Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Farmers in the Old Northwest weren't subsistence farmers, they were shipping grain to markets and doing quite well, in 1857 18 million bushels of grain were shipped east from Chicago and because of European crop failures and the repeal of the Corn Acts much of that grain was going overseas. A farmer on the Illinois Grand Prairie would generally go in the black the second year after breaking the prairie.
Ya wanna compare the dollar amounts between the grain trade and the cotton trade? Or even tobacco? I understand that the South wasn't the only agricultural area of the country, but it was financially by FAR the most important agricultural region...
Ya wanna compare the dollar amounts between the grain trade and the cotton trade? Or even tobacco? I understand that the South wasn't the only agricultural area of the country, but it was financially by FAR the most important agricultural region...
I'd be interested in the amounts Rhett, show the figures.
In any event I don't think a farmer in Indiana was any less dependent on his crop, regardless of what it was or where it went, than a farmer or planter in Alabama was.
I'd be interested in the amounts Rhett, show the figures.
In any event I don't think a farmer in Indiana was any less dependent on his crop, regardless of what it was or where it went, than a farmer or planter in Alabama was.
I'll look, but I want to ask you seriously.... You think income from grain exports hold a candle to income from cotton? Cotton was HALF of the total exports of the U.S. between 1820 and 1860.... It isn't even close Irish...
I'll look, but I want to ask you seriously.... You think income from grain exports hold a candle to income from cotton? Cotton was HALF of the total exports of the U.S. between 1820 and 1860.... It isn't even close Irish...
I didn't claim that grain was exported more than cotton but that it was exported and was an important cash crop. Obviously no? People gotta eat.
I really don't understand our difference here. I doubt you deny that agriculture was as important a source of income to many northern states as it was to southern ones. My point in the first place being that a state's being agricultural was no reason for it to be in favor of secession.
I didn't claim that grain was exported more than cotton but that it was exported and was an important cash crop. Obviously no? People gotta eat.
I really don't understand our difference here. I doubt you deny that agriculture was as important a source of income to many northern states as it was to southern ones. My point in the first place being that a state's being agricultural was no reason for it to be in favor of secession.
My point is that New Englanders reaped a TON more from the cotton trade than they ever did from trading grain..... This is why I reminded you that cotton was a "cash crop". Not to mention, by FAR America's most lucrative one of the time.....
Actually by 1860 standards they weren't. If the war was presented to the North as a war against slavery, there wouldn't have BEEN a war. That isn't to say that slavery wasn't the cause of the war, but it addresses your misguided sense that somehow the majority of people in the North gave a rats' arse about it.....
Your thinking that anybody here has EVER advocated slavery is what incites me to name-calling. I apologize for that, though not for the sentiment behind it.
Again, you're missing the point - for maybe the 100th time. The point is not that the people in the North gave a rats arse about slavery. It has never been the point.
The point is that the people in the South did - so much so that they were willing to secede and to plunge the country into the biggest crisis in its history.
It was a war on the part of the North to preserve the union. It was a war on the part of the South to preserve slavery.
The difference between you and me is that I think the war was justified on the part of the North, and you apparently don't. You think it was justified on the part of the South and I think it may have been the worst reason any people went to war in a long, long time.
(Mod Cut)
Last edited by Thyra; 01-13-2010 at 08:16 AM..
Reason: Off Topic
The difference between you and me is that I think the war was justified on the part of the North, and you apparently don't. You think it was justified on the part of the South and I think it may have been the worst reason any people went to war in a long, long time.
Let's relate this to something more contemporary...
Did I like Sadam Hussein? No
Did the United States do a good thing in ousting him? Yes
Did we have the right to do that? No
Was ousting Sadam even our stated goal? No
Essentially we attacked a sovereign nation under false pretenses. Did the end justify the means?
Well, that's really the question now isn't it?
