GDG- Gettysburg Digest, Vol 18, Issue 6

keith mackenzie bluzdad at yahoo.com
Fri Jan 6 12:36:48 CST 2012


What the hell man?  
"Hello! I'm The Doctor."
(Dr. Who)


________________________________
From: "redpatch at comcast.net" <redpatch at comcast.net>
To: gettysburg at arthes.com 
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2012 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: GDG- Gettysburg Digest, Vol 18, Issue 6

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:


Please unsubscribe me from the list 



Thank you - Sal Prezioso 



----- Original Message -----


From: gettysburg-request at arthes.com 
To: gettysburg at arthes.com 
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2012 1:00:03 PM 
Subject: Gettysburg Digest, Vol 18, Issue 6 

Send Gettysburg mailing list submissions to 
        gettysburg at arthes.com 

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit 
        http://arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to 
        gettysburg-request at arthes.com 

You can reach the person managing the list at 
        gettysburg-owner at arthes.com 

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific 
than "Re: Contents of Gettysburg digest..." 


Today's Topics: 

   1. Re:  Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
      (Andy Mills) 
   2.  Hancock, MD (CWMHTours at aol.com) 
   3. Re:  NPS, Slavery and Economies (Jack Lawrence) 
   4. Re:  NPS, Slavery and Economies (Jim Ferguson) 
   5.  Money and secession (CWMHTours at aol.com) 
   6. Re:  Money and secession (Jack Lawrence) 
   7. Re:  NPS, Slavery and Economies (Jack Lawrence) 
   8. Re:  Money and secession (CWMHTours at aol.com) 
   9. Re:  Money and secession (Andy Mills) 
  10. Re:  Money and secession (CWMHTours at aol.com) 
  11. Re:  NPS, Slavery and Economies (Andy Mills) 
  12. Re:  Money and secession (Jack Lawrence) 
  13. Re:  NPS, Slavery and Economies (Jack Lawrence) 
  14. Re:  NPS, Slavery and Economies (Andy Mills) 
  15. Re:  NPS, Slavery and Economies (Jack Lawrence) 
  16. Re:  NPS, Slavery and Economies (Andy Mills) 
  17. Re:  NPS, Slavery and Economies (Andy Mills) 
  18. Re:  NPS, Slavery and Economies (Margaret D. Blough) 
  19. Re:  NPS, Slavery and Economies (Andy Mills) 
  20.  THE Movie (Dennis Lawrence) 
  21. Re:  Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
      (keith mackenzie) 
  22. Re:  NPS, Slavery and Economies (joadx1 at netscape.net) 
  23. Re:  Money and secession (CWMHTours at aol.com) 
  24. Re:  Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
      (Charles T. Joyce) 
  25. Re:  Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
      (keith mackenzie) 
  26. Re:  NPS & slavery & Arl Cem (ATMackeyJr at aol.com) 
  27. Re:  Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
      (Charles T. Joyce) 
  28. Re:  Money and secession (ATMackeyJr at aol.com) 
  29. Re:  NPS & slavery & Arl Cem (CWMHTours at aol.com) 
  30. Re:  Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
      (keith mackenzie) 
  31. Re:  Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
      (cameron2 at optimum.net) 
  32. Re:  NPS, Slavery and Economies (cameron2 at optimum.net) 
  33. Re:  THE Movie (cameron2 at optimum.net) 
  34. Re:  Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
      (keith mackenzie) 
  35. Re:  Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
      (keith mackenzie) 
  36. Re:  Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
      (Dave Gillespie) 
  37. Re:  NPS, Slavery and Economies (Jack Lawrence) 
  38. Re:  Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
      (keith mackenzie) 
  39. Re:  NPS, Slavery and Economies (Jack Lawrence) 
  40.  Slavery in the South (John Grim) 
  41.  The Negro President (Jack Lawrence) 
  42. Re:  The Negro President (John Grim) 
  43. Re:  THE Movie (Tom) 
  44. Re:  THE Movie (Jack Lawrence) 
  45. Re:  The Negro President (Jack Lawrence) 
  46. Re:  The Negro President (128thpa at comcast.net) 
  47. Re:  The Negro President (Jack Lawrence) 
  48. Re:  Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
      (Charles T. Joyce) 
  49.  Roswell & Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" 
      photograph (Jack Lawrence) 
  50. Re:  Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
      (Charles T. Joyce) 
  51. Re:  Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
      (John Rudy) 
  52. Re:  Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
      (Charles T. Joyce) 
  53. Re:  Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
      (Nancy Householder) 
  54. Re:  Slavery in the South (Nancy Householder) 
  55. Re:  Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
      (keith mackenzie) 
  56. Re:  Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
      (Charles T. Joyce) 
  57. Re:  Slavery in the South (John Grim) 
  58. Re:  Slavery in the South (Jack Lawrence) 
  59. Re:  Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
      (keith mackenzie) 
  60. Re:  Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
      (cooke1863 at comcast.net) 
  61. Re:  Slavery in the South (George Connell) 
  62. Re:  Slavery in the South (John Grim) 
  63. Re:  Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
      (William Baetz) 
  64. Re:  Slavery in the South (Jack Lawrence) 
  65. Re:  Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
      (keith mackenzie) 
  66. Re:  Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
      (Charles T. Joyce) 
  67. Re:  Slavery in the South (keith mackenzie) 
  68. Re:  Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
      (keith mackenzie) 
  69. Re:  Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
      (keith mackenzie) 
  70. Re:  Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
      (Charles T. Joyce) 
  71. Re:  Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
      (keith mackenzie) 
  72. Re:  Slavery in the South (CWMHTours at aol.com) 
  73.  FW: What's happening with the Cyclorama building at 
      Gettysburg National Military Park? (Robert Lawrence) 


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Message: 1 
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 18:15:31 +0000 
From: Andy Mills <amills at jplcreative.com> 
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Subject: Re: GDG- Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 
Message-ID: 
        <49A8DF1319C970479DC74310D86114E1017BBC at JPLExchange.jpl.lcl> 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 

Having read through this, it doesn't seem anyone was punished for the deal that a few people were embarrassed by one lone Congressman, that nothing came of the hearings.   

Is this a fair assessment or did I miss some key elements of the article? 

Thanks, 

-----Original Message----- 
From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] On Behalf Of Dennis Lawrence 
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 11:19 AM 
To: GDG 
Subject: Re: GDG- Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph 

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 

>That's partly because the cut was modified (enlarged?) as a consequence 
>of the notorious three-way land exchange between the RR, the college, 
>and the park.  At least one Conf. artillery position was removed. 

It is hard to believe that almost twenty years ago. 

Read all about it in the archives 

http://www.gdg.org/Discussions/dtrrcut.html 



----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com -to unsubscribe http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 



------------------------------ 

Message: 2 
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:44:38 -0500 (EST) 
From: CWMHTours at aol.com 
To: gettysburg at arthes.com 
Subject: GDG- Hancock, MD 
Message-ID: <7cd.7399942b.3c374996 at aol.com> 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" 

FYI- 
  
The local NPR radio station in DC has announced that today is  the 
anniversary of Stonewall Jackson cannonading Hancock, MD, from across the  Pot R. 
  
Boom! 
  
Your  Most Obedient Servant, 
Peter 

------------------------------ 

Message: 3 
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:13:23 -0600 
From: "Jack Lawrence" <jlawrence at kc.rr.com> 
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 
Message-ID: <0F324E0162D64C41B2A0DE99CCEFE9A0 at jackPC> 
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; 
        reply-type=original 

Hello. 
There is, as you point out, a lot more going on here. 

The wealth generated by slavery was not only in the cotton, rice etc that 
they produced. 
It was also in the slaves themselves. A strong field hand was worth a 
thousand dollars in 1850's-60's dollars. 
So a man with a thousand slaves had a hundreds of thousands of dollars 
dollars in wealth out in the fields, no matter how well his crops fared. He 
could also hire those slaves out, or let a skilled slave, like a carpenter, 
take on work in town and pay (more likely split) what he earned. He could 
even hire out the women. 

The south understood that the influx of northern immigrants was producing a 
body politic that wanted no part of slavery. Even so, the north was willing 
to tolerate it, to preserve the union. So was Lincoln. In that regard, he 
was a manifestation of the body politic in it's purest form. What would not 
be tolerated was the southern demand to allow slavery in territories prior 
to their admission into the union (bleeding Kansas was all about whether 
Kansas would be free or slave at admission.)  The Supreme Court was 
responsible for this when it overturned The Missouri Compromise, which 
required one slave state be admitted for every free state admitted So the 
south tried to circumvent this by allowing slavery in the territories prior 
to admission. Trying to abolish slavery in a state that already had slaves 
would be difficult to say the least. 

Now, the reason the south wanted the territories to be open to slavery was 
purely economic. More slave territory meant that more slaves were needed. 
Which meant that if a man owned a thousand slaves worth a hundreds of 
thousand of dollars, they were worth hundreds of thousands of dollars more. 

Succinctly stated, slavery as practiced in the United States at that place 
and time was a giant bubble. It was not slavery that was going to go away. 
It was the wealth of the slaves that was going to diminish. 


Your second paragraph, that the matter of slavery in the Civil War is over 
determined is simply incorrect. The only thing going on here is slavery. 
It is true that there was a racial undertone, but it was a created racial 
undertone. Throughout history, for the most part, slavery had been pretty 
much an economic institution. 
In the south, people were taught that Africans were an inferior people, 
somewhere between animals and people. They were too simple to function 
freely. Even the slaves were educated in their dependence on white people. 
Traveling minstrel shows toured the south. They always included three main 
characters, Jim Crow, the typical hard working, carefree negro who prospered 
when he did his masters bidding, Tambo, the joyous musical negro, and Zip 
Coon, the sly negro who was always getting Jim in trouble (think King Fish 
Amos and Andy and ). Just another way to keep blacks in their place. 

Indoctrination was prevalent among white people too. 

