Causes for the War of northern aggression.

Started by hokiewoodchuck, March 14, 2012, 02:56:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

elmerfudd

Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on May 01, 2012, 02:47:44 PM
On the contrary, it was and is very revalent to this discussion....many didn't join they were conscripted into the military.....that means drafted or forced into service.

And what the hell do 14 yr old boys know about slavery, they were looking for 3 hot meals, or something close to it, that they were not getting at home.

Acorn coffee comes to mind....so that means food wasn't plentiful and was scarce.

Obfuscation, nothing more.  (For one thing, coffee isn't food.)

I doubt VERY seriously anybody joined the Confederate Army expecting 3 hot meals as a result.  I also doubt VERY seriously anybody thought the hunger being experienced in the South was caused by the North and, therefore, had anything to do with decisions to secede.  But I do appreciate your busting the myth of the noble Southern warrior rallying 'round the flag.  Some did, of course, especially early on. But you're right, were it not for conscription and hunting deserters, the Confederate ranks would have, indeed, been thinner.  (Not to let the Yankees escape.  They drafted and hunted deserters, too.  And it's telling that a significant percentage, maybe even a majority, of the greatest generation that served in WWII were also drafted.)

Your conclusion about the causes of the War of Northern Aggression is simply unsupported by any rational investigation of the facts.   But it's been fun.  I wish you well. 

hokiewoodchuck

Quote from: elmerfudd on May 02, 2012, 06:48:44 AM
Obfuscation, nothing more.  (For one thing, coffee isn't food.)

I doubt VERY seriously anybody joined the Confederate Army expecting 3 hot meals as a result.  I also doubt VERY seriously anybody thought the hunger being experienced in the South was caused by the North and, therefore, had anything to do with decisions to secede.  But I do appreciate your busting the myth of the noble Southern warrior rallying 'round the flag.  Some did, of course, especially early on. But you're right, were it not for conscription and hunting deserters, the Confederate ranks would have, indeed, been thinner.  (Not to let the Yankees escape.  They drafted and hunted deserters, too.  And it's telling that a significant percentage, maybe even a majority, of the greatest generation that served in WWII were also drafted.)

Your conclusion about the causes of the War of Northern Aggression is simply unsupported by any rational investigation of the facts.   But it's been fun.  I wish you well.

Neither is tea but I remember reading about a bunch of it being dumped in Boston Harbor.
I thought I was wrong one time but I was mistaken.

tbone0106

I have slogged through all these posts, and I can't believe that no one has pointed out that the actual cause of the "War of Northern Aggression," as you southerners like to call it, was the threat to the South's economy. Elmer, you squeal, "It was slavery, slavery, slavery!" as if slavery was a religion in the Old South. It was an institution, a way of life, yes, but for economic reasons. But it was not a religion, and would never, by itself, be grounds for secession or war.

People fight for survival, for food, for water, for money and/or power that will get them both. They don't fight wars for institutions like slavery unless the institution in question is a key to survival. In 1860, in the Old South, slavery was a key to economic survival, the linch-pin of the economy. Thirty years before efficient mechanization came along, relatively "free" slave labor was the one thing that made King Cotton king. A threat to slavery was a direct and potentially lethal threat to the world that was the Old South.

Of course I agree that secession caused the war, and the threat to slavery caused the secessions. But you have to take it just one little step further to understand the REAL cause of the war. The threat to slavery equated to a threat to wealth, to property, to production, to the ability literally to survive. Without slavery, the economies of every Deep South state would have collapsed overnight. The primary reason western Virginians lopped off a chunk of Virginia and formed West Virginia in the middle of the war was not because western Virginians didn't own slaves or favor slavery. It was because they had no need for slaves and had formed an economy and a way of life that did not include it, and they wanted no part of the belligerent Confederacy.

elmerfudd

Quote from: tbone0106 on May 17, 2012, 06:52:05 PM
I have slogged through all these posts, and I can't believe that no one has pointed out that the actual cause of the "War of Northern Aggression," as you southerners like to call it, was the threat to the South's economy. Elmer, you squeal, "It was slavery, slavery, slavery!" as if slavery was a religion in the Old South. It was an institution, a way of life, yes, but for economic reasons. But it was not a religion, and would never, by itself, be grounds for secession or war.

