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.
They lived better just by the fact that they could eat. In Ireland, let me remind you, people ate grass during the Potato Blight. Dicken's description of the exploitation of workers were in fact benign, very benign.
Who lives longer, a very expensive dog or a stray dog? European underclass were stray dogs.
Why the PC crowd never mentions that during most of the American History most slaves were white? Not talking about indentured, but stray kids from English cities kidnapped and sold in America, etc, etc.
You are comparing Ireland to America.
That is not even a fair analogy.
Compare Irish Americans to African Americans.
I find it really odd that some dislike a man who they never even met!
This is true, but not of all. All the slave owners weren't slack jawed yokels, some were quiet educated and conducted there business as such.
As what I said on my last post, how is this equation ran? Yes, money buys propaganda, but not votes. Slave owners did receive partial votes for their slaves, but those pailed in comparison to those of low income whites.
It was thought that the Civil War caused the Lancashire Cotton Famine, a period between 1861–1865 of depression in the British cotton industry, by blocking off American raw cotton. Some, however, suggest that the Cotton Famine was mostly due to overproduction and price inflation caused by an expectation of future shortage.
Brady, Eugene A. (1963). "A Reconsideration of the Lancashire "Cotton Famine"". Agricultural History. 37 (3): 156–157.
Prior to the Civil War, Lancashire companies issued surveys to find new cotton-growing countries if the Civil War were to occur and reduce American exports. India was deemed to be the country capable of growing the necessary amounts. Indeed, it helped fill the gap during the war, making up only 31% of British cotton imports in 1861, but 90% in 1862 and 67% in 1864
Logan, Frenise A. (1958). "India—Britain's Substitute for American Cotton, 1861–1865". The Journal of Southern History. 24 (4): 472–476. doi:10.2307/2954674.
The fluctuations in the cotton market would have taken its toll. Not to mention the development of British territories.
Educated and refined slaveowners still used the whipping machine--they might have hired someone else to hold it, but it still drove their profits.
Your two quotes are about what was really a crisis in Britain: the Civil War devastated the raw cotton exports that British industry depended on. So yes, when the American cotton exports collapsed, British firms had to seek out alternative sources--and India was the main alternative. Without the Civil War & the end of slavery, Britain would not have been looking to India for cotton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nothere1
The reviews all look liberal, and I would have to agree seeing were he is from. I wouldn't learning more but he has done a series of these books and the reviews all look to be on the liberal side. The association of all American wealth with slavery is kinda a warning light. This argument has been used very heavily by liberals in the past to get reparations from those who aren't the descendants of slave holders. However, I should take my own advise and leave the politics in the political section.
...From some passages, I can tell that he attacks things without knowing of them first. One instance would be husbandry.
I'm well aware of this, it also happen quite a bit in the north in the later years of slavery. Some more tender thrown on the north.
Cotton may have been King in the south, but that money didn't see much of Illinois. We have the steel, coal, and cattle industry to thank for that. Three of many industries that made America and many Americans didn't see but almost any of that money. Just ask regressive southerners if that 19 century cotton industry is still helping them. Commercial cotton dose have to be planted every year, and the fields fertilized.
The author is a historian at Cornell. He is respected and knowledgeable. He has written a book accessible to a lay audience that sits within the realm of research conducted by numerous well-regarded historians. It's not a liberal book--it is a history. Reading it will help you understand how cotton was intertwined with the broader American (and global) economy. When 1/3 of all American wealth was its slaves, it's pretty fair to associate American wealth with slavery.
Ask New York financiers and insurers how the 19th century booms built their industry. Ask textile mills across the north and upper midwest. Ask the ports, the commodities brokers, the shipmakers, and the sailors.
Why the PC crowd never mentions that during most of the American History most slaves were white? Not talking about indentured, but stray kids from English cities kidnapped and sold in America, etc, etc.
Because it isn't true, it's one of those alternate facts.
Educated and refined slaveowners still used the whipping machine--they might have hired someone else to hold it, but it still drove their profits.
Your two quotes are about what was really a crisis in Britain: the Civil War devastated the raw cotton exports that British industry depended on. So yes, when the American cotton exports collapsed, British firms had to seek out alternative sources--and India was the main alternative. Without the Civil War & the end of slavery, Britain would not have been looking to India for cotton.
The author is a historian at Cornell. He is respected and knowledgeable. He has written a book accessible to a lay audience that sits within the realm of research conducted by numerous well-regarded historians. It's not a liberal book--it is a history. Reading it will help you understand how cotton was intertwined with the broader American (and global) economy. When 1/3 of all American wealth was its slaves, it's pretty fair to associate American wealth with slavery.
Ask New York financiers and insurers how the 19th century booms built their industry. Ask textile mills across the north and upper midwest. Ask the ports, the commodities brokers, the shipmakers, and the sailors.
Repped the above post. To Nothere, what was shared above is common knowledge, especially the bold. On the blue, I would like to know where you are getting your information from Nothere.
IMO it seems that you have been reading too much "propaganda" and revisionist history written by confederate sympathizers. There are people who write books and blogs from that perspective.
On your idea that what I shared about southerners keeping up with the news of the day - that doesn't mean that they read propaganda, it means they kept abreast of current events. An anti-slavery meeting or convention was considered "news" back then and many times, in various regions across the country, you would find mention of these conventions/meetings in newspapers. Sometimes, like the AP today, they would share stories in regional papers from other regions for their local readers.
