|View single post by Texas Defender|
|Posted: Thu Jan 27th, 2011 02:47 pm||
I am considered by some on this board to be a southern partisan, but I find myself to be annoyed by your repeated emotional postings that are inflammatory (such as calling people: "hipocritical(SIC) bigots" on this thread) and offer no documentation to support your statements. I have refrained from answering any of them but your posting here at 6:38 AM on Jan. 27, 2011 cannot go unchallenged.
Worst of all is your statement: "No southerner ever brought a single slave across the Atlantic." That is an absurdity. While places like New York and Boston were major ports importing what eventually became millions of slaves, so was Charleston. From about 1670 right up to the beginning of the Civil War, slave ships kept arriving in America.
While most slave ship owners tended to be northerners for most of that time, not all were. As you say, many were rich merchants from places like CT or MA (And Great Britain), but there were also southerners. If you need an example, I would present Colonel Charles Augustus Lafayette Lamar, the godson of the Marquis de Lafayette.
Lamar was the owner of the slave ship WANDERER. Shortly before the war began, his ship was seized for illegally transporting slaves to America. In the end, he only paid a small fine, and then he bought the ship back when the federal authorities auctioned it off.
Lamar Bios 2
There are many thousands of references on the history of the slave trade in America. Here is one:
Chronology on the History of Slavery 1619 to 1789
The fact that transporting slaves to America became illegal in 1808 did not stop the practice. After the Monroe Doctrine was proclaimed in 1823, it was mainly the British Navy that enforced it. The small US Navy (African Squadron, Home Squadron, etc.) spent a good deal of its time intercepting slave ships trying to reach southern ports.
To address your other statements, I'll start at the beginning. It was not Reconstruction that caused the south to be: "Behind in development." That was the case all along. By 1860, the north had become an industrialized society with an expanding work force fed by great waves of immigration. At that time, the north had over 90% of the factory workers in America, and over 70% of the railroad lines in miles of track.
The south was an agrarian society that depended on exporting its raw materials (mainly cotton) to exchange for manufactured goods. It was for this reason that the two sections became more and more different as time passed, and this eventually led to conflict.
As for the end of prisoner exchange, this was a decision by General Grant because he thought that the war would last much longer if he had to fight the same southerners over and over again. Grant was right to want to use his huge advantage in manpower to force a war of attrition that the south could not win. If I had been in his place, I would have done the same thing.
Prisoners suffered in places like Andersonville because the south eventually lacked the resources to adequately feed and house them. Prisoners in the north at places like Elmira also suffered. I've said on this board previously that the Union officers were more to blame for the suffering because they had adequate resources available to reduce it. But that is another story.
As far as abolitionists go, they came into prominence in the north from the 1830s on. By then the northern section of the country was already becoming vastly different from the south. Their influence grew as time passed. The institution of slavery became less and less popular in the north because they had their own source of cheap labor (immigrants), and because the large plantation system in places like SC was not feasible in the north.
The most accurate thing you say in your posting is that the war was: "Always about power, control, and money." "Money made the world go around" in 1861, just as it still does 150 years later.