The only true cause

O'Bruadair · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:17 pm Post subject: The only true cause

Governments just don’t go to war for humane or altruistic reasons, like "freeing the slaves".(anyone who is so naïve as to believe they do I urge you to contact me I have some ”authentic” Confederate three dollar bills I would like to sell you)

Governments have made up a lot of excuses for going to war and butchering people over the ages but there has only been one real reason. Once again Charles Di ck ens was right when he said of the WBTS “the root of this, like most evils, is the love of money”.

Here was the basic conflict in the WBTS:

On one side you had “Hamiltonians” of the north who wanted a centralized government with a protectionist mercantilist system that would give large handouts to favoured corporations (northern corporations of course). Remember it was this bunch that wanted to create an American monarchy from the git go!

The New Englanders wanted this system from the very beginning but weren't able to cram the thing whole hog down the throats of the rest of the country when the Constitution was originally written. They however did not give up!

They were perfectly willing to make hash out of the constitution, spend as much money, cause as much misery and kill as many people as necessary to get it later.

On the other side were the “Jefersonians” of the South who wanted a free trade republic with political power dispersed among the states. They wanted to keep the constitution intact, for those ends.

This don’t let them off the “love of money” hook either. They were advocating such policy for their own economic benefit. It is just that the existing constitution was on their side so in a purely legal sense, at least, they were in the right.

Now what about that "free the slaves" excuse?

Had the Southern plantations been worked by Irish immigrants or Chinese coolies (And don’t think that farfetched. It was tried after the WBTS) and there had never been an African or any other race of slaves in the South the basic economic/political equation would not have been changed one iota.

The conflict would have remained and given the belligerent aggressive attitude (GIVE ME SUBSIDIES OR GIVE ME DEATH)of the people who held sway in the north it would have still led to war!

All this being the case how can any one believe that slavery caused the WBTS?

VTYank09 · Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 8:49 pm Post subject: Argument

I think you have a very interesting argument and in little ways i agree and it makes me think. However i don't recall any Irish or Chinese immigrants working Southern plantations after the war. I don't remember any enslaved people working the plantantions at all. Maybe if i did some research, but could you give me some direction. I want you to back that up with some proof.

Also could you clarify what you mean by the South's "political/economical equation?" Now about your arguments. No one ever said that this was a war fought to free the slaves, initially. Initially it was to preserve the Union, but no one ever said it was fought to free the slaves, however it turned into that in 1863 with Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation along with trying to preserve the Union.

The debate between the Hamiltonians and the Jeffersonians goes back to the founding of America. I would highly contest that the Hamiltonians wanted a monarchy. That's what the Revolution was fought over. They just wanted a strong centralized government. This debate about the new government is old by the time the Civil War comes around. You can argue that sectional differences existed, and probably did, right after the Revolution.

The Founding Fathers knew slavery would be a major issue facing the new country. That's why they agreed not to make any legislation regarding it until twenty years had passed and slave importation would continue until that time.

Now i need clarification on this political/economical equation. If you're talking about an equation between the North and South, atleast economically, I partly agree. But after the Revolution the North was in greater debt because they funded most of it. However you're arguing that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War. The South's entire economy was based on slave labour. Period. Maybe that equation wouldn't change.

What about the political one? Remember the three-fifths compromise? This put the South at a huge advantage over the North in the government and the Congress. Slaves were property, but were counted in the population. What a deal the South got! That gave them extra seats in the House of Representatives, which was vital for passing legislation where the South would now have a majority. The South has alot of power and control in national policy. The South had a patron-client system, a wealthy planter society which was very power and influential in the small communities. These wealthy Southerners could influence people's vote. The North is, in a sense, in political chaos where the South is atleast united on the issue of slavery.

In a way you're arguments make sense, and who knows they could be right. But slavery partly as I have shown affected the equation. As I recall, the argument(s) that led to the heated debates and outburts of violence in the country was slavery, not economics or politics. It was ultimately slavery that aroused such emotions on both sides. This is what caused the war, ultimately.

O'Bruadair · Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 5:40 pm Post subject:

You are misunderstanding what I said. Nowhere did I say there was anyone enslaved in the US after December of 1865 (ratification of 13th amendment). There were no slaves (at least not in a legal sense) here after that.

What I said was there would have been a War irregardless of slavery. The South developed as an agricultural economy and as a devolved political system. Slavery, as wrong as it was, was only a system of providing labour for that economy. Another system of labour would not have changed the basic economic equation in the South one iota nor would it have changed the political situation (except as you say to give the South a few more votes in congress, but this would not have been enough to maintain the political balance).

