John Gunby: "I would sooner sink into a patriot's grave than wear the crown of England"

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Sunday, May 10. 2015

John Gunby: "I would sooner sink into a patriot's grave than wear the crown of England"

Col. John Gunby

Surber's American stories are inspirational and great fun. Sometimes I wonder whether, in retrospect, that war against Parliament really needed to be fought. Feel same way about the US Civil War/War Between the States. Maybe I am an outlier, though.

Posted by Bird Dog in The Culture, "Culture," Pop Culture and Recreation at 16:15 | Comments (21) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Agree the Am Rev was not necessary. Maybe a try should have been made to buy out slaveowners using sale of western lands and railroad concessions. But the hardasses in the South would probably still have seceded. it wasn't just about money.

#1 RickinJax on 2015-05-10 16:54 (Reply)

Doubt it is in the American spirit to force people into a union they don't want, for whatever reason.

#1.1 Bird Dog on 2015-05-10 17:04 (Reply)

"Doubt it is in the American spirit to force people into a union they don't want, for whatever reason."

I'm beginning to wonder if regions of the country have drifted so far apart we might ever consider an amicable divorce. Never would have dreamed I would even consider saying such thing until recently, but the gulf keeps getting wider.

#1.1.1 RJ on 2015-05-10 18:06 (Reply)

"I'm beginning to wonder if regions of the country have drifted so far apart we might ever consider an amicable divorce. Never would have dreamed I would even consider saying such thing until recently, but the gulf keeps getting wider."

It's not the regions but the body politic that has drifted apart. We have much to fear from federalization because of that divide - the feds would find a divided populace easy pickings. . It may be that Texas is being harassed by Obama's Feds because they're one of the few states willing to stand up to the Feds (never mind Fort Hood).

#1.1.1.1 The Old Salt on 2015-05-12 18:34 (Reply)

Agree with Rickin Jax.

Barbara Tuchman's book, March of Folly dealt with The Revolution and how Britain clearly pursued policies which weren't in their own best interests. The Colonists weren't always reasonable either. Our differences could have been decided amicably, but they weren't. Ego, emotion and miscalculation trumped reason and compromise.

As for the Civil War, I just don't believe a buyout was going to happen. I believe it was an option that was ahead of its time and would have been opposed by Northerners and Southerners alike. It would have threatened the way of life of the southern aristocracy, and they simply weren't going to be dictated to. Secession was inevitable. The war was not. The North could have let them go.

#1.2 feeblemind on 2015-05-10 17:20 (Reply)

Slavery was already on the way out in the antebellum south. Most modern historians ignore that fact. It was slowly fading.

A buyout of slaves then would be the same as paying slavery reparations to those who claim every problem they have today is because of slavery. It would last until those given the money used up the last dollar on fast living and then things would return to what they were. For those unfamiliar with our history, the slaves were given reparations at the end of the war. Current calls for additional reparations forget that point.

No, the civil war was about onerous taxes and tariffs laid upon goods sold to southern states. Had the south sufficient resources to fight properly, the war would have ended in 1862 after the battle of Manassas.

The war concerned states rights and Lincoln used every side issue he could to obscure his true goal to force a strong federal government upon every state -- the very issue that the founders had such strong arguments against. Had the civil war been resolved without armed conflict, the westward expansion would have been more robust and the settling of western lands would still have been accomplished.

#1.3 Dave on 2015-05-11 02:19 (Reply)

Hi Dave.

You wrote, "Slavery was already on the way out in the antebellum south. Most modern historians ignore that fact. It was slowly fading."

I guess it depends on your source:

One of the main arguments made by Southern sympathizers and other critics of Abraham Lincoln, at the time and in the 150 years since, was that the Civil War was unnecessary; like the founders, they have argued that slavery would have died out on its own. This was, too, a core assumption of many Republican leaders at the time: that if the expansion of slavery could be checked, then it would eventually wither away.

But nothing about the cotton economy of 1861 pointed that way. On the eve of the Civil War there was no perceived threat to the existence of slavery;

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YiTjXGkhHEUJ:opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/when-cotton-was-king/+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

#1.3.1 feeblemind on 2015-05-11 11:30 (Reply)

"Had the south sufficient resources to fight properly, the war would have ended in 1862 after the battle of Manassas."

coulda shoulda woulda. in the immortal words of Genghis Khan, "scoreboard, kid".

