cause of the civil war

[apdst]

States rights... to keep slavery. No matter how much some try and obfuscate the irreducible root issue of the war was slavery. Without slavery there is no Civil War.

Without the radical Republicans and abolitiomists, there's no war, either.

 

[apdst]

That claim is demonstrably false. The cotton states economy did collapse. Did the American economy collapse? Hardly. The reliance that southern ideologues and sympathizers placed on 'King Cotton' as an economic wedge in foreign affairs and in the industrial councils of the North proved to be a complete fizzle with disastrous consequences for the South.

The Red River Campaign's soul purpose was to invade the Red River Valley, to seize Southern cotton. That alone is evidence enough of how important cotton was to the North.

 

[Sherman123]

Without the radical Republicans and abolitiomists, there's no war, either.

Without opponents of German expansionism you'd have no war in Western Europe! I find it amusing that you single out the strongest opponents of slavery as driving the South towards secession while simultaneously claiming that slavery wasn't the root cause.

 

[Sherman123]

The Red River Campaign's soul purpose was to invade the Red River Valley, to seize Southern cotton. That alone is evidence enough of how important cotton was to the North.

Right. Anyways.

Fact 1: The Northern economy did not collapse during the Civil War, in fact it's industrial output, mineral output, textiles output, agricultural output soared during the war while unemployment fell hard.

Fact 2: The Southern economy, specifically the economy of the Cotton States, was destroyed.

PS: The Red River expedition was mounted to deny the South its remaining supply routes (including Cotton export) via Texas and to establish a strong Union force on the Mexican frontier in the midst of the French intervention.

 

[apdst]

Without opponents of German expansionism you'd have no war in Western Europe! I find it amusing that you single out the strongest opponents of slavery as driving the South towards secession while simultaneously claiming that slavery wasn't the root cause.

I find it disappointing that someone with your intelligence would take such an uninformed position of events surrounding the Civil War.

 

[apdst]

Right. Anyways.

Fact 1: The Northern economy did not collapse during the Civil War, in fact it's industrial output, mineral output, textiles output, agricultural output soared during the war while unemployment fell hard.

Fact 2: The Southern economy, specifically the economy of the Cotton States, was destroyed.

PS: The Red River expedition was mounted to deny the South its remaining supply routes (including Cotton export) via Texas and to establish a strong Union force on the Mexican frontier in the midst of the French intervention.

This single paragraph proves that the Red River Campaign had nothing to do with anything but capturing cotton,

The tardy Banks finally arrived in Alexandria, not with his troops, but aboard the Black Hawk, a steamboat filled with cotton speculators. Banks was furious to learn that in the meantime, the navy had been stealing cotton he had promised to his benefactors. Porter was furious that the political general was more than a week late and that he arrived on a boat with the same name as his prized flagship Black Hawk. The egos of the admiral and the general were obliterating any real chance of cooperation between them. Banks was also greeted with the news that General Grant wanted Sherman's 10,000 men back by April 15 to join in the Atlanta Campaign.

The Red River Campaign

This map proves that the Red River Campaign had nothing to do with anything that was going on in Texas, or Mexico,

Prior to the Civil War, Southern cotton made up half of America's exports. Destroying that much commerce would have a very negative effect on the economy.

 

[Threegoofs]

This single paragraph proves that the Red River Campaign had nothing to do with anything but capturing cotton,



This map proves that the Red River Campaign had nothing to do with anything that was going on in Texas, or Mexico,

Prior to the Civil War, Southern cotton made up half of America's exports. Destroying that much commerce would have a very negative effect on the economy.

That commerce was destroyed. Cotton exports dropped by 90% during the war.

The US economy did OK...and it spurred the Indians and Egyptians to grow cotton for the UK, who was hurt significantly by the cotton blockade.

The Union didn't need to stop cotton production in the Red River- they just needed to stop an export route...because they pretty much killed all the other ones by that time.

 

[apdst]

That commerce was destroyed. Cotton exports dropped by 90% during the war.

The US economy did OK...and it spurred the Indians and Egyptians to grow cotton for the UK, who was hurt significantly by the cotton blockade.

And, the United States went into a 6 year depression after the war.

Ultimately, my point was that Northerners knew that Southern cotton was making a lot of Northerners rich and were willing to tolerate slavery because of that reality. They had no way of knowing what would happen if the cotton economy collapsed and weren't willing to assume that everything would be ok.

