Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


The Rebel Battle Flag - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 03:35 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
81st Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Shadowrebel wrote: The right of self-government, property, freedom, slavery(even if we feel it is wrong), and secession. I know these issue belong in another thread but, you deserved an answer. If you or anyone else would like further discussion on these issue starting a new thread is in order. 

If these rights had been listed in Declarations of Secession, Declarations of Causes, or the Report of the Committee of 33, I would agree that they were legitimate. The rights you have listed made their appearance for the most part after the war.

By all means, start a new thread. I will join you there.

Ole



 Posted: Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 03:57 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
82nd Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Texas Defender wrote:    Ole, I agree that the SOUTHERNERS considered maintaining a balance in the Senate to be more important than the number of House seats they had. But I still believe that many in the north considered that the slave states had more House seats than they deserved to have because of the 3/5 Compromise. It was, after all, a compromise made to gain the support of the southern delegates at the Constitutional Convention. It worked to the advantage of the southern states.
Northerners in the House might well have been aware of the south's advantage; however, I don't recall any records wherein this was mentioned, let alone complained about. It was just a condition that all seem to have accepted as a constitutional requirement and it was left alone.   I would also maintain that slaveowners had a competitive advantage, not only in the east, but even in the territories. A large scale operation, or even a smaller one, whose owners don't have to pay their workers will usually outcompete one whose owners have to pay wages or provide the labor themselves.  The larger the size of the slaveholder's operation, the more of an advantage it was likely to have.I'll agree -- to a point. Cotton does not grow in Kansas. What large-scale operation would abandon the cash and status of cotton for wheat and corn? Another: Growing cotton is a year-round effort; grain and livestock are basically seasonal. Seasonal help can be hired by the week or month -- they needn't be purchased nor cared for year-round. The advantage existed for cotton, cane, rice and tobacco planters -- not in the plains.   It was clear to many in the south that they were losing the delicate balance of power that they had struggled so long to maintain. If their system could not expand, they feared, they would find themselves surrounded by adversaries and outvoted in the Congress. The considered that their interests would suffer in such an environment, and they chose to opt out. The final result of this, however, was not at all what most of them expected.On this, we have agreement. I will quibble and point out that the balance of power did not become delicate until 1850.  The south had enjoyed virtual control of the Federal government since inception. Ole:D



 Posted: Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 08:33 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
83rd Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 907
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

   Ole, it seems that we are narrowing our areas of difference. Perhaps we can do so further.

   The first area concerns northern resentment of the 3/5 Compromise giving slave states more representation in the House (and thus more power in presidential elections, especially if they promise to be close ones). You state that you've never heard of northern complaints over this additional representation. I have. It was during the timeframe of the Missouri Compromise. But until I am enterprising enough to track down a credible source, I cannot prove it to you.

   The second area concerns the viability of the slave system in the territories. I know very little about agriculture. But I can present proof that cotton did indeed grow in Kansas during the war. (and still does.) It seems that if a reliable southern supply had not been restored, more would be grown today in Kansas than is at present.

Cool Things, Cotton Gin, Kansas State Historical Society

   Surely, the slave system worked well enough in neighboring Missouri. According to the 1860 Census, there were still 114,931 slaves in Missouri then. Cotton is still grown there as well.

   Going beyond the point of crops, I would maintain that even if the slave system gave little advantage in the territories that would become states, the south would still want it to be legal there. Their friends and allies could then provide them with more senators, House members, and thus electoral votes, etc.

   In the third area, the balance of power, you state that it didn't become delicate until late in the game. I completely agree on this point. In the early days of the Republic, the south easily maintained its position of power in the federal government. As power began to slip away, many southerners developed a paranoia about being surrounded by enemies who would vote to destroy their interests. It is greatly unsettling to people who are used to being in control to feel such control slipping from their hands.



 Posted: Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 08:37 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
84th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 907
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

   For some reason, the previous message did not go through properly. Eventually, I hit refresh. As a result, it appeared twice.

Last edited on Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 08:41 pm by Texas Defender



 Posted: Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 11:36 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
85th Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1502
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Interesting discussion worthy of it's own thread....



 Posted: Tue Apr 3rd, 2007 01:52 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
86th Post
Fuller
E Pluribus Unum


Joined: Mon Oct 23rd, 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 248
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Furl that banner! for 'tis weary:

Round its staff 'tis drooping, dreary;


Furl it, fold it, it is best;

Furl it, hide it, let it rest.

Abram Joseph Ryan, April 1865, soon after Lee's surrender

Calcav, when you quoted this a certain painting came to mind...

