Can We Have A Civil Discussion About The War Between The States ?

[SlowwHand]

Boris illustrates to absolute perfection why the South seceded.

Facts:
Your numbers are erroneous.
That's another thing you can cite, over and over, but will remain flawed.

Southern leadership had slaves, for the most part.
Not all leadership did, but to remain objective I will in fact recognize that fact.

The average citizen, who was in the infantry, was tired then, as I tire now, of listening to the Boris' of the North spouting "Ignorant Cracker" remarks.
That was the reason they wanted to secede.
Maybe they had a point, since it continues to such a degree today, one can imagine how it was at that time.

Lincoln wasn't for freeing the slaves to avert war.
But, he was for disallowing any more Slave States to come into existence.
Which is fine, just don't make him into a water-walker, because he wasn't.

Opinion
Had the North minded their own business, slavery would have gone away with within 5-10 years.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Boris illustrates to absolute perfection why the South seceded.

Facts:
Your numbers are erroneous.
That's another thing you can cite, over and over, but will remain flawed.

Southern leadership had slaves, for the most part.
Not all leadership did, but to remain objective I will in fact recognize that fact.

So find me first-hand documentary statistics on slave ownership that contradicts these numbers. This site is citing CONFEDERATE census numbers. These are the factual numbers, Sloww. You're just putting your hands over your ears and singing "Mary Had a Little Lamb" as a tactic.

The average citizen, who was in the infantry, was tired then, as I tire now, of listening to the Boris' of the North spouting "Ignorant Cracker" remarks.

Okay, so clearly your call for a "civil" discussion was a crock of bull****, since you are the first to throw out a slanderous insult. I didn't say anything about "ignorant crackers." I was presenting a simple, factual rebuttal to a statement. If that gets your feathers in a ruffle, then I suggest you stop pretending to want a rational discussion so we know you're going to be cry-baby.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by AnnC
Here's an interesting question: What if Jefferson Davis (and Pierre Beauregard) had decided not to fire on Fort Sumter? I.e. what if they'd just left the Federals there and perhaps built a fort right across the water on Morris Island to keep an eye on them?

Would Lincoln have been able to convince the US Congress to go to war against the South in circumstances where the South had not initiated any kind of military action?

There were problems on each side of the fence. Beauregard was close to losing control of the situation in Charleston, which was really the flashpoint of anti-Federal feeling. Firing on Sumter might have been delayed, but not for long.

The other side of the coin was Lincoln's own plan. The Sumter "resupply" operation was only part of the action, the other being a reinforcement of the garrison at Fort Pickens in Florida, an issue far lesser known to the general populace because things went the way they did at Sumter. Forts Barrancas and Pickens in Florida had seen action in early January, when the Army lietenant in charge had fired on a crowd of civilians who wanted the Federals out of their fort. The Army garrison then retreated out of Fort Barrancas to Fort Pickens, in Pensacola harbor. The governor of Florida and President Buchanan had agreed to a truce at that point, where neither side would take any action that would lead to further hostilities.

Lincoln's plan was much more complex and devious - William Seward used and deceived Associate Justice of the Supreme Court John A. Campbell, a well-respected, conservative southerner who was against secession, to "negotiate" outside official channels with a three man commision of the CSA government. Campbell was told that Lincoln was willing to negotiate transfer of both Sumter and Pickens, and Seward implied that remaining Federal forts in CSA territory would be up for discussion, at the same time as the Navy department was preparing for a combined armed resupply and reinforcement mission. Lincoln and Seward were involved in the planning and coordination of that action, and it's extremely doubtful that Seward approached Campbell without Lincoln's at least implicit approval.

Davis and the CSA government soon found out that Lincoln was offering one thing through the back door with Campbell, while making large scale military plans that included reinforcing the Pickens garrison to the point it could carry out orders to retake Barrancas and establish control over Pensacola.

In all the public posturing about peaceful resupply of Sumter, breaking the truce with the state of Florida, by armed reinforcement and aggressive action was somehow forgotten about. So was using a member of another branch of government to as a conduit for deceitful negotiations.

