Bradley, I'm at a loss as to why you would call ME a "revisionist." Are you playing the devil's advocate here or are you truly confused about how this country was settled? One of my 4th great-grandfathers came to Pennsylvania as an indentured servant in 1729 and worked for eight years to pay off his passage and obligation. Because he was literate (hence the name "Scrivner") he probably worked in a clerical or bookkeeping capacity. He lived in Byberry Township, which is now part of Philadelphia. At that time even Pennsylvania was mostly rural farming country and he watched the country grow. The population centers then were from Virginia to Massachusetts and North Carolina was considered "frontier." His 3d son, my 3d great-grandfather, migrated to Rowan County, North Carolina with his two older brothers, traveling in Conestoga wagons, and soon thereafter enlisted in the Continental Army. The large population centers of the country then were Boston, Philadelphia and New York. Though there were growing cities in South Carolina and Florida, the greatest assemblies of immigrants remained in "the North" and most of Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi were sparsely settled. The French presence in Louisiana didn't end immediately with the Louisiana Purchase in April, 1803, but except for the booming port of New Orleans most of that territory was wilderness. When the first state capitol building was erected in Jefferson City in 1826 my 2d great-grandfather's was one of only 31 families in permanent residence there. By the time of Mr. Lincoln's aggression against it in 1861 the entire Confederacy had a population of less than half that of the Union. As for your comment about the end of slavery in Texas, it is ludicrous on its face. You state that slaves in Texas learned of the Emancipation Proclamation in June (Juneteenth) but slavery did not end in Delaware until the 13th Amendment was ratified in DECEMBER, some six months later. Remember, Texas was one of the original eight Confederate states so Mr. Lincoln's meaningless proclamation (he lacked the authority to "proclaim" a law effecting sovereign states of another nation) was aimed at Texas. It simply had no meaning until circumstances forced General Lee to surrender his forces. As for responsibility--and guilt--for the "Bleeding Kansas" years I must admit that some Missourians retaliated too strongly and harmed some innocents, but if the Jayhawkers hadn't crossed into Missouri to rape, rob and pillage there would have been no need for retaliation by Quantrill, Anderson and others. For example, Colonel Anderson joined Quantrill only after a Unionist murdered his father and he turned especially vicious after Union soldiers murdered one of his sisters and maimed another. My own great-grandfather joined the "border ruffians" only after marauding Jayhawkers burned out several of his friends and neighbors under the thin guise of their "anti-slavery" views. It didn't matter to them that none of the homesteads they attacked had slaves. They just wanted to steal horses and cattle, kill men and rape women and any excuse would do. As for Southern failure to industrialize, there was a failure to build ships of their own for trading in Europe. The wealthy New York and New England businessmen of the time owned or controlled most U.S. flag vessels and did their best to prevent shipments of machinery to the South. They also threatened suppliers in Europe and England with curtailment of their own purchases if machinery was sold to Southern businesses. They used the despotic federal government to impose exorbitant import duties on any industrial equipment brought into the South. They wanted the South to remain predominantly agrarian and to supply them cheap cotton and tobacco. As for the retribution you question, have you never heard of "Reconstruction" or Yankee carpetbaggers? And thanks to the failure of the Confederate States to maintain their freedom and independence, we now have a gluttonous national government that strives to absorb all our country's wealth and redistribute much of it to the northeastern states. Slavery today is a bit more subtle. Workers can have cars and color TV sets but they still have to give about 40% of their earned wealth to support politicians, their otherwise unemployable relatives and the slothful constituents who return them to office every election in return for a few welfare dollars. Now let's get back to more specific study of Missouri's participation in the War of Northern Aggression. Bill, in KC =-=-=-=-= Subject: RE: [MO-CW] Slavery and Mr. Lincoln's despotism > Hello, > > I am well aware of our history and not some the revisionist bunk below-War > of Northern Aggression surely you jest-the South ran rough shot over the > north-until immigration began to turn the tide and the numbers tilted to > the north-once the south knew they could no longer bully the north they > decided to cut and run. I find it funny that the North kept the South > down-when in actuality the south up until the time of the Civil War more > often than not had the White House, The Congress, and more importantly the > Supreme Court- > > Actually, you are welcome to challenge my grasp-but you better come loaded > for bear-how interesting that you sit in judgment of a wonderful political > decision by Lincoln to only emancipate certain slaves. > > Federal Despotism-I find this to be a hoot-perhaps you should look into > the despotism of those in the south who not only railroaded many of their > people on the issue of Secession-then to further spit in the face of the > rights of the people decided that counties in their states who wanted no > part of this could not in turn leave the state-ironic. > > The last state to end Slavery was Texas-they forgot to tell the slaves > they were free-the day of freedom in Texas is still celebrated as > Juneteenth. > > By what right I ask you did border ruffians have to enter Kansas vote in a > bogus election-how do they stand for the rights of the people against > tyranny? the short answer is they don't. The Ruffians were the instigators > of the violence-once the Free Staters saw that they were to be governed by > an illegal government elected by the Ruffians-they indeed began to fight > back-something the Southern were not familiar with-some would call it > resistance. > > You are correct in that Jayhawkers used many excuses to pillage farms-etc. > But you are blinded by your revisionism to see that both sides were > equally guilty. > > I disagree with your economic analysis-first, Slavery depresses wages-no > need to pay white folks a good wage when you can work slaves for free-or > nearly free-since one does have to feed and cloth them. > > Let us keep in mind the planter elite were not interested in progress-they > wanted to emulate the wealthy land owners of England-you should ask > yourself why the southerners didn't take it upon themselves to develop > their industry, railroads, etc.? Oh, mean northerners made life tough on > the cotton plantation owners-I guess this would excuse them from > diversifying-investing, etc. > > I will agree that there was little interest in many northerners to > eliminate slavery-however, the Slave Owning elite drove them to this > position by the attempt of Southerners to not only expand slavery west and > south but to dictate to northerners the terms by which they would agree to > stay in the union. > > One last note-the rebels got off easy-no mass executions-no mass > confiscation of rebel property, and no mass expulsion of rebels. Had > northerners been as the revisionists and the neo-confederates make them > out to be then were was the retribution? > > Face up rebels-you all got hood winked by the wealthy-and paid the > price-god forbid you all should own up to it.