Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
636
This seems to be a common response in our threads, despite the fact that many of us have explained that slavery was one of many factors, some very important, others less or only locally important. Slavery was, however, chief among those factors, the single root cause.
As I find myself often, I mostly agree with you. I will stop short of your last 4 words however, but agree with it being chief.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Messages
73
Location
retired traveling
Unfortunate Myth. SC was losing Cotton Production. SC had built Rail Roads thru GA and from Charleston to Memphis. Not for Cotton, but for other Trade.

VA's Tobacco economy declined from the Revolutionary War, because Europe wasn't Buying. They were looking for a MFG based Economy.

Slavery's economics was forcing it South and West. Where Cotton Production was. Other areas of the South didn't grow Cotton, or where they were, were losing it.
In 1820 South Carolina cotton accounted for half of the US exports.
Cotton was the basis of the SC state economy at the end of the antebellum era and employed 80% of the slave population. production continued to increase well into the 20th century. it was only out produced by GA, AL, and MS.
tobacco gave way to food crops, especially wheat, in virginia in support of the revolutionary war effort. this market was picked up by kentucky and missiouri. europe was buying, just not england (directly. do you think they had to sneak like pot heads ? ).
the states that didn't grow cotton did not secede.

[With the advent of cotton cultivation in the early 19th century, the relatively remote South Carolina upcountry enjoyed a vast expansion in the value of its agricultural produce. Overland transport by wagon was slow and expensive, so this produce tended to go to Augusta, Georgia, then down the Savannah River to the seaport at Savannah, Georgia. The SCC&RR Company was chartered on December 19, 1827 (amended January 30, 1828)to divert this commerce to Charleston by means of connections to Columbia, Camden and Hamburg.]
The Memphis and Charleston railroad stopped at the mississippi river with only a few short non connected lines on the other side. what did they transport ? cotton. cotton meant for new orleans or new york. new western cotton. the south had been using water routes for the same thing for decades. this was about competition for new sources and destinations at cheaper rates , to any place you could lay track.

as for vocation.... the postbellum south produced more cotton per year (except for immediately after the war, but still produced) than the antebellum south ever did.

sorry but i edited out a paragraph like the one in brackets. it was duplicated and is from wikipedia and did not cite an author. except for the reference to wagon transport it said what i wanted to say and i saw no reason not to use it. it was not my intention to use somebody else's work and i used it as a statistic.
the information comes from " Interstate Commerce Commission Valuation Reports, November 6, 1931 ".
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Messages
73
Location
retired traveling
There are a gazillion threads on these subjects you can search through on here, besides you seem to have your mind made up already by the tone of your post.
i'm sorry but i never get an answer except the standard lost cause answers or one like yours. you typed the above , why not respond with a real answer and not assume to know my mind . i could say the same about your tone but would rather talk about this topic. although i have an opinion i do not think i have been rude but have been attacked and gotten rude PMs. i am not sure this is a nice place to discuss things so far. i will settle on a yes/no answer to ... was the confederate cause noble ? anybody ? i think not and i think the union's was , at the beginning and in '63 and on.

ps. i do lots of reading but wanted to talk. a search produced this thread.
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,945
This seems to be a common response in our threads, despite the fact that many of us have explained that slavery was one of many factors, some very important, others less or only locally important. Slavery was, however, chief among those factors, the single root cause.
Good example of the Single Cause Fallacy:

