Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,549
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Slavery in Az. would be a moot point, after its secession. All one has to do is read the Confederate Constitution about any new states or territories.

Almost all Ante-Bellum Americans, interested in American history or politics, knew exactly, what 'State Rights' referred to.

Classic example of of the old saying that 'All Politics is Local' .
1553963645584.png
 

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

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,860
***Posted as Moderator***
Explaining your choice of factors the two regions had in common is expected. However, don't lose sight of the topic itself. No need to review the entire history of western expansion.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Messages
919
Location
Dixie
@byron ed
It occurs to me that if you believe in American exceptionalism , common to both sections, that you should have no trouble In acknowledging Confederate or Southern exceptionalism as asserted by Southern heritage propaganda. I do not believe you think that as we are usually of like mind but on this one we seem to differ.
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,528
Location
Midwest
With snark, I'd add:...Obsessive hatred of black people
...as if whatever was common to both North and South didn't include a huge part of the population, black people. That's not snark, that's something else.

btw neither did Native Americans have an obsessive hatred of black people in those days. Another large part of the population which, like blacks, are not beneath consideration for the OP.
 

Bruce Vail

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Messages
3,936
...as if whatever was common to both North and South didn't include a huge part of the population, black people. That's not snark, that's something else.

btw neither did Native Americans have an obsessive hatred of black people in those days. Another large part of the population which, like blacks, are not beneath consideration for the OP.
A couple of points in response:

1) The black population of US in 1860 is estimated about 13-14 percent, so it is not a huge part of the total population. It was, and is, a small minority compared to the total population.

2) Native Americans were even smaller in number, so they were not a large part of the population either.

3) You are correct in dinging me for leaving out these groups in considering American characteristics. In my own defense, I'll only say the comment was clearly marked as snark -- that is too say, not entirely serious.
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,528
Location
Midwest
...The black population of US in 1860 is estimated about 13-14 percent,...It was...a small minority compared to the total population.
By Census records blacks were 14.1% of the population in 1860, and nearly all in the South. That's not such a small percent of the population for purposes of this OP, and particularly to wonder what the percentage of Secessionists in the Country was.
 
Last edited:

Bruce Vail

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Messages
3,936
By Census records blacks were 14.1% of the population in 1860, and nearly all in the South. That's not such a small percent of the population for purposes of this OP, and particularly to wonder what the percentage of Secessionists in the Country was.
No need to squabble. You think 14.1 percent is a huge part of the population. That is your opinion. Good for you.
 

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,163
Cotton Boom, De‐industrialisation and re-industrialisation in the Middle East
Contrasting Experience in Egypt and western Anatolia 1850-1914

Dr. Laura Panza
La Trobe University

Abstract
This paper undertakes an investigation of the process of decline and rebirth of textile manufacturing in two Middle Eastern regions, Egypt and western Anatolia during the first wave of globalisation (1850-1914). Through the application of the “Dutch Disease” model we explore the linkages between terms of trade and industrialisation. These are further related to the evolution of price transmission between domestic and global raw cotton markets. We find that different levels of market integration have contributed to diverging trajectories in industrial development in the two regions: while in Egypt the process of de-industrialisation was not reversed, in western Anatolia weaker international price transmission and domestic policy interventions facilitated the creation of a nascent domestic textile industry.

https://cama.crawford.anu.edu.au/pdf/events/2012/conference/laura-panza-paper.pdf
112

'...to sleep, perchance to dream...'
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

5fish

Captain
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,135
Location
Central Florida
here is an interesting take on Arizona 's secession... If you think about it Arizona, in the end, achieved their goals... a thought?

Capture of Tucson (1862) - Wikipedia

When Captain Hunter arrived in Mesilla on May 27, his company, along with the Arizona Rangers and the Arizona Guards, were formed into Lieutenant Colonel Philemon Herbert's battalion of Arizona Cavalry. The Arizonans ceased being militia and officially became Confederate soldiers under General Henry Sibley. After the Battle of Glorieta Pass and the retreat of General Sibley's army, the Arizona Cavalry battalion was ordered to remain behind to hold on to Mesilla and the surrounding valley. Men under Sherod Hunter fought with New Mexican militia near Mesilla on June 1, 1862. The skirmish ended with no known casualties on either side and reports indicate a Union victory due to the loss of Confederate horses and equipment at the battle, the rebels retreated from Mesilla a few days later.

When the Arizona Cavalry withdrew into Texas they were some of the last Confederate soldiers to leave Confederate Arizona. Though the Confederates, due to lack of man power, failed to hold Arizona, the Arizonans themselves achieved their main goal: the creation of a territory separate from that of New Mexico Territory. As mentioned previously, the United States established Arizona Territory with Tucson as the capital in 1863, using a north-south boundary. The towns of Mesilla, Pinos Altos and others were not included in the new Arizona Territory, instead they remained part of New Mexico Territory and are now within the present day state of New Mexico. The Confederate occupation of Arizona prompted a return of Union forces to the region in order to reassert Federal government control, thus providing Arizona the military support necessary for protection against Apaches. Indeed, the California Volunteers remained on guard in Arizona until relieved by the Regular Army of the United States in the spring of 1866, making them the last volunteer forces to be mustered out of Federal service in the American Civil War.

Some engagements in Arizona I doubt few know... should be able to click on them as links...

Like most of the Civil War era engagements in Arizona (Dragoon Springs, Stanwix Station and Apache Pass) Picacho Pass occurred near remount stations along the former Butterfield Overland Stagecoach route, which opened in 1859 and ceased operations when the war began. This skirmish occurred about a mile northwest of Picacho Pass Station. The Battle of Picacho Pass,...
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,549
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Still Too Close to Call-Rethinking Stampp's the Concept of a Perpetual Union Emphasis mine.
This is not to say that legal historians of the Civil War are predominantly presentist, or that they are only interested in whether Lincoln was right. This is to say that there is in much Civil War history a central presentist preoccupation that does not loom as large in any other era, namely, whether particular legal and constitutional actions were justified in some absolute sense. We historians do not generally ask whether Lord Grenville was right to issue the Stamp Act, or whether Jackson was right to crush the Bank of the United States or whether Wilson was right to sign the Treaty of Versailles. We do not, in other words, usually ask whether a historical actor was right or wrong by our lights. Yet we cannot resist asking this about legal actors during the Civil War, particularly Lincoln. I simply do not know if Lincoln was right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and I maintain we cannot answer this question historically. We might be able to explain why he suspended the writ, or the effects of its suspension then and afterwards. We can also bring to light the competing legal arguments made at the time, and explain why some won and others lost. But we cannot survey the sources and come to a definitive ruling on the merits on these central legal questions any more than we can come to definitive understanding of the original meaning of the due process clause. We will never know if Lincoln was right or justified in his legal actions any more than we will know whether Cromwell and his supporters were right to execute Charles I.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,355
Blood relatives on the opposite side...made quite a conundrum for those people too...including Mary Todd Lincoln!

Interesting point, I believe. What was the difference between the two sections that could divide blood relatives in a war to the bitter end? Was it different in northern blood relations, and, if so, what was the common ingredient that identified that difference?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.



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