| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cwalenta999
Sergeant Major
Joined: 17 Mar 2007
Posts: 60
|
 Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 11:07 am Post subject: Poor? |
 |
|
So, now I can understand how a war can cause economic dislocation, but to say that the relative disparity in state income on a per capita basis which exists today is because the South lost the war is ridiculous.
Germany rebuilt after WWII and about 10 years later had a standard of living higher than 1939.
I'd be willing to stake money on the fact that the absolute difference in per capita income, if adjusted on a purchasing power basis would shrink further. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
O'Bruadair
Major
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 224
Location: Close to the ground
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 11:51 am Post subject: |
| |
|
Of course it is not ONLY because the South lost the war.
But it IS because the South lost the war and have been politically and economically under the heel of the north EVER SINCE.
“Germany rebuilt after WWII and about 10 years later had a standard of living higher than 1939.”
True enough but they did it with the HELP of the federal government and NOT while being EXPLOITED by another people.
_________________
"The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel."
Charles DI CKENS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ollie439
Sergeant
Joined: 02 May 2007
Posts: 17
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 2:55 pm Post subject: Still! |
| |
|
You're still dragging up ole Confederate *beep*. War is over, has been for years, get over it. Last I checked my ancestors weren't allowed to vote for it, so you can take your battle flag and stick it up your ass.
The origins of the American Civil War lay in the complex issues of party politics, competing understandings of federalism, slavery, expansionism, sectionalism, economics, and modernization in the Antebellum Period. After the Mexican-American War, the issue of slavery in the new territories led to the Compromise of 1850. While the compromise averted an immediate political crisis, it did not permanently resolve the issue of the Slave power (the power of slaveholders to control the national government). Many Northerners, especially leaders of the new Republican Party, considered slavery a great national evil and believed that a small number of Southern owners of large plantations controlled the national government with the goal of spreading that evil. Southerners worried instead about the relative political decline of their region because the North was growing much faster in terms of population and industrial output.
As the North and the South developed divergent societies, two separate regional identities seemed to emerge. The economic systems were based on free labor in the North and on slave labor in the South. The United States was a nation divided into two distinct regions separated by the Mason-Dixon line: New England, the Northeast and the Midwest had a rapidly growing economy based on family farms, industry, mining, commerce and transportation, with a large and rapidly growing urban population and no slavery outside the border states. Its growth was fed by a high birth rate and large numbers of European immigrants, especially Irish, British, German and Scandinavian. The South was dominated by a settled plantation system based on slavery, with rapid growth taking place in the Southwest such as Texas based on high birth rates and low immigration from Europe. Overall, the Northern population grew much more quickly than the Southern population, which made it increasingly difficult for the South to continue to control the national government. There were few cities or towns, and little manufacturing except in border areas. Although slave owners controlled politics and economics, two-thirds of the Southern whites owned no slaves and usually were engaged in subsistance agriculture. Politically the issue was whether they would support the plantation owners in battling for slavery.
Arguments that slavery was undesirable for the nation had long existed, and the northern states all abolished slavery after 1776. In the interest of maintaining unity, politicians had mostly moderated opposition to slavery, resulting in numerous compromises such as the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Compromise of 1850. After 1840 abolitionists denounced slavery as more than a social evil — it was a moral wrong. Abraham Lincoln, speaking in 1858 reflected that "a house divided against itself cannot stand,"[1] stating that to be a unified nation, the United States would have to become all slave, or all free. Amid the emergence of increasingly virulent and hostile sectional ideologies in national politics, the collapse of the old Second Party System in the 1850s hampered efforts of the politicians to reach yet one more compromise. The compromise that was reached (the Kansas-Nebraska Act) outraged too many northerners. In the 1850s, with the rise of the Republican Party, the first major party with no appeal in the South, the industrializing North and agrarian Midwest became committed to the economic ethos of free-labor industrial capitalism. In 1860, the election of Abraham Lincoln, whom slave owners could not abide even though he had married into a slaveowning family, finally triggered Southern secession from the union. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick
Sergeant Major
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 5:42 am Post subject: |
| |
|
| O'Bruadair wrote: | | I really have no clue what you are trying to say here and I am certain that you do not understand what I am saying either. |
Yes your made up stats, you went to Va edu site, tried to arrive at the per capita income, which you not the site says you CANNOT DO FROM THESE DATABASE but must instead go to another link to get the source data for that, or any othe purpose purpose.