There were rumors--so numerous that they could be had for a dime a dozen--that Rufus King hoped to rejuvenate the Federalist party and elevate himself to the presidency by means of the dispute over Missouri. Northern Democrats were so impressed by these rumors that, says Homer C. Hockett, "IT may be found. . when the subject is thoroughly investigated, that the passage of the famous compromise by which our commonwealty gained statehood was due to an erroneous belief in the personal ambition of an aged leader of a dead party." As a matter of fact, the Democratic fear of King was only partly erroneous. There can be little doubt about King's views, for he was a forthright man who recorded his strong convictions in a voluminous correspondence which has been preserved. A study of his letters indicates that he was largely without personal ambition at the stage of his life and had no hope that the Federalist party would ever defeat the Democratic or, as it was still generally called, the Republican party." Nevertheless, King did fondly hope that the Missouri Controversy would result in a realignment of parties and secure the political predominance of the North in the national government. As the presidential election of 1824 drew near, he asserted that victory for John Quincy Adams would be certainty if Maine, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts had done their duty in 1820, for the first time, New York and Pennsylvania decidedly opposed the wishes of Virginia, "and had Massachusetts done as she ought to have done, (and for which. omission she may be now & perhaps forever hereafter punished) the Govt, of the U.S. would. have permanently been placed in hands which ought to possess it, but which may never again find as fair and honorable grounds of obtaining it. It is obvious that King's program could have been effected only by a Northern Sectional party similar to the Republican party of the 1850s and 1860s, which was exactly the thing that a great many Northern Democrats did not want. The political power motive recurs again and again in the King correspondence. He professed to be interested in slavery solely because of "its bearing and effects upon great political interests," and lost in political power of influence in the union. The Slave Legion will parcel out the great offices, will determine all questions respecting the general & common welfare and, in a word, will rule us as they have done in contempt of our rights." According to King, the Northerners who voted for the compromise of 1820 had assisted in placing the free states "under a Govt. of the privileged order on Men who are henceforth to be & forever to remain our Masters." pp179-180 The Missouri Controversy by Moore

So what were the Causes of the Mo Comp? The Single Causers have always said, only Slavery. Surely there were more than 1. How much of the Compromise was 1 vs the other? Prime example of the Single Cause Fallacy.

Second question. How is the Missouri Compromise taught by Freehling and the Lincoln Apologist?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Messages
73
Location
retired traveling
Through my reading thus far, they knew very little about industry/technology/inventions/innovation.
they knew about these things but they were not required by the static old south way of life, except where they were necessary to it's continuance and profit. the cotton gin was on every plantation. south carolina started the first regularly operated passenger steam railroad in the country. they came up with innovative ways to maximize every aspect of cotton (and slave) production. they planned to capture the trade (or industry) of the south carolina and georgia interior. Steamboats for river traffic were made at many southern locations. charleston and new orleans were always important ports but ship building was limited to shallow draft coastal and river boats and ocean going exports were shipped via northern and foreign shipping.
i believe they could have adopted a northern labor model and been competitive except they already had a labor force, that they were afraid to emancipate, and were bound by a racist and chivalry tenet against manual, menial labor. as i said , the new south produced more cotton per year than the ols south ever did, and did it without slavery but not not without exploitation. exploitations they also experienced in the north.
 
Joined
Nov 27, 2018
Messages
878
Location
Chattanooga, Tennessee
The concentration of the Government into Richmond did create a weakness in the western theater. Considering the focus to be primarily in the east and nearer to the push to claim Maryland and Washington City as confederate territory, it also allowed easier access for men in Congress with military credentials to gain the battlefield. That perspective for the desire to keep their loved ones close in a more social and environmental ambience is questionable in hindsight, due to the coldness of winters further north. I almost see it as finally a 'come what may' decision, without any concise intelligence offered them (all opinion) to support their determinations. Were there any other cities in the south investigated ahead of time, besides Richmond?
Thanks, Lubliner.
 