The reason the North did ok during the war, was because of war production--and the South was no longer a part of, "the economy". That war production didn't exist prior to the war, obviously.

The Union didn't need to stop cotton production in the Red River- they just needed to stop an export route...because they pretty much killed all the other ones by that time.

I never said they stopped cotton production. They wanted to confiscate Southern cotton, to be sent North, because the Northern mills were starving for cotton.

At the end of the day, the Federals didn't stop anything, because The Red River Campaign was one of the biggest debacles in American military history.

 

[Oberon]

And, the United States went into a 6 year depression after the war.

There was a depression before the war as well, the 'Panic of 1857', and the secession after the elections created a deeper one. The war contracts paid for with greenbacks spurred the economy, but the inflation caused by that wasn't matched by wage increases, so it's a matter of who it was a 'booming economy' for; certainly not for the average northerner.

Ultimately, my point was that Northerners knew that Southern cotton was making a lot of Northerners rich and were willing to tolerate slavery because of that reality. They had no way of knowing what would happen if the cotton economy collapsed and weren't willing to assume that everything would be ok.

New York City was on the verge of seceding from both New York state and the Union, and setting up shop as a 'free trade' zone. That plan stopped after the Confederates passed their own tariffs, which were far lower than Lincoln's, and they were afraid goods in places like New Orleans, St. Louis, and Cincinnati would be far cheaper than the prices at New York, and also the news that the Confederacy was negotiating the direct shipping of cotton from southern ports and abrogating the U.S.'s coastal shipping laws, completely cutting them out of the middle and killing their merchant marine. They suddenly became concerned about 'preserving the Union' and went to war. In the years before 1860, they were busy denouncing 'Sewardism'.

The reason the North did ok during the war, was because of war production--and the South was no longer a part of, "the economy". That war production didn't exist prior to the war, obviously.

Yes, it was the 'boom' in war contracts. A lot of shoddy goods were unloaded on the military.

The South followed the basic economic policies of capitalism, which is to invest in the businesses with the highest returns; that happened to be cotton and slaves to work it. They didn't diversify, and created a 'mono-economy', and discouraged the immigration of free craftsmen for a long time before the war. This cost them dearly. They had the resources to develop steel mills and other manufactures, but cotton under slavery was too lucrative to attract diversified capital investments in anything else.

And, re the Egyptian and Indian cotton, it was very poor quality, and wasn't nearly a good substitute.

 

[mmi]

I voted for slavery as the cause of the war. Other issues were involved, but without slavery, I don't believe there would have been a war.

 

[Oberon]

I find it disappointing that someone with your intelligence would take such an uninformed position of events surrounding the Civil War.

It's a case of trying to rewrite history to fit modern morals and standards. It makes the Northern atrocities look more 'noble' than the actual reality; Sherman warred on civilians, and 'Reconstruction' was pretty ugly, and of course the corruption was outrageous even by the standards then, especially the Grant administration after the war.

And here is what bothers me so much about modern "scholarship." At what point did history become ethics? Why should we subvert the elusive search for facts to moralist concerns? So what if they are on or off the hook? If you want to be a preacher, go preach. If you want to save the world, go into politics. If you want to invent a world free of evil, take prozac. It was said in Ecclesiasties and it still is true today, people suck. They did then, all of them. They do now, all of us. History is the history of self-interested, competing, aggressive, selfish, murderous humans. At what point did it become a morality play? -Dave WIlliams, George Mason Univ.

 

[apdst]

I voted for slavery as the cause of the war. Other issues were involved, but without slavery, I don't believe there would have been a war.

Secession caused the war.

 

[Oberon]

I voted for slavery as the cause of the war. Other issues were involved, but without slavery, I don't believe there would have been a war.

How do you account for the long time lag between the 1861 inauguration and any legislation at all re the slavery issue? The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any. There were no Southerners outside those from the border states, and those were put there by Republicans, in Congress or the Senate.

 

[mmi]

Secession caused the war.

I'd say slavery led to secession. Without slavery, it never would have occurred.

How do you account for the long time lag between the 1861 inauguration and any legislation at all re the slavery issue?

Lincoln was focused on preserving the Union, not ending slavery.

 

[Oberon]

I'd say slavery led to secession. Without slavery, it never would have occurred.