People fight for survival, for food, for water, for money and/or power that will get them both. They don't fight wars for institutions like slavery unless the institution in question is a key to survival. In 1860, in the Old South, slavery was a key to economic survival, the linch-pin of the economy. Thirty years before efficient mechanization came along, relatively "free" slave labor was the one thing that made King Cotton king. A threat to slavery was a direct and potentially lethal threat to the world that was the Old South.

Of course I agree that secession caused the war, and the threat to slavery caused the secessions. But you have to take it just one little step further to understand the REAL cause of the war. The threat to slavery equated to a threat to wealth, to property, to production, to the ability literally to survive. Without slavery, the economies of every Deep South state would have collapsed overnight. The primary reason western Virginians lopped off a chunk of Virginia and formed West Virginia in the middle of the war was not because western Virginians didn't own slaves or favor slavery. It was because they had no need for slaves and had formed an economy and a way of life that did not include it, and they wanted no part of the belligerent Confederacy.

Thanks for agreeing with me.  As I said before, it was the perceived threat to slavery that caused secession. The slavery that was described as the "greatest source of wealth" or some such in secession speeches. And it's ridiculous to assume that the economy of the south would have collapsed overnight without slavery. 

Yes, there were a few very rich people in the south pre war of northern aggression. But not much middle class.  Mostly peckerwoods and slaves.  Share cropping and hired hands could easily (and less expensively) replaced slavery.  In fact, they did.  What destroyed the south's economy was the war we brought on ourselves and the "reconstruction" that followed it. 

Solar

No one seems to have taken into account the simple fact that the South had their own currency.
They knew if they were to lose the war, all their holdings would become null and void overnight and it did.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

tbone0106

Quote from: elmerfudd on May 18, 2012, 04:18:05 PM
Thanks for agreeing with me.  As I said before, it was the perceived threat to slavery that caused secession. The slavery that was described as the "greatest source of wealth" or some such in secession speeches. And it's ridiculous to assume that the economy of the south would have collapsed overnight without slavery. 

Yes, there were a few very rich people in the south pre war of northern aggression. But not much middle class.  Mostly peckerwoods and slaves.  Share cropping and hired hands could easily (and less expensively) replaced slavery.  In fact, they did.  What destroyed the south's economy was the war we brought on ourselves and the "reconstruction" that followed it.

I didn't agree with you, and you know that, although I don't mind a rare note of harmony between us.  :biggrin:

What I said quite clearly was that it was the perceived threat to the ECONOMY of the South that brought about secession and, as a result, the war. The fact that slavery entered the equation is historical happenstance. It could have easily been something else, such as control of the patents and manufacture of the cotton gin. It could have been free access to the high seas -- almost every Confederate state had a seacoast. Hell, it might have been a ban on mint juleps.

I don't like to repeat it, but it's true and it's important to this conversation, so... without slavery, the economy of the South would have collapsed. In the pre-mechanical age, NOTHING could pick cotton with the investment efficiency of a subsistence-based slave. Actually, no other method besides human hands was available at that time, and there were no human hands nearly as cheap as the black ones. Your blather about sharecroppers and hired hands is just piffle, so much noise.

elmerfudd

Quote from: tbone0106 on May 18, 2012, 08:54:06 PM
I didn't agree with you, and you know that, although I don't mind a rare note of harmony between us.  :biggrin:

What I said quite clearly was that it was the perceived threat to the ECONOMY of the South that brought about secession and, as a result, the war. The fact that slavery entered the equation is historical happenstance. It could have easily been something else, such as control of the patents and manufacture of the cotton gin. It could have been free access to the high seas -- almost every Confederate state had a seacoast. Hell, it might have been a ban on mint juleps.

I don't like to repeat it, but it's true and it's important to this conversation, so... without slavery, the economy of the South would have collapsed. In the pre-mechanical age, NOTHING could pick cotton with the investment efficiency of a subsistence-based slave. Actually, no other method besides human hands was available at that time, and there were no human hands nearly as cheap as the black ones. Your blather about sharecroppers and hired hands is just piffle, so much noise.

The part of your response I put in a bigger font is utter, complete, laughable hogwash.


elmerfudd

Quote from: tbone0106 on May 18, 2012, 08:54:06 PM
I didn't agree with you, and you know that, although I don't mind a rare note of harmony between us.  :biggrin:

What I said quite clearly was that it was the perceived threat to the ECONOMY of the South that brought about secession and, as a result, the war. The fact that slavery entered the equation is historical happenstance. It could have easily been something else, such as control of the patents and manufacture of the cotton gin. It could have been free access to the high seas -- almost every Confederate state had a seacoast. Hell, it might have been a ban on mint juleps.

