Slavery; THE Cause?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
1,173
Location
Virginia
As much as I'd have liked to delete the previous posts, Beowulf did stay within the bounds. Fortunately, he's dug his own hole and has demonstrated that he has nothing of substance to say. I don't get to delete ignorance of facts, only the off-side rants. And for that, I apologize.

ole
So... which was your favorite part?:angel:

B-
 

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

larry_cockerham

Southern Gentleman, Lest We Forget, 2011
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
10,182
Location
Nashville
We're on the same page, Larry, but one of us is speaking in a different language. Cause of war does not equal reasons for fighting.

ole
Sometimes my mumbling keeps me from getting slapped or otherwise rejected on general principles. I agree that cause of war does not equal reasons for fighting. There, I've written it again. What I have a problem with is the incessant efforts on the part of some folks who keep bringing up the slavery issue and trying to blame it on the Confederate states and the entire population therein and only on those folks. That just wasn't so. Too many Confederate soldiers died for participating in a war which they did nothing to create and certainly had no interest in the base causes (greed and slavery). We focus, methinks, far too long on a subject not worthy of the attention.

For me, the reasons thousands of soldiers, both north and south, became tangled up in this messy war far outweigh the strategy of the privileged bumpkins who decided slavery was a just cause for secession. Neil claims all are guilty by association and that these men were supporting a cause by their very actions and the fact they were there. I feel that just because some contemporary 'historians' claim that was the only thought prevalent in the land in 1861-65 don't make it so. I may be in a fog, but it's of my own making and I'm happy.
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,452
Location
Near Kankakee
What I have a problem with is the incessant efforts on the part of some folks who keep bringing up the slavery issue and trying to blame it on the Confederate states and the entire population therein and only on those folks. That just wasn't so. Too many Confederate soldiers died for participating in a war which they did nothing to create and certainly had no interest in the base causes (greed and slavery). We focus, methinks, far too long on a subject not worthy of the attention.
And in that, Larry, you have my agreement. However, you're being overly sensitive. What sounds like blame is a reaction to the idea that the slaveocracy was not a large part of the idea of the rebellion. Your folks got caught up in various ways in various parts of that unfortunate misunderstanding. Those who started the war -- pick a side, any side -- have to bear the responsibility. In here, we get to nit-pick which side was correct (why can't I say left or right?) without assigning blame.

Seems that both sides exchibited dundereheaded BS. But it was what it was: jingoism run rampant. At an enormous cost. But I ramble. Time to take a long walk after which to finish mowing. And therein is the the real meaning.

ole
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
2,871
Slavery: THE Cause?

On this particular thread, especially, where many do accept that the war was the direct result of secession and that secession was the direct result of slavery.
If slavery was central to to the war, the it follows that it's centrality cannot be ignored.
Besides, the issue is usually a response to those few who deny any relationshiop of the war with the peculiar institution and instead blame the on a clever plot to entrap the south Or to 'many causes' among which slavery was only a small part.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
4,813
On this particular thread, especially, where many do accept that the war was the direct result of secession and that secession was the direct result of slavery.
If slavery was central to to the war, the it follows that it's centrality cannot be ignored.
Besides, the issue is usually a response to those few who deny any relationshiop of the war with the peculiar institution and instead blame the on a clever plot to entrap the south Or to 'many causes' among which slavery was only a small part.
Money, power (ie self-interest)...these are the paramount issues for the North.

If these ingredients are not in the mix...then there is no war.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,442
Money, power (ie self-interest)...these are the paramount issues for the North.

If these ingredients are not in the mix...then there is no war.
Ignores the fact that "Money, power (ie self-interest)" means ownership of slaves in the South and that this is what caused the war.

Tim
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,452
Location
Near Kankakee
What I have a problem with is the incessant efforts on the part of some folks who keep bringing up the slavery issue and trying to blame it on the Confederate states and the entire population therein and only on those folks.
We all have a problem with that, Larry. And there are some who have a big blame broom. We can overlook that, can't we? You have your morons and we have ours. It was always so and will be ever thus. (But our morons are smarter than yours.)

ole
 
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
Messages
1,095
Thread Hijack w/ flames.

