Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 04, 2011, 10:38:53 AM
White and black had much to do with slavery, and that was a main driving factor leading to the Civil War.

As I said before, financial reasons impacted on the beginings of the civil war, the South was an agrerian society, the north industrial. The Slavery issue had an impact on the Southern economy.

But a great deal of it had to do with the Irish(North) vs English (south) animosity that existed for centuries before
1860.

Billy

Quote from: BILLY-bONNEY on September 04, 2011, 06:05:23 PM

As I said before, financial reasons impacted on the beginings of the civil war, the South was an agrain society, the north industrial. The Slavery issue had an impact on the Southern economy.

But a great deal of it had to do with the Irish(North) vs English (south) animosity that existed for centuries before
1860.

Billy

Not to mention the growing sentiment - especially among Methodists - that the words "All men are created equal" really meant ALL men, not just slave-owners.  States rights was a common charge, but in reality - the freedoms in the Constitution which were handed down from the Creator trump any States right to infringe.  The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not limited by the Federal, State or local Governments.  And the anti-slavery movement was about that as well.

Quote from: BILLY-bONNEY on September 04, 2011, 06:05:23 PM
But a great deal of it had to do with the Irish(North) vs English (south) animosity that existed for centuries before
1860.

Billy

No.

Quote from: Shanghai Dan on September 04, 2011, 06:07:54 PM
Not to mention the growing sentiment - especially among Methodists - that the words "All men are created equal" really meant ALL men, not just slave-owners.  States rights was a common charge, but in reality - the freedoms in the Constitution which were handed down from the Creator trump any States right to infringe.  The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not limited by the Federal, State or local Governments.  And the anti-slavery movement was about that as well.

All this is true and valid, but consider the position of the South, if we do away with slaves(are forced to by the Feds) and have to hire labor to work the fields and plantations how will that impact our pocket books?...AND what do we do with ten of thousands of unskilled uneducated blacks roaming the country side?


Billy

Quote from: BILLY-bONNEY on September 04, 2011, 06:13:17 PM


All this is true and valid, but consider the position of the South, if we do away with slaves(are forced to by the Feds) and have to hire labor to work the fields and plantations how will that impact our pocket books?...AND what do we do with ten of thousands of unskilled uneducated blacks roaming the country side?


Billy

Well, you'd hire the blacks, which is what they ultimately DID do, via sharecropping (basically slavery without the ability to separate families) but they were not prescient enough to see that's what would happen.  If there had been some compensation offered (not saying there should have been, mind you), secession might not have happened.  But anybody who asserts that the perceived threat to slavery was not at least 95% of the reason for secession has to ignore an awful lot of contemporaneous evidence, including transcripts of secession speeches.

Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 04, 2011, 06:08:02 PM
No.

Yes indeed. Look at some of the factors you had.

The South had an aristocracy and class system reminicent of what Irish hated, .... English society. The South fed the cotton mills of England,(That economics factor again) England even considered supporting the Confederacy with troops and sent many observers to ride with the Confederates.

An Irishman HATES slavery...shades of the arch fiend Cromwell who delivered many of them into Slavery in the British east Indies.

Then you have the Protestant/Catholic thing. The Pope said slavery was a "sin".

Look at the names of the players and Generals.

Lee, Jackson, Hill, Heath, Stuart, Mosby (English/Confed)

Sheridan, Sherman, Grant, Meagher, Fitzpatrick (Irish/Union)

At least two regiments were formed by expatriated Irish politicians whose eventual goal was to return to Ireland with well trained well equipped seasoned combat veterans and kick the English out.


Billy

Quote from: elmerfudd on September 04, 2011, 06:18:29 PM
Well, you'd hire the blacks, which is what they ultimately DID do, via sharecropping (basically slavery without the ability to separate families) but they were not prescient enough to see that's what would happen.  If there had been some compensation offered (not saying there should have been, mind you), secession might not have happened.  But anybody who asserts that the perceived threat to slavery was not at least 95% of the reason for secession has to ignore an awful lot of contemporaneous evidence, including transcripts of secession speeches.

I'm not denying it was a factor but I think economic concerns were overriding, that and the fact that you have
what is considered a "foreigner" dictating to you what you can "do with your property"...slaves were considered property...that last part is going to effect your pocket book.