Preachers preached it on Sunday (There was even a "Christian Way" to treat 
your slaves dogma), politician orated over the dangers of free negroes and 
civic leaders did the same. 
The message was always the need that slaves had for white masters. But the 
really chilling, insidious, vile message, the one that chilled the populace 
and absolutely convinced them that they need to keep these people enslaved 
was that black slaves craved after, lusted for and, left unfettered, would 
unleash a depravity on white females unseen since the rape of the Sabine 
women. Can you imagine preaching this on Sunday? 
Which, IMHO, accounted for the fierce devotion to the south among southern 
women during the war. (Ok, Butler didn't help much). 

So, at the end of the day, there was no other cause for the war but slavery, 
but slavery itself was a many faceted thing. 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <joadx1 at netscape.net> 
To: <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 11:59 AM 
Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 


> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> This is not a simplistic view; in fact, a number of modern analyses of the 
> Civil War focus precisely on the economic aspects of the conflict.  One 
> that I have read indicates that one of the reasons why non-slave-owning 
> southerners fought to protect slavery was because so much of the southern 
> economy was founded upon it that everyone would suffer economically if it 
> disappeared. 
> 
> And while it would take us too far away from the parameters of this 
> discussion board, I would argue (and do argue in my own professional work) 
> that the peculiar institution of money has a particularly powerful role in 
> our history, past and present, that is often misunderstood or ignored. 
> But I will go no further on that. 
> 
> But I will add that the matter of slavery and the Civil War is 
> overdetermined--that is, there is more than one cause at work here. 
> Beyond the very real economic dimensions of the matter are the racial ones 
> (I do not want to dwell on this, but racial hatred and feelings racial 
> superiority are also involved); the social class ones (the plantation 
> aristocracy was able to paper over the class inequalities in the south by 
> telling southern yeomen that without slavery they would be part of a 
> menial class, but with it they were part of a ruling caste); and simple 
> fear: the southerners were very well aware that they had, in many regions, 
> established slave populations that were much larger than the white 
> populations, and they were terrified of a slave rebellion on the order of 
> the successful rebellion in Haiti. 
> 
> There are yet other parts to this ugly puzzle, but your own suggestion is 
> a very important part of it all. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Andy Mills <amills at jplcreative.com> 
> To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
> Sent: Thu, Jan 5, 2012 9:44 am 
> Subject: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 
> 
> 
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> My apologies as I am not the best at getting ideas and thoughts out of my 
> head 
> and rationalizing them so others can understand. 
> 
> Having made my disclaimer, I am curious as to why the war wasn't all about 
> money? 
> 
> Secession caused the war and slavery caused secession, I think based on 
> emails I 
> have read over the last couple days, everyone agrees with this statement. 
> 
> But what caused slavery?  The immediate cause was the need for cheap labor 
> centuries before the civil war, so the underlying cause of slavery was 
> money, 
> ergo money caused slavery and slavery caused secession so the root cause 
> was 
> money? 
> 
> I understand that by 1860, there was also a racial element to America's 
> slavery 
> and part of the reason for maintaining the system was this racial element 
> but I 
> don't think this was the major force in maintaining the "peculiar 
> institution", 
> as the major force was simply put:  money. 
> 
> So why wouldn't the root cause then be economics, that without allowing 
> slavery 
> into the territories, slavery would slowly die and as a result, so would 
> the way 
> of life for the slave holding aristocrats of the South and their desire to 
> maintain slavery was a desire to maintain their statuses, income, etc. 
> 
> One example would be Hampton Plantation outside Baltimore.  It was one of 
> the 
> largest and richest prior to the Civil War but slowly fell into a period 
> of 
> decline once slavery was banished from the country until the NPS saved the 
> mansion future generations (yes, I know other organizations originally 
> saved it 
> in 1948, but didn't want to go into all the history of it).  We can look 
> at many 
> of the James River plantations that had to open their doors to the public 
> to 
> preserve and protect their properties because they were no longer 
> sustainable 
> once slavery was abolished. 
> 
> I agree that the original south seceded to protect slavery, but underneath 
> that, 
> slavery was there to support their income / economies, so if you want to 
> say 
> slavery led to secession which lead to the war, why can't you further 
> define it 
> that money led to slavery which lead to secession which led to war and as 
> such, 
> the root cause is the all powerful dollar? 
> 
> I understand this is a simplistic view and possibly an incorrect view of 
> the 
> situation, but to me, secession caused the war and a desire to protect 
> slavery 
> led to secession (I understand that you can't separate slavery from 1860 
> South), 
> but the root cause of slavery was money.  American slavery / chattel 
> slavery 
> wasn't like the Native Americans that took slaves from rival tribes to 
> help 
> replenish their population, or Rome that took slaves from captured armies. 
> Slaves in those societies were not the basis of the economies as it was in 
> the 
> Antebellum South. 
> 
> I hope this makes sense, but wanted to get some viewpoints to see if this 
> is a 
> valid opinion or is full of holes. 
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] 
> On 
> Behalf Of John Lawrence 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:48 PM 
> To: GDG 
> Subject: Re: GDG- NPs & Slavery 
> 
>>-------------------------------- 
>> 
>>Hello, 
>> 
>>I am not arguing  whether not Lincoln could have  have chosen another 
>>method to react to secession.  I'm not arguing Lincoln did not go to 
>>war to preserve the union.   I am simply stating the  historical fact 
>>that secession was caused by slavery and war was the result. 
>> 
>>It is impossible to have any discussion of the causes of the war or the 
>>cause secession without the inclusion of slavery. 
>> 
>>The indisputable point is  slavery was the cause of secession which was 
>>the cause of the war. 
>> 
>>The other what-ifs do not apply to that. 
>> 
>> 
>>Take Care 
>> 
>>Dennis 
> 
> 
> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
>  -to 
> unsubscribe 
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
> 
> 
> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
>  -to unsubscribe 
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
> 





------------------------------ 

Message: 4 
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 14:20:21 -0500 
From: "Jim Ferguson" <jaferg at comcast.net> 
To: "'GDG'" <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 
Message-ID: <003f01cccbdf$11fc8890$35f599b0$@comcast.net> 
Content-Type: text/plain;        charset="us-ascii" 

I wish you had gone further in your discussion; money was the root cause of 
the Civil War in my opinion. And by root, I mean the one and only one thing 
that if removed from the slavery equation would stop the event from 
happening. The slave trade had become such a major portion of the South's 
GDP that none of the major players in the region were going to accept the 
elimination of it in the westward expansion. 

There are many work's on this subject, of course, but I like Bancroft's 
"Slave Trading in the Old South" for an semi-technical unvarnished 
explanation. 
Jim 

-----Original Message----- 
From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] 
On Behalf Of joadx1 at netscape.net 
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 12:59 PM 
To: gettysburg at arthes.com 
Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
This is not a simplistic view; in fact, a number of modern analyses of the 
Civil War focus precisely on the economic aspects of the conflict.  One that 
I have read indicates that one of the reasons why non-slave-owning 
southerners fought to protect slavery was because so much of the southern 
economy was founded upon it that everyone would suffer economically if it 
disappeared. 

And while it would take us too far away from the parameters of this 
discussion board, I would argue (and do argue in my own professional work) 
that the peculiar institution of money has a particularly powerful role in 
our history, past and present, that is often misunderstood or ignored.  But 
I will go no further on that. 

But I will add that the matter of slavery and the Civil War is 
overdetermined--that is, there is more than one cause at work here.  Beyond 
the very real economic dimensions of the matter are the racial ones (I do 
not want to dwell on this, but racial hatred and feelings racial superiority 
are also involved); the social class ones (the plantation aristocracy was 
able to paper over the class inequalities in the south by telling southern 
yeomen that without slavery they would be part of a menial class, but with 
it they were part of a ruling caste); and simple fear: the southerners were 
very well aware that they had, in many regions, established slave 
populations that were much larger than the white populations, and they were 
terrified of a slave rebellion on the order of the successful rebellion in 
Haiti. 

There are yet other parts to this ugly puzzle, but your own suggestion is a 
very important part of it all. 

  

  

  

-----Original Message----- 
From: Andy Mills <amills at jplcreative.com> 
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Sent: Thu, Jan 5, 2012 9:44 am 
Subject: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 


Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
My apologies as I am not the best at getting ideas and thoughts out of my 
head 
and rationalizing them so others can understand.   

Having made my disclaimer, I am curious as to why the war wasn't all about 
money?   

Secession caused the war and slavery caused secession, I think based on 
emails I 
have read over the last couple days, everyone agrees with this statement. 

But what caused slavery?  The immediate cause was the need for cheap labor 
centuries before the civil war, so the underlying cause of slavery was 
money, 
ergo money caused slavery and slavery caused secession so the root cause was 

money? 

I understand that by 1860, there was also a racial element to America's 
slavery 
and part of the reason for maintaining the system was this racial element 
but I 
don't think this was the major force in maintaining the "peculiar 
institution", 
as the major force was simply put:  money. 

So why wouldn't the root cause then be economics, that without allowing 
slavery 
into the territories, slavery would slowly die and as a result, so would the 
way 
of life for the slave holding aristocrats of the South and their desire to 
maintain slavery was a desire to maintain their statuses, income, etc.   

One example would be Hampton Plantation outside Baltimore.  It was one of 
the 
largest and richest prior to the Civil War but slowly fell into a period of 
decline once slavery was banished from the country until the NPS saved the 
mansion future generations (yes, I know other organizations originally saved 
it 
in 1948, but didn't want to go into all the history of it).  We can look at 
many 
of the James River plantations that had to open their doors to the public to 

preserve and protect their properties because they were no longer 
sustainable 
once slavery was abolished.   

I agree that the original south seceded to protect slavery, but underneath 
that, 
slavery was there to support their income / economies, so if you want to say 

slavery led to secession which lead to the war, why can't you further define 
it 
that money led to slavery which lead to secession which led to war and as 
such, 
the root cause is the all powerful dollar? 