The South had already won most of the legislative battles over slavery, including the Dred Scott decision in 1857. The plantation system had already reached its natural geographical limits by 1850, both northward and to the West. Daniel Webster and others knew this, which is why he didn't oppose slavery in New Mexico, and Polk, pro-slavery himself, didn't care if slavery was prohibited in either California or Oregon, for much the same reasons.

 

[apdst]

I'd say slavery led to secession. Without slavery, it never would have occurred.



Lincoln was focused on preserving the Union, not ending slavery.

Maybe, maybe not. Vermont tried to seceed and it had nothing to do with slavery.

I've often wondered if the Northern abolitionists would have been content with the introduction of the company store system in place of slavery.

 

[mmi]

Maybe, maybe not. Vermont tried to seceed and it had nothing to do with slavery.

A small number of individuals are involved in a secessionist movement in Vermont. The fact that it has nothing to do with the Civil War is the relevant point, is it not? People in other states have also called for secession. I figure we might be better off letting Texas go.

>>I've often wondered if the Northern abolitionists would have been content with the introduction of the company store system in place of slavery.

You seem to think that slave owners would have accepted it. I have my doubts, given the actions they took to defend slavery.

The South had already won most of the legislative battles over slavery, including the Dred Scott decision in 1857.

As you must know. Dred Scott was not a legislative battle. The outcome of a political battle, Lincoln's victory in the 1860 presidential election, was the immediate cause of secession. I say slavery was the more general cause of secession because without it there would have been no reason to be unwilling to accept a Lincoln presidency.

>>The plantation system had already reached its natural geographical limits by 1850, both northward and to the West. Daniel Webster and others knew this, which is why he didn't oppose slavery in New Mexico, and Polk, pro-slavery himself, didn't care if slavery was prohibited in either California or Oregon, for much the same reasons.

How is any of that relevant? The South feared that the admission of a number of free states would tip the balance in the Congress, fatally undermining their "peculiar" and grotesquely inhumane institution.

OK, I've gone back and read most of the rest of this thread. I think yer peddling garbage.

Lincoln was a dictator, pure and simple.

He was the free-and-fairly-elected POTUS, pure and simple.

>>The right to secede had been assumed for any state. His nonsense about secession being 'treason' wasn't the majority view before he was elected, that was just a propaganda excuse with no historical basis.

Yer right that there was a considerable difference of opinion regarding the constitutionality of secession before the war. That issue was settled on the battlefield.

You may have noticed that Lincoln did not launch an invasion of states that seceded. Otoh, southern military forces did attack a US military installation off the coast of South Carolina with thousands of artillery pieces and mortars for a day and a half. Many in the political leadership of the South believed strongly that secession was constitutional, and they decided to test that theory. A decision was rendered.

>>The major consensus in the north was that secession wasn't 'treason'; that was a fabrication by Lincoln and his cronies.

I would argue that the attack on Fort Sumter was highly treasonous. I'd say the following analysis accurately reflects Lincoln's view:

To those southerners who claimed the right of revolution to justify secession—just like the Founding Fathers had revolted against England—Lincoln answered with a legalistic distinction rooted in common sense. The right of revolution, he argued, is not a legal right but a moral right that depends upon the suppression of liberties and freedoms in order for it to be justified. What rights, freedoms, or liberties were being trampled underfoot by his election? The South still enjoyed all the constitutional freedoms they had always enjoyed. To exercise revolution with no moral cause to justify it is "simply a wicked exercise of physical power." Most northerners agreed with Lincoln that secession amounted to an unconstitutional act of treason. — American President: Abraham Lincoln, from The Miller Center at the University of Virginia​

>>Lincoln was merely a hypocrite and opportunist.

In what way?

>>He immediately used Federal troops and the suspension of habeas corpus to force silence of critics.

He took actions he considered necessary to uphold his oath to support and defend the Constitution against a domestic enemy.

>>Even the Lincoln fans admit he was a dictator.

I'm a Lincoln fan and I do not make any such admission.

>>The majority of newspaper editorials of the time supported peaceful secession, or peaceful means to bring the seceding states back.

President Davis, his Secretary of War, and General Beauregard were not among them, were they?

>>Anyone care to guess who made this speech, in 1848? "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government …"

A classic out-of-context quote. Yes, Lincoln argued that Texans had the right to seek independence from Mexico, just as the American colonies had sought independence from the British. Did he say that Mexico didn't have a right to contest that issue militarily? A right to revolt is not a right to peacefully secede.