Billy

Quote from: BILLY-bONNEY on September 04, 2011, 06:23:49 PM


Yes indeed. Look at some of the factors you had.

The South had an aristocracy and class system reminicent of what Irish hated, .... English society. The South fed the cotton mills of England,(That economics factor again) England even considered supporting the Confederacy with troops and sent many observers to ride with the Confederates.

An Irishman HATES slavery...shades of the arch fiend Cromwell who delivered many of them into Slavery in the British east Indies.

Then you have the Protestant/Catholic thing. The Pope said slavery was a "sin".

Look at the names of the players and Generals.

Lee, Jackson, Hill, Heath, Stuart, Mosby (English/Confed)

Sheridan, Sherman, Grant, Meagher, Fitzpatrick (Irish/Union)

At least two regiments were formed by expatriated Irish politicians whose eventual goal was to return to Ireland with well trained well equipped seasoned combat veterans and kick the English out.


Billy

There were more than a few Irish among the slave owners in the south, and I am not talking about the fictional O'Haras.  Of course not all slave owners were "aristocrats" (whatever the heck that means).  Might be something to what you're saying, but if it weren't for slavery, there'd have been no secession.  If it weren't for secession, there'd have been no civil war. 

Quote from: elmerfudd on September 04, 2011, 06:27:07 PM
There were more than a few Irish among the slave owners in the south, and I am not talking about the fictional O'Haras.  Of course not all slave owners were "aristocrats" (whatever the heck that means).  Might be something to what you're saying, but if it weren't for slavery, there'd have been no secession.  If it weren't for secession, there'd have been no civil war. 

Oh thats true and the Confederate had their own "Irish brigade", but by and large it was PRECEIVED by the general populace that the south had established their own feifdom and transplanted England to the Southern States.

I might change the latter that to say "if there weren't abolistionists".


Billy

Quote from: BILLY-bONNEY on September 04, 2011, 06:36:49 PM

Oh thats true and the Confederate had their own "Irish brigade", but by and large it was PRECEIVED by the general populace that the south had established their own feifdom and transplanted England to the Southern States.

I might change the latter that to say "if there weren't abolistionists".


Billy

Well, obviously.  But abolitionists always exist where slavery exists. 

Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 04, 2011, 04:25:15 PM
All that is well and good, but how do you tie it to our civil war?

Well, I was trying to accommodate your request.

So, I'll give you the short version.  A civil war is a war in which two or more factions attempt to wrest the power of government from one another.  What is called the American Civil War was no civil war in any classical sense.  It was at best a Second War for Independence or the War of Republican Aggression. (Not all Northerners supported the war; and not all Northerners were "Yankees" in the classical sense.)

Secession itself had nothing to do with the War.  Lincoln launched the war, albeit under a pretext which he helped to create.

Secession was triggered, if we follow it back, by one event and the aftermath of that event:  The terrorist John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry.   Southerners were well aware that very prominent men, mostly New Englanders, had financed and were financing John Brown and his fellow terrorists.  Southerners also knew that the intent of John Brown and the New Englanders was to foster insurrection among the slaves if possible, insurrection which would lead to the deaths of thousands if not more, not to mention the slaves who would most assuredly have failed in the end.  After Brown and some of his followers were tried, found guilty and executed for insurrection and treason against the State of Virginia, Brown and his men having committed heinous crimes in other parts of the country, two of Brown's men escaped to Republican states.  Despite the overwhelming evidence against them, those Republican governors refused on technicalities to extradite them to Virginia.  The trend was set: the Republican Party, when in power, would protect insurrectionists and those who committed treason; thus, upon the election of Lincoln in 1860, the conventions in the Cotton States voted secession.  The Cotton States were no longer equal members of the Union.

Secession did not mean that war was necessary.  Both President Buchanan and President Davis worked hard to keep incidents which could have easily triggered war in context; and they faithfully negotiated remuneration for the common properties of former sister states which remained in the Union.

It was Lincoln, needing to collect the Southern tariffs necessary to sustain the political and economic aspirations of the core of the Republican Party, namely the bankers, railroad barons, stock jobbers and paper aristocracy, who created the pretext and acted upon it to initiate the war.

