Confederate States of America Civil War traders' tokens.

Unfortunatly not Aidan, Union issues.

De Orc :kewl:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Anyone living in the South might want to browse through antique shops to see if they can find any confederate tokens. I've purchased a couple of CWTs in antique shops where the owner didn't even know what they were and just threw them in with some encased coins and world's fair tokens.

 

Cloudsweeper99,if you do have any C.S.A. traders' tokens,can you please post the photos of them up here? It would be good to see a coin depicting the Stars & Bars on it.

Aidan.

 

I wish I did, but I don't, living here in the North. I only have a few of the fairly common patriotic tokens, but I like them a lot and would much rather collect them than, say, Indian Head Cents from the same time period. But if there is something out there from the CSA that has been overlooked and not already burried in someone's collection, I think it's just as likely to be sitting in an antique shop as a coin store where it would be snapped up faster.

 

Has anyone found a traders' currency token from the Confederate States of America yet?

Aidan.

 

I'm not sure if any of them did display the "stars and bars".

MIGHT be possible, but they would have to wade through a lot of Union tokens to be lucky enough to find one. (Yes the Union tokens were used in the south. They had to have something to use for coinage in commerce.)

Thsat comes from the typical teaching in modern schools that slavery was the major reason for the Civil War, rather than the real issues of states rights and economic questions relating to tariffs

 

Thats not true and is a racist revision of history, as a fact. The Civil War was all about the Slavery issue and members of Congress were coming the the Capital ARMED since there were fights and beatings on the Capital floor over this very issue long before the firing on Sumpter. You just nicely dusted over the entire history of Bloody Kansas, the Missiuri Compromise, the John Brown Rebeillion to give some poor racist fool a warm fuzzy feeling. It is NONSENSE.


Ruben

 

I was taught the same thing Ruben. while the issue of slavery was the hot topic, and one needing to be address, it was not the real reason behind the civil war. It was just the issue that got associated most with it. I cant remember everything i was told when i took college history relating to the time period around the civil, but what Condor101 posted sounds about right.

I also dont think his coments were meant to 'dust over' anything (at least i would hope not!). Slavery was a nasty busines that deserved the attention it got,and aboloshing it was the best thing to do! But it was not the main reason for the war.

 

The civil war, as with all wars, was caused by reasons of economics and not racism. Does anyone really think that white people in the north cared enough about black people in the south to go and fight and die for them? Please, my ancestors are from the north and I would love to think that they, along with the rest of the northernors and Abe Lincoln were so unselfish as to sacrifice so much for humanitarian reasons but that would be a farce. The truth is that politicians in the north decided it was worth it to sacrifice 1,000,000 U.S. citizens in order to preserve the Union so as not to give up all that land and tax revenue from the precious Southern cotton industry.

 

This is beyond the allowable content of this forum but since this is such a grave issue I'll respond.

Daggonjon - your WRONG. I wasn't taught this. It is a fact substantiated by the historical and bloody record. There is no issue between the states at that time, or any time in American History, which caused the bloodshed that cumulated into the Civil War ***OTHER THAN*** slavery. Nobody shed the blood of their husbands and brothers for a trariff. The whole states rights argument was brought forward by John Calhoun and wrapped about the Governments neck like a bat in order to protect ***SLAVERY***.

No Slavery, no Civil War, no Bleeding Kansas, No Dread Scott Decision, No Nullification Theory, no bloody battle over the Fugitive Slave Laws, no Beecher Ward undergrand railroad, no Civil War.

Every other fight in the Civil War and leading TO the Civil War was a proxy battle over Slavery. And once the North build railroads to the West ending the South's economic stranglehold on Western expanition through the use of Slavery over Free Labor, the Slavery issue was a done deal based on its moral decryptitude.

This nation could not have continued to go on with Slavery, and this nation was not getting rid of Slavery in the south without bloodshed.

Unless you want to really propose that in 2007 that in some kind of alternate fantasy view of history, that we ***could*** have had slavery and survived as a nation today, then your points about tarrifs is utter junk, and should be viewed as the racist clap trap revisonist view of history that it is. This is not to say that your racist, but you need to unravel that revisionist history and expose it for what it is, propaganda by racists to fuel populalar support for the Civil War among other racists, and the papering over the results and causes of the war to pacify racists TODAY.


