Needs more foundation, Jeffery. Where are the quotes from Rhett, Barnwell, Yancey, Pettus, Calhoun, DeBow, Barksdale, Pryor, Keitt, Ruffin, Wigfall, Quitman, Hindman? You know, the Fireeaters - the liberty-loving school of classical antebellum southern economics.
As with most things on the "interweb", this too could use more foundation. I like the video because it is short simple and to the point. The video is "kiddie history, but it is very relevant and it does illustrate the "federalist" seeding of state sponsored industry and unfair tariffs placed upon one section of the nation (the Southern States) to benefit a rival area of the country (northern states). Also, in a short but sweet light the video portrays Hamilton for what he was and that was a federalist. Was the Morrill Tariff the straw that broke the camel's back and set in motion the secession of the Southern States? Not necessarily, but it and other unjust tariffs did play a part. You mention the quotes from the great patriot, economic, brilliant economic minds of the time, fireeaters, etc., and rightly so, but if you care to elaborate, I will be glad to post your viewpoint. Feel free to expound and thanks for stopping by. Kindest regards, Jeffery
It seems to me that a post titled "First Blood: The War Between the States" would be about Bleeding Kansas, nothing else. Civil war (the term is manifestly accurate as applied to the conflict in Kansas/Missouri 1854-1861) broke out as a consequence of the Popular Sovereignty provision of the Kansas - Nebraska Act, the the last of the several attempted compromises between slave interests and abolition interests before the big war came in 1861. To discount slavery as the primary cause of that war, or to omit the gentlemen listed in my comment above from discussion of causes of that war, seems like wishing history away. Much like removing statues.
What man is that Mike G? Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but from my viewpoint, slavery was not the primary cause of the war and surely not as the war drug on except for the propaganda purpose that Lincoln fabricated slavery as an issue long after the war began. I am not talking about the debates that raged as you mentioned in KS, MO, NE, etc. prior to the the invasion of the South. I believe the politics of pro-slavery/anti-slavery which resulted in the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 was a huge issue in those states/territories and not the fact that there were that many men and women being held in bondage in those state. Of course this was a hot topic that led to much bloodshed in those states prior to 1861. I know Kansas was an infant state at the time, but still they provided less than 20,000 Jayhawkers for the Union Army and a portion of these could have been from neighboring states. Missouri, with a larger population, was a bit of a different story(by the wars end app. 110,000 for the Union and 30,000 Confederate). When one considers the hundreds of thousands of Southerners from TX, LA, MS, AL, GA, TN, SC, NC, VA, AR, and other border states who were mostly poor sustenance farmers and who were not slave owners, one has to has to realize these men were not fighting for wealthy plantation owners (less than one half of one percent in the antebellum South live like Mr. O'Hara of Tara) and surely they did not fight four years to keep in slaves in bondage. So, slavery/slaves from the point of view as "property" and the federal governments infringement of mandating (at that time) unjust laws on certain portion of the country in regards to property (slaves were no freed in northern states in 1863) was an issue, but I still believe a lot less of an issue than "states rights" and the invasion of the South. Respectfully, Jeffery
"Lincoln fabricated slavery as an issue long after the war began." These gentlemen had the opposite view: Rhett, Barnwell, Yancey, Pettus, Calhoun, DeBow, Barksdale, Pryor, Keitt, Ruffin, Wigfall, Quitman, Hindman. Read any speech in support of the seccession ordinances, particularly Mississippi's. Or try to drag Lost Cause myths into today's struggle against the globalist statists. Because step 1 of draining the swamp in Washington will be persuading everyone that the wrong side won the civil war.
