on imports and industry was more geographically diffuse and locally intensive than historians gave it credit for. The South did not have the industry to win the Civil War, but, perhaps, these missed firms can help explain how the Confederacy persisted through four years of conflict with little outside support.

https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3487&context=gradschool_dissertations
616

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

Carronade

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
4,351
Location
Pennsylvania
When you re-read Durden's reply and report it correctly, I might take a shot at responsing to your question. Durden did NOT say Davis had bigger things on his mind. He said Davis did NOT have the TRR on his mind at all, if "furthest thing in the world from it" means anything. And I for one think it does.
The correct interpretation is that he used a common expression, not to be taken literally. If pressed he would no doubt acknowledge that many things may have been further from Davis' mind: Japanese poetry, the life cycle of the orangutan, indeed most of the things in the world. The main thing it shows is that the person you asked to evaluate your theory was not impressed.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
The correct interpretation is that he used a common expression, not to be taken literally. If pressed he would no doubt acknowledge that many things may have been further from Davis' mind: Japanese poetry, the life cycle of the orangutan, indeed most of the things in the world. The main thing it shows is that the person you asked to evaluate your theory was not impressed.
Read "was not informed" where you have "was not impressed" and you get an A+ for the day.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
Also of note the Congressional Globe index shows that Mr. Davis rose to speak concerning slavery and secession more than 25 times during this congress, before giving his resignation speech.

This included profering an Amendment to the Constitution in which slaves would be declared property forever more, just as physical possessions or land.

So while he spoke at some length one time on the subject of the railroad stating he didn't want it to be used to enrich corporations through a land grant, IIRC the preferred method being evangelized by Asa Whitney, it also doesn't seem to support the conceit that it was the primary instigator in the issue.

Indeed, Davis offered an Amendment specifically to protect slavery during this time period, four days after the SC secession.

And in his resignation stated that he concurred with the people of Mississippi on the justness of their cause - and the declaration of secession for Mississippi states "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." What's more he continued on stating that they had the same rights as the Colonists, arguing the justness of that cause as one of the principle charges against King George was to stir up insurrection of the slaves.

Again, what justification can you have that after screaming 'slavery slavery slavery' over and over again, secession was really a Northern plot about railroads?
I never said or even came close to intimating that Secession was the result of a Northern plot. Nor do I believe that it was. All I did was ask a question about whether or not some Northern bankroller decided to do his part to remove the impasse by funding abolitionists or anyone who could encourage the Southerners to take the plunge. That's all. Nothing more. A simple request/suggestion. I offered no proof. I have none. All I have is an educated suspicion that somebody probably thought that. Land developers do those sorts of things.
 

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
444
I know where the United States Declaration of Independence is...that's in the Archives. But the Confederate Declaration of Independence was that kept...or was it used for toilet paper or something?
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,339
On slavery and Lincoln: in the normal actions of the country he had no power to end slavery on his own. The Emancipation Proclamations are only justified by the rebellion of the seceding states and the war that ensued -- which is why they did not apply to Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri. Lincoln might have vetoed the Arizona Organic Act of 1863, but he could not change a single word of it to eliminate slavery.
 

Bruce Vail

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Messages
3,843
Baltimore was the economic center of the Tidewater Chesapeake region. The Eastern shore and the areas surrounding Baltimore was where the concentration of slave power in the state resided. That's where the plantations were, and that's where the slaves were. Both Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglas for example were enslaved in that area on the Eastern shore before gaining their freedom.

Baltimore city itself was the locus of the slave trade, and slave auctions at Fells Point and Pratt Street both sold to the locals and bundled slaves to be shipped to New Orleans. Lord Baltimore owned two plantations, Goodwood and Riversdale. His parents owned another, Mt. Airy. Slavery had a long hold on that region of Maryland.

The tide had begun to turn and free blacks travelled to Baltimore in large numbers, but they were still second hand citizens, the slave trade still flourished, and white institutions still made sure they were suppressed. It was a common fear for them to be captured as a runaway slave and held in prison to give their owners a chance to identify them - and that was often simply paying a fee and claiming them.

A good article can be found on it here: https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1999-06-20-9906220293-story.html

But Baltimore was the heart of the economics of slavery, many white men prospered due to it, and Confederate sympathies were high in that region.
Well said. Baltimore was the economic center of the region and the region's ties to slavery were still strong. Like other southern cities, non-slaveholders may have outnumbered the slaveowners, but the slaveowners still had a firm grip on politics and the economy.
 

byron ed

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,339
Location
Midwest
Lefty...If slavery were so obvious as the primary or sole cause, why do you waste time filling up my threads with defenses of it? Why pay any attention to my claim at all?
Whoever Lefty is, you may want to address him or her on that, but imho it's no waste of time for anyone to be calling out Lost Cause in each and every instance it's being sold, even through a back door like the TRR or China.