I understand this is a simplistic view and possibly an incorrect view of the 

situation, but to me, secession caused the war and a desire to protect 
slavery 
led to secession (I understand that you can't separate slavery from 1860 
South), 
but the root cause of slavery was money.  American slavery / chattel slavery 

wasn't like the Native Americans that took slaves from rival tribes to help 
replenish their population, or Rome that took slaves from captured armies.   
Slaves in those societies were not the basis of the economies as it was in 
the 
Antebellum South.   

I hope this makes sense, but wanted to get some viewpoints to see if this is 
a 
valid opinion or is full of holes. 

Thanks, 

-----Original Message----- 
From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] 
On 
Behalf Of John Lawrence 
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:48 PM 
To: GDG 
Subject: Re: GDG- NPs & Slavery 

>-------------------------------- 
> 
>Hello, 
> 
>I am not arguing  whether not Lincoln could have  have chosen another 
>method to react to secession.  I'm not arguing Lincoln did not go to 
>war to preserve the union.   I am simply stating the  historical fact 
>that secession was caused by slavery and war was the result. 
> 
>It is impossible to have any discussion of the causes of the war or the 
>cause secession without the inclusion of slavery. 
> 
>The indisputable point is  slavery was the cause of secession which was 
>the cause of the war. 
> 
>The other what-ifs do not apply to that. 
> 
> 
>Take Care 
> 
>Dennis 


----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
-to 
unsubscribe 
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 

  
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
-to unsubscribe 
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 




------------------------------ 

Message: 5 
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 14:42:07 -0500 (EST) 
From: CWMHTours at aol.com 
To: gettysburg at arthes.com 
Subject: GDG- Money and secession 
Message-ID: <2dd3.45345c15.3c37570f at aol.com> 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" 

In my recollections there were at least 3 other movements for  secession in 
the nation's history prior to the CW. 
  
During the War of 1812 New England wanted to secede because of  it's 
economic ties to Great Britain. 
  
During the Nullifications troubles under A Jackson S.C. also  wanted to 
secede. 
  
When the war broke out N.Y.C wanted to secede and declare  itself a neutral 
city for trade purposes. 
  
All of these secession movements were based on  money. 
  
S.C. didn't secede  in the 1830s because Charlton Heston  threatened to 
come down there himself at the head of an army and beat them  up. 
  
Your  Most Obedient Servant, 
Peter 

------------------------------ 

Message: 6 
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:50:17 -0600 
From: "Jack Lawrence" <jlawrence at kc.rr.com> 
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Subject: Re: GDG- Money and secession 
Message-ID: <B360ECDF79D04A51B15306E4DAE867E8 at jackPC> 
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; 
        reply-type=original 

Buchannan had fought a war i Utah. 

If you count rebellions, there were quite a few in the early years. 

Regards, 

Jack 
 ----- Original Message ----- 
From: <CWMHTours at aol.com> 
To: <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 1:42 PM 
Subject: GDG- Money and secession 


> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> In my recollections there were at least 3 other movements for  secession 
> in 
> the nation's history prior to the CW. 
> 
> During the War of 1812 New England wanted to secede because of  it's 
> economic ties to Great Britain. 
> 
> During the Nullifications troubles under A Jackson S.C. also  wanted to 
> secede. 
> 
> When the war broke out N.Y.C wanted to secede and declare  itself a 
> neutral 
> city for trade purposes. 
> 
> All of these secession movements were based on  money. 
> 
> S.C. didn't secede  in the 1830s because Charlton Heston  threatened to 
> come down there himself at the head of an army and beat them  up. 
> 
> Your  Most Obedient Servant, 
> Peter 
> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
>  -to unsubscribe 
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
> 





------------------------------ 

Message: 7 
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:52:45 -0600 
From: "Jack Lawrence" <jlawrence at kc.rr.com> 
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 
Message-ID: <A8328EA8400F4AFBBA54D1E5F4D4D958 at jackPC> 
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; 
        reply-type=original 

Jim, 

All of the money reasons fold back into slavery. 

If you want to claim that the civil war was not about freeing the slaves at 
the beginning, I will be the first to support you. 

If want to say that the Civil War was not about freeing the slaves at the 
end, I will say Fortress Monroe. 

Regards, 

Jack 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Ferguson" <jaferg at comcast.net> 
To: "'GDG'" <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 1:20 PM 
Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 


> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> I wish you had gone further in your discussion; money was the root cause 
> of 
> the Civil War in my opinion. And by root, I mean the one and only one 
> thing 
> that if removed from the slavery equation would stop the event from 
> happening. The slave trade had become such a major portion of the South's 
> GDP that none of the major players in the region were going to accept the 
> elimination of it in the westward expansion. 
> 
> There are many work's on this subject, of course, but I like Bancroft's 
> "Slave Trading in the Old South" for an semi-technical unvarnished 
> explanation. 
> Jim 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] 
> On Behalf Of joadx1 at netscape.net 
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 12:59 PM 
> To: gettysburg at arthes.com 
> Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 
> 
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> This is not a simplistic view; in fact, a number of modern analyses of the 
> Civil War focus precisely on the economic aspects of the conflict.  One 
> that 
> I have read indicates that one of the reasons why non-slave-owning 
> southerners fought to protect slavery was because so much of the southern 
> economy was founded upon it that everyone would suffer economically if it 
> disappeared. 
> 
> And while it would take us too far away from the parameters of this 
> discussion board, I would argue (and do argue in my own professional work) 
> that the peculiar institution of money has a particularly powerful role in 
> our history, past and present, that is often misunderstood or ignored. 
> But 
> I will go no further on that. 
> 
> But I will add that the matter of slavery and the Civil War is 
> overdetermined--that is, there is more than one cause at work here. 
> Beyond 
> the very real economic dimensions of the matter are the racial ones (I do 
> not want to dwell on this, but racial hatred and feelings racial 
> superiority 
> are also involved); the social class ones (the plantation aristocracy was 
> able to paper over the class inequalities in the south by telling southern 
> yeomen that without slavery they would be part of a menial class, but with 
> it they were part of a ruling caste); and simple fear: the southerners 
> were 
> very well aware that they had, in many regions, established slave 
> populations that were much larger than the white populations, and they 
> were 
> terrified of a slave rebellion on the order of the successful rebellion in 
> Haiti. 
> 
> There are yet other parts to this ugly puzzle, but your own suggestion is 
> a 
> very important part of it all. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Andy Mills <amills at jplcreative.com> 
> To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
> Sent: Thu, Jan 5, 2012 9:44 am 
> Subject: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 
> 
> 
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> My apologies as I am not the best at getting ideas and thoughts out of my 
> head 
> and rationalizing them so others can understand. 
> 
> Having made my disclaimer, I am curious as to why the war wasn't all about 
> money? 
> 
> Secession caused the war and slavery caused secession, I think based on 
> emails I 
> have read over the last couple days, everyone agrees with this statement. 
> 
> But what caused slavery?  The immediate cause was the need for cheap labor 
> centuries before the civil war, so the underlying cause of slavery was 
> money, 
> ergo money caused slavery and slavery caused secession so the root cause 
> was 
> 
> money? 
> 
> I understand that by 1860, there was also a racial element to America's 
> slavery 
> and part of the reason for maintaining the system was this racial element 
> but I 
> don't think this was the major force in maintaining the "peculiar 
> institution", 
> as the major force was simply put:  money. 
> 
> So why wouldn't the root cause then be economics, that without allowing 
> slavery 
> into the territories, slavery would slowly die and as a result, so would 
> the 
> way 
> of life for the slave holding aristocrats of the South and their desire to 
> maintain slavery was a desire to maintain their statuses, income, etc. 
> 
> One example would be Hampton Plantation outside Baltimore.  It was one of 
> the 
> largest and richest prior to the Civil War but slowly fell into a period 
> of 
> decline once slavery was banished from the country until the NPS saved the 
> mansion future generations (yes, I know other organizations originally 
> saved 
> it 
> in 1948, but didn't want to go into all the history of it).  We can look 
> at 
> many 
> of the James River plantations that had to open their doors to the public 
> to 
> 
> preserve and protect their properties because they were no longer 
> sustainable 
> once slavery was abolished. 
> 
> I agree that the original south seceded to protect slavery, but underneath 
> that, 
> slavery was there to support their income / economies, so if you want to 
> say 
> 
> slavery led to secession which lead to the war, why can't you further 
> define 
> it 
> that money led to slavery which lead to secession which led to war and as 
> such, 
> the root cause is the all powerful dollar? 
> 
> I understand this is a simplistic view and possibly an incorrect view of 
> the 
> 
> situation, but to me, secession caused the war and a desire to protect 
> slavery 
> led to secession (I understand that you can't separate slavery from 1860 
> South), 
> but the root cause of slavery was money.  American slavery / chattel 
> slavery 
> 
> wasn't like the Native Americans that took slaves from rival tribes to 
> help 
> replenish their population, or Rome that took slaves from captured armies. 
> Slaves in those societies were not the basis of the economies as it was in 
> the 
> Antebellum South. 
> 
> I hope this makes sense, but wanted to get some viewpoints to see if this 
> is 
> a 
> valid opinion or is full of holes. 
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] 
> On 
> Behalf Of John Lawrence 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:48 PM 
> To: GDG 
> Subject: Re: GDG- NPs & Slavery 
> 
>>-------------------------------- 
>> 
>>Hello, 
>> 
>>I am not arguing  whether not Lincoln could have  have chosen another 
>>method to react to secession.  I'm not arguing Lincoln did not go to 
>>war to preserve the union.   I am simply stating the  historical fact 
>>that secession was caused by slavery and war was the result. 
>> 
>>It is impossible to have any discussion of the causes of the war or the 
>>cause secession without the inclusion of slavery. 
>> 
>>The indisputable point is  slavery was the cause of secession which was 
>>the cause of the war. 
>> 
>>The other what-ifs do not apply to that. 
>> 
>> 
>>Take Care 
>> 
>>Dennis 
> 
> 
> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
> -to 
> unsubscribe 
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
> 
> 
> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
> -to unsubscribe 
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
> 
> 
> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
>  -to unsubscribe 
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
> 





------------------------------ 

Message: 8 
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 14:58:47 -0500 (EST) 
From: CWMHTours at aol.com 
To: gettysburg at arthes.com 
Subject: Re: GDG- Money and secession 
Message-ID: <38bb.291dccf5.3c375af7 at aol.com> 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" 

I hope Texas doesn't go ahead with their talk of  secession. 
  