#1.3.2 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-05-11 13:55 (Reply)

It still isn't about money. And, we're still hardasses.

#1.4 BillH on 2015-05-11 10:13 (Reply)

I don't see Napoleon selling the Louisiana Territory to the Brits. And look at the upside: fewer Oxford graduates in government.

#2 chuck on 2015-05-10 17:48 (Reply)

With the exception of a very few firebrands like S. Adams, most founders went to great links to reconcile with the crown and desired to remain under British authority. Franklin was against it right up to the very end. The colonies needed the protection and trade of the British fleet, if nothing else.

I believe that had the South won, or the N. allowed them to secede, N. America would have been as divided and weak as Europe. It wouldn't have stopped at just a country in the north and one in the south.

When it comes to what-ifs, I like to wonder how much greater this country would be if Canada would have been convinced to join the fight. Or, if we had succeeded in capturing that territory, as some wanted to. It's still an amazing amount of land and resources up there.

#3 Jack Walter on 2015-05-10 21:54 (Reply)

We could invade Canada today!

Why not?

#3.1 Bird Dog on 2015-05-11 07:21 (Reply)

Over my dead body.

Wasn't 1812-1815 a big enough fiasco for you folks?

God Save The Queen!

#3.1.1 JJM on 2015-05-11 16:23 (Reply)

The American Revolution DID need to happen for there to be an America. WWI did NOT need to happen, but it did. The Civil War (by whatever name suits ones fancy) DID need to happen for their to be an America spanning the continent.

Course, you could just have Newt write a book showing otherwise.

#4 ron snyder on 2015-05-11 00:36 (Reply)

the civil war's over, no more what ifs, justifications, whining, special pleading, excuses, alternative history fantasy, etc. you people lost. RE Lee surrendered with class, you can do the same, otherwise, deal with it.

#5 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-05-11 03:19 (Reply)

The broker was discussing searching for a way to BAN him since he was WINNING also much!The GOOD information is that they cannot because of their reputation being on the line! So if you are still searching for help trading binary alternatives you absolutely HAVE to check this out!http://j.mp/BINARYcb.

#5.1 Darell Fickett (Link) on 2015-05-11 08:10 (Reply)

You sound like Obama, Donny.

#5.2 BillH on 2015-05-11 10:16 (Reply)

at least you're more coherent than 5.1

#5.2.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-05-11 13:51 (Reply)

Canada's liberal government legalized an invasion of Canada decades ago. It's still in process. Eventually all the new immigrants/invaders will outnumber the Canadians and it will become something quite different, perhaps a suburb of China.

#6 GoneWithTheWind on 2015-05-11 18:09 (Reply)

"[Canada] will become something quite different, perhaps a suburb of China."

As opposed to becoming China's mortgagee like the US?

#6.1 JJM on 2015-05-12 09:49 (Reply)

No offense meant JJM. Canada made the decision to sell citizenships and the Chinese took them up on that offer in vast numbers. That is Canada's business and if they are happy with that then more power to them. They got a better deal then the U.S. citizens since our politicians give away citizenships to poor people who must be supported at great expense all their lives.
As for China being our mortgagee that is an often misunderstood situation. China holds some of our debt certainly not a majority of it. BUT their position is hardly a good one. U.S. debt as an investment really sucks. You have nothing except the interest payment and the promise to be paid back in the future. You have no assets that you can attach, and the current value of your holdings are determined on the open market. The U.S. can choose to cash in the debt at any time but the holder of the debt cannot. In other words they aren't the mortgagee they merely parked money and we hold all the cards. In fact we could wipe out all the governments debt overnight(and I suspect someday we will) by printing $20 trillion or so and paying the debt off with the inflated money and the holders of the debt have zero recourse. If you really understand the nature of U.S. debt (or pretty much any country) you would agree it is a crappy investment and the holder has no rights or guarantees.
I say all this because it is common for people to talk about our debt that China owns as though they have some kind of ability to take their pound of flesh if we don't pay up some day. They do not. They have next to nothing and the U.S. government holds all the cards.

#6.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2015-05-12 10:30 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Sunday, May 10. 2015

John Gunby: "I would sooner sink into a patriot's grave than wear the crown of England"