"Play Spanish" does not add any more gravitas to this case than "Play Confederate" does, as many times as the latter has been invoked.

In your view, isn't my claim so far off the wall that it wold be like saying lava soap caused the War?
Uh ...No. Invoking a household product brand name* is nowhere near as deceitful as inventing a history. Anyway soap is a silly allegory for war, yes?.

This has never been at our service. It's been a chore.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*Lava soap © 2008-2019 WD-40 Company. all rights reserved.
 
Last edited:

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,190
Location
Laurinburg NC
So far. There might be more.

Inconceivable to me that someone "out there" did not see as a potential solution to the impasse and cynically say (or commit to writing) to himself, "By golly, if we can provoke secession and break the impasse, we can get this railroad built and regain whatever territory the south might steal from us in the interim."

Thanks for your post.
By golly, I think you are right.
 

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
444
Maryland was truly a border state.

Eastern Maryland and counties west of the Chesapeake: Montgomery, Prince Georges, Carroll, Baltimore county were slaved counties:

Frederick Douglass was a Maryland slaves on the eastern shore.
Harriet Tubman the founder of the underground railroad was a Maryland slave on the eastern shore
Uncle Tom's Cabin was based on the life of a slave in Montgomery County (the cabin still stands as an historic site)

Because Maryland is so close to the north...Maryland slave owners in Carroll and Montgomery County were exceptionally cruel to stop runaways.

But Northwestern Counties near PA had more people loyal to the Union.

When Lee invaded Maryland in 1862 he sent a proclamation to the locals that the confederate army was there to help Maryland revolt against the Union and join the confederacy . Jefferson Davis and him were convinced all Marylanders were going to revolt because of what Maryland Southerners in Richmond were saying as to how all Marylanders believed in the confederate cause.

"Invaders" was basically the word Lee got back about his proclamation. He was shocked at the response! He wrote to Jefferson Davis explaining how the Maryland Southerners in Richmond were wrong about the overall political affairs in Maryland, how they should have not listened to them, and how Maryland was truly a border state with split sympathy for both north and south.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,367
Location
los angeles ca
Lefty,

It just occurred to me that you have been complimenting me far more than that to which I am accustomed. Thank you.

If slavery were so obvious as the primary or sole cause, why do you waste time filling up my threads with defenses of it? Why pay any attention to my claim at all? No comprehendo. In your view, isn't my claim so far off the wall that it wold be like saying lava soap caused the War? Would you keep posting on threads that made that claim?

I thank you for your implied back door back handed compliment. Just calling it to your attention so you can withdraw it, as I am guessing you did not realize it.

At your service,

James
@James Lutzweiler
Just trying to give you a chance to answer how your theories make sense. So far they don't.
Leftyhunter
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,089
Fellow Posters,

As many of your know from other threads on this wonderful website, I have argued for the primacy of the North/South struggle for the first footprint of the TRR over slavery in the coming of secession and the War. This thread is NOT to re-explore that controversial subject, though I suppose there could be some overlap. But any overlap is not intended.

Though I consider my viewpoint proven (I know many of you do not even consider it viable, let alone proven), I continue to smoke down the trail of topics related to it. I cannot smoke down them all, as there are simply too many. But there is one down which I request your assistance, if such would interest you. Here goes:

I theorize --and I only theorize, I do NOT argue this-- that somewhere "out there" in the papers of wealthy antebellum Northerners (Tappans, Vanderbilts, Sewards, Astors, et al.) there is a statement in writing (maybe in a private yet unpublished letter) showing that the rich person in question conscioulsy and deliberately helped to bankroll abolitionists for the express purpose of fostering secession IN ORDER TO BREAK THE 1845-1860 DEADLOCK IN CONGRESS OVER WHERE THE FIRST FOOTPRINT OF THE TRR SHOULD GO.

This is nothing more or less than a "Divide and Conquer" tactic. Lawyers use it all the time. You have seen it in action and so have I. But from 1845-1860 many bills had been introduced in Congress for the building of a TRR. None ever passed --at least not until July 4, 1862, when all the opponents of a Northern route had gone South in more ways than one. I have just wondered for a long while if there were cynical wealthy men in the North who saw this possibility and did what they could, silently and subtly, to encourage the kind of secession that would remove from positions of power those who were holding up the show. It seems inconceivable to me that there were not such, whether I can find a smoking gun or not. I do not need a smoking gun to nurse along my viewpoint. I simply wish to explore every last avenue pertaining to my viewpoint. I can't chase them all; and so I suggest this as a topic someone else might wish to help me pursue.