Your  Most Obedient Servant, 
Peter   

  
In a message dated 1/5/2012 2:51:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,   
jlawrence at kc.rr.com writes: 

Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes: 
Buchannan had fought a war i Utah. 

If you  count rebellions, there were quite a few in the early  years. 

Regards, 

Jack 
----- Original Message ----- 
From:  <CWMHTours at aol.com> 
To: <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Sent:  Thursday, January 05, 2012 1:42 PM 
Subject: GDG- Money and  secession 


> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> In my  recollections there were at least 3 other movements for  secession 
  
> in 
> the nation's history prior to the CW. 
> 
>  During the War of 1812 New England wanted to secede because of   it's 
> economic ties to Great Britain. 
> 
> During the  Nullifications troubles under A Jackson S.C. also  wanted to 
>  secede. 
> 
> When the war broke out N.Y.C wanted to secede and  declare  itself a 
> neutral 
> city for trade  purposes. 
> 
> All of these secession movements were based on   money. 
> 
> S.C. didn't secede  in the 1830s because Charlton  Heston  threatened to 
> come down there himself at the head of an  army and beat them  up. 
> 
> Your  Most Obedient  Servant, 
> Peter 
>   
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com   
>  -to unsubscribe 
>  http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
>   



----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
  -to unsubscribe 
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives 




------------------------------ 

Message: 9 
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 19:59:41 +0000 
From: Andy Mills <amills at jplcreative.com> 
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Subject: Re: GDG- Money and secession 
Message-ID: 
        <49A8DF1319C970479DC74310D86114E1017C65 at JPLExchange.jpl.lcl> 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 

Utah wasn't a state at the time though, so technically, it couldn't secede.   

The Whiskey Rebellion / Shay's Rebellion were not attempts to secede though.   

Thanks, 

-----Original Message----- 
From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] On Behalf Of Jack Lawrence 
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 2:50 PM 
To: GDG 
Subject: Re: GDG- Money and secession 

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
Buchannan had fought a war i Utah. 

If you count rebellions, there were quite a few in the early years. 

Regards, 

Jack 
 ----- Original Message ----- 
From: <CWMHTours at aol.com> 
To: <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 1:42 PM 
Subject: GDG- Money and secession 


> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> In my recollections there were at least 3 other movements for  secession 
> in 
> the nation's history prior to the CW. 
> 
> During the War of 1812 New England wanted to secede because of  it's 
> economic ties to Great Britain. 
> 
> During the Nullifications troubles under A Jackson S.C. also  wanted to 
> secede. 
> 
> When the war broke out N.Y.C wanted to secede and declare  itself a 
> neutral 
> city for trade purposes. 
> 
> All of these secession movements were based on  money. 
> 
> S.C. didn't secede  in the 1830s because Charlton Heston  threatened to 
> come down there himself at the head of an army and beat them  up. 
> 
> Your  Most Obedient Servant, 
> Peter 
> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
>  -to unsubscribe 
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
> 



----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com -to unsubscribe 
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 



------------------------------ 

Message: 10 
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 15:00:59 -0500 (EST) 
From: CWMHTours at aol.com 
To: gettysburg at arthes.com 
Subject: Re: GDG- Money and secession 
Message-ID: <3a74.101395e1.3c375b7b at aol.com> 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" 

Woops!  Dammit! 
  
I hope Texas doesn't go ahead with it's talk of  secession. 
  
They grow them Texas babes up real fine there.  I love  them Texas babes. 
  
I mess with Texas. 
  
Nothin I love better than messin with a Texas  babe. 
  
Your  Most Obedient Servant, 
Peter   

  
In a message dated 1/5/2012 2:51:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,   
jlawrence at kc.rr.com writes: 

Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes: 
Buchannan had fought a war i Utah. 

If you  count rebellions, there were quite a few in the early  years. 

Regards, 

Jack 
----- Original Message ----- 
From:  <CWMHTours at aol.com> 
To: <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Sent:  Thursday, January 05, 2012 1:42 PM 
Subject: GDG- Money and  secession 


> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> In my  recollections there were at least 3 other movements for  secession 
  
> in 
> the nation's history prior to the CW. 
> 
>  During the War of 1812 New England wanted to secede because of   it's 
> economic ties to Great Britain. 
> 
> During the  Nullifications troubles under A Jackson S.C. also  wanted to 
>  secede. 
> 
> When the war broke out N.Y.C wanted to secede and  declare  itself a 
> neutral 
> city for trade  purposes. 
> 
> All of these secession movements were based on   money. 
> 
> S.C. didn't secede  in the 1830s because Charlton  Heston  threatened to 
> come down there himself at the head of an  army and beat them  up. 
> 
> Your  Most Obedient  Servant, 
> Peter 
>   
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com   
>  -to unsubscribe 
>  http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
>   



----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
  -to unsubscribe 
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives 




------------------------------ 

Message: 11 
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 20:04:17 +0000 
From: Andy Mills <amills at jplcreative.com> 
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 
Message-ID: 
        <49A8DF1319C970479DC74310D86114E1017C7F at JPLExchange.jpl.lcl> 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 

But the basics of slavery was money.  Money was the underlying factor that kept slavery alive.   

Had slavery resorted in losing money and the decay of the plantations, slavery would have been thrown out and replaced with something profitable.   

Money kept slavery alive and until slavery wasn't profitable or outlawed, it would continue.   

Without the invention of the cotton gin, slavery would have most likely faded out as it wouldn't have been profitable and there would have been no need to protect a system that costs you money. 

Thanks, 

-----Original Message----- 
From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] On Behalf Of Jack Lawrence 
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 2:53 PM 
To: GDG 
Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
Jim, 

All of the money reasons fold back into slavery. 

If you want to claim that the civil war was not about freeing the slaves at the beginning, I will be the first to support you. 

If want to say that the Civil War was not about freeing the slaves at the end, I will say Fortress Monroe. 

Regards, 

Jack 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Ferguson" <jaferg at comcast.net> 
To: "'GDG'" <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 1:20 PM 
Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 


> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> I wish you had gone further in your discussion; money was the root cause 
> of 
> the Civil War in my opinion. And by root, I mean the one and only one 
> thing 
> that if removed from the slavery equation would stop the event from 
> happening. The slave trade had become such a major portion of the South's 
> GDP that none of the major players in the region were going to accept the 
> elimination of it in the westward expansion. 
> 
> There are many work's on this subject, of course, but I like Bancroft's 
> "Slave Trading in the Old South" for an semi-technical unvarnished 
> explanation. 
> Jim 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] 
> On Behalf Of joadx1 at netscape.net 
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 12:59 PM 
> To: gettysburg at arthes.com 
> Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 
> 
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> This is not a simplistic view; in fact, a number of modern analyses of the 
> Civil War focus precisely on the economic aspects of the conflict.  One 
> that 
> I have read indicates that one of the reasons why non-slave-owning 
> southerners fought to protect slavery was because so much of the southern 
> economy was founded upon it that everyone would suffer economically if it 
> disappeared. 
> 
> And while it would take us too far away from the parameters of this 
> discussion board, I would argue (and do argue in my own professional work) 
> that the peculiar institution of money has a particularly powerful role in 
> our history, past and present, that is often misunderstood or ignored. 
> But 
> I will go no further on that. 
> 
> But I will add that the matter of slavery and the Civil War is 
> overdetermined--that is, there is more than one cause at work here. 
> Beyond 
> the very real economic dimensions of the matter are the racial ones (I do 
> not want to dwell on this, but racial hatred and feelings racial 
> superiority 
> are also involved); the social class ones (the plantation aristocracy was 
> able to paper over the class inequalities in the south by telling southern 
> yeomen that without slavery they would be part of a menial class, but with 
> it they were part of a ruling caste); and simple fear: the southerners 
> were 
> very well aware that they had, in many regions, established slave 
> populations that were much larger than the white populations, and they 
> were 
> terrified of a slave rebellion on the order of the successful rebellion in 
> Haiti. 
> 
> There are yet other parts to this ugly puzzle, but your own suggestion is 
> a 
> very important part of it all. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Andy Mills <amills at jplcreative.com> 
> To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
> Sent: Thu, Jan 5, 2012 9:44 am 
> Subject: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 
> 
> 
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> My apologies as I am not the best at getting ideas and thoughts out of my 
> head 
> and rationalizing them so others can understand. 
> 
> Having made my disclaimer, I am curious as to why the war wasn't all about 
> money? 
> 
> Secession caused the war and slavery caused secession, I think based on 
> emails I 
> have read over the last couple days, everyone agrees with this statement. 
> 
> But what caused slavery?  The immediate cause was the need for cheap labor 
> centuries before the civil war, so the underlying cause of slavery was 
> money, 
> ergo money caused slavery and slavery caused secession so the root cause 
> was 
> 
> money? 
> 
> I understand that by 1860, there was also a racial element to America's 
> slavery 
> and part of the reason for maintaining the system was this racial element 
> but I 
> don't think this was the major force in maintaining the "peculiar 
> institution", 
> as the major force was simply put:  money. 
> 
> So why wouldn't the root cause then be economics, that without allowing 
> slavery 
> into the territories, slavery would slowly die and as a result, so would 
> the 
> way 
> of life for the slave holding aristocrats of the South and their desire to 
> maintain slavery was a desire to maintain their statuses, income, etc. 
> 
> One example would be Hampton Plantation outside Baltimore.  It was one of 
> the 
> largest and richest prior to the Civil War but slowly fell into a period 
> of 
> decline once slavery was banished from the country until the NPS saved the 
> mansion future generations (yes, I know other organizations originally 
> saved 
> it 
> in 1948, but didn't want to go into all the history of it).  We can look 
> at 
> many 
> of the James River plantations that had to open their doors to the public 
> to 
> 
> preserve and protect their properties because they were no longer 
> sustainable 
> once slavery was abolished. 
> 
> I agree that the original south seceded to protect slavery, but underneath 
> that, 
> slavery was there to support their income / economies, so if you want to 
> say 
> 
> slavery led to secession which lead to the war, why can't you further 
> define 
> it 
> that money led to slavery which lead to secession which led to war and as 
> such, 
> the root cause is the all powerful dollar? 
> 
> I understand this is a simplistic view and possibly an incorrect view of 
> the 
> 
> situation, but to me, secession caused the war and a desire to protect 
> slavery 
> led to secession (I understand that you can't separate slavery from 1860 
> South), 
> but the root cause of slavery was money.  American slavery / chattel 
> slavery 
> 
> wasn't like the Native Americans that took slaves from rival tribes to 
> help 
> replenish their population, or Rome that took slaves from captured armies. 
> Slaves in those societies were not the basis of the economies as it was in 
> the 
> Antebellum South. 
> 
> I hope this makes sense, but wanted to get some viewpoints to see if this 
> is 
> a 
> valid opinion or is full of holes. 
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] 
> On 
> Behalf Of John Lawrence 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:48 PM 
> To: GDG 
> Subject: Re: GDG- NPs & Slavery 
> 
>>-------------------------------- 
>> 
>>Hello, 
>> 
>>I am not arguing  whether not Lincoln could have  have chosen another 
>>method to react to secession.  I'm not arguing Lincoln did not go to 
>>war to preserve the union.   I am simply stating the  historical fact 
>>that secession was caused by slavery and war was the result. 
>> 
>>It is impossible to have any discussion of the causes of the war or the 
>>cause secession without the inclusion of slavery. 
>> 
>>The indisputable point is  slavery was the cause of secession which was 
>>the cause of the war. 
>> 
>>The other what-ifs do not apply to that. 
>> 
>> 
>>Take Care 
>> 
>>Dennis 
> 
> 
> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
> -to 
> unsubscribe 
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
> 
> 
> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
> -to unsubscribe 
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
> 
> 
> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
>  -to unsubscribe 
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
> 



