Standing against the Wind

[Missouri Tenth]

Spam

Created by Missouri Tenth – worked pretty hard on this one. Hope you find it encouraging and thought-provoking! Consists of 5 minute music video depicting the Revolutionary War, the War for Southern Independence, and the impact of these events on our Government and society today. For educational purposes only.

[KICK]

is the War for Southern Independence how Australia freed it self from the yoke of the British?

[Mountain Man]

Well done.

[KEN JENSEN]

Originally Posted by Missouri Tenth

Created by Missouri Tenth – worked pretty hard on this one. Hope you find it encouraging and thought-provoking! Consists of 5 minute music video depicting the Revolutionary War, the War for Southern Independence, and the impact of these events on our Government and society today. For educational purposes only.

Nice music, not a bad walk thru. On my "first pass" through your presentation, I didn't find it too "thought-provoking", nor did I tie it to our Govt and society today.

However, once I had gone through it the first time, I then took a 2nd pass through and stopped at "text" sections, where I presumed you were attempting to make one or more points; had to think about them. Some of your points I could equate to today, but others I struggled with.

Good luck with your "Blog" enterprise; you now have one more "viewer hit".

[majormack]

Remember; the War for Southern Indepenedence, could also be titled the "War to Preserve Black Slavery". Both would fit and the latter fits better than the former.

[KEN JENSEN]

Originally Posted by majormack

Remember; the War for Southern Indepenedence, could also be titled the "War to Preserve Black Slavery". Both would fit and the latter fits better than the former.

IMHO I do believe the "Preserve Black Slavery" was the political Class Warfare of the times. In reality that war was about "economic control". The South had the North by the balls, not only with "King" Cotton, but with much of the "food supply" the South controlled.

[majormack]

Originally Posted by KEN JENSEN

IMHO I do believe the "Preserve Black Slavery" was the political Class Warfare of the times. In reality that war was about "economic control". The South had the North by the balls, not only with "King" Cotton, but with much of the "food supply" the South controlled.

I agree that what you have posted is what has been taught in the US even since I was a kid, but it's wrong.

Simply stated: if it had not been for slavery there would not have been a Civil War.

[B7B Southern]

Originally Posted by majormack

I agree that what you have posted is what has been taught in the US even since I was a kid, but it's wrong.

Simply stated: if it had not been for slavery there would not have been a Civil War.

The Civil War was started over deception and misleading lies.

[TomDeFranco]

Originally Posted by Missouri Tenth

http://missouritenth.com/2012/04/08/...inst-the-wind/

Created by Missouri Tenth – worked pretty hard on this one. Hope you find it encouraging and thought-provoking! Consists of 5 minute music video depicting the Revolutionary War, the War for Southern Independence, and the impact of these events on our Government and society today. For educational purposes only.

Are you still naive enough to believe that Northern victory in the ACW resulted in the abridgment of the 4th and 1st Amendments? Did you ever hear of East Tennessee, of the dissent in Texas and how the Germans were treated down there? Did you know that the South enacted conscription before the Lincoln administration? Did you know that Davis, once the opportunity presented itself, lifted the writ of Habeous Corpus and started arresting newspapermen who dissented the war the South was waging? Have you ever looked at the articles of secession?

The Federal government has made its share of mistakes before, during and since the Civil War, but it's time you stop piling in.

[mikeck]

Originally Posted by KEN JENSEN

IMHO I do believe the "Preserve Black Slavery" was the political Class Warfare of the times. In reality that war was about "economic control". The South had the North by the balls, not only with "King" Cotton, but with much of the "food supply" the South controlled.

I don't believe that is correct. The unions food production far outpaced that of the south. You are forgetting the vast farmlands of Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota, Illinois and Pennsylvania. In addition, the textile mills of the north never wanted for cotton. There is more to food production than land...availablility of farm equipment for one. Moat southern plantations grew tobacco and cotton. The latter was also produced in abundance over seas.

[D1J1]

Originally Posted by mikeck

I don't believe that is correct. The unions food production far outpaced that of the south. You are forgetting the vast farmlands of Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota, Illinois and Pennsylvania. In addition, the textile mills of the north never wanted for cotton. There is more to food production than land...availablility of farm equipment for one. Moat southern plantations grew tobacco and cotton. The latter was also produced in abundance over seas.

Absolutely correct! The North maintained a balanced economy of industry, cash crops and food crops.

The South was all about cash crops only! Food produced in the south before the Civil War, like most all food crops, was most important locally.

Regards,
Dennis

[KICK]

Originally Posted by B7B Southern

The Civil War was started over deception and misleading lies.

who started it?

when did it start..

seems to be general consensus that the slugfest opening bell would have been wrung at Fort Sumter, but that would be too simple..

[KICK]

Originally Posted by mikeck

I don't believe that is correct. The unions food production far outpaced that of the south. You are forgetting the vast farmlands of Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota, Illinois and Pennsylvania. In addition, the textile mills of the north never wanted for cotton. There is more to food production than land...availablility of farm equipment for one. Moat southern plantations grew tobacco and cotton. The latter was also produced in abundance over seas.

3 points, all net..

about the only the North needed the south for was cotton for their textile mills..

but the south needed trade goods cheap, and since English trade good were cheaper than Yankee trade goods due to a protective tariff which benefited Yankee industry, it was a bone of contention on a weaker and weaker south,,,,

figure the first 50 years of US History was controlled by the south and they lost that advantage.. in many areas...

Oh well,, its old news...was about slavery but also about many other things,.

[KICK]

Originally Posted by majormack

Remember; the War for Southern Indepenedence, could also be titled the "War to Preserve Black Slavery". Both would fit and the latter fits better than the former.

how about the War of Northern Agression.
I always liked that one even if the south were the ones who were the first aggressors..

[KEN JENSEN]

Originally Posted by mikeck

I don't believe that is correct. The unions food production far outpaced that of the south. You are forgetting the vast farmlands of Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota, Illinois and Pennsylvania.

You look at it one way; I see it another way.

I do believe that most food farmland during those times were "subsistence" farming, not "commercial commodity" farming. LOL, I believe the South produced more corn for "grits" than "wheat" produced by "Yankee" farmers.

...Southern agriculture on the eve of the Civil War. Although cash crops - rice, tobacco, sugar, hemp, and above all cotton - dominated the agricultural economy, the South also raised substantial quantities of corn, hogs, and cattle. As a result, the South in 1860 was the most productive agricultural region in the United States.
..
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n28661480/

Originally Posted by mikeck

In addition, the textile mills of the north never wanted for cotton. There is more to food production than land...availablility of farm equipment for one. Moat southern plantations grew tobacco and cotton. The latter was also produced in abundance over seas.

Yeah riiiight. You do realize that our Southern States, at the time, was growing 75% of the world's cotton. Your statement causes me to wonder where in the hell was the Northern States importing their cotton from.