>>Lincoln was a regional candidate, everyone knew that, they knew what it meant politically

Nonsensical on its face. He was a national candidate running for a national office.

>>states considered their territories sovereign, and didn't consider them as being Lincoln's or the Federal govt.'s personal property

Can you offer support for that? In my view, that ended in 1789.

>>If the South had won, they would have been 'recognized'.

Ah, if only. And if the Nazis had won, the world would be a different place too, wouldn't it?

>>And, for the record, I don't personally support the 'states' rights' concept, for a number of reasons, for the edification of those here who are incapable of distinguishing the study of history from their personal politics and think the study should conform to their personal whims and fashionable ideologies of the moment. Go have a Whine N Snivel Fest up in the Fever Swamps or something if the lack of wingnut Teachable PC Moments in some peoples posts bother you.

Wow. A real dump of arrogant crap there, I'd say. Yer "study of history" is somewhat lacking, imo. Fwiw, I've looked into these questions myself.

Obviously, a turning point in federal relations occurred in the events leading up to the Civil War. Amar claims that "[o]ne of the Federalists' paramount goals was to constitute their new system in a way that would give no color to later state claims of a right to secede." He supports his position by arguing that "Article V, which provides that ratification by conventions of three-fourths of the states suffices to amend the Constitution in a way that will bind even nonratifying states … prospectively abolished … [the] sovereign right [of secession] for each state People who joined the Union." He also notes that "… no state convention attempted to reserve the right of secession," and "…no major proponent of the Constitution sought to win over states' rightists by conceding that states could unilaterally nullify or secede in the event of perceived national abuses." He sees “[t]he 'moderate' Confederate theory of secession, [which] rested on the right of each state convention to decide for itself whether the federal compact had been materially breached, [as] a view plainly inconsistent with the Federalist Constitution. — An Historical Review and Comparative Analysis of U.S. Federalism and the Role of the Central Government in China (including an analysis of state/provincial authority to reclaim powers surrendered constitutionally)​

 

[apdst]

A small number of individuals are involved in a secessionist movement in Vermont. The fact that it has nothing to do with the Civil War is the relevant point, is it not? People in other states have also called for secession. I figure we might be better off letting Texas go.

>>I've often wondered if the Northern abolitionists would have been content with the introduction of the company store system in place of slavery.

You seem to think that slave owners would have accepted it. I have my doubts, given the actions they took to defend slavery.



As you must know. Dred Scott was not a legislative battle. The outcome of a political battle, Lincoln's victory in the 1860 presidential election, was the immediate cause of secession. I say slavery was the more general cause of secession because without it there would have been no reason to be unwilling to accept a Lincoln presidency.

>>The plantation system had already reached its natural geographical limits by 1850, both northward and to the West. Daniel Webster and others knew this, which is why he didn't oppose slavery in New Mexico, and Polk, pro-slavery himself, didn't care if slavery was prohibited in either California or Oregon, for much the same reasons.

How is any of that relevant? The South feared that the admission of a number of free states would tip the balance in the Congress, fatally undermining their "peculiar" and grotesquely inhumane institution.

OK, I've gone back and read most of the rest of this thread. I think yer peddling garbage.



He was the free-and-fairly-elected POTUS, pure and simple.

>>The right to secede had been assumed for any state. His nonsense about secession being 'treason' wasn't the majority view before he was elected, that was just a propaganda excuse with no historical basis.

Yer right that there was a considerable difference of opinion regarding the constitutionality of secession before the war. That issue was settled on the battlefield.

You may have noticed that Lincoln did not launch an invasion of states that seceded. Otoh, southern military forces did attack a US military installation off the coast of South Carolina with thousands of artillery pieces and mortars for a day and a half. Many in the political leadership of the South believed strongly that secession was constitutional, and they decided to test that theory. A decision was rendered.

>>The major consensus in the north was that secession wasn't 'treason'; that was a fabrication by Lincoln and his cronies.