Once the state and CSA governments realized they were being played by Lincoln, they considered the possibility that the "unarmed" resupply mission with 29 guns and 1400 men might not really be intending to land in and take Pensacola, which was even less significant then than it is now. If the South Carolinians didn't have the balls to resist the "resupply" of Sumter, then why not then proceed to reinforce the garrison, for further action.

Given the mistrust of Lincoln's motives and the deceit regarding Yankee intentions, Lincoln pretty much assured that the South Carolinians would have to act in their own perceived defense, which was exactly the excuse he wanted.

[Chris 62]

Hey Sloww, who was the "Beast of New orleans"?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


So find me first-hand documentary statistics on slave ownership that contradicts these numbers.

How about the US Census figures for 1850 and 1860?

The going rate for healthy slaves suitable for employment as field hands was around $1200.00 cash in 1861. House slaves could be a little less than that, or a little more, depending on skills.

Unless you count extended families, not near 1/3 of southern families had the economic means to own or purchase slaves. A larger number who didn't own slaves contracted with their owners for day labor on an as needed basis, which may be reflected in some statistics, but the vast majority of southern families didn't own (in total) land or other assets worth even one slave.

[Capt Dizle]

The flood of white European immigrants into the north was the main reason the northern economy did not develop the dependence upon slavery that cursed the south. It is worth noting that the conditions under which these immigrants lived were not a hell of a lot better than black southern slaves.

With such a pool of white free labor the north was able to funnel much more of its wealth into railroads and industry and as a result became more and more wealthy.

The south meanwhile found itself trapped. Depending on slave labor huge portions of its wealth had to be poured into buying more and more slaves. As a result southern investment in railroads and industry lagged behind the north.

This situation however was being addressed. In the years leading up to the war, the south had begun to greatly increase its spending in railroads and industry. Things were changing.

The north of course was always dominant in shipping, which is one of the reasons that most immigration came via northern ports. By the mid-fifties more and more immigrants were looking southward. It was only a matter of time until the industrial revolution, late to come to the southern states, would have erased the institution of slavery.

People who accuse the south of immorality are just ignorant. Britain outlawed slavery as it went through the industrial revolution for economic reasons. Same thing occured north of the mason dixon line. Where did the south get it's slaves from in the first place? Point the finger accurately for God's sake.

The north abandoned slavery (but not slaving) for economic reasons and it only became a moral issue when one was needed to justify the enslavement of the south.

The south was pressured to secede by northern efforts to achieve political hegemony.

The idea that the war was fought over slavery is not the big myth, it's the big lie.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Oh, I know. I was using Epperson's site years ago in a debate over the cause of the Civil War. It's very nice to have first-hand documentary evidence.

Ahh, the good ol' monolithic south argument. It's just sooooo inconvenient to admit that several states found entirely different reasons for secession.

[Capt Dizle]

Damn straight. To say that Virginia opted for secession for the same reason as states from the deep south is not merely ignorant but intellectually corrupt.

[Capt Dizle]

I meant to say intellectually dishonest but hell in reference to northern revisionists one statement is as applicable as the other.

[SlowwHand]

Boris, I've put the numbers and the links time and again.
You prefer to remain a bigot.
Yes, a bigot. Bigotry doesn't just entail color or gender preference.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Hey Sloww, who was the "Beast of New orleans"?

That would be General Benjamin Butler.

[SlowwHand]

Known to many as Andy Sipowicz

[Chris 62]

Yep, ol Ben Butler, tried to ship the ladies of ill repute up the river...

[MichaeltheGreat]

"We are a band of brothers, native to the soil..."

[Sprayber]

It's interesting that those that say they are smart enough to see through the so called propaganda of the current Republican administration take everything that is spoon fed to them about the Civil War from an earlier Republican adminstration and treat it as gospel.

There was no monolitic South. Many Southerners did not even want seccession and fought on the side of the Union while many of the people in the North weren't too keen on fighting Lincoln's war.