Not only do i undertstand what your saying, ive expalined to you where youve gone wrong and why your states are fantasy la la land stats.
there is a reson why if you type in a search for per capita income on that site and it comes back with nothing, its beauase the database it not set up to do that calculation.
Becauase i already i know your argument is built on faulty methodology, and your useing that faulty data to support a lie, i can only asume that your not honest, as well as dumb.
Who after all needs to lie to support a posistion?.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moa&cc=moa&idno=ajb8403.0001.001&q1=income&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=487
If the south was wealthy, why does it not produce the same wealth from its resources as does the North as the above data shows?, not in 1940 nor in 1860 as the US census data shows to be the case.
| Quote: |
Since my contention is that within that disparity of real wealth lie the real reasons for the War to Suppress Yankee Arrogance then the comparison should be between the 11 states that actually seceded with perhaps the addition of Kentucky and Missouri and the rest of the nation. |
No your contention, one not shared by any historina or econiomist in your countrys history, is based up making up a false set of numbers that flat out contradicty every historians and economist work.
| Quote: |
You are confusing GNP and annual income with wealth. They are simply NOT THE SAME thing as WEALTH and looking at the figures you provided and those above clearly illustrate that point if you really understand what they say. |
No im not. Cite where i do this please.
| Quote: |
(BTW you don’t say where your stats come from so I will take your word that they are accurate. Also to be directly relevant you need to find the 1860 statistics and not use those from 20 years before the war). |
well i did tell you where they come from as i always cite data, its from the US Census data that gives per capaita income and from a economic text book used to teach in the Us education ststem.
Do you have a readiing impairmnent?, i gave the 1840 and 1860 data, to show relavemntce that at no tim ein Us history pre WBTS had the Southern states ever had a higher per capita income.
| Quote: |
In my previous post I also pointed out that the REAL disparity in wealth between north and South in 1860 was very much greater than the numbers indicate. |
Your opinion, not backed up by anything more than i want it to be so against historical texts that demostrate what the differnce was in a quantifiable manner. Hardly a choice that takes me long to pick from
| Quote: |
Most Southerners were land owners and/or had ready access of large tracts of land available for free range grazing and hunting. The average Cracker in Alabama either grew or killed just about everything he ate or wore. The value of those items was “off the books” and would not have even shown up in the census data. On the other hand the average mill hand in Massachusetts had no land or free grazing and thus had to PURCHASE everything he ate or wore from his meagre wages. |
you do know youve just demostarted you dont have any education at all abouty how per capita is arrived at right?.
Value of land in the North was higher than in the south, ownership of land in the north was higher than in the south, per capita, you talk about things you have not the faintest grasp off.
| Quote: |
Those factors are a large part of why the personal wealth was so disparate between the two regions. |
Personal and disposable wealth you now want to talk about, sadly the north wins out again. try reading the census data befiore posting that which contradicts it.
| Quote: |
Simply put the RESOURCES of the South were just much greater and FAR greater on a per capita basis than those of the north. |
You saying it does not make it so, and just points up your talking about things you dont know jack about.
[quote]
Here is a quote from “Cracker Culture”, Grady McWhinney that might put this in perspective for you:
“In New England” he (a yankee) boasted, “a man may put a hundred dollars in a bridge, a turnpike, a rail-road, a bank, an insurance company, or a mill dam, and thus blend his private advantage with the public good.” But in the South even the small planters squandered more money every year than most New England farmers saved in a “lifetime of toil and close economy”. | Quote: |
Opinions are not data. McWhinny quote is that a yankee invests in measrable quantifiable ivestments, while small planters squander more than yanke farmers save, hardly usfull comparitves for our or any purpose.
| Quote: |
You seem to be labouring under the same preconceived notions and misunderstandings about the history of the South as most modern Southerners are. |
Nope, im labouring undwer your posts of utter stupidity and lack of eduction.
| Quote: |
We have always been taught and really want to believe that the South lost the war because she was poor. Nothing could be further from the truth! |
The data told them they were poor in relation to the north in 1840 1850 and again in 1860, thats why they left, becuae while in the Union they could not excericise the fiscal policys that used what natural advantages they had to theior fullest potential.