His call for the states to send troops after the incident which he created was seen in many Northern states and certainly in all Border states still in the Union as an unconstitutional act.  This folly of Lincoln's put states which were otherwise disposed to stay in the Union out of the Union or attempting to get out of the Union: Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland.

Secession could have been avoided if the Republicans had not played the fool with terrorists and as agents of a sister state supported them.

The war could have been avoided if Lincoln had had the moral fiber and the courage to stand up to the stock jobbers, bankers, paper aristocracy and the railroad barons.

Actually, we should move this discussion to another thread.  This thread is about the potential of a REAL civil war in the 21st century, one that will not likely resemble the War for Southern Independence in the least.

Quote from: Berggeist on September 04, 2011, 06:39:37 PM
Well, I was trying to accommodate your request.

So, I'll give you the short version.  A civil war is a war in which two or more factions attempt to wrest the power of government from one another.  What is called the American Civil War was no civil war in any classical sense.  It was at best a Second War for Independence or the War of Republican Aggression. (Not all Northerners supported the war; and not all Northerners were "Yankees" in the classical sense.)

Secession itself had nothing to do with the War.  Lincoln launched the war, albeit under a pretext which he helped to create.

Secession was triggered, if we follow it back, by one event and the aftermath of that event:  The terrorist John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry.   Southerners were well aware that very prominent men, mostly New Englanders, had financed and were financing John Brown and his fellow terrorists.  Southerners also knew that the intent of John Brown and the New Englanders was to foster insurrection among the slaves if possible, insurrection which would lead to the deaths of thousands if not more, not to mention the slaves who would most assuredly have failed in the end.  After Brown and some of his followers were tried, found guilty and executed for insurrection and treason against the State of Virginia, Brown and his men having committed heinous crimes in other parts of the country, two of Brown's men escaped to Republican states.  Despite the overwhelming evidence against them, those Republican governors refused on technicalities to extradite them to Virginia.  The trend was set: the Republican Party, when in power, would protect insurrectionists and those who committed treason; thus, upon the election of Lincoln in 1860, the conventions in the Cotton States voted secession.  The Cotton States were no longer equal members of the Union.

Secession did not mean that war was necessary.  Both President Buchanan and President Davis worked hard to keep incidents which could have easily triggered war in context; and they faithfully negotiated remuneration for the common properties of former sister states which remained in the Union.

It was Lincoln, needing to collect the Southern tariffs necessary to sustain the political and economic aspirations of the core of the Republican Party, namely the bankers, railroad barons, stock jobbers and paper aristocracy, who created the pretext and acted upon it to initiate the war.

His call for the states to send troops after the incident which he created was seen in many Northern states and certainly in all Border states still in the Union as an unconstitutional act.  This folly of Lincoln's put states which were otherwise disposed to stay in the Union out of the Union or attempting to get out of the Union: Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland.

Secession could have been avoided if the Republicans had not played the fool with terrorists and as agents of a sister state supported them.

The war could have been avoided if Lincoln had had the moral fiber and the courage to stand up to the stock jobbers, bankers, paper aristocracy and the railroad barons.

Actually, we should move this discussion to another thread.  This thread is about the potential of a REAL civil war in the 21st century, one that will not likely resemble the War for Southern Independence in the least.

Ok sure.

Quote from: Berggeist on September 04, 2011, 06:39:37 PM
Well, I was trying to accommodate your request.

Secession itself had nothing to do with the War.  Lincoln launched the war, albeit under a pretext which he helped to create.

Secession was triggered, if we follow it back, by one event and the aftermath of that event:  The terrorist John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry.

So John Brown was trying to support a slave rebellion.  That's the reason the civil war started?

Quote from: elmerfudd on September 04, 2011, 06:38:21 PM
Well, obviously.  But abolitionists always exist where slavery exists. 

Many of the "abolishionists" in this case were "big Money" from the North (Industrialists) or the movement financed them...so I can destroy the economic power of someone else (the South) by depriving them of a labor source.

Billy

Quote from: Shanghai Dan on September 04, 2011, 06:46:21 PM
So John Brown was trying to support a slave rebellion.  That's the reason the civil war started?

I'm waiting for the new thread.