Given the determination of yankees to institute a centralist state and a mercantilist economic system there still would have been a war!

As for the Chinese I said it was tried not that it worked. Given the entrepreneurial spirit intelligence and work ethic of the Chinese it wasn’t long till most of them realized they could do much better for themselves in business than they could sharecropping. Most of them ended up in the grocery business!

http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/features/feature33/chinese.html

The larger landowners resorted to sharecropping after the war. If you know anything about how that system of labour worked then you know in an economic sense it was WORSE than slavery. The sharecroppers were mostly freedmen at first but eventually there were more white croppers than black, including some of my own family and this only a generation ago.

Certainly slavery “aroused emotions” on both sides. In the north it was the yankee abolitionists who even backed murder and overt terrorist actions ala John Brown. In the South it was the “fire eating secessionists” who held up the very real spectre of a Haitian style slave insurrection in which the white people of the South would have had their throats cut in the middle of the night.

Who and what stirred up emotions however is not the same thing as what caused the war. Those things were only the talking points of the propagandists on both sides.

Garrison · Corporal Joined: 31 Oct 2006 Posts: 5

if a war would have been fought without slavery, because slavery did actually exist. Your points are speculation and we have to comment on fact only. We do not have the luxury of knowing what would have happened if slavery ceased in 1820. Slavery played on the emotions of so many in the north and south, that it was only a matter of time before conflict ensued. And States Rights as many in the South like to point to, was all about Slavery. The right to make there own decision on what happens to the peculiar institution. You can make a strong case that without slavery there may not have been a civil war at all. Of course I would never suggest that, but it more likely that case would be stronger then to say a war would have happened even if Slavery had not existed. In my opion, without Slavery there is no Civil War. And we will never really know, because people in the South really did own other humans and that enraged many and led to many conflicts and debates.

O'Bruadair · Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 8:14 pm Post subject:

May have “enraged many” even enough that they would support murder, terrorism and treason against the US but that don’t mean it would have “enraged” enough northerners to make them want to go to warand risk their own skins. It didn’t. Most northererners didn’t give a rats patoot about the slaves on way or another.

NO PEOPLE (and especially yankees) are that altruistic!

O'Bruadair · Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 8:16 pm Post subject:

Oh I almost forgot. You don’t believe Hamilton and his buddies wanted what amounted to a monarchy?

F.S Oliver wrote in “Alexander Hamilton; Essay on American Union: “What he had in mind was the British constitution as George III had tried to make it. Hamilton’s ideal was an elective monarchy”

Hamilton argued passionately for this type of government during the Constitutional Convention. What he and New England wanted was a centralized government that they could control. They knew if they could do that then they could control the wealth of the nation for their own benefit

Their philosophical and actual heirs had to start an aggressive war, kill 620,000 Americans, wreck half the nation, trash the constitution and impoverish the South in order to finally get the centralized mercantilist corporate welfare system that Hamilton and his crowd had dreamed about.

VTYank09 · Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 8:52 pm Post subject: Causes

I apologize for my misunderstanding O.B. and thank you for clarifying the economic/political equations for me. I have a better understanding of what you are saying now. When you mentioned the Irish and Chinese I thought you meant they were enslaved, thats my bad I apologize, I misunderstood. I read it all wrong and thanks for backing that up with that website, it's nice to see someone like you who actually backs their stuff up and does research ya know?

Slavery was, or most people view it anyway, more than just providing labour for the Southern economy, it was their way of life. It was part of their culture. But I see what you're saying. And I do agree when you said the whole three-fifths compromise and stuff that gave the South the edge wouldn't have been enough to maintain the political balance. I also agree with your statements on sharecropping. It was horrible.

Yeah, about that John Brown character. I may be from Pennsylvania but wow! That guy was insane! He was a nutcase! I dont hold him as a hero at all! I dont support any of his actions either. I could not agree with you more on the murder/terrorist actions statements you made that were taken by this militant abolitionist. The Pottawatomie Creek Massacre and of course Harpers Ferry.

I have a slightly different view of Harpers Ferry however. Its only my opinion, but I feel that the governor of VA at the time, Henry Wise, made a mistake. The only defense Brown had was insanity. Wise could have ended the trial there and sent him to an asylum. Maybe this thing would have been forgotten, MAYBE. Instead though he let the trial continue and it turned Brown from a murderer into a martyr. Unfortunately alot of the North's reaction is misconstrued too. Many Northerners were shocked and horrified and disapproved of the raid. It was the radicals and abolitionists that celebrated his actions. But during these times BOTH the North and the South had a general view of the other side if you know what I mean. I see you mention this by saying, "the yankee abolitionists" and "the fire eating secessionists."