We, or rather all those intrested in nUs history have been taught the south was poor in realtion to the North becauase thats what the economic statistcs show, and the historical reciord of the times show the Southwern leaders to believe the case to be and the remedy to it was secesion.
In a speech delivered in the Virginia Convention of 1788, Patrick Henry had predicted that the South would eventually find itself economically subjugated to the North once the latter had secured to itself a majority in the new federal Government: "This government subjects every thing to the Northern majority. Is there not, then, a settled purpose to check the Southern interest?... How can the Southern members prevent the adoption of the most oppressive mode of taxation in the Southern States, as there is a majority in favor of the Northern States?" Henry's prediction was not long in being realized. As early as 1789, the first impost bill was introduced in Congress which protected the New England fishing industry and its production of molasses, and exhibited, in the opinion of William Grayson, "a great disposition... for the advancement of commerce and manufactures in preference to agriculture." Thus, when the Union under the Constitution was but two months old, many Southerners felt that their States were already being obliged to serve the North as "the milch cow out of whom the substance would be extracted." In a pamphlet published in 1850, Muscoe Russell Garnett of Virginia wrote:
The whole amount of duties collected from the year 1791, to June 30, 1845, after deducting the drawbacks on foreign merchandise exported, was $927,050,097. Of this sum the slaveholding States paid $711,200,000, and the free States only $215,850,097. Had the same amount been paid by the two sections in the constitutional ratio of their federal population, the South would have paid only $394,707,917, and the North $532,342,180. Therefore, the slaveholding States paid $316,492,083 more than their just share, and the free States as much less.
From the days of P Henry onwards, the South had generally stood in the way of the Northern goal to make such an unjust system of taxation permanent. According to John Taylor of Virginia, a high protective tariff system, like that which existed in Great Britain, was "undoubtedly the best which has ever appeared for extracting money from the people; and commercial restrictions, both upon foreign and domestick commerce, are its most effectual means for accomplishing this object. No equal mode of enriching the party of government, and impoverishing the party of people, has ever been discovered."Nevertheless, the North clung tenaciously to its protectionist policy and managed to push through the tariff legislation of 1828 which provoked South Carolina to resistance to the general Government and nearly to secession from the Union during the Administration of Andrew Jackson. It should be noted that, by 1828, the public debt was near to extinction and, at the current rate of taxation on imported goods, a twelve to thirteen million dollar annual surplus would have been created in the Treasury. Thus, the excuse for a high tariff system as a source of Government revenue was a flimsy one at best; the so-called "Tariff of Abomination" really served no other purpose than to "rob and plunder nearly one half of the Union, for the benefit of the residue." James Spence of London explained the effects of such a high tariff on the Southern economy:
This system of protecting Northern manufactures, has an injurious influence, beyond the effect immediately apparent. It is doubly injurious to the Southern States, in raising what they have to buy, and lowering what they have to sell. They are the exporters of the Union, and require that other countries shall take their productions. But other countries will have difficulty in taking them, unless permitted to pay for them in the commodities which are their only means of payment. They are willing to receive cotton, and to pay for it in iron, earthenware, woollens. But if by extravagant duties, these be prohibited from entering the Union, or greatly restricted, the effect must needs be, to restrict the power to buy the products of the South. Our imports of Southern productions, have nearly reached thirty millions sterling a year. Suppose the North to succeed in the object of its desire, and to exclude our manufactures altogether, with what are we to pay? It is plainly impossible for any country to export largely, unless it be willing also, to import largely. Should the Union be restored, and its commerce be conducted under the present tariff, the balance of trade against us must become so great, as either to derange our monetary system, or compel us to restrict our purchases from those, who practically exclude other payment than gold. With the rate of exchange constantly depressed, the South would receive an actual money payment, much below the current value of its products. We should be driven to other markets for our supplies, and thus the exclusion of our manufactures by the North, would result in a compulsory exclusion, on our part, of the products of the South.
This is a consideration of no importance to the Northern manufacturer, whose only thought is the immediate profit he may obtain, by shutting out competition. It may be, however, of very extreme importance to others — to those who have products they are anxious to sell to us, who are desirous to receive in payment, the very goods we wish to dispose of, and yet are debarred from this. Is there not something of the nature of commercial slavery, in the fetters of a system that prevents it? If we consider the terms of the compact, and the gigantic magnitude of Southern trade, it becomes amazing, that even the attempt should be made, to deal with it in such a manner as this.