No factualy correct information regarding the improper use of words by those who use words without knowing there meaning, just as another mod used Octroon incorectly and had it pointed out, if you dont want to be corrected and want to call it flames, when shown that what is posted is incorrect, fine, J Steel had no problem when i corrected his use of octroon when he misused it, why the double standard?

All morons are the same, all idiots are the same, all imbeciles are the same, as that is the IQ clasification and no moron is smarter than another, as is no idiot smarter than another idiot and so on in the IQ scale.

Original post drew this from the mod.johan_steele
Brig. General, Mod
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South of the North 40
Posts: 3,682

You have received an infraction at The Dispatch Depot at Civil War Talk

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Hanny,

You have received an infraction at The Dispatch Depot at Civil War Talk.

Reason: Insulted Other Member(s)
-------
Stay on topic.
-------

This infraction is worth 1 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://civilwartalk.com/forums/civil...html#post92213

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
You have a Moron Meter?



B-

No, he just uses words that he does not know the meaning and aplication off, its a mod thing.

All the best,
The Dispatch Depot at Civil War Talk

I request that mods who use technical terms do so correctly and that other mods dont then sanction those who point out where mods use words incorectly.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
4,813
Ignores the fact that "Money, power (ie self-interest)" means ownership of slaves in the South and that this is what caused the war.

Tim
No...what you (and many others here) are doing is recognizing -only- a self-interest factor for the South and ignoring that for the North.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,442
No...what you (and many others here) are doing is recognizing -only- a self-interest factor for the South and ignoring that for the North.
No, Battalion. If you check through the old threads, you'll find I told you long, long ago that when people are involved in a controversy, money is almost always a factor. You like to imagine something else -- but that is your problem, not mine.

Without the aggression by the Confederacy, the Civil War simply would not have started as it did. That was a deliberate decision made by Jefferson Davis and his Cabinet, with the solid support of the Confederate Congress, to assault Fort Sumter. There is no doubt of this fact: only one Confederate Cabinet member spoke against the attack.

No Northern "money" interest did that. If any "power" or "money" interst caused the war, it was a Southern one deciding to start the shooting. But in the South of that day, "money" and "power" were inextricably intertwined with slavery. The "money" interest of the South was the continuation of slavery -- and so they seceded and attacked to preserve it. The "power" interest of the South was also slavery (or the power to expand it and impose the slave in other areas that did not want slavery) -- and so they seceded and attacked to preserve it..

If you want to talk about "money", slavery is overwhelmingly the biggest money issue involved. Confederate politicians were not shy about admitting the war was about slavery -- until they lost the Civil War.

Tim
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,452
Location
Near Kankakee
No...what you (and many others here) are doing is recognizing -only- a self-interest factor for the South and ignoring that for the North.
This thread has been going on so long that I don't remember what about the war was in the self-interest of northern money.

Northern financiers faced immediate cessation of their prime customers. Northern manufacturers faced immediate loss of a substantial number of customers. Northern merchants faced immediate loss of many, many customers. Even New York City's mayor threatenened secession to keep his city's revenues where they were. Businessmen all over the north cautioned against going to war with the seceding south. So I'm at a bit of a loss as to why the north went to war for money.

ole
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,452
Location
Near Kankakee
All morons are the same, all idiots are the same, all imbeciles are the same, as that is the IQ clasification and no moron is smarter than another, as is no idiot smarter than another idiot and so on in the IQ scale.
I suspect everyone knows that, and that you are being overly technical and have no sense of humor.

If anyone has a beef with "our morons are smarter than your morons," it would be my friend, Larry. We've been exchanging jabs (all right, jibes) for about 5 years now. If he objects, I will make the post disappear. If he doesn't, yours will disappear.

ole

Now. Back to Slavery, THE Cause?
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
2,871
Trice is exactly right, If it had been up to the moneyed interests, especially those involveed in supporting slavery, they would have let 'the erring sisters' go and Yet, according to revisionist gospel, Lincoln started the war, even though opposed by the monied interests of north.
The money-interest of the slaveowning oligarchy of the south was much more directly tied to secession than those of the avg northern business men.
Lincoln was much more interested in saving the Union, rather than saving the investments of northern businessmen. If only it had been so, with Davis and the other slave owners.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
4,813
OpnDownfall said:
according to revisionist gospel, Lincoln started the war
...and they are correct.

even though opposed by the monied interests of north.
Only for a while...