Joined
Nov 27, 2018
Messages
878
Location
Chattanooga, Tennessee
I must remember moderation requirements are specifically designed to keep our progress clear.
If, for instance I had a focus on Peace Committees sent to Legislative bodies, where I would hope to find a conspiratorial theme of disbanding, and reforming, I could possibly limit my attention to 1860-1861. It would certainly be easier to gather it all in, but it would be a leaky cistern at best. How about Neptune; it would be more consonant to my extremes, @James Lutzweiler?
Lubliner.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,121
Location
Laurinburg NC
Sorry, but I disagree. The word War brings on the vision of guns and cannon and killing and that is true enough. But...there is another kind of war. Such as a War of Words.
And wthen Stephens made his ""cornerstone speech"...it specifically states the 'cause' of the south was fighting for slavery!" there had already been years of a war of words in Congress between the Slave
States and Free States over Personal Liberty Laws, and a war of words about abolitionist and their demand of the end of slavery (a very long running war of words).
From Merriam-Webster
war of words noun phrase
Definition of war of words: an argument in which people or groups criticize and disagree with each other publicly and repeatedly for usually a long time
The war hadn't even started at the time Stephens made the speech. Probably the most controversial thing (by today's standards, not those of 21 March 1861) Stephens' said in his cornerstone speech was: “that the new Confederate government was based upon “the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man.”
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,945
In 1820 South Carolina cotton accounted for half of the US exports. With the advent of cotton cultivation in the early 19th century, the relatively remote South Carolina upcountry enjoyed a vast expansion in the value of its agricultural produce. Overland transport by wagon was slow and expensive, so this produce tended to go to Augusta, Georgia, then down the Savannah River to the seaport at Savannah, Georgia. The SCC&RR Company was chartered on December 19, 1827 (amended January 30, 1828)[3] to divert this commerce to Charleston by means of connections to Columbia, Camden and Hamburg.
cotton was the basis of the SC state economy at the end of the antebellum era and employed 80% of the slave population. production continued to increase well into the 20th century. it was only out produced by GA, AL, and MS.
tobacco gave way to food crops, especially wheat, in virginia in support of the revolutionary war effort. this market was picked up by kentucky and missiouri. europe was buying, just not england (directly. do you think they had to sneak like pot heads ? ).
the states that didn't grow cotton did not secede.

With the advent of cotton cultivation in the early 19th century, the relatively remote South Carolina upcountry enjoyed a vast expansion in the value of its agricultural produce. Overland transport by wagon was slow and expensive, so this produce tended to go to Augusta, Georgia, then down the Savannah River to the seaport at Savannah, Georgia. The SCC&RR Company was chartered on December 19, 1827 (amended January 30, 1828)to divert this commerce to Charleston by means of connections to Columbia, Camden and Hamburg.
The Memphis and Charleston railroad stopped at the mississippi river with only a few short non connected lines on the other side. what did they transport ? cotton. cotton meant for new orleans or new york. new western cotton. the south had been using water routes for the same thing for decades. this was about competition for new sources and destinations at cheaper rates , to any place you could lay track.

as for vocation.... the postbellum south produced more cotton per year (except for immediately after the war, but still produced) than the antebellum south ever did.
Lot of Questions about a subject that only yesterday seemed so simple. Maybe the subject, is just not that simple.

We have to educate ourselves. No one can do it for us. That is what those 50k books are for. People shouldn’t let others tell us how to THINK!
Thanks for Posting.
 
Last edited:

lurid

Corporal
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
308
they knew about these things but they were not required by the static old south way of life, except where they were necessary to it's continuance and profit. the cotton gin was on every plantation. south carolina started the first regularly operated passenger steam railroad in the country. they came up with innovative ways to maximize every aspect of cotton (and slave) production. they planned to capture the trade (or industry) of the south carolina and georgia interior. Steamboats for river traffic were made at many southern locations. charleston and new orleans were always important ports but ship building was limited to shallow draft coastal and river boats and ocean going exports were shipped via northern and foreign shipping.i believe they could have adopted a northern labor model and been competitive except they already had a labor force, that they were afraid to emancipate, and were bound by a racist and chivalry tenet against manual, menial labor. as i said , the new south produced more cotton per year than the ols south ever did, and did it without slavery but not not without exploitation. exploitations they also experienced in the north.

According to antebellum invention/patent records, they didn't invent much technology nor anything that advanced society collectively(Roger Burlingame, March of the Iron Men: A Social History of Union Through Invention (New York, 1938).