George McDuffie of South Carolina stated in the House of Representatives, "If the union of these states shall ever be severed, and their liberties subverted, historians who record these disasters will have to ascribe them to measures of this description. I do sincerely believe that neither this government, nor any free government, can exist for a quarter of a century under such a system of legislation." While the Northern manufacturer enjoyed free trade with the South, the Southern planter was not allowed to enjoy free trade with those countries to which he could market his goods at the most benefit to himself. Furthermore, while the six cotton States — South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas — had less than one-eighth of the representation in Congress, they furnished two-thirds of the exports of the country, much of which was exchanged for imported necessities. Thus, McDuffie noted that because the import tariff effectively hindered Southern commerce, the relation which the Cotton States bore to the protected manufacturing States of the North was now the same as that which the colonies had once borne to Great Britain; under the current system, they had merely changed masters.
Such was the consistent argument of South Carolinian politicians and editorialists right up to the moment of secession in late 1860. Robert Barnwell Rhett, who served in the House of Representatives and then in the Senate, said in 1850: "The great object of free governments is liberty. The great test of liberty in modern times, is to be free in the imposition of taxes, and the expenditure of taxes.... For a people to be free in the imposition and payment of taxes, they must lay them through their representatives."Consequently, because they were being taxed without corresponding representation, the Southern States had been reduced to the condition of colonies of the North and thus were no longer free. The solution was determined by John Cunningham to exist only in independence:
The legislation of this Union has impoverished them [the Southern States] by taxation and by a diversion of the proceeds of our labor and trade to enriching Northern Cities and States. These results are not only sufficient reasons why we would prosper better out of the union but are of themselves sufficient causes of our secession. Upon the mere score of commercial prosperity, we should insist upon disunion. Let Charleston be relieved from her present constrained vassalage in trade to the North, and be made a free port and my life on it, she will at once expand into a great and controlling city.
In a letter to the Carolina Times in 1857, Representative Laurence Keitt wrote, "I believe that the safety of the South is only in herself." James H. Hammond likewise stated in 1858, "I have no hesitation in saying that the Plantation States should discard any government that makes a protective tariff its policy."
What you will not find is anyone saying the South is richer than the North!!, they all say the traiff is preventing us from being as rich and wealthy as the North who are beniffitting from the tariff more than the South.
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government, from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism." According to Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri, "[T]he exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue.... Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government." He stated that, as a result of unfair legislation, wealth flowed from the South to the North in "one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream." This economic tug-of-war had been going on between the North and South for decades and finally the sectional party which had openly avowed hostility to the South had gained control of both Congress and the White House. It should be remembered that throughout his political career, Lincoln had always identified himself as a disciple of Henry Clay in fiscal matters, and the whole country knew that upon his nomination, he had committed himself to a high tariff policy if elected President. This state of affairs sheds valuable light on why the Gulf States reacted to Lincoln's victory as they did. The complaints of the South were sometimes couched in terms of slavery and other times in terms of finances, but it is clear that self-preservation alone drove the Southern States out of the Union. In a statement issued on 25 December 1860, the South Carolina Convention summarized the South's complaint against the North as follows:
Discontent and contention have moved in the bosom of the Confederacy for the last thirty-five years. During this time, South Carolina has twice called her people together in solemn convention, to take into consideration the aggressions and unconstitutional wrongs perpetrated by the people of the North on the people of the South. These wrongs were submitted to by the people of the South, under the hope and expectation that they would be final. But these hopes and expectations have proved to be void.
The one great evil, from which all the other evils have flowed, is the overthrow of the Constitution. The Government is no longer the government of a Confederate Republic, but of a consolidated democracy. It is no longer a free government, but a despotism. The Revolution of 1776 turned upon one great principle — self-government and self-taxation — the criterion of self-government.
The Southern States now stand in the same relation towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation, that our ancestors stood toward the people of Great Britain. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors, in the British Parliament, for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States, have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue — to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the people of the Northern States, but, after the taxes are collected, three-fourths of them are expended in the North.
John H. Reagan of Texas, who would later become Postmaster-General of the Confederate Government, expressed similar sentiments when addressing the Republican members of the House of Representatives on 15 January 1861:
You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue laws, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions....