I would argue that the attack on Fort Sumter was highly treasonous. I'd say the following analysis accurately reflects Lincoln's view:

To those southerners who claimed the right of revolution to justify secession—just like the Founding Fathers had revolted against England—Lincoln answered with a legalistic distinction rooted in common sense. The right of revolution, he argued, is not a legal right but a moral right that depends upon the suppression of liberties and freedoms in order for it to be justified. What rights, freedoms, or liberties were being trampled underfoot by his election? The South still enjoyed all the constitutional freedoms they had always enjoyed. To exercise revolution with no moral cause to justify it is "simply a wicked exercise of physical power." Most northerners agreed with Lincoln that secession amounted to an unconstitutional act of treason. — American President: Abraham Lincoln, from The Miller Center at the University of Virginia​

>>Lincoln was merely a hypocrite and opportunist.

In what way?

>>He immediately used Federal troops and the suspension of habeas corpus to force silence of critics.

He took actions he considered necessary to uphold his oath to support and defend the Constitution against a domestic enemy.

>>Even the Lincoln fans admit he was a dictator.

I'm a Lincoln fan and I do not make any such admission.

>>The majority of newspaper editorials of the time supported peaceful secession, or peaceful means to bring the seceding states back.

President Davis, his Secretary of War, and General Beauregard were not among them, were they?

>>Anyone care to guess who made this speech, in 1848? "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government …"

A classic out-of-context quote. Yes, Lincoln argued that Texans had the right to seek independence from Mexico, just as the American colonies had sought independence from the British. Did he say that Mexico didn't have a right to contest that issue militarily? A right to revolt is not a right to peacefully secede.

>>Lincoln was a regional candidate, everyone knew that, they knew what it meant politically

Nonsensical on its face. He was a national candidate running for a national office.

>>states considered their territories sovereign, and didn't consider them as being Lincoln's or the Federal govt.'s personal property

Can you offer support for that? In my view, that ended in 1789.

>>If the South had won, they would have been 'recognized'.

Ah, if only. And if the Nazis had won, the world would be a different place too, wouldn't it?

>>And, for the record, I don't personally support the 'states' rights' concept, for a number of reasons, for the edification of those here who are incapable of distinguishing the study of history from their personal politics and think the study should conform to their personal whims and fashionable ideologies of the moment. Go have a Whine N Snivel Fest up in the Fever Swamps or something if the lack of wingnut Teachable PC Moments in some peoples posts bother you.

Wow. A real dump of arrogant crap there, I'd say. Yer "study of history" is somewhat lacking, imo. Fwiw, I've looked into these questions myself.

Obviously, a turning point in federal relations occurred in the events leading up to the Civil War. Amar claims that "[o]ne of the Federalists' paramount goals was to constitute their new system in a way that would give no color to later state claims of a right to secede." He supports his position by arguing that "Article V, which provides that ratification by conventions of three-fourths of the states suffices to amend the Constitution in a way that will bind even nonratifying states … prospectively abolished … [the] sovereign right [of secession] for each state People who joined the Union." He also notes that "… no state convention attempted to reserve the right of secession," and "…no major proponent of the Constitution sought to win over states' rightists by conceding that states could unilaterally nullify or secede in the event of perceived national abuses." He sees “[t]he 'moderate' Confederate theory of secession, [which] rested on the right of each state convention to decide for itself whether the federal compact had been materially breached, [as] a view plainly inconsistent with the Federalist Constitution. — An Historical Review and Comparative Analysis of U.S. Federalism and the Role of the Central Government in China (including an analysis of state/provincial authority to reclaim powers surrendered constitutionally)​

Why wouldn't they have accepted it? With the exception that the welfare of slaves was far better than that of company store employees, the company store system was just another form of slavery.

I'm talking about Vermont's attempt to secede prior to the Civil War.

 

[SILVER SURFER]

Ironically, the New England Federalists in the years before the War of 1812 held a secessionist convention, over unhappiness with the dominance of the state of Virginia in the Federal government, for instance. There was no call to arms to put down that movement, nor did many claim they had no right to secede.

I take it you mean the Hartford Convention convened December 15, 1814, not before the War of 1812 but near the end of it. The convention was in opposition to the war as well as to Virginia’s dominance in the federal government. It issued a final report that proposed several amendments to the Constitution, but did not mention secession. There was no call to arms to put down the movement, probably because they didn’t secede and refrained from seizing federal military property. However, President Madison did position troops so as to intervene quickly if that became necessary.

He immediately used Federal troops and the suspension of habeas corpus to force silence of critics.