You should look up some old newspapers and read some articles from the time period. They can be rather enlightening on this subject and show you exactly how the press communicated information back then.
Nearly all the newspapers back then - north and south also published the Emancipation Proclamation. They would have also reported on Lincoln and his views and him being anti-slavery. I mentioned Frederick Douglass in this thread - his speeches were transcribed as well and published in media as were other well known abolitionists prior to the Civil War.
It's generally recognized that Lincoln -- a product of the border states who sound himself in favor with a diverse coalition of advocacies -- saw preservation of the Union as his foremost concern
You mean the Union as it was in December of 1860. The notion of "preserving the Union" implies that the Union would've ceased to exist if the seceding states hadn't been forcibly returned to the USA. This is simply untrue, the Union would've continued to exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
Lincoln holds the highest position in the Pantheon of American Statesmen because in the public mindset, he preserved the Union at the cost of his own life.
Lincoln was no statesman, he was a tyrant who "preserved the Union" at the needless expense of 1.5 million American casualties, 620,00 of which were fatalities. Civil War Casualties
No honorable President would've sacrificed the lives of over half a million of his countrymen in order to maintain his vision of what the nation should be.
You mean the Union as it was in December of 1860. The notion of "preserving the Union" implies that the Union would've ceased to exist if the seceding states hadn't been forcibly returned to the USA. This is simply untrue, the Union would've continued to exist.
Yes, for a while, the Union would have continued to exist.
But the precedent having been established in 1860 that a state could unilaterally withdraw from the United States, attack federal military installations, and seize federal property without repercussions, it would have been only a matter of time before the Union was basically reduced to a voluntary trade federation, perhaps the size of New England.
The Federalists hammered out the compromise known as the United States Constitution and got it ratified in order to avoid such a fate.
Quote:
Lincoln was no statesman, he was a tyrant who "preserved the Union" at the needless expense of 1.5 million American casualties, 620,00 of which were fatalities. Civil War Casualties
No honorable President would've sacrificed the lives of over half a million of his countrymen in order to maintain his vision of what the nation should be.
They lived better just by the fact that they could eat. In Ireland, let me remind you, people ate grass during the Potato Blight. Dicken's description of the exploitation of workers were in fact benign, very benign.
Who lives longer, a very expensive dog or a stray dog? European underclass were stray dogs.
Why the PC crowd never mentions that during most of the American History most slaves were white? Not talking about indentured, but stray kids from English cities kidnapped and sold in America, etc, etc.
1) The definition of 'PC' is not 'anything that annoys me' (though that's the way 90% of people who whine about political correctness use the term).
2) Because it's not true.
3) The whole "White people are/were the ones who are/were really oppressed!" thing is as tiresome as it is factually ludicrous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
You mean the Union as it was in December of 1860. The notion of "preserving the Union" implies that the Union would've ceased to exist if the seceding states hadn't been forcibly returned to the USA. This is simply untrue, the Union would've continued to exist.
Lincoln was no statesman, he was a tyrant who "preserved the Union" at the needless expense of 1.5 million American casualties, 620,00 of which were fatalities. Civil War Casualties
No honorable President would've sacrificed the lives of over half a million of his countrymen in order to maintain his vision of what the nation should be.
Sic semper tyrannis.
For once, I'd like to meet a Confederate apologist who would acknowledge that the Confederacy did not believe in secession, as evidenced by the fact that it used the Confederate Army to crush secessionist movements within the Confederacy (such as that in eastern Tennessee). It only believed in getting its own way - in much the same way that had Lincoln not won the 1860 election, the Southern states would have absolutely expected the rest of the Union to accept the outcome of the election in which they participated, but when it turned out that they didn't get their way they bolted ('Heads I win and I get the pot, tails the bet's off and I get my money back!').
He also won Tennessee and Louisiana. One would have to wonder about the legitimacy of an election from states under military occupation who just seceded 4 years earlier.
Saying "he did the right thing" is debatable, as doing nothing would have likely lead the same result, though perhaps 15-20 years later and save the lives of 600,000 people.
One the worse things Lincoln did was ruin the southern economy and infrastructure which freed blacks were then expected to thrive in.
1) The definition of 'PC' is not 'anything that annoys me' (though that's the way 90% of people who whine about political correctness use the term).
2) Because it's not true.
3) The whole "White people are/were the ones who are/were really oppressed!" thing is as tiresome as it is factually ludicrous.
For once, I'd like to meet a Confederate apologist who would acknowledge that the Confederacy did not believe in secession, as evidenced by the fact that it used the Confederate Army to crush secessionist movements within the Confederacy (such as that in eastern Tennessee). It only believed in getting its own way - in much the same way that had Lincoln not won the 1860 election, the Southern states would have absolutely expected the rest of the Union to accept the outcome of the election in which they participated, but when it turned out that they didn't get their way they bolted ('Heads I win and I get the pot, tails the bet's off and I get my money back!').
But I doubt I ever will.
I believe they secceded to keep their economy intact.
I had a debate with a Californian who supports Calexit. His view was the entire state should secede, but when asked if the red counties should then secede from the rest of the state and rejoin the US, making the new country a chain of loosely connected urban cities with no raw materials, crops, energy and water supply, their view became clear the entire state should be forced to secede with them.
Expect people's opinions to change when their current philosophy no longer suits them.
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.