We do not intend that you shall reduce us to such a condition. But I can tell you what your folly and injustice will compel us to do. It will compel us to be free from your domination, and more self-reliant than we have been. It will compel us to assert and maintain our separate independence. It will compel us to manufacture for ourselves, to build up our own commerce, our own great cities, our own railroads and canals; and to use the tribute money we now pay you for these things for the support of a government which will be friendly to all our interests, hostile to none of them.
Less than a week later, on 21 January 1861, an editorial appeared in the New Orleans Daily Crescent which made the same observations:
They know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests.... These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are as mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it.
Justifying the fears of the South, one of the first acts of the Republican-dominated Thirty-Seventh Congress upon the departure of the Gulf States was to pass the so-called Morrill Tariff into law on 2 March 1861. Under this tariff, which one British observer described as "a very masterpiece of folly and injustice," duties began at an average of 37% and by June of 1864 were raised to 47%, making it the highest in the history of the country. True to Republican campaign promises, special preference was given to the steel industry of Pennsylvania. At the same time, the Confederate Congress at Montgomery, Alabama, in accordance with the South's traditional aversion to protective tariffs and general acceptance of the free trade doctrines of Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, and in compliance with the provisions of the C.S. Constitution, instituted a low tariff with duties averaging 10%, the natural result of which would have been to divert most, if not all, foreign trade away from the principle Northern ports in New York and Boston to the Southern ports, particularly Charleston and New Orleans. The Boston Transcript of 18 March 1861 stated in this regard:
[T]he mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports. The merchants of New Orleans, Charleston, and Savannah are possessed of the idea that New York, Boston, and Philadelphia may be shorn, in the future, of their mercantile greatness, by a revenue system verging on free trade.... The government would be false to its obligations if this state of things were not provided against.
In the words of the New York Times:
The nations of Europe with whom we have the most intimate commercial relations are earnest advocates of free trade. Yet at the very moment that we most desire their sympathy and co-operation, we insult their conviction and strike the severest blow in our power at their interests. The seceding states will take instant advantage of our blunder, and will make every effort to secure their will, if not an actual recognition, by adopting a commercial policy in harmony with their own....
At home and abroad, we are already feeling the effects of our gratuitous folly. Both English and French journals are teeming with ill-natured and unfavorable remarks; with contrasts either openly stated or implied in favor of the seceding states.
The New York Evening Post of 12 March 1861 likewise stated:
That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop.
This result was also clearly seen by most of the business and financial men in the North. In their eyes, the question was no longer one of the morality of slavery or the constitutionality of secession; it was now, in the words of New York banker August Belmont, a "question of national existence and commercial prosperity."
If you bother to read the causes of secesion you will not the ample use of the traiff as being a principle cause of concern by the southern sattes who all complained of unequal taxation on them, making them less wealthy than the northern states, they did not seccede to relain richer than the north, they said they were doing so to prevent the North from becoming still wealthier by remaining and being subject to a triplling of tariffs and thefore making the north wealthioer still at ther expense.
[quot]
The South didn’t lose the war because we were poor! We are poor because we lost the war!!
|
Nope, per capita income levels, or rather the differnce between northern and soputhern ones, are roughly the same today as in 1860, have another try.
| Quote: |
“Before the war, the South was the wealthiest part of the United States” Wikipedia |
Ah yes the site where anyone can edit any page they like.
| Quote: |
“Before the war, the South was the wealthiest part of the United States” knowledgerush |
Hm, not doubt it cites wiki as the source of the quote.
[quote]
“contrary to common misconceptions, the South was the richest part of the country in 1860” Dr. Frank Towers, historian at the University of Calgary
Oh, more opinion, how nice.
How about i give you links to half a dozen nazi fansites where they say its ok to push people into ovens because its for the greater good?, will that make it right to do so because some nut jobs on the net say it is?.
Better yet, cite any war or pre war statemen claiming the south was wealthier than the north.
Even better cite any historian or economist and his works that detail that the South was wealthier and or that per capita the south was higher than the North.