If i came off like I feel slavery is THE only cause of the war, I apologize. I believe slavery was A cause of the war, but certainly not the only one. Thinking about it, I do see the other side. Slavery aroused emotions and people can say thats what caused the war. But since slavery caused SO MUCH debate, aroused so much emotion, and was a major issue in the country, alot of other reasons are ignored or overlooked I think, and slavery is seen as the main cause of the war. While I do see the other side of things and can understand where you're coming from, I still believe that slavery was a cause. Below are some quotes I found from people/newspapers of the time period. Of course its just their opinions though, they dont speak for all people of the time I realize that, but here you go:

Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"

From the diary of James B. Lockney, 28th Wisconsin Infantry, writing near Arkadelphia, Arkansas (10/29/63): "Last night I talked awhile to those men who came in day before yesterday from the S.W. part of the state about 120 miles distant. Many of them wish Slavery abolished & slaves out of the country as they said it was the cause of the War, and the Curse of our Country..."

James H. Hammond, Congressman from South Carolina: "the moment this House undertakes to legislate upon this subject [slavery], it dissolves the Union. Should it be my fortune to have a seat upon this floor, I will abandon it the instant the first decisive step is taken looking towards legislation of this subject. I will go home to preach, and if I can, practice, disunion, and civil war, if needs be. A revolution must ensue, and this republic sink in blood."

Let me just also say that these men are not directly saying, slavery is the cause of this war, well maybe one of them is, but keep in mind, they are just opinions.

Garrison · Corporal Joined: 31 Oct 2006 Posts: 5

Would the Civil War have happened at all if Slavery has ceased back in 1820 with the Missouri Compromise?

It is logical to think that since slavery spiraled out of control it could not have been slowed down unless a war was fought.

Additionally, there is very little proof out there to suggest that the South was slowly eliminating slavery. Those who suggest that slavery would have died out over the next 20 or so years from 1860 are simply speculating.

Why would slavery simply dissolve when the labor it provided was the backbone of the Southern economy?

And I will agree that sharecropping was bad, but it was not as bad as slavery.

Face it, the South chose their destiny with slavery and paid the price in the end. Thank goodness Lincoln did what he did by whatever means necessary to preserve the Union. If not, some of us might be living in a smaller, less powerful country.

God Bless America...

O'Bruadair · Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:39 pm Post subject:

“And I will agree that sharecropping was bad, but it was not as bad as slavery”

Just not what I said. I said IN AN ECONOMIC SENSE it was worse than slavery and if you disagree with that you know nothing about how both systems worked.

Masters were required by law to care for there slaves if they became disabled. Guess what happened to croppers if they became disabled?

My mother was raised on a sharecropping farm. She and the rest of her family literally went hungry and I’m talking about going days at a time with nothing to eat. My own dear wife was raised on a sharedropping farm too. She was really lucky though, lucky to be alive that is. She almost died from Scarlet feaver when she was a child because there was no money for a doctor and one of her siblings DID die.

Now do want to tell me some more about sharecropping?

“It is logical to think that since slavery spiraled out of control it could not have been slowed down unless a war was fought”

You seem to be saying here that had the WBTS not been fought then slavery would still exist in the South.

Slavery was an almost universally condemned system in the western world by 1860. Even had the South not been a democratically elected, Christian Republic with a free trade philosophy and economy She could not possibly hung on to the outdated, inneffiecit feudal system of slavery much longer (despite your “logic”)

Brazil ended slavery in 1888, Cuba in 1886. Both did so without a war as did every other Christian nation except Haiti.

What you are saying here is that both modern and historical Southerners are/were less Christian, less humane and less susceptible to world opinion and less dependant on the good will of other western nations than the Brazilians and the Cubans were/are.

If that neo-puritan idea weren’t’ so patently bigoted and hateful towards Southerners both past and present it would be laughable.

Garrison · Corporal Joined: 31 Oct 2006 Posts: 5

While I will agree that sharecropping was bad, at least those people were free and fully counted as United States citizens. Does that make it any less worse? No, but on the moral scale which many in the South now live on, it did not compare to the horrors of Slavery. Not even close.

