The Market Ticker
Rss Icon RSS available
You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
Comments on Enough On Lincoln
User: Not logged on
Top Forum Top Login FAQ Register Clear Cookie
Showing Page 2 of 3  First123Last
User Info Enough On Lincoln in forum [Market-Ticker]
Themortgagedude
Posts: 10512
Incept: 2007-12-17

saint louis
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Got no idea why you chose to fight this battle again. But it comes at an appropriate time for me. I was just trying to explain to littlemortgagedude that the Civil War was about far more than just slavery. I'll present him with your blog as additional evidence.

----------
I think its time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that our founding fathers intended for us. Ronald Reagan 1964
Whitehat
Posts: 310
Incept: 2017-06-27

The People's Republic of New York
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
the North wanted a poor and broken South for another reason. a major motivation was protection of the Northern coastal markets shipping and material finishing industry. it was only a matter of time before the South began to finish its own product and merchandise it directly to Europe. they would have ridden the industrialization of the society and world to dizzying heights as like Henry Ford saw years later controlling all of the stages of production and selling had advantages. the North benefited massively from the federal management of waterways, channel markings, port maintenance, military protection and customs and duties regulation. the South as a part of the federal system was to pay for this as it was used against them and some of the other services described being apportioned unequally.

the Northern interests disliked the competition that the South presented along with the Northern having a need for Southern products that they could not produce themselves. the Southern agrarian system also allowed decentralization and individual participation which the Northern business interests wanted to consolidate and control.

the South had to be smashed as its strong culture, individual and community prosperity combined with industry would have been too much competition for mercantilist interests at the precipice of decline. the Northern industries were mature and their original products were declining in value. the North was forced to smash any industrial aspects of Southern society back to the stone age to keep them from having an industrial revolution, ever. they were successful as the South would have become one of the richest societies ever while the North became a rust belt long before the term was invented.

----------
There are two ways to be rich: One is by acquiring much, and the other is by desiring little.
snow, seasons, distance and dirt roads: SSDD
"Be not deceived; God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" (Gal. 6:7)
Wa9jml
Posts: 84
Incept: 2017-04-29

DeKalb, Illinois
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
It gets better. Free blacks also owned black slaves. There were black officers in the South Carolina Confederate regiments. I read some articles by a retired black Florida banker, who discovered that his ancestor had fought for the Confederacy and attended Confederate unit reunions. This gentleman then joined the Sons of the Confederate Veterans. I was in attendance when the Sons of the Confederate Veterans gave Murray Rothbard an award for his efforts on behalf of the Southern Cause.
Tickerguy
Posts: 151591
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
It most-certainly was, but it was also a rather dangerous affair because a mulatto child was obvious, there was no birth control that worked available, and despite slaves being property you DID have an obligation to their maintenance and care (e.g. you couldn't just kill a pregnant slave because you were the one who ****ed her in order to prevent that from being discovered.)

That's not to say all of the above didn't happen because it most-certainly did. But it wasn't nearly the endemic that some fantasy-land inhabitants would like you to believe for the above reasons.

The 20% of free men in the South who owned slaves were akin to the "1%" today; all of them were the equivalent of a millionaire today or better and those with more than five slaves were typically in the "tens-millionaire or better" category by today's measures of wealth. Popping out a mulatto child, given the racial discrimination and social pressures of the time, was rather likely to destroy your social standing -- and wealth -- rather instantly. Of course there were those who were above even THAT sort of scrutiny (the handful of mega-plantation people) -- sort of like the Clintons of today.

----------
Winding it down.
Tickerguy
Posts: 151591
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Themortgagedude
Quote:
Got no idea why you chose to fight this battle again.


Jeff Sessions' horse**** reported yesterday.....

----------
Winding it down.
Wa9jml
Posts: 84
Incept: 2017-04-29

DeKalb, Illinois
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I am just sure that the industrialists of the North never sexually abused their immigrant female employees. They would not be like the wretched Southern slave owners...
Asimov
Posts: 109689
Incept: 2007-08-26

East Tennessee Eastern Time
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
then any HONEST assessment of what happened needs to be able to discern what would motivate said group of people to undertake those actions.


This is my opinion:

They didn't go because of economics. They didn't go because of politics. They didn't go because of taxes. They didn't go because of slavery.

They went because they were expected to by their society, because their friends and family were going and because they would have been shunned by their neighbors had they not.

That's true in damn near every war through WW1. After WW1 and in particular after WW2, being shunned wasn't nearly the problem it was when the neighbors you could reach on foot or horseback were your only lifeline - and the best chance your children had for a spouse.

It's my understanding that even at the start of WW1, a *VERY* powerful motivation for young men was when their girl's father asked them if they'd signed up yet.

----------
It's justifiably immoral to deal morally with an immoral entity.