Lincoln initially used them to prevent disruption of efforts to reinforce and defend Washington, DC. Suspension of habeus corpus under certain circumstances is a power granted Congress by Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. Although Congress was not in session at the time, Lincoln’s use of the power admittedly was illegal. Nevertheless, Congress later conferred the power on him and indemnified his previous use of it via the 1863 Habeus Corpus Suspension Act.

There were other secessionist movements as well, New York City was one, and in states like Pennsylvania and New Jersey there was a movement to form a 'Central Confederacy', for instance.

And yet none of them seceded or seized federal military property.

Anyone care to guess who made this speech, in 1848?

Oh! Oh! I do! I do! Congressman Lincoln, the ‘dictator’. It’s a small part of his speech calling out President Polk for unconstitutionally going to war with Mexico. It’s taken out of context from that speech, which is an argument against presidential overreach.

Lincoln was a regional candidate, everyone knew that, they knew what it meant politically

Most candidates are from one region or another before they get elected POTUS. I take it you're saying that meant Lincoln would favor the north and violate the south’s sovereignty. However, he stated more than once, including in his inaugural address, that he had no such intention.

whether he was inaugurated yet or not is irrelevant, as is the time line

Nope. I suppose which side "started" it depends on one's definition. Mine is whichever side took aggressive action first. In reply to your "Lincoln started it", I provided a number of examples of southern states taking aggressive action first, even before Lincoln had the authority to start anything...and before they seceded. That made it rebellion, not war.

since states considered their territories sovereign, and didn't consider them as being Lincoln's or the Federal govt.'s personal property

Well, yeah...that attitude was pretty much what the conflict was about. Again, Lincoln stated repeatedly he had no intention of violating the southern states’ sovereignty. Nevertheless, they chose to illegally seize federal military property.

If the South had won, they would have been 'recognized'. European states still traded with the Confederate govt.; obviously they 'recognized' their trade.

Maybe, but as long as they remained slaveholders, I doubt it. Since they didn’t win, we’ll never know. Trade with a country is not the same as diplomatic recognition by it.

If the government of, say, Hamburg, doesn't 'recognize' the U.S. as a 'separate government', does that mean anything?

Well, in the case of the Confederacy, it meant no other country supported them or came to their aid, at least not openly.

And, for the record, I don't personally support the 'states' rights' concept, for a number of reasons, for the edification of those here who are incapable of distinguishing the study of history from their personal politics and think the study should conform to their personal whims and fashionable ideologies of the moment.

Bit of a run-on sentence ya got there, but OK. As for my personal politics, personal whims and fashionable ideologies, I’ll be the first to admit Lincoln was no saint. He was a slick politician who could be cruel, ruthless and, yes, even dictatorial. But he restored the union and pretty much insured there would be no more serious attempts at secession. IMHO, that trumps all. Granted, he did it by force at great cost, despite popular opinion, and probably unconstitutionally. The USA isn't perfect and probably never will be. But it never would have achieved the greatness it has if the southern states had been allowed to remain seceded.

Go have a Whine N Snivel Fest up in the Fever Swamps or something if the lack of wingnut Teachable PC Moments in some peoples posts bother you.

Doesn’t bother me a bit.

 

[Threegoofs]

I will have to take issue with the generally excellent above post.

I have always thought that the US might have even been a greater nation without the South to drag them down.

 

[SILVER SURFER]

I have always thought that the US might have even been a greater nation without the South to drag them down.

Well, there is that. :lamo

Seriously...yes, the south has been problematic at times, as have other regions of the country. But it also has made its contribution to the success of the nation. One can run all sorts of what-ifs. But I believe the US and the world would have been much different, and probably not better, if the south had remained seceded.

 

[apdst]

I will have to take issue with the generally excellent above post.

I have always thought that the US might have even been a greater nation without the South to drag them down.

Probably not, since the lion's share of American natural resources are in the South.

 

[WillyPete]

One idea I read someplace that I haven't seen here yet is that if the Confederacy wasn't all wrapped up in slavery, they would have freed the slaves themselves and allowed them to voluntarily fight for the Confederacy in exchange for citizenship\land\money.

Apparently they were moving in that direction near the end of the war, but not in time to make a difference.

 

[Threegoofs]

Probably not, since the lion's share of American natural resources are in the South.

Not really. Oil, maybe.

But a nations wealth depends less upon natural resources than other things....look at Russia.

 

[apdst]

Not really. Oil, maybe.

But a nations wealth depends less upon natural resources than other things....look at Russia.

Natural resources are critical.