Ive already given you the US census data for 40 and 60 per capita, so dont look there, i cant help but wonder what you will come up with?,
| Quote: |
“By 1860, the region (the South) was one of the wealthier areas of the WORLD,” (empahsis mine) Answers.com |
In 1860 the USA top rich list had the first 20 as allbeing Southern, the top 3 all lved in Natchez and were the top slave sellers/buyers in the USA, under 1% of the USA population in the South owned 51% of the national wealth, so yes there was amassive concentration of wealth in the South, all in the hands or a statastical minoirty.In South Carolina and Louisiana, the top 1 percent of wealth holders owned more than 50 percent of all property (this can be compared to New York and Pennsylvania, where the wealthiest 1 percent owned less than 30 percent of total property). The wealth of the slavocracy can be seen when comparing the value of the personal estates -- in 1850 the top ten wealthiest states were: Georgia ($213 million, fully 10 percent of the national wealth); Massachusetts ($201 million); South Carolina ($178 million); Alabama ($162 million); New York ($150 million); Mississippi ($143 million); North Carolina ($140 million); Virginia ($130 million); Kentucky ($114 million); and Ohio ($93 million). Just the seven slave states listed above possessed 51 percent of the personal wealth of the entire United States; and most of that wealth was in the hands of a very small number of slave owners.
Last edited by Nick on Thu May 03, 2007 9:08 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick
Sergeant Major
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 5:48 am Post subject: Re: Still! |
| |
|
| Ollie439 wrote: | You're still dragging up ole Confederate *beep*. War is over, has been for years, get over it. Last I checked my ancestors weren't allowed to vote for it, so you can take your battle flag and stick it up your ass.
|
Nice cut and paste from wiki. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick
Sergeant Major
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 6:09 am Post subject: |
| |
|
| O'Bruadair wrote: | Of course it is not ONLY because the South lost the war.
But it IS because the South lost the war and have been politically and economically under the heel of the north EVER SINCE.
“Germany rebuilt after WWII and about 10 years later had a standard of living higher than 1939.”
True enough but they did it with the HELP of the federal government and NOT while being EXPLOITED by another people. |
Ok, so the southern elected governments post war then just kept the southern region poor right?, that is what your claiming.
The south lost because it lacked both the economic and resource, natural and human, base to compete withe north, In 1860, America had a total of $1,050,000,000 invested in real and personal property devoted to business, with $949,335,000 concentrated in the North; Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts each had a larger investment than the South as a whole. Finally, the North contributed 92.5% of the $1.9 billion that comprised the total value of annual product in the country in 1860.
It was never of quation of if the south would loose, only when it would loose and how much it would loose when it did so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
possum
Captain
Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 140
Location: Auckland, NZ
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:20 am Post subject: |
| |
|
Beginning to understand why civilwar.com was taken off for an airing.
Durned if i can understand what went on here though.
What are all those letters and dots and dashes? Is it a military way of cussing?
Hiya O'Bruadair, you have learnt a fascinating new language since last we talked.
Nick, I was so getting into your posts, I was printing off great screeds and then you disappeared. In fact the whole thing disappeared.
could you come back please.
I'm so caught up in a battle for the greater good (ie the Confederacy), on another forum, so won't be posting here much. Just to say it's great that its all back up and running.
Nick, are you actually English or just living there? How come you know so much about it all?
I might enlist your help in my battle if you answer this |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poloist12
Corporal
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:24 pm Post subject: Causes of the War |
| |
|
OK, it's been a minute since I've been on here so you'll have to give me a moment to get my thoughts together.
First: I agree with the Major on this.
One, and first of all I'm not understanding why there's even an agrument about who is the richest and who is the poorest.
But I will give my answer. The South is BROKE! unless you look at the larger cities such as ATL; which is flushed with Yankee money.
Then you have your other cities in the great state of Texas, which is flushed with both Yankee, and Southern money.
I also saw a post talking about how the North is spreading it's propaganda, yad, yada, ya.
I think some of us need to break down the word HISTORY in order to get a better understanding as to what any word means. So with that I'm going to do a little English lesson.
History is a combination of two words; ready, "HIS, and Story"
I see several usernames useing military ranks, so I'm going to asume that most in this group are in the military.
You do not have to go to West Point to understand military history.
It is a well known fact that whomever wins the battle is going to tell the story in their own terms, of course leaving out any of their faults. Again; his story.
Again, the south had to be broken by the north in order to win the war. Also, again this is a tactic that is still being used today in the war in Iraq. If you break your enemies commerce you can break their will.