Festina lente.
Bjonsson
Posts: 1106
Incept: 2010-03-10

Ventura County, California
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
The war was about MONEY, economic prosperity, and sovereignty.

Totally agree about this. The Confederacy was an exporting powerhouse, but the North wanted more mercantilist policies to shield its nascent industry from competition from European imports.
Quote:
Before the war the South funded ~80% of federal revenue.

I do not agree with this at all. The North's population, economy, and industry was FAR larger than the Confederacy's, and it was not even CLOSE.



From what I recall from the Ken Burns documentary, there was increasing deprivation from resources being directed towards the war as 1862 in the Confederacy. In the North, the war didn't have much impact on the ability of ordinary folks to live their lives as normal. The North pretty much fought the war with one arm tied behind its back, and the Confederacy really never had much of a chance... it's strategy was, given its situation, to try to just grind out a war as long as possible until the North just lost its will, very similarly to how what the US' strategy was in grinding down the superpower British during the American Revolutionary War.

----------
"If you don't have borders... if you don't have laws... you don't have a country."
Tickerguy
Posts: 151591
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
The North pretty much fought the war with one arm tied behind its back, and the Confederacy really never had much of a chance... it's strategy was, given its situation, to try to just grind out a war as long as possible until the North just lost its will, very similarly to how what the US' strategy was in grinding down the superpower British during the American Revolutionary War.

I suspect that had the Confederacy turned to "unconventional" war; infiltrating and blowing up supply line resources (e.g. rail bridges, etc), along with guerrilla warfare aimed to inflict maximum casualties rather than fighting "fair" the North may well have lost its nerve.

If you can lay traps and sniper funnels with small units and manage to kill three or four of them to one of yours, and the other side can't find your combatants as they disappear into the populace, never mind that there was no clean ethnic way to know if a person in the North was actually a "terrorist" (and you start exploiting that in a big way to get behind their lines and kill them from the rear while destroy supply resources) then it comes down to whether the public would continue to support the war in the North.

I suspect the answer would have been "No."

----------
Winding it down.
Aquapura
Posts: 694
Incept: 2012-04-19

South of Canada
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I was initially taught the Civil War in a Texas grade school. Recall the teacher made a point of saying Texas was a slave owning state like it was some kind of burden we carried just like people saying the Nazis were Germans. The smart ass that I was had to point out that no slave owner was still alive in Texas.

History is written by the victors and they have decided to anoint Lincoln sainthood. This is far from the only revisionist history battle out there but what gets me is that something that ended over 150 years ago is still dug up as an excuse to make victims of +12% of the US population. No American alive today was in any way affected by legal slavery in the US. Sure, racism still exists and is a different topic, but it's high time we move on from blaming slavery and face the present and very real issues in the black community.
Mgpacher
Posts: 184
Incept: 2011-03-03

Indiana
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
A slave had a value of roughly $1,000. If a plantation owner was worth $110,000, it was because he owned 100 slaves. If a slave ran off to the North and the northern state refused to return him, that was $1,000 gone.
Cotton growing depletes the soil. Planters kept moving farther west to new land. If laws prevented a planter from taking his slaves into certain areas, that was a monumental problem. Slaves were property and there were laws pertaining to property. If slaves were treated as a kind of property that ordinary property law did not apply to, then that was a serious problem. The whole situation had become intolerable for the South. The Southern states spelled it all out in their succession declarations. It was no secret. And then the abolitionist demands were really becoming a threat.
Ckaminski
Posts: 4461
Incept: 2011-04-08

Mass-Hole!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
The area I grew up in was a textile powerhouse in the 1800s. And that was built on the cotton industry.

Many fortunes were made in the North on the back of Southern Slavery.
Wa9jml
Posts: 84
Incept: 2017-04-29

DeKalb, Illinois
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Nathan Bedford Forrest wanted to do what Gen points out here, but was blocked by Jefferson Davis, due to the low opinion of Forrest by General Bragg. Forrest was hoping to harry Sherman's supply lines and had he been able to do this, the war would have been far different. The threat of Forrest kept Sherman awake at night, but it never materialized.

Wars are always fought over money, and its derivative, power. And those who benefit the most from wars are not the same people who bear the brunt of the costs, so the wars continue.
Tickerguy
Posts: 151591
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Yep.

Had the South adopted a "**** 'em anyway you can, this is war" attitude, infiltrated behind the line and blown up a few railroad bridges public opinion might have soured rather rapidly.

It wasn't just war material that went over those lines -- it was also all the "stuff" that the economy ran on, and blowing them up would have brought the war home to the North -- most of which didn't "feel" it very much, other than by sending their boys off to fight it.