I don't like to repeat it, but it's true and it's important to this conversation, so... without slavery, the economy of the South would have collapsed. In the pre-mechanical age, NOTHING could pick cotton with the investment efficiency of a subsistence-based slave. Actually, no other method besides human hands was available at that time, and there were no human hands nearly as cheap as the black ones. Your blather about sharecroppers and hired hands is just piffle, so much noise.

After reading this

http://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/34491

William L. Harris, the Mississippi secession commissioner to Georgia, addressed a joint session of the General Assembly at noon at the capitol in Milledgeville.  He urged secession and concluded his speech by saying that Mississippi "had rather see the last of her race, men, women, and children, immolated in one common funeral pile, than see them subjected to the degradation of civil, political and social equality with the negro race."  (By John Osborne)
Source Citation
 
Charles B. Dew, Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Cause of the Civil War (Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 2001), 29-30

do you still maintain the perceived threat to slavery was merely an economic issue?

tbone0106

Quote from: elmerfudd on May 28, 2012, 08:29:18 AM
After reading this

http://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/34491

William L. Harris, the Mississippi secession commissioner to Georgia, addressed a joint session of the General Assembly at noon at the capitol in Milledgeville.  He urged secession and concluded his speech by saying that Mississippi "had rather see the last of her race, men, women, and children, immolated in one common funeral pile, than see them subjected to the degradation of civil, political and social equality with the negro race."  (By John Osborne)
Source Citation
 
Charles B. Dew, Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Cause of the Civil War (Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 2001), 29-30

do you still maintain the perceived threat to slavery was merely an economic issue?

Why would the words of a single racist change my mind?

In the same speech, Harris also said this:

QuoteOur fathers made this a government for the white man, rejecting the negro, as an ignorant, inferior, barbarian race, incapable of self-government, and not, therefore, entitled to be associated with the white man upon terms of civil, political, or social equality.
These are unmistakably the words of a true racist, someone who literally and deeply believes that another race of people is inferior to his own. But Harris stands out in that respect, and you would be foolish to project his mindset on the entire South. I'm not saying that he was the only racist in the South; there were plenty south AND north of the Mason-Dixon Line. What I'm saying is that most of the argument for secession centered on economic issues, and slavery, despite its obvious racial aspects, was very much an economic issue for Southerners.

This racist judge did not mention the tariffs on southern goods that were crippling the economy, but most others certainly did. And even Harris touches on the economic aspects of slavery at other points in his speech. For example:

QuoteOur Constitution, in unmistakable language, guarantees the return of our fugitive slaves. [Not because they were black, but because they were considered chattel.] Congress has recognized her duty in this respect, by enacting proper laws for the enforcement of this right. And yet these laws have been continually nullified, and the solemn pledge of the Compromise of 1850, by which the North came under renewed obligations to enforce them, has been faithlessly disregarded, and the government and its officers set at defiance.
He spoke again of the Missouri Compromise, which in part was designed to protect the concept of slaves as property in the South:

QuoteIt will be remembered, that the violation of our constitutional rights, which has caused such universal dissatisfaction in the South, is not of recent date. Ten years since, this Union was rocked from centre to circumference, by the very same outrages, of which we now complain, only now "aggravated" by the recent election. Nothing but her devotion to the Union our Fathers made, induced the South, then, to yield to a compromise, in which Mr. Clay rightly said, we had yielded everything but our honor. We had then in Mississippi a warm contest, which finally ended in reluctant acquiescence in the Compromise measures. The North pledged anew her faith to yield to us our constitutional rights in relation to slave property. They are now, and have been ever since that act, denied to us, until her broken faith and impudent threats, had become almost insufferable before the late election.
If a rabid racist like Harris could see the economic importance of slavery, why can't you?

Let me try to put it in perspective. Samuel H. Williamson at the University of Illinois at Chicago and Louis P. Cain at Loyala University Chicago collaborated on a paper entitled "Measuring Worth: Measuring Slavery in 2009$." Here's a snip from the abstract:

QuoteThe average price of a slave in 1860 was $800 [1860 dollars] and the economic magnitude of that price in today's values ranges from $17,000 to $266,000, depending on the index used. In that year, there were an estimated four million slaves living in the South and it is estimated that their aggregate market value was over $3 billion then. That corresponds to $10 trillion today (as a share of GDP).
You can read the whole paper here: http://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php

You see, if I accept your line of thinking, then I have to believe that thousands of Southerners invested the modern equivalent of between $17,000 and $266,000 per slave, and they had collectively made that investment 4 million times, but these people did not realize that a threat to slavery was a threat to the economy of the South.