As far as propaganda, it is our dutiy to teach our childeren the truth about our countries history and not leave it up to any education system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poloist12
Corporal
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:43 pm Post subject: Re: Slavery |
| |
|
Taxes was th biggest reason to start the war. Again, I will say what I have said in my original post.
If it were about slavery, the slaves would have been released from their bounds long before Lincoln did so.
I see your point in all this, and believe me I mean no harm in saying what I am about to say to you. However, I think you do need to dig deeper in your research to find the root cause of the war.
Really, I don't even think that it was about slavery at all if you ask me. I really do think that if this war could have been faught with freeing any of the slaves, WE; I say we as a black man, would probably would have been in bondage for possibly another 50 years.
The bottom line was about money, which is what most wars are faught over. Not the welfare of another man that you looked at such as a cow or any other chattle property.
This is what these people thought of the balck man, and in some cases some still do. Would you go to war with your neighbor because you are a Hendu, and he thinks it's good to eat beef.
I know not the same, but the closest I could think of. But my point is, you are saying that the north; who owned slaves, wanted to go to war with the south; mind you who owned slaves too, over slavery.
Do you see the point you are making? Sounds obsurd doesn't it.
Not even the politcs of GW can even make that one up.
I will however agree with you one point. YES, this had been a touchy subject for the US, but not so much so that it was the LARGER basis to spark the CW.
[quote="VTYank09"]So no one thinks slavery was a major cause of the Civil War? You think it was all an excuse to start a war? It's all about taxes and States Rights, or which region controls the government and which way the country goes, towards industry or agriculture? Here's what the President and Vice-President of the CONFEDERATE States of America had to say.
Jefferson Davis on slave labour, "was and is indespensable. With interests of such overwhelming magnitude imperiled, the people of the Southern states were driven by the conduct of the North to the adoption of some course of action to avert the danger with which they were openly menaced."
Alexander H. Stephens (V.P.) speaking on how the Confederate constitution put to rest all of the questions regarding slavery, "This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."
The South viewed the Northern armies as invaders. They had to defend their families and homes. Most importantly they had to defend their way of life, and the institution they based it on, slavery. The South could not survive without slavery.
As I said before there were many causes, and I'm not saying that taxes and States Rights weren't an issue. I'm just making the argument that slavery was the primary issue. They had argued over it since the end of the importation of slaves in 1808. It ultimately led to war. I thought the quote below was interesting 
------------------------------------------------------------
"I wish that I owned every slave in the South, for I would free them all to avoid this war." - Robert E. Lee[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poloist12
Corporal
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:59 pm Post subject: Re: Poor? |
| |
|
OK, so you tell me, where is the concentrated wealth in this country?
This too owe as a fact when we faught against the British to gain our Independace. The founding fathers were torn with where the capitial should lay due to the fact that the south did not want the concentration of wealth to be in the north, and the north the south.
Also, I'm not sure if you've ever been to DC, but it sure isn't wealthy. Go anywhere four blocks from the center and you are in all getto.
However, the point that I am making is this. Compaired to most and I would say about 90-95% on a guess, of the northern states and cities, the south has no money. I live in AR, and have lived in MD,VA, and other nothern cities, and by comparison AR infrastructer is no where near that of VA or MD. We are just now getting good roads here and it's 08. Huckabee's biggest thing when he was running for President was, "I brought good roads to AR." So if you can't even have good roads and highways, then you are broke!
So you tell me how it is that the South has no money? I have explained in other post that places such as ATL has yankee money due to the fact that Yankee Corps have moved in. Something that I have to give GA props for. "Aint gotta love um, to keep our families fed." Something I think that other Souther states should do as well.
Do you know that in AR, they are just now teaching real computer classes here to try and train people in this tecnology. Why? You tell me? Most of the people here are not educated in the way of anything but farming, dock workers, or any other type of blue collar jobs. Not all but most. AR is on the bottom of the list last only to MS when it comes to monies. It sure isn't because we aren't paying taxes. So you tell me why it is that the south is still broke after the CW?
[quote="cwalenta999"]So, now I can understand how a war can cause economic dislocation, but to say that the relative disparity in state income on a per capita basis which exists today is because the South lost the war is ridiculous.
Germany rebuilt after WWII and about 10 years later had a standard of living higher than 1939.