And to suggest that because other nations abolished slavery without a war is nonsensical, because we are not other nations. England abolished the slave trade in 1807 and abolished it completely in 1833? The United Stated abolished the slave trade in 1808 and the South kept slavery going for nearly 60 years. So again you are simply speculating at the possible natural death of slavery in the South.

Additionally, please stop in your tracks when you talk about a Christian society that exists for the greater good of humanity. Let us remember that it was the South that continued to have issues with African-Americans for over 100 years follow the WBTS. Segregation anyone? And it was the South that was greatly responsible for the 4000+ recorded lynchings on African-Americans, so I have a hard time accepting the Christian sympathy argument.

VTYank09 · Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:28 pm Post subject: The Last Generation

I read this book called, The Last Generation by Peter Carmichael. In this book Carmichael follows the lives of over 100 young Virginians before, during, and after the Civil War. He explains what they thought through this time period and what they believed. All of these men were around their early twenties, still attending school (mostly UVA), and they were the last group of men to grow up with the institution of slavery. They were also a good representation of the rest of the Southern men in their generation.

You have to understand how the Southern people justified slavery and their way of life. Not only justified it, but this is what they believed. Yes alot of people knew slavery was wrong but it was part of their culture and economy. Its all they knew and they depended on it. I wrote an essay on the South and Christianity/religion and how it affected their views and lifestyle.

The South was a very religious society, and viewed the North as a radical, immoral, godless people pitted against the Christian society of the South. The South felt that human inequality was vital to a slave society, obvious right? But they felt that the institution elevated the black race. They were taught Christian ideals and morals, and assimilated into the white culture. Many of them were even taught to read/write. The Southern clergy saw slavery not as an evil, but as a condition. It was part of the social organization. It provided orderliness and authority for an orderly society.

It was also believed that if it, meaning the institution, was practical and profitable, that it was blessed by God. This last generation felt that as society changed, slavery would too. The black man would not be enslaved forever, but it would make a move toward dependence. And that goes both ways, the black man depends on the whites, and the whites depend on the black man. The Southern clergy also looked towards the Bible and there are many passages in the old and new Testament that provided a defense for the hierarchical society. There are also a few passages defending slavery.

So before you get ahead of yourself and criticize the South for not being a Christian society for the greater good or you think they used it as an excuse to defend slavery, or whatever, I encourage you to read this book. Its very interesting to see the thought processes of these young loyal Confederates.

VTYank09 · Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:38 pm Post subject: On Another Note

Also on another note, O.B. what you said about the South not being able to maintain the political balance in the country even though there was the three-fifths compromise like I mentioned, I agree.

After Lincoln's election in 1860, as I have stated before, the South still controlled Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. Five of the nine justices from slaveholding families, they were all Democrats (primarily a Southern party for the most part), and Chief Justice Roger Taney supported slavery. The institution could only be abolished by a Constitutional Amendment which then had to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. In short, the abolition of slavery would not have happened, atleast for the moment.

But I see your point O.B. and agree with you. In doing more research on the subject I found that even though the South still had power, they felt that they would not have it for long. Once Lincoln won the election and the Republicans took over, plus with the growing population of the North, they feared that they wouldnt have the power for long.

Also O.B. in regards to your original argument. I remember my U.S. History class my senior year of high school, it was one of those honor/college-type courses. And my teacher asked the class, "When did the Civil War start?" I knew why she asked it so I didnt respond when my classmates shouted 1861. Of course she said "Nope. 1620 when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock in Mass. and created a sepearate "government" or settlement when they were supposed to be heading for Jamestown, VA." In a weird way, I see what shes saying ya know? But anyway I do not disagree with your arguments at all about the Hamiltonians and the Jeffersonians. I totally see your point. But I would like to point out some things of my own about Thomas Jefferson and his presidency.

During his presidency, Jefferson had to do alot of things that went against his political philosophy:

http://www.americanpresident.org/history/thomasjefferson/

It's under the bold heading of "Defining the Powers of the Government" This site only lists like one or two situations where Jefferson knew it went against his philosophy, but he felt he didnt have a choice. I'm not taking anything away from him though, but I think this demonstrates a great point. You can preach your beliefs all you want, but you dont know until your in that situation and forced to make decisions that go against what you believe. Also Jefferson organized the first "official" political party to take the presidency from the Federalists and get them out of the government.

http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH35/onuf1.html

"The great lesson of the "republican synthesis" is that though Jefferson and his contemporaries were the founders of the American political tradition and the inventors of the first recognizably "modern" political parties..."