The cotton gin was invented by Eli Whitley, and he was a New Englander(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Whitney)

The new south invented/innovated/patented as much as the old south, and that was not much. But I get what you're saying, black sharecroppers who were ex-slaves or affiliated with slaves produced more cotton than slave labor did. That's great, but I'm talking about major inventions for industry/manufacturing/technology that expanded the economy and created opportunities for everyone, and the subsequent innovations that contributed to job creation and better standard of living.

Again, if you or anyone else can point in the direction where southern ingenuity contributed to the economic expansion of the USA, I'll retract that I said slavery was the only cause for their so-called seccession.




 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,324
Location
los angeles ca
I've always thought the move a major mistake as the major military effort by Lincoln became to capture Richmond, forcing too many of the South's resources to that point. If Lincoln wanted to capture Montgomery, it would have been a whole different ball game.
Maybe not. Major General Orambsy Michael captured parts if Northern Alabama by 1862. If Montgomery was the Confederate Capital and Michael was better supported he could if marched south to Montgomery. Efforts could of been made to seize Mobile by an amphibious assault.
As others have pointed out if the Confederacy CV can't hold Richmond then the Confederacy is not a viable nation. Without an industrial base and Richmond captured the Union can take out every Confederate port in overland invasion .
Leftyhunter
 

Lost Cause

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
3,030
see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil...the north turned a blind eye to slavery and was guilty by association.....allowing slavery to continue (except the Quakers in Pa that were involved in the Underground railroad and were outspoken against slavery as being immoral).
Do not forget those northerners who capitalized on the evil.
 

Lost Cause

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
3,030
i am new here but cannot believe what i am reading .
that institutionalized slavery was the primary cause of the war is indisputable even if it did not cause the first shot. to minimize it's importance is repugnant . that so many still feel otherwise is equally repugnant. i wonder what confederate supporters want ? was the confederacy really a noble cause or does it need to be in order to rationalize it ?
Your contradicting your own apparent argument that “slavery was the primary cause of the war,” yet it “did not cause the first shot.”
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,008
Your contradicting your own apparent argument that “slavery was the primary cause of the war,” yet it “did not cause the first shot.”
Are those two statements mutually exclusive? For example, slavery could be the cause of distrust, anger and conflict leading to secession. But, the first shot could be attributed to a radical nationalistic fervor, a new nation 'flexing its muscles'.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,751
Location
Denver, CO
There was a good deal of population dispersion before the war. People left Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee and Kentucky. They moved north, but also west. They moved to get to the Pacific West, and to get to southern frontier, in Texas, Arkansas and Missouri.
They liked that dispersed, low density living. There was better hunting and fishing. The water was cleaner, and less competition from the big operations.
The war accelerated that dispersion. Southern men who joined US forces had more opportunities after the war, and they took advantage of them.
So while the Civil War had a political dimension, in many places the war created the identity the secessionists wanted. People who did not like living with blacks moved away from the south, to places like Oregon, Colorado, Iowa and Illinois.
Before the Civil War started, people like James Buchanan and Senator Douglas knew the trans-Atlantic slave trade was ending, and that the power of British finance would end slavery in some way. The way it would end was not predictable, but Lincoln said "eventual extinction" and even Democrats knew that was probably true.
 

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,833
Sirs, if the premise is that by moving the capitol to Richmond, it required too many assets to protect given it's proximity to the Union, then the inverse should be true. Virginia wouldn't be such a defensive burden to Confederate resources had the capitol remained in Alabama. I would disagree with that statement. Does Virginia have any assets that were worth protecting at the same level of commitment regardless of national seat-of-power?

1. Tredegar and other industries
2. Coal
3. Iron ore and furnaces
4. Salt
5. Lead
6. Niter
7. Non-export agricultural products
8. Railroads to support all the above and transport troops
9. Most populous state in Confederacy

I would submit that these above items were extremely valuable and worthy of protection at the same level as traditionally. That is why Virginia was so important to the Secessionist cause.
236

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads




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