Slavery, as I stated, was an issue but I would say indirectly. Even from the speeches, one would have to immerse the diction relevant to that period. As I am sure you well know, slaves were viewed as property. So, infringement by the federal government on any property rights (including slavery) were of not only the property owners rights, but that of the state as well. I'm not clear on your reference to draining the Swamp, but I assume you are referring to Lincoln being a Republican and the South being very "pro-democrat". What many people do not understand is that both parties at that time were polar opposites of what they are today. Lincoln has been touted in "kiddie history" as the "great emancipator" which is so far from the truth. Lincolns view of the black people were very harsh and dark. Changing this spoon fed version of history would be a daunting task, but the evidence is there. Kindest regards, Jeffery
"Kiddie history"? A partial list of my Civil War books, which I've read, and I re-read: Lincoln: The Prairie Years / The War Years (Sandburg); Recollections and Letters of General Robert E. Lee (Lee); Destruction and Reconstruction (Taylor); Mosby's Memoirs (Mosby); The Lincoln - Debates: The First Complete, Unexpurgated Text (Holtzer); Quantrill and The Border Wars (Connelly).
I've studied these books. Your comment above, on Bleeding Kansas, indicates that you are completely unaware of how the institution of slavery was involved the settlement of Kansas and Missouri from 1854 on, and why civil war broke out there.
This is my last comment on this thread. Your last comment above was disappointing.
MikeG, I do not know how you mistook my last comment as a slight directed at "your books". Until your last post, books had not been mentioned. If you had of read my comment, you would have understood that what I was referring to as kiddie history was the diatribe most of us were spoon fed in grade school about Lincoln being the "great emancipator", "Honest Abe", etc. and slavery. I am well aware of the Missouri Compromise, The Kansas-Nebraska Act, the early struggles in the west, their significance, etc. However, you are obviously fixated on this segment of civil unrest in our nations history and that is fine by me. There is more to the story than Jayhawkers, Free Soiler's and John Brown. I have made every effort to be tactful and scholarly while you totally ignore and insult my viewpoints. I must say I am truly disappointed in your last comment. Kindest and most sincere regards,
Needs more foundation, Jeffery. Where are the quotes from Rhett, Barnwell, Yancey, Pettus, Calhoun, DeBow, Barksdale, Pryor, Keitt, Ruffin, Wigfall, Quitman, Hindman? You know, the Fireeaters - the liberty-loving school of classical antebellum southern economics.
ReplyDeleteAs with most things on the "interweb", this too could use more foundation. I like the video because it is short simple and to the point. The video is "kiddie history, but it is very relevant and it does illustrate the "federalist" seeding of state sponsored industry and unfair tariffs placed upon one section of the nation (the Southern States) to benefit a rival area of the country (northern states). Also, in a short but sweet light the video portrays Hamilton for what he was and that was a federalist. Was the Morrill Tariff the straw that broke the camel's back and set in motion the secession of the Southern States? Not necessarily, but it and other unjust tariffs did play a part. You mention the quotes from the great patriot, economic, brilliant economic minds of the time, fireeaters, etc., and rightly so, but if you care to elaborate, I will be glad to post your viewpoint. Feel free to expound and thanks for stopping by. Kindest regards, Jeffery
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that a post titled "First Blood: The War Between the States" would be about Bleeding Kansas, nothing else. Civil war (the term is manifestly accurate as applied to the conflict in Kansas/Missouri 1854-1861) broke out as a consequence of the Popular Sovereignty provision of the Kansas - Nebraska Act, the the last of the several attempted compromises between slave interests and abolition interests before the big war came in 1861. To discount slavery as the primary cause of that war, or to omit the gentlemen listed in my comment above from discussion of causes of that war, seems like wishing history away. Much like removing statues.
ReplyDeleteRespectfully,
Mike G.
What man is that Mike G?