This is kind of a long document and the line about political parties is further down so I just copied and pasted it anyway. Like I said I'm not disagreeing with your original argument at all, I think you make a great point. I just thought I'd mention some things about Jefferson. And dont get me wrong, I cant say enough about him and what a great man he was and he accomplished a great deal. He was a great American.

O'Bruadair · Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 9:24 am Post subject:

“it did not compare to the horrors of Slavery.”

Again, go and tell this fairy tale to someone who’s immediate family was not directly involved in sharecropping.

It is obvious here that you have a bigoted and prejudicial attitude toward Southerners and will continue to have it even when confronted with the plain truth.

“England abolished the slave trade in 1807 and abolished it completely in 1833? The United Stated abolished the slave trade in 1808”

Yes, Yes and yankee slave traders continued to profit from the trade right up until the WBTS. BTW the Confederate constitution outlawed that same trade from its very inception.

As far as the myth of the propensity for lynching’s based on race in the South, again you don’t know what you are talking about. You are just relying on the cultural Marxism that is all you know. Take a look at the following web page (if you have the stomach for it and don’t mind the truth biting you on the butt) (be sure to pay close attention to where ALL these photos were taken)

http://www.withoutsanctuary.org/main.html

“the South that continued to have issues with African-Americans for over 100 years follow the WBTS. Segregation anyone?”

Again this is not only a patently bigoted statement but a hypocritical one too.

Well now let me see here and where were the race riots in 1992? Could have it been Los Angles? What about the 1960’s? Where were the most vicious, destructive and deadly race riots? Could have it been Detroit?

Last time I took a look at a map neither of these cities were in the South.

If you will bother to learn some real facts instead of relying on your cultural marxism in a knee jerk fashion you will find that:

1. The South is the now the LEAST segregated part of the nation both in housing and education.

2. African Americans are now moving back to the South in droves (and moving from your “egalitarian paradise” i.e. yankeeland too! Guess they haven’t heard how bad things are here and how little discrimination and prejudice there is in the north)

Cultural marxism, lies, propaganda, bigotry and hate anyone?

Garrison · Corporal Joined: 31 Oct 2006 Posts: 5

I am from the South, but the difference is I do not look at only 1 point of view. And when you mentioned riots that took place, that has nothing to do with laws that were enacted in the South to prevent African-Americans from having equal opportunity. Remember those laws? Plessy vs. Ferguson? Separate and greatly Unequal.

You Said:
"BTW the Confederate constitution outlawed that same trade from its very inception"

Yeah, they had to if they wanted to attract international support from the likes of England. And when was that? 1860's? That's what make the Emancipation Proclamation so brilliant. No way England would have got involved on the side of the South when Lincoln shifted the focus of the war to slavery. Again, a brilliant move.

And where is it documented that I said the North was heaven for African-Americans. The North had its own issues with African-Americans as did the West. We can get into those issues at a later date. I said that the South was responsible for a majority of the lynchings, not all. So you cannot show me 81 pics and say "I told you so". Besides a majority of those pics had locations in the South. Also, 6 of those pics were in Cairo, Il which is pretty much the South. I have studied this for years and am familiar with the fact that lynchigns took place all over the country. The South loathed African-Americans following the WBTS and it is well documented.

You Said:
1. The South is the now the LEAST segregated part of the nation both in housing and education.

Please back this up since you said it. It seems like an easy thing to say without being able to prove it. I could easliy challenge that by saying California is the least segregated state because it has 33 million people living there. And since there is a greater international population in California since it borders Mexico and has all of the Tech jobs that attract talent from India and Asia.

2. African Americans are now moving back to the South in droves (and moving from your “egalitarian paradise” i.e. yankeeland too! Guess they haven’t heard how bad things are here and how little discrimination and prejudice there is in the north)

When did I say that the North was an egalitarian paradise? Please keep in mind that it is now 2006 and we are talking about events that took place long ago. In the 1960's white and blacks could not marry in Virginia and that has since been changed. And things only change when the fight is strong enough.

O'Bruadair · Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 1:07 pm Post subject:

You may be “from the South” but that don’t mean you are a Southerner. The former is about geography the later about family and culture.

Sure don’t mean you can’t be bigoted and prejudicial against your own people and culture either. It is obvious that you are so when it comes to Southerners (where ever you live)

Don’t mean you can’t make hateful and prejudicial statements toward your own people either. You have.( If you consider yourself a Southerner anyway)

Do you hate yourself too?

Here, put this in your Marxist pipe and smoke it:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/housing_patterns/ch5.html

http://www1.umn.edu/irp/publications/linking.htm

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm