Wednesday, August 23, 2017

BELIEVE IT OR NOT



It may take days for a letter to go from Plainfield to Westfield. That is why the transit time for this package is remarkable. Read up.
 

PLAINFIELD,  NJ,  US
08/23/2017
10:02 A.M.
Delivered
Bound Brook,  NJ,  United States
08/23/2017
8:37 A.M.
Out For Delivery

08/23/2017
8:26 A.M.
Out For Delivery
Newark,  NJ,  United States
08/23/2017
7:13 A.M.
Departure Scan

08/23/2017
6:01 A.M.
Import Scan

08/23/2017
4:50 A.M.
Arrival Scan
Koeln,  Germany
08/23/2017
2:56 A.M.
Departure Scan

08/23/2017
12:17 A.M.
Arrival Scan
Karmelava,  Lithuania
08/22/2017
10:09 P.M.
Departure Scan

08/22/2017
5:26 P.M.
Export Scan

08/22/2017
5:26 P.M.
Origin Scan
Lithuania
08/22/2017
4:32 A.M. (ET)
Order Processed: Ready for UPS
 


AT LAST-CAUSES OF CIVIL WAR




This is a too long posting which I have complied through google sources about the causes of the Civil War. Unfortunately for me the draft(s) had disappeared into the internet space several times.  It is important when understanding the monument’s meaning. There was a good OP-ED in yesterdays(Tuesday)Times “Why Confederates Should Go” by Jon Meacham that is worth reading.

Martin Kelly has noted the top five causes that led to the "War Between the States."  


Economic and social differences between the North and the South
The 1793 invention of Whitney’s Cotton Gin Mill had made cotton a profitable crop and when the Plantaions change to grow that as its only crop large numbers of cheap labor was needed. Slavery was the answer and supplied by importing African Blacks who had been collected by other African Blacks

The Souths economy was based on the Plantation system; rural and a dominating class. Whereas the North was city oriented and industrial where people of different cultures and classes had to work together  


States versus federal rights
The thirteen states had formed a loose confederation with a very weak federal government. The Constitution with its Bill of Rights had remedied that weakness.

The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents
The Louisiana Purchase and later with the Mexican War, the question of whether new states admitted to the union would be slave or free. The Missouri Compromise passed in 1820 made a rule that prohibited slavery in states from the former Louisiana Purchase the latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes north except in Missouri. During the Mexican War, conflict started about what would happen

The Compromise of 1850 created by Henry Clay and others dealt with the balance between slave and free states, northern and southern interests. One of the provisions was the fugitive slave act. Another issue that further increased tensions was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. It created two new territories that would allow the states to use popular sovereignty to determine whether they would be free or slave. The real issue occurred in Kansas where pro-slavery Missourians began to pour into the state to help force it to be slave.

Growth of the Abolition Movement
It was gaining momentum with the publishing of Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John Brown's Raid, and the passage of the fugitive slave act that held individuals responsible for harboring fugitive slaves even if they were located in non-slave states.

The election of Abraham Lincoln
Before Lincoln was even president, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.

South Carolina issued its "Declaration of the Causes of Secession, claiming that the Federal government was negating State’s rights. They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests.


Gordon Leidner of Great American History wrote: “Today we recognize slavery as a moral issue. But in the first, moral issue second. A series of legislative actions, most notably the Missouri Compromise of 1820, had been enacted by Congress to put limits on the propagation of slavery, but compromise with northern and southern interests was always kept in mind. The South had an economic interest in the spread of slavery to the new territories so that new slave states could be created and the South's political influence would remain strong. The North had an interest in limiting the spread of slavery into the new territories for both purposes of controlling Southern political power AND support of the moral issue


Southern politicians convinced their majority that the North was threatening their way of life and their culture. Northern politicians convinced their majority that the South, if allowed to secede, was really striking a serious blow at democratic government. In these arguments, both southern and northern politicians were speaking the truth--but not "the whole truth." They knew that to declare the war to be a fight over slavery would cause a lot of the potential soldiers of both sides to refuse to fight.

So-was the war about slavery? Of course. If there had been no disagreement over the issue of slavery, the South would probably not have discerned a threat to its culture and the southern politicians would have been much less likely to seek "their right to secede." But was it only about slavery? No. It was also about the constitutional argument over whether or not a state had a right to leave the Union, and--of primary concern to southern culture. Although the majority of Southerners most southern soldiers--the continuation of antebellum had little interest in slaves, slavery was a primary interest of Southern politicians--and consequently the underlying cause of the South's desire to seek independence and state rights."