ReplyDeleteOf course you are entitled to your opinion, but from my viewpoint, slavery was not the primary cause of the war and surely not as the war drug on except for the propaganda purpose that Lincoln fabricated slavery as an issue long after the war began. I am not talking about the debates that raged as you mentioned in KS, MO, NE, etc. prior to the the invasion of the South. I believe the politics of pro-slavery/anti-slavery which resulted in the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 was a huge issue in those states/territories and not the fact that there were that many men and women being held in bondage in those state. Of course this was a hot topic that led to much bloodshed in those states prior to 1861. I know Kansas was an infant state at the time, but still they provided less than 20,000 Jayhawkers for the Union Army and a portion of these could have been from neighboring states. Missouri, with a larger population, was a bit of a different story(by the wars end app. 110,000 for the Union and 30,000 Confederate). When one considers the hundreds of thousands of Southerners from TX, LA, MS, AL, GA, TN, SC, NC, VA, AR, and other border states who were mostly poor sustenance farmers and who were not slave owners, one has to has to realize these men were not fighting for wealthy plantation owners (less than one half of one percent in the antebellum South live like Mr. O'Hara of Tara) and surely they did not fight four years to keep in slaves in bondage. So, slavery/slaves from the point of view as "property" and the federal governments infringement of mandating (at that time) unjust laws on certain portion of the country in regards to property (slaves were no freed in northern states in 1863) was an issue, but I still believe a lot less of an issue than "states rights" and the invasion of the South.
Respectfully,
Jeffery
"Lincoln fabricated slavery as an issue long after the war began." These gentlemen had the opposite view: Rhett, Barnwell, Yancey, Pettus, Calhoun, DeBow, Barksdale, Pryor, Keitt, Ruffin, Wigfall, Quitman, Hindman. Read any speech in support of the seccession ordinances, particularly Mississippi's. Or try to drag Lost Cause myths into today's struggle against the globalist statists. Because step 1 of draining the swamp in Washington will be persuading everyone that the wrong side won the civil war.
ReplyDeleteBest of luck with that,
Mike G
Slavery, as I stated, was an issue but I would say indirectly. Even from the speeches, one would have to immerse the diction relevant to that period. As I am sure you well know, slaves were viewed as property. So, infringement by the federal government on any property rights (including slavery) were of not only the property owners rights, but that of the state as well. I'm not clear on your reference to draining the Swamp, but I assume you are referring to Lincoln being a Republican and the South being very "pro-democrat". What many people do not understand is that both parties at that time were polar opposites of what they are today. Lincoln has been touted in "kiddie history" as the "great emancipator" which is so far from the truth. Lincolns view of the black people were very harsh and dark. Changing this spoon fed version of history would be a daunting task, but the evidence is there. Kindest regards, Jeffery
ReplyDelete"Kiddie history"? A partial list of my Civil War books, which I've read, and I re-read:
ReplyDeleteLincoln: The Prairie Years / The War Years (Sandburg); Recollections and Letters of General Robert E. Lee (Lee); Destruction and Reconstruction (Taylor); Mosby's Memoirs (Mosby); The Lincoln - Debates: The First Complete, Unexpurgated Text (Holtzer); Quantrill and The Border Wars (Connelly).
I've studied these books. Your comment above, on Bleeding Kansas, indicates that you are completely unaware of how the institution of slavery was involved the settlement of Kansas and Missouri from 1854 on, and why civil war broke out there.
This is my last comment on this thread. Your last comment above was disappointing.
Sincerely,
Mike G.
MikeG, I do not know how you mistook my last comment as a slight directed at "your books". Until your last post, books had not been mentioned. If you had of read my comment, you would have understood that what I was referring to as kiddie history was the diatribe most of us were spoon fed in grade school about Lincoln being the "great emancipator", "Honest Abe", etc. and slavery. I am well aware of the Missouri Compromise, The Kansas-Nebraska Act, the early struggles in the west, their significance, etc. However, you are obviously fixated on this segment of civil unrest in our nations history and that is fine by me. There is more to the story than Jayhawkers, Free Soiler's and John Brown. I have made every effort to be tactful and scholarly while you totally ignore and insult my viewpoints.
DeleteI must say I am truly disappointed in your last comment.
Kindest and most sincere regards,
Jeffery