I'd be willing to stake money on the fact that the absolute difference in per capita income, if adjusted on a purchasing power basis would shrink further.[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bmac6446
Corporal
Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Posts: 8
Location: Georgia
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 7:53 am Post subject: Amazing! |
| |
|
I'm quite amazed at how many blur actual history through an emotional tie to either the Union or the Confederacy.
I've seen comments on here that President Lincoln "taxed the heck out of the south". Really? The man was in office for some six weeks when Ft. Sumter was fired upon and the U.S. flag fell (after ten shots at the flagpole). That's some fast legislation and taxation!
History bares witness to the fact that Lincoln almost pulled his hair out waiting in Springfield to be inaugurated. For the next four months he and many others saw how President Buchanan and his cabinet in cahoots with southerns in Congress depleted the garrisons in the north only to supply those arms and munitions in southern garrisons. Not to mention Treasury Secretary Cobb doubled the national debt on the United States in hopes to deplete her treasury before Lincoln took office.
This link is an easy read taken from a document at this time. http://books.google.com/books?id=7tVBAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA98&lpg=RA2-PA98&dq=President+Buchanan+and+aiding+the+south&source=web&ots=K1zTYId_X4&sig=bjUy1iYWTT5xV49o2-Adyeygwhw&hl=en#PRA2-PA98,M1
This was no act of "Northern Aggression" by any means. This was a group of men preparing themselves for a war and tilting the odds in their favor.
Please understand, my home is some five miles from the battle scene at Chickamauga. I fully understand southern sediment about these matters.
Let us not adulterate history by allowing our emotions to get the better of our judgment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MontyPython
Corporal
Joined: 22 Apr 2008
Posts: 3
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:30 pm Post subject: Re: cause of civil war |
| |
|
[quote="dixierules"]the civil war was not fought over slavery,it was fought because the south wanted its independence form the united states due to taxation without representation, lincoln didnt evan want to get rid of slavery until about two or three years in the war, and in my opinion he only did so to get more support.
- in my opinion there never should have been a civil war the north should have minded there own buiseness and let the south do what they wanted to do, because they had no authority over the southern states.[/quote]
But the Federal government did. How could the rest of the nation turn its cheek when something so horrible was happening right in front of them. The Federal government had the right and duty to intervene in an issue that was affecting the whole nation. Although slavery was not a main reason, it helped to create many of the tensions that gave way to the other causes like nullification and states' rights. Each side had fair reasons to fight but in my opinion the South acted rashly. They had representation and because they didn't like the tradition of majority rule they packed their bags and left the Union. The North wasn't innocent though, I understand that. It just seems that the Southerners went too far and totally disregarded any notion of compromise in favor of independece.
_________________
"It is time for this country to realize that we are too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams" -Ronald Regan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nav931
Sergeant
Joined: 19 Jul 2008
Posts: 10
Location: Virginia
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 10:40 pm Post subject: |
| |
|
The issue of slavery in the Civil War was not a point of either Abe Lincoln or the Southern States. South Carolina said that if Lincoln became the President they would leave the Union in which they did in December 1860. Lincoln was not elected on the grounds to abolish slavery but instead to stop the spread of slavery to the West, which is where they southern states drew the line.
I agree with most in here that the war should have never came about but with other states following South Carolina and with Lincoln not pulling all Military forces out of the south, what other ways did they have. They issued paper to Washington requesting that all federal forces be removed from all forts, military posts, and government lands in the south. But then again what military supplies did the south have. They didn't have iron works to make cannons. Nor did they have the major manufactures for making weapons,uniforms, and most of the populations was slaves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gooeyswat
Corporal
Joined: 07 Oct 2008
Posts: 7
Location: Connecticut
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:33 pm Post subject: Was Slavery a Cause of the War? |
| |
|
| I beleive that state rights were the main cause of the war. The southern states wanted the right to own slaves but it was not the reason they seceded. They just wanted right to have slaves and for the north to leave them alone. Slavery was not a big subject until a few years into the war for the union. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Natty
First Sergeant
Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 33
Location: Maryland
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 6:21 pm Post subject: |
| |
|
If yankees fought the war over slavery, they sure got suckered.
After the war was over, they had hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers and hundreds of thousands wounded.
But there was still slavery in the Northern border states.
_________________
First regiment of Virginia volunteers.
Fighting terrorism since 1861. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| |
Forum 
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