Ruben

 

As a FACT, they did. And it wasn't an issue of Blacks in the south as much as the morally repugnant view of salery...PERIOD. People did fight and died to end slavery, both before the Civil War, during the Civil War, and saddly even AFTER the Civil War.

And BTW, this was not unique in history. Time and again societies and peoples waged war and violence based nothing other than moral principles. In fact, it is nearly impossible to get a Democratic Society to support a war unless the war can be sold on Moral and Ethical ground. So the very basis of what you said is historically and socialogically inaccurate.

People go to war over ideals ALL the time, including every American War from the American Revoltuion, through the Spanish American War (American Blood split on American Soil by a dictator), the Kansas Civil War (Bloody Kansas), the Civil War, The Spanish-American War (the attack of our brothers on the Mane), WWI (the killing of innocents in the sinking of the Lufestena and to make the world Safe for Democray), WWII (the arsenal of Democracy and the day of Infamy), through the Cold War, Korea and Vietnam on through to both Iraqi conflicts.

Ruben

 

Sorry shoudnt allow myself to get involved this is not the place for it

 

First, its not true that salvery dies out naturally anywhere. Historically slavery only dies with the death of the nation state or society that perpetrated it (ie: Rome)

And who's to say that even today we don't leverage Slavery all around the world under the guise of "Free Trade" especially in China, Africa and Asia.

At the time of the Civil War, Slavery in the south was on the rise because of the harsh conditions within the Missisippi Delta which required cheap manual labor on a massive scale and the Souths poor climate in general, the high bounty for the cotton commodity, and the ruin of soils in the South East which caused the Calonia's in particular to view the **trade** in slaves as being essential to its economic health. Slavery in the American South was at its height at the dawn of the civil war and the south was willing to use any violence necessary to infuse it into the West and to protect it. Read about the Werstern Free Labor movement. There is a reason why most of the Republican "radicals" came from Western States during Reconstruction. That reason is because they were victemized prior to the war by bloodshed in trying to enforce Southern Slavery into the Western frontier.



Ruben

 

Sorry shoudnt allow myself to get involved this is not the place for it

 

isnt there a section of this forum for such ranting?

 

ruben,

You are an idealist and you are living in a fantasy world! all those wars you mention were indeed caused by economic reasons. Take the American Revolution: do you not remember the Stamp tax, tea tax and the famous quotes such as "not one red cent for tribute" by our nation's founders? Does that sound like a country founded for reasons rooted in idealism and morality? C'mon Ruben, get real! Mankind has proven time and time again that it will wage war for money and food for its hungry belly and little else!

 

Yes & it's not here.

 

What you said is not **my** theory or even related to what I said. In the UK slavery was never an instition unless your refering to the serfdom, which while not wonderful, was not slavery either.


But I mean modern Slavery - which is prevelent world wide

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/slavery1.html
http://www.time.com/time/asia/features/slavery/cover.html
http://www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com/slaverysasia.htm
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-24181/slavery
http://www.antislavery.org/homepage/news/china130801.htm
http://davaotoday.com/news/2007/05/24/amnesty-international-report-2007-asia-pacific/
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3199772&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
http://www.brooklyndowntownstar.com/StoryDisplay.asp?PID=4&NewsStoryID=5841
http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/8287/54/
http://www.dominicantoday.com/app/article.aspx?id=24037

 

Slavery was not abolished by the British empire until 1833.

http://amistad.mysticseaport.org/timeline/atlantic.slave.trade.html
1833
Great Britain passes the Abolition of Slavery Act, providing for emancipation in the British West Indies -- set to take effect August 1834. (Following emancipation, a 6 year period of apprenticeship is permitted.)

 

This is supposed to be a discussion about the traders' currency tokens in the Confederate States of America,not a discussion about the abolition of the slave trade,the repugnancy of it,nor is it supposed to be a discussion about racism in the southern states of the U.S.A.

Aidan.