----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com -to unsubscribe 
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 



------------------------------ 

Message: 12 
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 14:13:33 -0600 
From: "Jack Lawrence" <jlawrence at kc.rr.com> 
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Subject: Re: GDG- Money and secession 
Message-ID: <0D5DBBF9627B498DB194D3C77DB96202 at jackPC> 
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; 
        reply-type=original 

I count rebelliions. I mean,  if it belongs to the country and someone tries 
to take it somewhere else internally, it is the same thing. 

I do not count New York or South Carolina. 

They never got to that point. 

I guess you could call Utah an invasion. 

Regards, 

Jack 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andy Mills" <amills at jplcreative.com> 
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 1:59 PM 
Subject: Re: GDG- Money and secession 


> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> Utah wasn't a state at the time though, so technically, it couldn't 
> secede. 
> 
> The Whiskey Rebellion / Shay's Rebellion were not attempts to secede 
> though. 
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] 
> On Behalf Of Jack Lawrence 
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 2:50 PM 
> To: GDG 
> Subject: Re: GDG- Money and secession 
> 
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> Buchannan had fought a war i Utah. 
> 
> If you count rebellions, there were quite a few in the early years. 
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Jack 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <CWMHTours at aol.com> 
> To: <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 1:42 PM 
> Subject: GDG- Money and secession 
> 
> 
>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
>> In my recollections there were at least 3 other movements for  secession 
>> in 
>> the nation's history prior to the CW. 
>> 
>> During the War of 1812 New England wanted to secede because of  it's 
>> economic ties to Great Britain. 
>> 
>> During the Nullifications troubles under A Jackson S.C. also  wanted to 
>> secede. 
>> 
>> When the war broke out N.Y.C wanted to secede and declare  itself a 
>> neutral 
>> city for trade purposes. 
>> 
>> All of these secession movements were based on  money. 
>> 
>> S.C. didn't secede  in the 1830s because Charlton Heston  threatened to 
>> come down there himself at the head of an army and beat them  up. 
>> 
>> Your  Most Obedient Servant, 
>> Peter 
>> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
>>  -to unsubscribe 
>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
>  -to unsubscribe 
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
> 
> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
>  -to unsubscribe 
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
> 





------------------------------ 

Message: 13 
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 14:17:57 -0600 
From: "Jack Lawrence" <jlawrence at kc.rr.com> 
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 
Message-ID: <A34149BC88AC4AE2896A9555B400F602 at jackPC> 
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; 
        reply-type=original 

At the end of the day, it all folds back into slavery. 

And I think the cotton gin thing is vastly overblown. 

Slaves produced a myriad of crops. 

But the root cause of the war was salvery. 

Its like saying that a fertilized egg caused a pregnancy. There was 
something else in there first. 

Regards, 

jack 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andy Mills" <amills at jplcreative.com> 
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 2:04 PM 
Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 


> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> But the basics of slavery was money.  Money was the underlying factor that 
> kept slavery alive. 
> 
> Had slavery resorted in losing money and the decay of the plantations, 
> slavery would have been thrown out and replaced with something profitable. 
> 
> Money kept slavery alive and until slavery wasn't profitable or outlawed, 
> it would continue. 
> 
> Without the invention of the cotton gin, slavery would have most likely 
> faded out as it wouldn't have been profitable and there would have been no 
> need to protect a system that costs you money. 
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] 
> On Behalf Of Jack Lawrence 
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 2:53 PM 
> To: GDG 
> Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 
> 
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> Jim, 
> 
> All of the money reasons fold back into slavery. 
> 
> If you want to claim that the civil war was not about freeing the slaves 
> at the beginning, I will be the first to support you. 
> 
> If want to say that the Civil War was not about freeing the slaves at the 
> end, I will say Fortress Monroe. 
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Jack 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jim Ferguson" <jaferg at comcast.net> 
> To: "'GDG'" <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 1:20 PM 
> Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 
> 
> 
>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
>> I wish you had gone further in your discussion; money was the root cause 
>> of 
>> the Civil War in my opinion. And by root, I mean the one and only one 
>> thing 
>> that if removed from the slavery equation would stop the event from 
>> happening. The slave trade had become such a major portion of the South's 
>> GDP that none of the major players in the region were going to accept the 
>> elimination of it in the westward expansion. 
>> 
>> There are many work's on this subject, of course, but I like Bancroft's 
>> "Slave Trading in the Old South" for an semi-technical unvarnished 
>> explanation. 
>> Jim 
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- 
>> From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com 
>> [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] 
>> On Behalf Of joadx1 at netscape.net 
>> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 12:59 PM 
>> To: gettysburg at arthes.com 
>> Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 
>> 
>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
>> This is not a simplistic view; in fact, a number of modern analyses of 
>> the 
>> Civil War focus precisely on the economic aspects of the conflict.  One 
>> that 
>> I have read indicates that one of the reasons why non-slave-owning 
>> southerners fought to protect slavery was because so much of the southern 
>> economy was founded upon it that everyone would suffer economically if it 
>> disappeared. 
>> 
>> And while it would take us too far away from the parameters of this 
>> discussion board, I would argue (and do argue in my own professional 
>> work) 
>> that the peculiar institution of money has a particularly powerful role 
>> in 
>> our history, past and present, that is often misunderstood or ignored. 
>> But 
>> I will go no further on that. 
>> 
>> But I will add that the matter of slavery and the Civil War is 
>> overdetermined--that is, there is more than one cause at work here. 
>> Beyond 
>> the very real economic dimensions of the matter are the racial ones (I do 
>> not want to dwell on this, but racial hatred and feelings racial 
>> superiority 
>> are also involved); the social class ones (the plantation aristocracy was 
>> able to paper over the class inequalities in the south by telling 
>> southern 
>> yeomen that without slavery they would be part of a menial class, but 
>> with 
>> it they were part of a ruling caste); and simple fear: the southerners 
>> were 
>> very well aware that they had, in many regions, established slave 
>> populations that were much larger than the white populations, and they 
>> were 
>> terrified of a slave rebellion on the order of the successful rebellion 
>> in 
>> Haiti. 
>> 
>> There are yet other parts to this ugly puzzle, but your own suggestion is 
>> a 
>> very important part of it all. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- 
>> From: Andy Mills <amills at jplcreative.com> 
>> To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
>> Sent: Thu, Jan 5, 2012 9:44 am 
>> Subject: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 
>> 
>> 
>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
>> My apologies as I am not the best at getting ideas and thoughts out of my 
>> head 
>> and rationalizing them so others can understand. 
>> 
>> Having made my disclaimer, I am curious as to why the war wasn't all 
>> about 
>> money? 
>> 
>> Secession caused the war and slavery caused secession, I think based on 
>> emails I 
>> have read over the last couple days, everyone agrees with this statement. 
>> 
>> But what caused slavery?  The immediate cause was the need for cheap 
>> labor 
>> centuries before the civil war, so the underlying cause of slavery was 
>> money, 
>> ergo money caused slavery and slavery caused secession so the root cause 
>> was 
>> 
>> money? 
>> 
>> I understand that by 1860, there was also a racial element to America's 
>> slavery 
>> and part of the reason for maintaining the system was this racial element 
>> but I 
>> don't think this was the major force in maintaining the "peculiar 
>> institution", 
>> as the major force was simply put:  money. 
>> 
>> So why wouldn't the root cause then be economics, that without allowing 
>> slavery 
>> into the territories, slavery would slowly die and as a result, so would 
>> the 
>> way 
>> of life for the slave holding aristocrats of the South and their desire 
>> to 
>> maintain slavery was a desire to maintain their statuses, income, etc. 
>> 
>> One example would be Hampton Plantation outside Baltimore.  It was one of 
>> the 
>> largest and richest prior to the Civil War but slowly fell into a period 
>> of 
>> decline once slavery was banished from the country until the NPS saved 
>> the 
>> mansion future generations (yes, I know other organizations originally 
>> saved 
>> it 
>> in 1948, but didn't want to go into all the history of it).  We can look 
>> at 
>> many 
>> of the James River plantations that had to open their doors to the public 
>> to 
>> 
>> preserve and protect their properties because they were no longer 
>> sustainable 
>> once slavery was abolished. 
>> 
>> I agree that the original south seceded to protect slavery, but 
>> underneath 
>> that, 
>> slavery was there to support their income / economies, so if you want to 
>> say 
>> 
>> slavery led to secession which lead to the war, why can't you further 
>> define 
>> it 
>> that money led to slavery which lead to secession which led to war and as 
>> such, 
>> the root cause is the all powerful dollar? 
>> 
>> I understand this is a simplistic view and possibly an incorrect view of 
>> the 
>> 
>> situation, but to me, secession caused the war and a desire to protect 
>> slavery 
>> led to secession (I understand that you can't separate slavery from 1860 
>> South), 
>> but the root cause of slavery was money.  American slavery / chattel 
>> slavery 
>> 
>> wasn't like the Native Americans that took slaves from rival tribes to 
>> help 
>> replenish their population, or Rome that took slaves from captured 
>> armies. 
>> Slaves in those societies were not the basis of the economies as it was 
>> in 
>> the 
>> Antebellum South. 
>> 
>> I hope this makes sense, but wanted to get some viewpoints to see if this 
>> is 
>> a 
>> valid opinion or is full of holes. 
>> 
>> Thanks, 
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- 
>> From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com 
>> [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] 
>> On 
>> Behalf Of John Lawrence 
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:48 PM 
>> To: GDG 
>> Subject: Re: GDG- NPs & Slavery 
>> 
>>>-------------------------------- 
>>> 
>>>Hello, 
>>> 
>>>I am not arguing  whether not Lincoln could have  have chosen another 
>>>method to react to secession.  I'm not arguing Lincoln did not go to 
>>>war to preserve the union.   I am simply stating the  historical fact 
>>>that secession was caused by slavery and war was the result. 
>>> 
>>>It is impossible to have any discussion of the causes of the war or the 
>>>cause secession without the inclusion of slavery. 
>>> 
>>>The indisputable point is  slavery was the cause of secession which was 
>>>the cause of the war. 
>>> 
>>>The other what-ifs do not apply to that. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>Take Care 
>>> 
>>>Dennis 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
>> -to 
>> unsubscribe 
>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
>> -to unsubscribe 
>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
>>  -to unsubscribe 
>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
>  -to unsubscribe 
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
> 
> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
>  -to unsubscribe 
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
> 





