Two great books on Secession

[Ga.windbreak]

Moses allowed divorce--God forbids, then we get into grace.
The Union was not willing, for the sake of the Union, to show such grace.
Let's look at it from another angle.
The Union was afraid of having two foreign neighbors sandwiching them.
The rational fear was a war on two fronts, which they felt they could not win.
The rational supplement too this fear was the foothold a European government would establish in this Confederacy.
It is illogical not too see the soft underside of the Confederacy and all of its weakness beginning with the fact of it not being a cohesive union and the still great desire of several European nations too reestablish a foothold of colonization and expansion in the now seen benefits of the west.
Blessings

You have stated that thought of yours several times WL but you have never posted any links to back your statements of fear up. Wheres the beef? Prove it my friend, or let it go.

Peace.

[williamlayton]

There are a number of things which seem logical, too me and others in this summarizing.
We were not at complete rest with Great Britian and the most recent war of 1812 is an indicator.
We also had and are at this point most interested in Canada as an expansion avenue.
The west by this date is completely explored and was greatly too be desired--by many.
There was Mexico who was seen as a very likely opponent.
Have we not seen the French take a great interst in this unclaimed land? France was just one of many potential opponents.
There was a lingering group of loyalist in Virginia.
The South had eyes cast too the west also.
I can see it no other way.
Several of you have said that the South would have eventually rejoined the Union. I cannot see that as a possibility.
The leadership of the South was as greedy as any you would name in the North.
It should be seen as a matter of life and death, this sustaining of the Union.
Now, not all in the South agreed with secession, thereby giving the North the confidance to attempt too challenge the South.
It is looking at this with open eyes, not for just today, for the future and the possibilities.
Visions of many were projecting the outcome of the Union too be based on the West. 
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

There are a number of things which seem logical, too me and others in this summarizing.
We were not at complete rest with Great Britian and the most recent war of 1812 is an indicator.
We also had and are at this point most interested in Canada as an expansion avenue.
The west by this date is completely explored and was greatly too be desired--by many.
There was Mexico who was seen as a very likely opponent.
Have we not seen the French take a great interst in this unclaimed land? France was just one of many potential opponents.
There was a lingering group of loyalist in Virginia.
The South had eyes cast too the west also.
I can see it no other way.
Several of you have said that the South would have eventually rejoined the Union. I cannot see that as a possibility.
The leadership of the South was as greedy as any you would name in the North.
It should be seen as a matter of life and death, this sustaining of the Union.
Now, not all in the South agreed with secession, thereby giving the North the confidance to attempt too challenge the South.
It is looking at this with open eyes, not for just today, for the future and the possibilities.
Visions of many were projecting the outcome of the Union too be based on the West. 
Blessings

Well we tried the Canada thing during the war of 1812 and got our fannies handed to us on a platter as I remember. We messed with Mexico in 1848 as I recall and Texas is the results of that little fracas. As for France Jefferson just bought them out and Napolion was having his own problems he didn't have time to mess with us. If we had just stayed away from Canada the war of 1812 would have never been. So I just don't SEE your logic and you have no facts to back up your logic. Of course you have every right to believe as you do but its a pretty far reach from where I sit.

No, you are wrong, in that the Southern leadership was greedy. They were only greedy in that they wanted to be left to their own devises and leave in peace. And they were greedy to keep their way of life, which in my humble opinion, they had every right to keep. Or would you entertain a strange group coming into your town and telling you that you weren't running it properly and they were going to forcefully take over and run it the way they wanted to. All the while telling your workers that they were not being paid enough and should make at least $50.00 an hour.

[williamlayton]

Their own devices were wesward expansion and yes they wanted too do it in peace. The Union would not roll over and play dead, however.

What proof would you require? have you not given enough proof by agreeing too most all of the above logic.
What was the first thrust of secession if not because they were thwarted in their efforts too expand the number of slave states?
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

Their own devices were wesward expansion and yes they wanted too do it in peace. The Union would not roll over and play dead, however.

