S.H.A.P.E.
 
Main Menu
 Home
 About SHAPE/ Joining
 icon19.pngForum
 Downloads
 Members
 Image Gallery
 Other Websites
 Forum
Welcome
Username or Email:

Password:




[ ]
[ ]
Navigation
Forums
Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education :: Forums :: General :: Did You Know
 
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
1 2 3 4  last
Moderator(s): gpthelastrebel, Patrick
Author Post
Lady Val
Sun Jan 11 2009, 02:39AM Print
Lady Val
Level 8 Registered Member #75 Joined: Sat Nov 01 2008, 03:22PM
Posts: 475
Why did the North want war? Below the reasoned thought of the time gives the answer:

The predicament in which both the Government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly understood the world over...If the manufacturer at Manchester [England] can send his goods into the Western States through New Orleans at less cost than through New York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage... If the importations of the country are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel. The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons, to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets. With the lost of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many hundred millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior? They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers...

Once at New Orleans, goods may be distributed over the whole country duty-free. The process is perfectly simple... The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North... We now see clearly whither we are tending, and the policy we must adopt. With us it is no longer an abstract question--one of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated powers of the State or Federal government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad... We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched.

--New York Times March 30, 1861

The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing... It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No--we MUST NOT "let the South go."

--Union Democrat , Manchester, NH, February 19, 1861

From a story entitled: "What shall be done for a revenue?"

That either revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad... If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe... Allow rail road iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten per cent, which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York; the railroads would be supplied from the southern ports.

--New York Evening Post March 12, 1861, recorded in Northern Editorials on Secession, Howard C. Perkins, ed., 1965, pp. 598-599.


Edited Thu Dec 11 2014, 04:29PM
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Sun Jan 11 2009, 04:54PM
gpthelastrebel
Main Admin Registered Member #1 Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 02:46PM
Posts: 3698
Thank you Val. This is the type of information SHAPE is trying to locate and post. It is especially needed since place like Gettysburg Battlefield promote the "it was about slavery" idea.

Good job.

GP
Back to top
Lady Val
Sun Jan 11 2009, 05:26PM
Lady Val
Level 8 Registered Member #75 Joined: Sat Nov 01 2008, 03:22PM
Posts: 475
Very shortly, I'm going to sit my large posterior down and write my considered thoughts about Gettysburg - past and present - and make a call for a full boycott by anyone who has any respect at all for Southern heritage and the noble Southern dead. As time goes on, I find myself becoming more and more adamant on this matter.
Back to top
gator
Sun Jan 11 2009, 10:11PM
gator
Registered Member #54 Joined: Sun Apr 27 2008, 03:32PM
Posts: 122
i've been that way for a long time. glad i found shape to help with expressing it in a proffesional way. look forward to reading more from you val.
Back to top
red house
Thu Feb 19 2009, 04:16AM
red house
Registered Member #89 Joined: Thu Feb 19 2009, 04:07AM
Posts: 40
Q: Why did the South secede?

A: So they could expand and preserve the institution of slavery.



Q: Who started the War?

A: The South, when they fired on their besieged compatriots in Fort Sumter.




^^ Please, correct me if I am mistaken (?)


Edited Thu Feb 19 2009, 04:17AM
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Thu Feb 19 2009, 06:46AM
gpthelastrebel
Main Admin Registered Member #1 Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 02:46PM
Posts: 3698
Well that won't be hard, but let's move the discussion to the general discussion forum as this is not the proper forum for such a discussion. What say ye???

GP
Back to top
8milereb
Thu Feb 19 2009, 09:12PM
8milereb
Admin Registered Member #2 Joined: Thu Jul 19 2007, 03:39PM
Posts: 1029
Standing by to educate...that's what we are here for!
Back to top
red house
Fri Feb 20 2009, 12:32PM
red house
Registered Member #89 Joined: Thu Feb 19 2009, 04:07AM
Posts: 40
okay 8 milereb, I am ready to be educated.


Can you tell me why all of the compromise proposals (Crittenden's, Letcher's, Washington Peace Conference etc.) were concerned exclusively with the issue of slavery and made no demands or mention about taxes or tariffs or trade?


*the documents can all be found here --> http://civilwarcauses.org/comptop.htm Edited Fri Feb 20 2009, 12:34PM
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Fri Feb 20 2009, 05:44PM
gpthelastrebel
Main Admin Registered Member #1 Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 02:46PM
Posts: 3698
Red House,

Welcome to our website. Please feel free to disagree, all I ask is that you keep your discussions civil and refrain from insults.

If the South left the Union just how was this supposed to expand slavery? As to the preservation of slavery, you could say that was a reason, but the south had at many times tried to free the slaves and the Northern slave traders wouldn't hear of it. Also slavery would only be one of several reasons. Have you ever read the Secession Resolutions? You are aware that only four states had secession documents before Fort Sumter? This is only 1/3 of the Confederacy. Compare the US Constitution to the CSA Constitution and you will see the South went farther in banning slavery than the US.

"their besieged compatriots"
The troops in Fort Sumter were neither the compatriots of the men of the South nor were they besieged, they had been drawing supplies from Charleston. Did the South really start the war?? I believe the US broke a verbal treaty not to move into Fort Sumter. This was a clear violation of an existing treaty and an aggressive move by Major Anderson. Lincoln's supply convoy contained more men and arms to reinforce Sumter, another aggressive act. Are you old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis? Same thing and enemy force within shooting distance of the citizens of another country. What would you do????

GP
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Fri Feb 20 2009, 05:44PM
gpthelastrebel
Main Admin Registered Member #1 Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 02:46PM
Posts: 3698
Lordy, you have asked a question that requires a library as a response, not just a single post. I would suggest that you need to read books by folks not wedded to the Yankee version of history which is simplistic to the extreme. The Fort Sumter business alone is very involved and though I do have a fairly shortened version of what happened, it's too long to be posted here. E-mail me at -email- and I'll send it to you.

As for why the war happened, there are so many books, but the two books by Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo on Lincoln (The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked) will suffice to give you a general foundation of the many different problems that brought the South to secession. DiLorenzo is an economist and therefore unlike many "historians" looks at the matter from that viewpoint. Remember the old adage "follow the money"; it obtains in this matter as well. All wars are founded in economics; the War of Secession is no different.

There are tons of other books that finally provide the facts of the matter including the constitutional legitimacy of secession, the falsity of the claim that the war was fought "to preserve the Union" (a "union" is by its very nature voluntary - "union" at the point of a gun is conquest) or that slavery alone or even primarily was the reason for the war. Yes, slavery was A reason, but only one and not necessarily in the way most folks think.

Hope that this helps.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to top
1 2 3 4  last

Go to:

Powered by e107 Forum System
Proudly powered by e107 which is released under the terms of the GNU GPL License.