It's one thing to send a report back that you lost 1,000 men but you took a small city and burned out all the "rebels" in the process. That works ok in the court of public opinion. It's another to lose the same thousand men in the middle of a road somewhere and all you have to show for it is 200 or 300 dead on the other side, all of them shot out of trees after they got three or four of your dudes, plus the rest of your troops are starving and damn near out of ammunition because a railroad bridge crucial to getting that stuff you was blown to bits by a small band of brigands that got past your line.

----------
Winding it down.
Burya_rubenstein
Posts: 1312
Incept: 2007-08-08

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I was under the impression that targeting supply lines, factories, etc. instead of just soldiers was what *every* military commander with two brain cells to rub together did.
Tickerguy
Posts: 151591
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Uh, not in Colonial and Civil War times, nope. There was a "chivalry" code that sort of was followed sometimes, which came from the days of knights and such.

----------
Winding it down.
Asimov
Posts: 109689
Incept: 2007-08-26

East Tennessee Eastern Time
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Standing in a line and marching into gunfire coming from protected positions is a good example of that code that finally died a long overdue death in WW1.

----------
It's justifiably immoral to deal morally with an immoral entity.

Festina lente.
Phdude
Posts: 138
Incept: 2009-05-26

NJ
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Incidentally, Jackson advocated this very early in the war; he saw it as the only way to win, and he was probably right.

But politically the South wanted to appear as having the moral high ground so that strategy was never really implemented. Ironically, the North implemented it later in the war. So much for the moral high ground.
Peterm99
Posts: 5878
Incept: 2009-03-21

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Tickerguy wrote..
. . . a "chivalry" code that sort of was followed sometimes, which came from the days of knights and such.
Not only that, but military tradition and the "customs" of war (e.g., "honorable" warfare involved conventional armies in standard formations duking it out with each other, etc., etc.) were a major part of what was taught at West Point. A large fraction of the Confederate military leaders were themselves West Point graduates and, unfortunately for the South, tried to fight in the way they had been taught at West Point, in spite of the fact that in very many such "conventional" confrontations, they were at a numerical and qualitative (in terms of equipment/supplies) disadvantage.

It was seen as highly "dishonorable" by many Southerners when the North engaged in the barbaric Shenandoah campaign and Sherman's "March Through Georgia" where the primary objective was not merely the destruction of opposing military forces but the elimination of the Southern population's support for the Confederate cause by purposefully targeting civilians, their farms, and other civilian infrastructure.

----------
". . . the Constitution has died, the economy welters in irreversible decline, we have perpetual war, all power lies in the hands of the executive, the police are supreme, and a surveillance beyond Orwells imaginings falls into place." - Fred Reed
Riposte
Posts: 336
Incept: 2010-01-08

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
explain how 20% of the adult male population managed to convince more than half of the other 80% to go out and commit suicide


You should pose this question with the Yankees in mind as well. Can anyone explain how the North managed to convince hundreds of thousands of men to fight and possibly die to save a bunch of black slaves? Does anyone seriously believe they cared that much about slavery? Lincoln's plan was to deport them all back to Africa anyway.
Bjonsson
Posts: 1106
Incept: 2010-03-10

Ventura County, California
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
The American Civil War was kind of a transitional war. It started with the more "chivalrous" Napoleonic style of fighting, and ended up transitioning to more of the trench/siege/shell tactics that were used in WW1. To give you an example of the mindset of warriors earlier in the war, at the Battle of Bull Run, civilians came out and set up lawn chairs to be spectators to the fighting. Basically, the zeitgeist was that non-combatants were not to be messed with.

That changed as the war went on, dramatically, to the point where you had Sherman committing what many folks would consider were blatant war crimes, especially given that zeitgeist of the time back then.

There were confederate partisan units as the war progressed, and Lee was lobbied to lengthen the war and transition it to an asymmetric war. But, its my understanding that Lee refused to formalize these operations because, at that time, the South was so ravaged that he thought it was in their better interest to end the war and rebuild. Had the Confederacy begun the war by formally embracing asymmetric warfare, it definitely might have had a much different result... but most all of the CSA generals were West Point grads who were probably thoroughly schooled in Napoleonic tactics, not guerilla warfare.

----------
"If you don't have borders... if you don't have laws... you don't have a country."
Plstffls
Posts: 174
Incept: 2007-06-26

Brussels, Belgium
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@ Bjonsson

Interesting chart.

However, I don't see the taxes paid by the Confederacy vs. the Union.
Burya_rubenstein
Posts: 1312
Incept: 2007-08-08

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
It also seems more moral to me to target _stuff_ instead of _people_.
Comrader
Posts: 272
Incept: 2010-06-10

pa
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
"explain how 20% of the adult male population managed to convince more than half of the other 80% to go out and commit suicide" easy... the north had their 80% watching CNN and the souths 80% was tuning into FOX
Tickerguy
Posts: 151591
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
smiley

----------
Winding it down.
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 2 of 3  First123Last