The US Civil War comes down to the question of the legality of secession. YOU keep wishing to inject the politics of WHY the South ultimately seceded as your reason for why it shouldn't have been allowed. You REFUSE to argue the legality of secession (and I have my own theories as to why that is) and instead just like to pull the old "God was on our side" type of argument, ie. Slavery was wrong, so the ends justify the means.
I don't look at it that way. But true to form, anyone who doesn't agree with your way of thinking is somehow "in support" of slavery. Your intellectual dishonesty and wish to slap a label on anyone who'd dare argue that the South was legally in the right is the reason for my contempt...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny
As far as your personal insults, I expect nothing less.
As well you shouldn't. Just callin' it like I see it and I'm glad you saw it before it was edited.
Last edited by Rhett_Butler; 01-11-2010 at 06:50 AM..
It is, however, a more morally defensible reason for going to war that the truth, which is 'well, we seceded and fought a bloodly civil war because we were afraid there were forces in motion which would lead to the end of slavery'.
Even now, the defenders of that vile institution and its perpetrators still cling to that fantasy.
The bottom line is that State[s] have a right to secede! Lincoln had no right to cause the deaths of over 600,000 people. If the South would have laid down it's arms Slavery would have been protected by the US Constitution.Period. Have you never looked at the 13th Amendment offered by the North before the blood shed?
If Y'ALL wish to talk about Hatred towards people of color,Jews and Native Americans then a open minded look is needed
The South correctly viewed the Constitution as a 'compact' - Lincoln was a early Empire builder or Hitler
Let's relate this to something more contemporary...
Did I like Sadam Hussein? No
Did the United States do a good thing in ousting him? Yes
Did we have the right to do that? No
Was ousting Sadam even our stated goal? No
Essentially we attacked a sovereign nation under false pretenses. Did the end justify the means?
Well, that's really the question now isn't it?
Comes down to the question of the legality of secession. YOU keep wishing to inject the politics of WHY the South ultimately seceded as your reason for why it shouldn't have been allowed. You REFUSE to argue the legality of secession (and I have my own theories as to why that is) and instead just like to pull the old "God was on our side" type of argument, ie. Slavery was wrong, so the ends justify the means.
I don't look at it that way. But true to form, anyone who doesn't agree with your way of thinking is somehow "in support" of slavery. Your intellectual dishonesty and wish to slap a label on anyone who'd dare argue that the South was legally in the right is the reason for my contempt...
As well you shouldn't. Just callin' it like I see it.
As Madison said in The third Virginia resolution of 1798:
“That this assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare that it views the powers of the Federal government as resulting from the compact to which the States are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact; as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in the compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the States, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their. respective limits the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”
The right to prevent secession is not “delegated” to the United States.On May 31, 1787, Mr. Madison said,
“A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
Whatever one thinks caused the Civil War, one question has been resolved. States do not have the secede from the United States of America. The word "secession" is a nullity. It has no legal meaning and does not exist. Its technically a misnomer to call the Civil War a "war". "Wars" are fought between nations. From a standpoint of international law (since no other nations ever recognized the Confederate States as an independent nation) it was a rebellion or an uprising and not a war.
I opposed the invasion of Iraq. However, that invasion has nothing to do with the Civil War. The sovereign government of a state has the right to use troops and force to put down a rebellion. James Madison's opinion in the Federalist Papers is exactly that--an opinion.
The idea of secession is a really bad idea. In essence, a state would have the power to reject the application of any federal law within its borders by threatening to secede from the union. I can just imagine some of the things that might happen if this were allowed. Some states would reject application of the Civil Rights laws. Some would reject Supreme Court decisions with respect to abortion. Others might reject regulation of air and water quality by the Environmental Protection Agency. We wouldn't have a federal system at all. We'd simply have a bunch of states calling themselves the USA.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The bottom line is that State[s] have a right to secede! Lincoln had no right to cause the deaths of over 600,000 people. If the South would have laid down it's arms Slavery would have been protected by the US Constitution.Period. Have you never looked at the 13th Amendment offered by the North before the blood shed?