------------------------------ 

Message: 14 
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 20:18:01 +0000 
From: Andy Mills <amills at jplcreative.com> 
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 
Message-ID: 
        <49A8DF1319C970479DC74310D86114E1017CC5 at JPLExchange.jpl.lcl> 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 

Jack: 

A nice response.   

But are the slave owners fighting to keep their slaves, or keep their value in those slaves that are make them rich? 

If the federal government decided as a result of the housing bubble to nationalize all private homes to avoid another bubble and people rebelled as a result:  would that rebellion be over houses or the fear of losing your investment in those houses?  There is a distinct difference between the two as one is over the right to own an object and the other is over money and investments and what is perceived to be an invasion of the government to prevent you from making a living by a system that has been around and ingrained in your culture for centuries.   

Please:  before anyone says it, I understand one is comparing an inanimate object to a human being but fortunately, we have no modern example to use.   

Thanks, 

-----Original Message----- 
From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] On Behalf Of Jack Lawrence 
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 2:13 PM 
To: GDG 
Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
Hello. 
There is, as you point out, a lot more going on here. 

The wealth generated by slavery was not only in the cotton, rice etc that they produced. 
It was also in the slaves themselves. A strong field hand was worth a thousand dollars in 1850's-60's dollars. 
So a man with a thousand slaves had a hundreds of thousands of dollars dollars in wealth out in the fields, no matter how well his crops fared. He could also hire those slaves out, or let a skilled slave, like a carpenter, take on work in town and pay (more likely split) what he earned. He could even hire out the women. 

The south understood that the influx of northern immigrants was producing a body politic that wanted no part of slavery. Even so, the north was willing to tolerate it, to preserve the union. So was Lincoln. In that regard, he was a manifestation of the body politic in it's purest form. What would not be tolerated was the southern demand to allow slavery in territories prior to their admission into the union (bleeding Kansas was all about whether Kansas would be free or slave at admission.)  The Supreme Court was responsible for this when it overturned The Missouri Compromise, which required one slave state be admitted for every free state admitted So the south tried to circumvent this by allowing slavery in the territories prior to admission. Trying to abolish slavery in a state that already had slaves would be difficult to say the least. 

Now, the reason the south wanted the territories to be open to slavery was purely economic. More slave territory meant that more slaves were needed. 
Which meant that if a man owned a thousand slaves worth a hundreds of thousand of dollars, they were worth hundreds of thousands of dollars more. 

Succinctly stated, slavery as practiced in the United States at that place and time was a giant bubble. It was not slavery that was going to go away. 
It was the wealth of the slaves that was going to diminish. 


Your second paragraph, that the matter of slavery in the Civil War is over 
determined is simply incorrect. The only thing going on here is slavery. 
It is true that there was a racial undertone, but it was a created racial 
undertone. Throughout history, for the most part, slavery had been pretty 
much an economic institution. 
In the south, people were taught that Africans were an inferior people, 
somewhere between animals and people. They were too simple to function 
freely. Even the slaves were educated in their dependence on white people. 
Traveling minstrel shows toured the south. They always included three main 
characters, Jim Crow, the typical hard working, carefree negro who prospered 
when he did his masters bidding, Tambo, the joyous musical negro, and Zip 
Coon, the sly negro who was always getting Jim in trouble (think King Fish 
Amos and Andy and ). Just another way to keep blacks in their place. 

Indoctrination was prevalent among white people too. 

Preachers preached it on Sunday (There was even a "Christian Way" to treat 
your slaves dogma), politician orated over the dangers of free negroes and 
civic leaders did the same. 
The message was always the need that slaves had for white masters. But the 
really chilling, insidious, vile message, the one that chilled the populace 
and absolutely convinced them that they need to keep these people enslaved 
was that black slaves craved after, lusted for and, left unfettered, would 
unleash a depravity on white females unseen since the rape of the Sabine 
women. Can you imagine preaching this on Sunday? 
Which, IMHO, accounted for the fierce devotion to the south among southern 
women during the war. (Ok, Butler didn't help much). 

So, at the end of the day, there was no other cause for the war but slavery, 
but slavery itself was a many faceted thing. 



------------------------------ 

Message: 15 
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 14:32:47 -0600 
From: "Jack Lawrence" <jlawrence at kc.rr.com> 
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 
Message-ID: <3DCB86984B7F4AF6B0C3481BB0F81323 at jackPC> 
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; 
        reply-type=original 

Andy, 

The point is the slaves were the same as houses to the slave owners. 

Economically, they were, as I pointed out earlier, wealth. No one argues 
that. But the wealth was based on slaves. 

Socially, they were scared to death that a monster they had created was 
about to devour them (of course, the slaves themselves dispelled this 
boogeyman when they had a chance to turn contraband. there were no 
massacres. they just wanted out of the system. 

Watch night is still celebrated in some poarts of the country, I have been 
told. 

Regards, 

Jack 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andy Mills" <amills at jplcreative.com> 
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 2:18 PM 
Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 


> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> Jack: 
> 
> A nice response. 
> 
> But are the slave owners fighting to keep their slaves, or keep their 
> value in those slaves that are make them rich? 
> 
> If the federal government decided as a result of the housing bubble to 
> nationalize all private homes to avoid another bubble and people rebelled 
> as a result:  would that rebellion be over houses or the fear of losing 
> your investment in those houses?  There is a distinct difference between 
> the two as one is over the right to own an object and the other is over 
> money and investments and what is perceived to be an invasion of the 
> government to prevent you from making a living by a system that has been 
> around and ingrained in your culture for centuries. 
> 
> Please:  before anyone says it, I understand one is comparing an inanimate 
> object to a human being but fortunately, we have no modern example to use. 
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] 
> On Behalf Of Jack Lawrence 
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 2:13 PM 
> To: GDG 
> Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 
> 
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> Hello. 
> There is, as you point out, a lot more going on here. 
> 
> The wealth generated by slavery was not only in the cotton, rice etc that 
> they produced. 
> It was also in the slaves themselves. A strong field hand was worth a 
> thousand dollars in 1850's-60's dollars. 
> So a man with a thousand slaves had a hundreds of thousands of dollars 
> dollars in wealth out in the fields, no matter how well his crops fared. 
> He could also hire those slaves out, or let a skilled slave, like a 
> carpenter, take on work in town and pay (more likely split) what he 
> earned. He could even hire out the women. 
> 
> The south understood that the influx of northern immigrants was producing 
> a body politic that wanted no part of slavery. Even so, the north was 
> willing to tolerate it, to preserve the union. So was Lincoln. In that 
> regard, he was a manifestation of the body politic in it's purest form. 
> What would not be tolerated was the southern demand to allow slavery in 
> territories prior to their admission into the union (bleeding Kansas was 
> all about whether Kansas would be free or slave at admission.)  The 
> Supreme Court was responsible for this when it overturned The Missouri 
> Compromise, which required one slave state be admitted for every free 
> state admitted So the south tried to circumvent this by allowing slavery 
> in the territories prior to admission. Trying to abolish slavery in a 
> state that already had slaves would be difficult to say the least. 
> 
> Now, the reason the south wanted the territories to be open to slavery was 
> purely economic. More slave territory meant that more slaves were needed. 
> Which meant that if a man owned a thousand slaves worth a hundreds of 
> thousand of dollars, they were worth hundreds of thousands of dollars 
> more. 
> 
> Succinctly stated, slavery as practiced in the United States at that place 
> and time was a giant bubble. It was not slavery that was going to go away. 
> It was the wealth of the slaves that was going to diminish. 
> 
> 
> Your second paragraph, that the matter of slavery in the Civil War is over 
> determined is simply incorrect. The only thing going on here is slavery. 
> It is true that there was a racial undertone, but it was a created racial 
> undertone. Throughout history, for the most part, slavery had been pretty 
> much an economic institution. 
> In the south, people were taught that Africans were an inferior people, 
> somewhere between animals and people. They were too simple to function 
> freely. Even the slaves were educated in their dependence on white people. 
> Traveling minstrel shows toured the south. They always included three main 
> characters, Jim Crow, the typical hard working, carefree negro who 
> prospered 
> when he did his masters bidding, Tambo, the joyous musical negro, and Zip 
> Coon, the sly negro who was always getting Jim in trouble (think King Fish 
> Amos and Andy and ). Just another way to keep blacks in their place. 
> 
> Indoctrination was prevalent among white people too. 
> 
> Preachers preached it on Sunday (There was even a "Christian Way" to treat 
> your slaves dogma), politician orated over the dangers of free negroes and 
> civic leaders did the same. 
> The message was always the need that slaves had for white masters. But the 
> really chilling, insidious, vile message, the one that chilled the 
> populace 
> and absolutely convinced them that they need to keep these people enslaved 
> was that black slaves craved after, lusted for and, left unfettered, would 
> unleash a depravity on white females unseen since the rape of the Sabine 
> women. Can you imagine preaching this on Sunday? 
> Which, IMHO, accounted for the fierce devotion to the south among southern 
> women during the war. (Ok, Butler didn't help much). 
> 
> So, at the end of the day, there was no other cause for the war but 
> slavery, 
> but slavery itself was a many faceted thing. 
> 
> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
>  -to unsubscribe 
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
> 





