Posted on 08/27/2007 1:37:39 PM PDT by BnBlFlag
Feel the Force Luke ;o)
Most of it. They knew that Lincoln was sending ships. They knew that Lincoln told Pickens that the intent was to land food and supplies only, and no men or munitions would be landed unless opposed. They knew the ships were loading in New York. They knew that Davis had ordered that the resupply be halted regardless of the consequences. That's all detailed in "Allegiance" by David Detzer. A book that I have read.
What attacks?
Sir or Mam. I do not believe such existed in the United States for quite some time afterward even up into the 1960's. The north was as prejudiced as the south in some cases maybe more so. Despite all the horror stories you hear about the south, black and whites got along as good if not better than they did in the north. There were exceptions. But I remember the north had it's riots also. BTW that was before the ones in the 1960's began. Like the turn of the century perhaps or a decade or two afterward?
A nice fantasy, but most of the secessionist leaders didn't want to develop industries. They say their new country as a vast agrarian Confederacy. Remember Wigfall?
A few didn't want industrialization and most wanted a stronger south. What they did not want was a forced take over which still came anyway. If they had not have wanted an industrialized the south would not have been as far along as it was.
You might try actually reading the article that started this thread. Benson's claim is that the Southern states "chose to withdraw from a Union for which they were paying 83% of all the expenses, while getting precious little back for it, save insults from the North." In other words, generating 83% of all revenue. When Vigilanteman questions such an outrageous claim you referenced the "Statistical History of the United States". So are you now saying that there is no breakdown of imports by region in there? That the South did not generate 83% of the tariff revenue? That you were, in fact, engaging in non-sequitur all along?
There didn't need to be one as it would have been an economical fact. I live in a rural area. Mule teams plowed the fields for centuries where I live. I do not own a mule. I use a tractor. A mule is a liability. I would have to feed it. Give it shelter. Tend to it's health as the loss of it would be a severe hardship. The tractor I can park until needed and it's needs are few. Apply that concept to slavery. As sure as it was dying in the north and a liability to most all persons yes it was dying as well in the south. It would not have lasted past 1890-1900.
Continue please. Chase went on to say, "...The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States."
So far as I can make out the measure was tabled or indefinitely postponed. So the convention never made up its mind about the matter.
It's strange, though, that after something like ten years arguing this, you bring this up now. If it were all that essential, wouldn't we all have discussed it by now?
Looking back over 140 years and claiming economic fact is meaningless. Looking at the mindset of the men of the period, and their reasons for their rebellion, is not. There was not a single Southern leader I'm aware of who was not convinced in 1860 that their great grandchildren would be enjoying the benefits of slavery. That is why they chose to rebel to defend what they saw as threats to their institution. And which is why claims that slavery would have ended in 20 or 40 or 60 years is pure speculation without any basis in fact.
Also, there would have been no chance of the former slave being free in the United States. If the South had no more use for slave, they would have either been sent to Africa or would have been sold to slave owners in other countries.
when you became known to everyone as "The DAMNyankee Minister of PROPAGANDA", everything you post is taken with "a ton of salt", rather than a "pinch".
free dixie,sw
Those FACTS were established before the war in the north. But you forget slavery did not end after the Civil War now did it? No it did not. It still existed north and south. It simply wasn't called that anymore. The only thing that actually ended slavery in the U.S. was advances in Technology!!!
he just plain LIES. (by either omission or commission.) in this case, he fails to say that southern agriculture was "set back" by at least 1/2 a century by the WBTS. (that is called a LIE by OMMISSION. he knows better, but chooses NOT to "do better".)
to all, be warned: NOTHING posted by "bubba" should be taken as fact, absent INDEPENDENT proof.
to all: further, slavery was DYING by 1860 in the USA. absent the war, it MIGHT have survived as much as 20 more years (my guess is 5-10 years, given how quickly agriculture was improving/mechanizing.).
as a LARGE percentage of the DEAD Americans, who lost their lives during/immediately after the WBTS, were BLACK (both slave & free), a MILLION DEAD seems a REALLY high BLOOD-price to pay to end slavery earlier than it would have ended,otherwise.
free dixie,sw
In the late 1850s, she was making weekly runs. Her profile and schedule were well known to the Union navy, and particularly to the Revenue cutters.
As she attempted to enter the harbor, the Harriet Lane fired across her bow. She stopped.
he just plain LIES. (by either omission or commission.) in this case, he fails to say that southern agriculture was "set back" by at least 1/2 a century by the WBTS. (that is called a LIE by OMMISSION. he knows better, but chooses NOT to "do better".)
to all, be warned: NOTHING posted by "bubba" should be taken as fact, absent INDEPENDENT proof.
to all: further, slavery was DYING by 1860 in the USA. absent the war, it MIGHT have survived as much as 20 more years (my guess is 5-10 years, given how quickly agriculture was improving/mechanizing.).
as a LARGE percentage of the DEAD Americans, who lost their lives during/immediately after the WBTS, were BLACK (both slave & free), a MILLION DEAD seems a REALLY high BLOOD-price to pay to end slavery earlier than it would have ended,otherwise.
free dixie,sw
So, you would agree it was a fact that the residents of Charleston were correct in their knowledge that a Union fleet was arriving, and that they had stated their intent to enter the harbor, by force if necessary.
NO PLACE i know of in the southland needs that more than once a year, IF THEN.
free dixie,sw
WHEN are you resigning from the forum???
btw, tell everyone WHO you were before you got BANNED FOREVER from FR.(be sure to provide PROOF.)
free dixie,sw
“. . . an incident occurred, which I have never seen recorded, but which seems to me worthy of note. A vessel suddenly appeared through the mist from behind the Bar, a passenger steamer, which was made out to be the Nashville. She had no colors set, and as she approached the fleet she refused to show them. Captain Faunce ordered one of the guns manned, and as she came still nearer turned to the gunner. ‘Stop her!’ he said, and a shot went skipping across her bows. Immediately the United States ensign went to her gaff end, and she was allowed to proceed. The Harriet Lane had fired the first shotted gun from the Union side.”—GS Osbon
I read the article. You were given the location for the statistics. You understand where the 83% originated.
You asked for the breakdown of imports by region. I will be glad to give you that information. But since the southern states imported both European goods as well as northern domestic manufactures, what will it tell you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.