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.
Has anyone looked into the banks' involvement in this? They held the mortgages on many slaves and so had as much or more riding on this issue than the slave "owners". This is a little known or discussed aspect of the slave economy that deserves greater scrutiny.
Has anyone looked into the banks' involvement in this? They held the mortgages on many slaves and so had as much or more riding on this issue than the slave "owners". This is a little known or discussed aspect of the slave economy that deserves greater scrutiny.
The difference between all those other countries and Southerners is that Germans don't spend a lifetime rationalizing Adolph Hitler and defending him. The Spanish don't have web sites glorifying the Inquistion. Most of us don't celebrate the destruction of the Native American culture and devote hours to fantasizing about how great it was.
And the South doesn't celebrate slavery. Thank you for making our point.....
Well, that was the reason the Civil War was fought.
But I'm assuming that you believe that while no one "...thinks that the South should have been allowed to spread the practice in order to maintain political power..." it was perfectly OK to Secede and plunge the country into a Civil War to maintain the practice.
The logic of that thinking totally escapes me - and most other rational, non-Southern human beings.
What was the logic of the thinking of the Union to PLUNGE THE COUNTRY INTO A CIVIL WAR to keep the South in the Union?
Again, you ignore the fact that the Union didn't have to fight this war and you also acknowledge that their participation in it had next to nothing to do with slavery.....
YET, the claim is that "The war was fought over slavery.".... Curious...
Okay, thank you for admitting that the Confederates fought for slaves. Slavery was the MAIN reason why they fought, Digusting but true.
Yes, but it was most prevalent in the South. Racism has and still is more prevalent in the south. I've never said that there wasn't any racism in the North. Such things are fiction.
It's amazing that after 250+ posts we come full circle and you STILL don't grasp what anyone is saying.....
Slavery was a major cause and the primary reason that MOST of the South seceded. The WAR was fought because the Union was challenging the legality of secession, NOT whether slavery was legal or not....
IF a person believes that, in 1860, secession was a lawful act, then the reasons for it are irrelevent... The Union must bear it's share of the blame for it coming to war.....
The two sides tried to work it out for 70 or so years and compromise. When compromise no longer seemed an option? The South decided it wasn't working and left the Union....
That's MY view....
Now..... Throw in the economics, the virtual disenfranchisement that DC has brought up (and been ignored on) multiple times, and the fact that most Confederate Soldiers weren't fighting for anything other than their land, and pride, and you can see why myself and many others don't accept, "The Civil War was fought over slavery PERIOD" as the final word on this topic....
I don't think I can make my views on this any more clear than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyEndings
Please if you come to New Jersey with all the Confederate crap you'll get beaten to a pulp. And I will laugh when it happens too.
Ahhhhh, the big difference is that southerners don't go up North and try to rub their culture in anyone's faces..... However that is EXACTLY what a lot of northerners do when they move to the South....
Oh, and you can keep New Jersey (especially Newark). Can't imagine a reason anyone would wish to visit....
Appreciate the link but doesn't really cover what I'm talking about. It just mentions that New York financiers bankrolled cotton production and slave ships bound for foreign destinations. It doesn't explicitly mention that the banks actually held the mortgage on individual slaves and hired bounty hunters to capture them under the fugitive slave act if they ran away, even paying them to cross into foreign territory (Texas) to do so.
Appreciate the link but doesn't really cover what I'm talking about. It just mentions that New York financiers bankrolled cotton production and slave ships bound for foreign destinations. It doesn't explicitly mention that the banks actually held the mortgage on individual slaves and hired bounty hunters to capture them under the fugitive slave act if they ran away, even paying them to cross into foreign territory (Texas) to do so.
It's actually a very interesting aspect of all of this, and it ties in very well with what many of us have been saying about northern economic interests and reasons why some in the North had a vested interest in slavery, though I personally never meant to imply they had an interest to THIS level. My only point is that they had a heavy interest in the cotton trade and secession would obviously cut them out of the trade as middle-men to Europe....... What you cite is an even deeper involvement.
Well, that was the reason the Civil War was fought.
But I'm assuming that you believe that while no one "...thinks that the South should have been allowed to spread the practice in order to maintain political power..." it was perfectly OK to Secede .
It's actually a very interesting aspect of all of this, and it ties in very well with what many of us have been saying about northern economic interests and reasons why some in the North had a vested interest in slavery, though I personally never meant to imply they had an interest to THIS level. My only point is that they had a heavy interest in the cotton trade and secession would obviously cut them out of the trade as middle-men to Europe....... What you cite is an even deeper involvement.
The one I'm aware of was a local bank in St. Louis, Missouri. I'm not sure if New York or other Northnern bankers were involved but it would be interesting to find out.
Reading the NPA Slave narratives came across something interesting..about a Yankee overseer on a plantation in Mississippi.
The former slave recollects:
"When dar war broke out dat old Yankee Dutch overseer o' our'n went back up North, where he b'longed. Us was powerful glad an hoped he git his neck broked."
He continues: Personally, I believe what Marse Jefferson Davis done. He done de only thing a gentleman could'a done. He told Abe Lincoln to tend to his own business and he would tend to his."
He said the cause of the war Lincoln wanted to come to the South and run the plantations the way he wanted too.
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.