"Furling of the Flags" by Richard Norris Brooke.

That flag was not being rolled up simply because they lost the war.  This painting does an excellent job of illustrating the complete exhaustion that must have been felt at the time.  These men watched their comrades die and still continued to fight for what they believed in for years.  That flag represented where they were coming from and where they were then going home to.  The flag was lowered and their losses were and still are remembered.  Unfortunately it is usually the uneduacted ones who give the flag the wrong representation which in turn makes those who do choose to unfurl it seem racist, evil and overall--uneducated and uncultivated.

Fuller




 Posted: Tue Apr 3rd, 2007 06:49 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
87th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Texas Defender wrote:    Ole, it seems that we are narrowing our areas of difference. Perhaps we can do so further.ole can certainly speak for himself, but I'd like to add a few things ;)The first area concerns northern resentment of the 3/5 Compromise giving slave states more representation in the House (and thus more power in presidential elections, especially if they promise to be close ones). You state that you've never heard of northern complaints over this additional representation. I have. It was during the timeframe of the Missouri Compromise. But until I am enterprising enough to track down a credible source, I cannot prove it to you.
The abolitionists certainly resented '*everything* about slavery. The more pragmatic anti-slavery leaders (Lincoln) knew that the Constitution firmly protected slavery. They were hoping to restrict it's spread and then to fight the battles such as Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave law...The second area concerns the viability of the slave system in the territories. I know very little about agriculture. But I can present proof that cotton did indeed grow in Kansas during the war. (and still does.) It seems that if a reliable southern supply had not been restored, more would be grown today in Kansas than is at present.Kansas' short growing season makes cotton cultivation problematic. Today's mechanization greatly shortens the picking season in the heavily irrigated fields. One wonders if McCormick had invented a cotton-picker, how long lavery would have been maintained...Cool Things, Cotton Gin, Kansas State Historical Society

   Surely, the slave system worked well enough in neighboring Missouri. According to the 1860 Census, there were still 114,931 slaves in Missouri then. Cotton is still grown there as well.
Slavery in Missouri followed the typical pattern. Market crops (cotton, hemp and tobacco) were grown near easy transportaion arteries (in this case the Missouri-Mississippi river system. Cotton growers in Kansas counties with a climatic opportunity to grow had no way to transport it.Going beyond the point of crops, I would maintain that even if the slave system gave little advantage in the territories that would become states, the south would still want it to be legal there. Their friends and allies could then provide them with more senators, House members, and thus electoral votes, etc.Quite true. Any defeat, such as in the Dred Scott case, would have limited their 'title' to slaves. Scott was still a chattel slave even though he lived for years in 'free' states.In the third area, the balance of power, you state that it didn't become delicate until late in the game. I completely agree on this point. In the early days of the Republic, the south easily maintained its position of power in the federal government. As power began to slip away, many southerners developed a paranoia about being surrounded by enemies who would vote to destroy their interests. It is greatly unsettling to people who are used to being in control to feel such control slipping from their hands.Absolutely. The fracturing of the Democratic party handed the Republicans the White House only 4 years after their founding and probably a good 8-12 years earlier than if the Democrats had remained united...
 

HankC

Last edited on Tue Apr 3rd, 2007 06:59 pm by HankC



 Posted: Tue Apr 3rd, 2007 07:39 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
88th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Well, dang, Texas Defender. Sought out this thread to post an answer before going out to mow (again) and slay some dandelions, queen anne's lace, and plaintain. It would appear that Hank C beat me to it by 10 minutes.

Reliability of a crop is a big factor in what is planted where. Nothing kinks a farmer worse than a bad year. Bad years are inevitable, even in the cotton belt. Bad years are expected in Kansas. Some years, cotton could grow in North Dakota, but the odds aren't good enough to invest in it. I'll repeat. Cotton would never be a factor in Kansas agriculture. (Hank C made a good point in that cotton also required river transportation.) There are quite a number of cotton fields in SE Missouri, but I'll guess that cotton didn't get much notice in the Legislature at the time. Having looked at a map of slavery distribution in Missouri, it was concentrated in what flatlands there were along the Missouri and Mississippi.

Going beyond the point of crops, I would maintain that even if the slave system gave little advantage in the territories that would become states, the south would still want it to be legal there. Their friends and allies could then provide them with more senators, House members, and thus electoral votes, etc.

Legal would be nice. But I'll stay with the idea that slaveholders in the territories would have been vastly outnumbered by the freesoilers -- there would be no govenors, senators or electors -- maybe a representative or two.