What proof would you require? have you not given enough proof by agreeing too most all of the above logic.
What was the first thrust of secession if not because they were thwarted in their efforts too expand the number of slave states?
Blessings

The physical layout and lack of water west of east Texas automatically  naturally eliminate the use of slave labor. You live there WL so this is something I shouldn't have to point out but there it is. Now please give me one good common sense reason why a man would try to grow cotton or rice in a land that wouldn't support it? Or are you trying to tell me that the owners were going to make cowboys out of them? Thus all the lands west of east Texas and the Gulf coast, although great for use as an equalizer in Congress offered no monetary gain for the Southern planter. Also if I remember correctly the Mexican Government had a clause in its Constitution that after a certain amount of time the slave would be free. Am I not right in that? All of this points to a planter being put between a rock and a hard place; so why bother?

[williamlayton]

I think further investigation will show that West Texas makes a heck of cotton crop each year.
There is ample water for irrigation. How did ranches survive?
With time there have been advances but there were cotton farmers in this area in the late 19Th and early 20TH century.
It is a desert out there but not the Sahara. Lots of rivers.

Let me ask you a question. Have you ever considered that slaves would be used for other than cotton?
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

I think further investigation will show that West Texas makes a heck of cotton crop each year.
There is ample water for irrigation. How did ranches survive?
With time there have been advances but there were cotton farmers in this area in the late 19Th and early 20TH century.It is a desert out there but not the Sahara. Lots of rivers.

Let me ask you a question. Have you ever considered that slaves would be used for other than cotton?Blessings

Thank you so very much for that wonderful statement of truth. It vilifies my statements about the facts that slavery, as an institution in the South, was a dying mode of labor and would have died a natural death given just a short time and would have allowed a better prepared former slave to become a free and upstanding citizen.

I assume you speak of slaves as in the US of that day. The African slave was thought to be the best type of worker in the southern temporate climate. It is agricultural in nature and the thoughts of that time period was that they were the best type of labor to use. As for what I believe today; I abhor the thought of anyone being in chains, of any sort, as there is more than one way someone may make a slave of another. Is there not?

[littlecanoe]

Does anyone have access to the breakdown of expenses of owning slaves vs paying share croppers?

[Ga.windbreak]

No but, in point of fact, we are still in the cotton growing business as well as sugar and rice. Those were the three major slave crops of the early 1800's. It is telling, is it not, that no matter which way slavery was going to go it was going to go. From the looks of it, I would guess that if left alone, by the time the reconstruction time period was up (1878) slavery would have been put to rest without all the hubbub and finger pointing that now goes on. So very sad because I feel that race relations would have been so much better off than they now are, but we are getting there.

[williamlayton]

There is still the question of "moving westward with slavery".
It is my position that this is what the South wanted.
People of color made good cowboys. It is not correct that the climate was ideal for the slave. It gets real cold in Africa.
Share cropping was never a good deal for the share cropper, just another form of slavery.
NOW, leasing of land is a good deal for the person leasing the land for himself and is popular with farmers today.
I still disagree that the South had ANY thought of slavery becoming outmoded.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

People of color made good cowboys.

Of course they did, I hope they make good Presidents too, cause we are about to find that out.

WL there is a world of difference between thinking something to be so and the reality of it being so. Necessity is the Mother of Invention. Davis thought that England would have to come over to our side because of the need for Cotton. What he didn't know is that England had a two year stock pile already over there. They never missed a step! The immigration in the North had yet to move South or west so the Cotton grower couldn't SEE what was just over the horizon. That doesn't mean it wasn't there and ready to happen. Plus the fact that you can't be truly free if even one of you is a slave.

It is not correct that the climate was ideal for the slave.

Never said it was a fact. I said

The African slave was thought to be the best type of worker in the southern temporate climate