There is a precedent for my search. Circa 1995-or so, I met with Duke University professor, Dr. Robert Durden. Dr. Durden was the biographer of the Duke family and he also wrote the history of Duke University. He also taught a course on the coming of the Civil War. I asked him to comment on my view about the Primacy of the TRR over slavery, as a factor in the coming of the War. He smiled, just shy of patronizingly, and replied, "In 1861 the furthest thing in the world from the mind of Jefferson Davis was the TRR."

I knew that could not be correct. I knew it because of Davis's authorization of James Gadsden to go buy 30,000 square miles of kitty litter, now more politely called southern Arizona and New Mexico, and to spend "up to $50,000,000" with which to purchase it and more. As a real estate broker, I knew that in the course of 8 years (1853-1861) no decent land developer (which is all that politicians are) did would forget such an economic initiative. No way. It still had to be in JD's mind in 1861, but I had no document to prove it. So I began reading the Congressional Globe until I got to January 5, 1861; and there in the mind of JD was not only the TRR but the southern footprint for it, still smoking 130 years later, when I read it.

Durden was wrong. Way wrong. Among other things I wondered how this premier scholar could be so wrong. One answer to the question is that I doubt he ever read JD's Pacific Railroad Surveys (1854-1860), though I would happily concede I might be wrong. Whatever the case, it turned out there was a document "out there" that I had only theorized "must be out there." And now I find myself wondering if I can find a cynical statement, owned up to by a bankroller of the abolitionists or of anyone else, to foster the kind of secession that would take away from the federal government the opposition to the Northern footprint that Seward, Lincoln, Vanderbilt and all the others preferred but could not get so long as the South was still in the Union.

There you have it, my cynical question. I will continue my own search, but I will need help. It would not surprise me to find some such sentiment in the very ambiguous words of Lincoln himself who was not exactly poor. He certainly knew his statement that he "only opposed the expansion of slavery" was pure hogwash, as any school child must certainly know. This was classic double speak by the fellow who lent his name, posthumously, to the grade school I attended in Dixon, Illinois, the property of which Abe helped heist from Black Hawk and his Sauk band. Don't get me wrong. I would have stolen it, too. Few things more beautiful than the Rock River flowing through Dixon. So I am not asking this question as a moralist but as a simple historian.

James Lutzweiler
Help me out: in one concise sentence, what is it you want to discuss?
 

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
444
Lincolns eloquent reply to the Baltimore Riots:

"Protesting that Maryland soil should not be ‘polluted’ by the feet of soldiers marching against the South. The President had but one reply: ‘We must have troops, and as they can neither crawl under Maryland nor fly over it, they must come across it.'" as reported by the Baltimore Sun.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2019
Messages
42
As a lifelong resident of the Garden State, the unique politics of New Jersey before and during the Civil War have always been of particular interest to me. Thus, the purpose of this thread is to delve into reasons why New Jersey rejected Lincoln twice and behaved in many ways like a Border State with regard to emancipation and Reconstruction.

Obviously, there was precedent for New Jersey's political position during the years leading up to and during the war. It was the last Northern non-Border state to abolish slavery, doing so in 1804 and through a system of gradual - extremely gradual - emancipation. In fact, the long apprenticeships required by the New Jersey emancipation law resulted in "a handful of slaves among its population" counted as late as the 1860 Census (Hawk, Franklin and Marshall College, 2017). In addition, New Jersey's emerging position as an economic powerhouse - specifically with regard to textile production - undoubtedly created a crucial trade relationship with the cotton states (I believe a similar economic relationship contributed to the large anti-Lincoln, anti-war contingency in New York City).

Still, there are some assertions about the factors that shaped New Jersey politics that I want to explore and evaluate further. The previously-cited Hawk article states, "The political culture of New Jersey more closely resembled a slaveholding Border State like Kentucky or Delaware than its neighboring free states of New York and Pennsylvania." I cannot agree fully with this. Kentucky, in my view, was perhaps the least loyal of the Border States and shared almost nothing in common culturally or economically with New Jersey. The comparison with Delaware, however, is much more appropriate geographically, culturally, and socioeconomically. I also cannot agree totally with the contrast between New Jersey and New York. Yes, New Jersey rejected Lincoln twice while New York voted Republican - albeit by narrow margins - in both 1860 and 1864. However, New Jersey Governor Joel Parker was a staunchly pro-war Democrat while New York Governor Horatio Seymour was ambivalent towards the war at best. New York City Mayor Fernando Wood was so passionately pro-Confederate that he wanted to declare it a free city. As for Pennsylvania, it was certainly a more pro-Lincoln state than either New Jersey or New York. The Keystone State's influence in this regard is evident, as the South Jersey counties near Philadelphia voted for Lincoln twice while their North Jersey counterparts soundly rejected the Republican tickets of 1860 and 1864.

Any insights on New Jersey politics of the time, including comparisons with other Union states and/or factors that may have contributed to the Garden State's lukewarm attitude towards the Lincoln Adminstration, are much appreciated!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top