It is for these reasons I reject the idea that slaveholders seriously sought to extend slavery to maintain political power or parity. Exclusion of slavery from the territories did them no real damage.  The idea that they couldn't did more damage to relations than the reality that it would have made no difference. It was the idea that gave fodder to the proponents of secession.

Just to make a short story longer. Was there ever any real effort of major slaveholders to move into the territories? What was the slave population of Kansas in 1857? 1860?

There's another thing I'm missing..... Oh yes. The 3/5 rule.  A non-issue in my opinion. It was not in any party platforms, nor am I aware of any abolitionist rant about it. That it might have been mentioned once or twice in congressional arguments over the Missouri Compromise or the Kansas/Nebraska act does not elevate it to a factor. (No more than the squeekings about New England Secession.)

Good to be discussing this with you, Texas Defender. Keeps me learning.

Ole


 



 Posted: Tue Apr 3rd, 2007 09:27 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
89th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 907
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

   Ole, as part of the Missouri Compromise in 1820, southerners agreed to a provision that while accepting Missouri as a slave state, slavery would be prohibited in all other parts of the Lousiana Purchase north of 36 degrees 30' north latitude. They agreed to this because they believed that the Arkansas Territory (present states of Arkansas and Oklahoma}, would be suitable for a plantation economy.

   If they had accepted your idea that attempted expansion of slavery westward into the territories was a fruitless exercise, then they might as well have stood with South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis. Then they could have resolved the entire question thirty years earlier. However, if they had taken that course, they would have discovered that Andrew Jackson would have been an angrier opponent than Abraham Lincoln was.



You have chosen to ignore tex1861. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 12:06 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
91st Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1502
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

"Nutjobs think that CBF is a flag of hate ...."

Let's keep the dialogue on a higher level than this.



 Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 12:08 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
92nd Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1060
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

tex1861 wrote: Nutjobs think that CBF is a flag of hate  others  wave the flag to honor those who fought and died for the Confederatecy and others are in Confederate Army or milita also people are proud to be Confederate

I gotta ask... is there a modern Confederate army?

I have seen the KKK use the "CBF" as a flag of hatred... not an endearing image I assure you.



You have chosen to ignore tex1861. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 02:36 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
94th Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1502
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

yes there is a modern Confederate army the new army was started in Texas in 1995 and when think about it Confederate controls most if not all of the national guard and the federal military but the main army is in the south we have rebuild the army airforce navy we are supply by countrys from the east the army is mainly in Texas there is the Texas army and Confederate army we will the second civil war wont be as long as the first since we control most of the federal army 30 counties militia's equal 1 division depending on the amount of solider's in the milita  

I have no idea what most of this means, but I'll tell you flat out that I don't like the content or the tone. You want to talk about a "second Civil War", find another board to do it on. Consider it a final warning.



You have chosen to ignore JDC Duncan. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 11:55 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
96th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1060
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Javal, don't worry about it... I haven't laughed so hard in a while.  The US Army as the new CS?  Now that is choice and can only be based upon fantasy.  1.  I've known far too many GI's, in particular the elite.  2.  My own experiance in the US military.  3. Integrity runs rampant through the Army Air Force & Marines; and they know what the word treason means.  4.  Texans... too small of a plan; a real texan wouldn't settle for taking over less than the whole of the western hemisphere; they do EVERYTHING big!

Modern CS Army... white power militia at worst.  Wannabe boy scouts w/ AR15's at best.  Most wouldn't know the difference between a Mk19 & Block 40 w/out a google search and that wouldn't teach the twits how to deal w/ either.  Seize control of the US Army... I'm still laughing.

I especially don't worry too much when the writers grasp of the written english language is so... outstanding.



 Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 12:15 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
97th Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1502
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

JDC -

I often allow things on this board that either don't interest me, or which I disagree with. So my personal opinion about groups like this really isn't the determining factor. What I can't allow however is any talk of overthrowing, or otherwise "taking control of" the U.S. Government. What I would suggest is that anyone who has a deep interest in this should attempt to find a place more sympathetic to those types of views. Hope that doesn't sound too harsh, but I've been up all night dodging tornado warnings and am probably not at my diplomatic best....:shock:



 Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 02:43 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
98th Post
David White
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 909
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

What I can't allow however is any talk of overthrowing, or otherwise "taking control of" the U.S. Government.

So Nancy Pelosi would not be allowed to post here :(;)



 Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 03:00 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
99th Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1502
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Back to your corner DW....;):)



You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post


 Current time is 12:55 amPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next Page Last Page  
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.2239 seconds (13% database + 87% PHP). 36 queries executed.