Re: I see a bad moon risin'

Posted by Loyd Smith On 2009/5/5 11:11:29

Rusty,

"the south penetrated northern territory long before the north invaded the south."

When General Irwin McDowell marched the 35,000 strong (the largest army yet amassed at that time on the North American continent) across the Potomac River on July 16, 1861 to engage General Beauregard's Confederate Army of The Potomac encamped some 25 miles south of Washington, D.C. at Manassas Junction, Virginia he invaded the sovereign state of Virginia, a state at that time legally seceded from the Union and a part of the Confederate States of America. The Confederacy invaded Kentucky (twice), Maryland and Pennsylvania in 1862 and 1863 but the first battle of the war was fought on Confederate soil in an around Manassas Junction, Virginia as a result of a Union incursion into Confederate territory and the great preponderance of the remainder of the war was fought in the south.

The stated reason for the initial Union call for volunteers was to, "recapture forts, customs houses, etc. now seized by secessionists." Since these, "seized," sites were located in the south, it would've been rather difficult to recapture them without invasion. The intent was pretty clear.

The south had no reason to invade the north. During the great panic of 1837, the devastating depression that followed it and the panic of 1857 the industrial north suffered greatly while the south, with its cotton-based economy remained prosperous and was unaffected. The majority of the textile mills in the north, as well as the huge textile industry in Britain at that time, were almost completely dependent upon southern cotton and, in point of fact, official records indicate that 57% of the United States' total foreign export for calendar year 1860 consisted of southern cotton. In the economic context of that time - cotton really was king. Therein lies the REAL reason that there was never any question of allowing the southern states to secede, peacefully or otherwise.

Politicians of that era were no more likely to let that amount of revenue, with its vast potential for additional graft, escape them without a fight than are modern ones. The firebrands and demagogues in the south should've anticipated this but, as usual, their self-serving politicians were no more prone to logical thought, recognition of reality and prudent action than professional politicians have ever been. Their self-interests get in the way. Historically, when politicians have achieved generally good result - it's nearly always been purely accidental and, the more of them there are the less likely this is to happen.

With this I am going to bow out of this topic. It ain't Packard-related and the contemplation of politicians, past, present, conservative, liberal, Whig, Tory, Republican, Democrat - whatever - puts me off my feed.