Nah.

So yeah, I "still maintain the perceived threat to slavery was merely an economic issue."

elmerfudd

Quote from: tbone0106 on June 01, 2012, 08:56:08 AM
Why would the words of a single racist change my mind?

In the same speech, Harris also said this:
These are unmistakably the words of a true racist, someone who literally and deeply believes that another race of people is inferior to his own. But Harris stands out in that respect, and you would be foolish to project his mindset on the entire South. I'm not saying that he was the only racist in the South; there were plenty south AND north of the Mason-Dixon Line. What I'm saying is that most of the argument for secession centered on economic issues, and slavery, despite its obvious racial aspects, was very much an economic issue for Southerners.

This racist judge did not mention the tariffs on southern goods that were crippling the economy, but most others certainly did. And even Harris touches on the economic aspects of slavery at other points in his speech. For example:
He spoke again of the Missouri Compromise, which in part was designed to protect the concept of slaves as property in the South:
If a rabid racist like Harris could see the economic importance of slavery, why can't you?

Let me try to put it in perspective. Samuel H. Williamson at the University of Illinois at Chicago and Louis P. Cain at Loyala University Chicago collaborated on a paper entitled "Measuring Worth: Measuring Slavery in 2009$." Here's a snip from the abstract:
You can read the whole paper here: http://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php

You see, if I accept your line of thinking, then I have to believe that thousands of Southerners invested the modern equivalent of between $17,000 and $266,000 per slave, and they had collectively made that investment 4 million times, but these people did not realize that a threat to slavery was a threat to the economy of the South.

Nah.

So yeah, I "still maintain the perceived threat to slavery was merely an economic issue."

I know a lot of people who never let facts get in the way of their preconceived notions.  They have minds like a steel trap.  Nothing ever gets in and nothing ever gets out. 

Solar

Quote from: elmerfudd on June 02, 2012, 08:43:22 AM
I know a lot of people who never let facts get in the way of their preconceived notions.  They have minds like a steel trap.  Nothing ever gets in and nothing ever gets out.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Of like minds, I see.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

walkstall

Quote from: elmerfudd on June 02, 2012, 08:43:22 AM
I know a lot of people who never let facts get in the way of their preconceived notions.  They have minds like a steel trap.  Nothing ever gets in and nothing ever gets out.



:rolleyes:
Hmm.....
"The pot calling the kettle black" :lol:   :popcorn:
A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."

tbone0106

Quote from: elmerfudd on June 02, 2012, 08:43:22 AM
I know a lot of people who never let facts get in the way of their preconceived notions.  They have minds like a steel trap.  Nothing ever gets in and nothing ever gets out.
I only know one.

Solar

Quote from: tbone0106 on June 03, 2012, 10:03:44 PM
I only know one.
:laugh:
It's atypical of liberals to feed on each others lies till it becomes a truth, which is why I said "of like minds".
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

mdgiles

Absent slavery and the system built around it, what was the difference between the North and the South? There was none. And absent the honored place of slavery, and some difference in office terms, what was the difference between the Constitution of the Union and the Confederate Constitution? Again the answer is none. In reality the planter aristocracy of the South, got the South involved in a rebellion, the only purpose of which was to save the value of their property.

One other thong. I hear neo Confederates always talking about how the Civil War was a battle for States Rights. In reality the South had dominated the machinert of the Federal Government since the founding of the country. Until Lincoln Ten of 16 Presidents had been Southerners. The 3/5 Compromise kept the South from using the persons of non voting slaves to increase their representation. The South destroyed the Missouri Compromise, because half the country wasn't enough for them. They had used the Federal government to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act , which basically meant that the laws of Slave States carried greater weight than the laws of Free States - in Free States. Taney's Dred Scott decision tried to deprive free blacks in the North of rights many had held since before the Revolution. In short the South had rode rough shod over the rest of the Union, and when it looked like the North had gotten the upper hand tried, to destroy the Union. The strange thing is, had the South done the legal thing and left the Union via the Amendment process and compromise, the North probably would have let them go. But the were simply too arrogant, too sure of their "nobility", and held the freemen of the North in too much contempt to be bothered.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!