------------------------------ 

Message: 16 
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 20:32:56 +0000 
From: Andy Mills <amills at jplcreative.com> 
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 
Message-ID: 
        <49A8DF1319C970479DC74310D86114E1017CE5 at JPLExchange.jpl.lcl> 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 

Cotton production in 1795:  8.3 million pounds 
Cotton production in 1800:  36.5 million pounds 
Cotton production in 1805:  73 million pounds 
http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_es_cotton.htm 

Raw Cotton (bales) 
1790:  3,135 
1795:  16,719 
1800:  146,290 
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/phillips.cottongin 

The first census counted 697,000 slaves in 1790.  In 1810, there were 1.2 million slaves and by 1860, there are 3.9 million.  Within 10 years of the development of the cotton gin, the value of the total United States crop leaped from $150,000 to more than $8 million 
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part3/3narr6.html 
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/wahl.slavery.us 

These number increase exponentionally after the invention of the cotton gin and without the cotton gin, the explosion in cotton doesn't take place and as such, the demand for cheap labor isn't nearly as important as it is 

Without the cotton gin:  slaves are not needed in near the quantity they are after the invention because the vast expansion was a direct result of the invention of the cotton gin. 

Slaves did product a myriad of crops, but cotton vastly outnumbered indigo, rice, tobacco or any other product and without the explosion of cotton as a result of the cotton gin, the number of slaves is drastically diminished.   

Thanks, 

-----Original Message----- 
From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] On Behalf Of Jack Lawrence 
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 3:18 PM 
To: GDG 
Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
At the end of the day, it all folds back into slavery. 

And I think the cotton gin thing is vastly overblown. 

Slaves produced a myriad of crops. 

But the root cause of the war was salvery. 

Its like saying that a fertilized egg caused a pregnancy. There was something else in there first. 

Regards, 

jack 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andy Mills" <amills at jplcreative.com> 
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 2:04 PM 
Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 


> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> But the basics of slavery was money.  Money was the underlying factor that 
> kept slavery alive. 
> 
> Had slavery resorted in losing money and the decay of the plantations, 
> slavery would have been thrown out and replaced with something profitable. 
> 
> Money kept slavery alive and until slavery wasn't profitable or outlawed, 
> it would continue. 
> 
> Without the invention of the cotton gin, slavery would have most likely 
> faded out as it wouldn't have been profitable and there would have been no 
> need to protect a system that costs you money. 
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] 
> On Behalf Of Jack Lawrence 
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 2:53 PM 
> To: GDG 
> Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 
> 
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> Jim, 
> 
> All of the money reasons fold back into slavery. 
> 
> If you want to claim that the civil war was not about freeing the slaves 
> at the beginning, I will be the first to support you. 
> 
> If want to say that the Civil War was not about freeing the slaves at the 
> end, I will say Fortress Monroe. 
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Jack 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jim Ferguson" <jaferg at comcast.net> 
> To: "'GDG'" <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 1:20 PM 
> Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 
> 
> 
>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
>> I wish you had gone further in your discussion; money was the root cause 
>> of 
>> the Civil War in my opinion. And by root, I mean the one and only one 
>> thing 
>> that if removed from the slavery equation would stop the event from 
>> happening. The slave trade had become such a major portion of the South's 
>> GDP that none of the major players in the region were going to accept the 
>> elimination of it in the westward expansion. 
>> 
>> There are many work's on this subject, of course, but I like Bancroft's 
>> "Slave Trading in the Old South" for an semi-technical unvarnished 
>> explanation. 
>> Jim 
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- 
>> From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com 
>> [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] 
>> On Behalf Of joadx1 at netscape.net 
>> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 12:59 PM 
>> To: gettysburg at arthes.com 
>> Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 
>> 
>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
>> This is not a simplistic view; in fact, a number of modern analyses of 
>> the 
>> Civil War focus precisely on the economic aspects of the conflict.  One 
>> that 
>> I have read indicates that one of the reasons why non-slave-owning 
>> southerners fought to protect slavery was because so much of the southern 
>> economy was founded upon it that everyone would suffer economically if it 
>> disappeared. 
>> 
>> And while it would take us too far away from the parameters of this 
>> discussion board, I would argue (and do argue in my own professional 
>> work) 
>> that the peculiar institution of money has a particularly powerful role 
>> in 
>> our history, past and present, that is often misunderstood or ignored. 
>> But 
>> I will go no further on that. 
>> 
>> But I will add that the matter of slavery and the Civil War is 
>> overdetermined--that is, there is more than one cause at work here. 
>> Beyond 
>> the very real economic dimensions of the matter are the racial ones (I do 
>> not want to dwell on this, but racial hatred and feelings racial 
>> superiority 
>> are also involved); the social class ones (the plantation aristocracy was 
>> able to paper over the class inequalities in the south by telling 
>> southern 
>> yeomen that without slavery they would be part of a menial class, but 
>> with 
>> it they were part of a ruling caste); and simple fear: the southerners 
>> were 
>> very well aware that they had, in many regions, established slave 
>> populations that were much larger than the white populations, and they 
>> were 
>> terrified of a slave rebellion on the order of the successful rebellion 
>> in 
>> Haiti. 
>> 
>> There are yet other parts to this ugly puzzle, but your own suggestion is 
>> a 
>> very important part of it all. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- 
>> From: Andy Mills <amills at jplcreative.com> 
>> To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
>> Sent: Thu, Jan 5, 2012 9:44 am 
>> Subject: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 
>> 
>> 
>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
>> My apologies as I am not the best at getting ideas and thoughts out of my 
>> head 
>> and rationalizing them so others can understand. 
>> 
>> Having made my disclaimer, I am curious as to why the war wasn't all 
>> about 
>> money? 
>> 
>> Secession caused the war and slavery caused secession, I think based on 
>> emails I 
>> have read over the last couple days, everyone agrees with this statement. 
>> 
>> But what caused slavery?  The immediate cause was the need for cheap 
>> labor 
>> centuries before the civil war, so the underlying cause of slavery was 
>> money, 
>> ergo money caused slavery and slavery caused secession so the root cause 
>> was 
>> 
>> money? 
>> 
>> I understand that by 1860, there was also a racial element to America's 
>> slavery 
>> and part of the reason for maintaining the system was this racial element 
>> but I 
>> don't think this was the major force in maintaining the "peculiar 
>> institution", 
>> as the major force was simply put:  money. 
>> 
>> So why wouldn't the root cause then be economics, that without allowing 
>> slavery 
>> into the territories, slavery would slowly die and as a result, so would 
>> the 
>> way 
>> of life for the slave holding aristocrats of the South and their desire 
>> to 
>> maintain slavery was a desire to maintain their statuses, income, etc. 
>> 
>> One example would be Hampton Plantation outside Baltimore.  It was one of 
>> the 
>> largest and richest prior to the Civil War but slowly fell into a period 
>> of 
>> decline once slavery was banished from the country until the NPS saved 
>> the 
>> mansion future generations (yes, I know other organizations originally 
>> saved 
>> it 
>> in 1948, but didn't want to go into all the history of it).  We can look 
>> at 
>> many 
>> of the James River plantations that had to open their doors to the public 
>> to 
>> 
>> preserve and protect their properties because they were no longer 
>> sustainable 
>> once slavery was abolished. 
>> 
>> I agree that the original south seceded to protect slavery, but 
>> underneath 
>> that, 
>> slavery was there to support their income / economies, so if you want to 
>> say 
>> 
>> slavery led to secession which lead to the war, why can't you further 
>> define 
>> it 
>> that money led to slavery which lead to secession which led to war and as 
>> such, 
>> the root cause is the all powerful dollar? 
>> 
>> I understand this is a simplistic view and possibly an incorrect view of 
>> the 
>> 
>> situation, but to me, secession caused the war and a desire to protect 
>> slavery 
>> led to secession (I understand that you can't separate slavery from 1860 
>> South), 
>> but the root cause of slavery was money.  American slavery / chattel 
>> slavery 
>> 
>> wasn't like the Native Americans that took slaves from rival tribes to 
>> help 
>> replenish their population, or Rome that took slaves from captured 
>> armies. 
>> Slaves in those societies were not the basis of the economies as it was 
>> in 
>> the 
>> Antebellum South. 
>> 
>> I hope this makes sense, but wanted to get some viewpoints to see if this 
>> is 
>> a 
>> valid opinion or is full of holes. 
>> 
>> Thanks, 
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- 
>> From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com 
>> [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] 
>> On 
>> Behalf Of John Lawrence 
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:48 PM 
>> To: GDG 
>> Subject: Re: GDG- NPs & Slavery 
>> 
>>>-------------------------------- 
>>> 
>>>Hello, 
>>> 
>>>I am not arguing  whether not Lincoln could have  have chosen another 
>>>method to react to secession.  I'm not arguing Lincoln did not go to 
>>>war to preserve the union.   I am simply stating the  historical fact 
>>>that secession was caused by slavery and war was the result. 
>>> 
>>>It is impossible to have any discussion of the causes of the war or the 
>>>cause secession without the inclusion of slavery. 
>>> 
>>>The indisputable point is  slavery was the cause of secession which was 
>>>the cause of the war. 
>>> 
>>>The other what-ifs do not apply to that. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>Take Care 
>>> 
>>>Dennis 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
>> -to 
>> unsubscribe 
>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
>> -to unsubscribe 
>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
>>  -to unsubscribe 
>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
>  -to unsubscribe 
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
> 
> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
>  -to unsubscribe 
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
> 