"We learn through private sources that there are indications of a marked change of sentiment on the part of those connected with the great commercial interest of New York city. Heretofore that class have been the staunchest upholders of the pro-slavery policy of the Democracy....
But these great interests have become seriously alarmed at the present aspect of commercial affairs....By the adoption of a lower tariff of duties than is in force in the United States, foreign imports are likely to seek the ports of the seceding States, and the commercial supremacy of New York is seriously threatened. This is more than the flunkeys of that city bargained for or expected. The objection to enforcing the laws is daily growing weaker. The very men who clamored so lustily against their execution thirty days ago, now begin to ask, 'Have we a Government?' We shall be surprised if, within the next thirty days, the merchants of New York are not calling loudly upon the Administration to enforce the laws, to blockade the ports of the rebel States, to reinforce the forts, and to disperse the rebels who have taken up arms against the Federal Government."

Chicago Tribune, 27 March 1861

~

"...a committee of New York merchants had visited President Lincoln to learn what was to be the policy of the government. There is no way of discovering exactly what was discussed at the conference, but a Washington correspondent, who interviewed the committee after the White House conference, wrote that the merchants had placed great emphasis upon the fact that 'the present uncertainty as to the new tariff is destroying trade and legitimate speculation.' Then he added:

It is a singular fact that merchants who, two months ago, were fiercely shouting 'no coercion' now are for anything rather than inaction. 'Let us know what to expect,' they say; 'if we are to have war we can adjust our business to that condition of things; but if the government lies upon its oars with a high tariff in New York and a low one in New Orleans we are undone.' " *

* New York Evening Post, 29 March 1861

Philip S. Foner, Business and Slavery, The New York Merchants and the Irrepressible Conflict, p.301

~

"This Day With President Lincoln" :

29 March 1861

At early morning cabinet meeting President announces decision to reinforce Fort Sumter...
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
4,813
No, Battalion. If you check through the old threads, you'll find I told you long, long ago that when people are involved in a controversy, money is almost always a factor. You like to imagine something else -- but that is your problem, not mine.

Without the aggression by the Confederacy, the Civil War simply would not have started as it did. That was a deliberate decision made by Jefferson Davis and his Cabinet, with the solid support of the Confederate Congress, to assault Fort Sumter. There is no doubt of this fact: only one Confederate Cabinet member spoke against the attack.
"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Ft Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."

--Lincoln to Capt. G.V. Fox (leader of the Fort Sumter relief expedition), 1 May 1861

No Northern "money" interest did that.
see answer previous post (#3077)

If you want to talk about "money", slavery is overwhelmingly the biggest money issue involved. Confederate politicians were not shy about admitting the war was about slavery -- until they lost the Civil War.

Tim
The money lost to the North because of the 'new arrangement' (independent South) would eclipse the value of slaves in ten years or less.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,442
"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Ft Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."

--Lincoln to Capt. G.V. Fox (leader of the Fort Sumter relief expedition), 1 May 1861
So? What conspiracy is it you see here? I've asked you this before, and you have always avoided answering. What is it you are afraid to say?

see answer previous post (#3077)
Stop trying to avoid saying something clearly. No Northern "money" interest started the war: Jeff Davis did that. If you think not, step up and say what you mean clearly.

The money lost to the North because of the 'new arrangement' (independent South) would eclipse the value of slaves in ten years or less.
Nonsense. The South would have found they still had to do business with the North (their 2nd biggest cotton customer, for example) in those ten years. The South would have found their jolly "King Cotton" view of the world was wrong. The South would have found the British and French and the rest were just as willing to gouge them as anyone else, and the South would have found that running a government and a nation is very, very expensive.

But if you are talking about Southern threats to default on honestly-owed debts, then you are simply painting the South as a bunch of extortionists.

Tim
 

ami

Major General
Super Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 1999
Messages
5,023
Location
the mountain state
there have been a lot of posts edited and moderated in this thread.

I don't have the time to keep up with it, so I am going to lock it.

If you wish to continue the discussion, please start over in a new thread and keep it civil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.



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