----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com -to unsubscribe 
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 



------------------------------ 

Message: 17 
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 20:41:31 +0000 
From: Andy Mills <amills at jplcreative.com> 
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 
Message-ID: 
        <49A8DF1319C970479DC74310D86114E1017CFF at JPLExchange.jpl.lcl> 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 

Jack: 

I agree with everything you said.  I fully support the fact that the wealth was slaves and to the slave owners, they didn't see the slave as a human being, but instead as an object that can be owned, traded, sold, whipped, beat, etc.   

I think we disagree on a technicality.  We both say that they wanted to protect their wealth.  I see that desire to protect their wealth as the underlying cause, even though that wealth was the slave.  I think I just take it one step further and see it as the money invested in the slave, the slave system and their socio-economic structure system based in slavery and it would destroy their economy and wealth to lose slavery, but it is the desire to protect their investments and savings as the root cause.  Had they built a society on the backs of the ostrich, the outcome would have been the same (yes, I realize the analogy is silly, but there is just no comparison that can be made to owning another human being).   

I am just not sure there is really a difference and this is what I am trying to determine.  Is the need to protect their investments and wealth the root cause, or the system (slavery) in which that wealth was created and stored as the root cause? 

Thanks, 

-----Original Message----- 
From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] On Behalf Of Jack Lawrence 
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 3:33 PM 
To: GDG 
Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
Andy, 

The point is the slaves were the same as houses to the slave owners. 

Economically, they were, as I pointed out earlier, wealth. No one argues that. But the wealth was based on slaves. 

Socially, they were scared to death that a monster they had created was about to devour them (of course, the slaves themselves dispelled this boogeyman when they had a chance to turn contraband. there were no massacres. they just wanted out of the system. 

Watch night is still celebrated in some poarts of the country, I have been told. 

Regards, 

Jack 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andy Mills" <amills at jplcreative.com> 
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 2:18 PM 
Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 


> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> Jack: 
> 
> A nice response. 
> 
> But are the slave owners fighting to keep their slaves, or keep their 
> value in those slaves that are make them rich? 
> 
> If the federal government decided as a result of the housing bubble to 
> nationalize all private homes to avoid another bubble and people rebelled 
> as a result:  would that rebellion be over houses or the fear of losing 
> your investment in those houses?  There is a distinct difference between 
> the two as one is over the right to own an object and the other is over 
> money and investments and what is perceived to be an invasion of the 
> government to prevent you from making a living by a system that has been 
> around and ingrained in your culture for centuries. 
> 
> Please:  before anyone says it, I understand one is comparing an inanimate 
> object to a human being but fortunately, we have no modern example to use. 
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] 
> On Behalf Of Jack Lawrence 
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 2:13 PM 
> To: GDG 
> Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 
> 
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> Hello. 
> There is, as you point out, a lot more going on here. 
> 
> The wealth generated by slavery was not only in the cotton, rice etc that 
> they produced. 
> It was also in the slaves themselves. A strong field hand was worth a 
> thousand dollars in 1850's-60's dollars. 
> So a man with a thousand slaves had a hundreds of thousands of dollars 
> dollars in wealth out in the fields, no matter how well his crops fared. 
> He could also hire those slaves out, or let a skilled slave, like a 
> carpenter, take on work in town and pay (more likely split) what he 
> earned. He could even hire out the women. 
> 
> The south understood that the influx of northern immigrants was producing 
> a body politic that wanted no part of slavery. Even so, the north was 
> willing to tolerate it, to preserve the union. So was Lincoln. In that 
> regard, he was a manifestation of the body politic in it's purest form. 
> What would not be tolerated was the southern demand to allow slavery in 
> territories prior to their admission into the union (bleeding Kansas was 
> all about whether Kansas would be free or slave at admission.)  The 
> Supreme Court was responsible for this when it overturned The Missouri 
> Compromise, which required one slave state be admitted for every free 
> state admitted So the south tried to circumvent this by allowing slavery 
> in the territories prior to admission. Trying to abolish slavery in a 
> state that already had slaves would be difficult to say the least. 
> 
> Now, the reason the south wanted the territories to be open to slavery was 
> purely economic. More slave territory meant that more slaves were needed. 
> Which meant that if a man owned a thousand slaves worth a hundreds of 
> thousand of dollars, they were worth hundreds of thousands of dollars 
> more. 
> 
> Succinctly stated, slavery as practiced in the United States at that place 
> and time was a giant bubble. It was not slavery that was going to go away. 
> It was the wealth of the slaves that was going to diminish. 
> 
> 
> Your second paragraph, that the matter of slavery in the Civil War is over 
> determined is simply incorrect. The only thing going on here is slavery. 
> It is true that there was a racial undertone, but it was a created racial 
> undertone. Throughout history, for the most part, slavery had been pretty 
> much an economic institution. 
> In the south, people were taught that Africans were an inferior people, 
> somewhere between animals and people. They were too simple to function 
> freely. Even the slaves were educated in their dependence on white people. 
> Traveling minstrel shows toured the south. They always included three main 
> characters, Jim Crow, the typical hard working, carefree negro who 
> prospered 
> when he did his masters bidding, Tambo, the joyous musical negro, and Zip 
> Coon, the sly negro who was always getting Jim in trouble (think King Fish 
> Amos and Andy and ). Just another way to keep blacks in their place. 
> 
> Indoctrination was prevalent among white people too. 
> 
> Preachers preached it on Sunday (There was even a "Christian Way" to treat 
> your slaves dogma), politician orated over the dangers of free negroes and 
> civic leaders did the same. 
> The message was always the need that slaves had for white masters. But the 
> really chilling, insidious, vile message, the one that chilled the 
> populace 
> and absolutely convinced them that they need to keep these people enslaved 
> was that black slaves craved after, lusted for and, left unfettered, would 
> unleash a depravity on white females unseen since the rape of the Sabine 
> women. Can you imagine preaching this on Sunday? 
> Which, IMHO, accounted for the fierce devotion to the south among southern 
> women during the war. (Ok, Butler didn't help much). 
> 
> So, at the end of the day, there was no other cause for the war but 
> slavery, 
> but slavery itself was a many faceted thing. 
> 
> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com 
>  -to unsubscribe 
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
> 



----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com -to unsubscribe 
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 



------------------------------ 

Message: 18 
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 21:03:10 +0000 (UTC) 
From: "Margaret D. Blough" <mdblough1 at comcast.net> 
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 
Message-ID: 
        <1569964047.95596.1325797390562.JavaMail.root at sz0190a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net> 
         
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 

Andy- 


The distinction is one which Ira Berlin among others use: a society with slaves versus a slave society. As is often pointed out, at the time of the American Revolution, slavery existed in all of the British colonies. By the time of the Constitutional Convention, the process of ending slavery from Pennsylvania on up had begun with Massachusetts already having abolished slavery. The process, while not without controversy, was peaceful and, in most states, gradual. These were societies with slaves. Slavery was just one form of labor. It didn't mean slaves were treated any better but it meant that these societies could end slavery without any great fears of societal disruption or disintegration. 


Slave societies, which became the norm in the South, were societies in which slavery was not just a form of labor, it was woven into the fabric of the society. It was even the paradigm for all other relationships with any attack or weakening of slavery was seen as just the first step in a disintegration of all other relationships in a patriarchal society: wife to husband, children to father, etc. and, ultimately, the destruction, probably violent, of society itself. In 1862, Lincoln sponsored serious efforts to federally subsidize loyal slave states ending slavery in their borders. Those states rejected any such compensated emancipation and, ultimately, lost slavery but got no compensation under the 13th Amendment. Southern wealth was built on slavery, particularly in the 1850s as slave prices soared, but, when they said they were fighting for their way of life, they weren't kidding. 


Regards, 


Margaret 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andy Mills" <amills at jplcreative.com> 
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 3:41:31 PM 
Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies 

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
Jack: 

I agree with everything you said. I fully support the fact that the wealth was slaves and to the slave owners, they didn't see the slave as a human being, but instead as an object that can be owned, traded, sold, whipped, beat, etc. 

I think we disagree on a technicality. We both say that they wanted to protect their wealth. I see that desire to protect their wealth as the underlying cause, even though that wealth was the slave. I think I just take it one step further and see it as the money invested in the slave, the slave system and their socio-economic structure system based in slavery and it would destroy their economy and wealth to lose slavery, but it is the desire to protect their investments and savings as the root cause. Had they built a society on the backs of the ostrich, the outcome would have been the same (yes, I realize the analogy is silly, but there is just no comparison that can be made to owning another human being). 

I am just not sure there is really a difference and this is what I am trying to determine. Is the need to protect their investments and wealth the root
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com -to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives


More information about the Gettysburg mailing list