- Joined
- Nov 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,747
- Reaction score
- 1,260
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I simply disagree. Anything beyond the northern industrialists being upset over the unfair economic advantage southern businessmen had by not having to pay employees is overstating the period historical reality. The southerners rebelled against being told what to do by the north. Technology was making plantation slaves irrelevant and if anything a financial burden. And horrifically, we had hundreds of thousands of people dead, maimed, families devastated...and it simply never had to happen.
I am not sure what you mean. Slavery was at the heart of the issue. Primarily because of its economic value to King Cotton. Abolition was sweeping the North. Issues involving the admission of states in pairs so as to have one slave, one not-slave. State nullification of Federal Law, again primarily in how those laws would impact all things slavery, as that meant the economy.
That the average Southernor did not so much care about slavery, as he owned none, may be true. However, he did care about being told how his state would behave by a Northern Government. And when the rebel-rousers in the South did secede, he was all for it, especially when Southern soil was invaded by a Northern Army.
Here is a start for those interested: Top Five Causes of the Civil War
I contend that any such "disadvantage" was minimal. The South had no industry that competed with the North. The North had no such cotton agriculture to compete with what had become near to a one-crop South ...... cotton.
We would agree with the South not wanting to be told what to do by the North, but again, virtually all issues there of any import were significantly inter-twined with slavery. Where the passion for war existed, those issues revolved around slavery and abolition.
No it wasn't. Less than 1% of Southerners owned slaves, yet over 90% of them voted for seccession. There's no way that it can be said that slavery was the primary issue of The Civil War.
Well while Grant was a horrible general aswell, Lee had no strategical sense, he just wouldn't gauge a situation and would run into situations attacking things head first. His basic idea in war was that it was about strength and that if you pitted his army against another he would win in a head on approach. The proper way to fight war is fought seeking the least path of resistance. My problem with Lee and the reason I listed Gettysburg as my example of his ignorance and cockiness is because of this basic failure on his part.
Again implying the northerners actually cared more about it than the southerners. They didnt. Abolition as a legislative process was driven by industry and economics. Left to the citizens, it would have ended much quicker than it has taken.
Who was right? Which side would you have fought for, knowing what you know today? Explain, please.
But when you look to The Missouri Compromise, The Kansas Nebraska Act. The stirrings of seccession in the 1820's and 30's ............. all go to Slavery. I am not implying anything.
Abolition was clearly not "driven" by industry and economics !! Slavery was !! It is one thing to argue that much of the North had no need for slaves for economic reasons. However, that is not a motivation to abolish it !! The real early movers in Abolition were the Quakers. It was a fundamental rights issue with them. Not economics. Legislation was driven by votes and the will of the people. The passion in the North to abolish slavery was because they saw it as unjust.
The Confederacy, because the war was originally over trade tariffs, and the Union was on the big-government/high-regulation/high-tax side.
Slavery was just a political tool, it's not what the war was about.
1820, 1830, and the climate was continuing to change. The country was less than 50 years old. Countries with centuries of slave owning history were making changes during that time period. Its foolish to think that the US would not have as well in a MUCH more healthy manner than what ended up happening.
Folks, I am near begging for a good discussion. That is not it.
It was called "King Cotton", was it not ? How many Southerners owned cotton plantations ? Yet their entire economy was hugely inter-twined with cotton. When you look at those in power, who had the political influence, you need only follow the money. It led to King Cotton directly or indirectly an overwhelming amount of the time. King Cotton was slave-based. Hugely so after the invention of the cotton gin.
How about a link and some good concurrent debate ?
Actually, the South and in particular Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia were unjustly taxed to the point that the South was paying 75% of national federal budget and only about 10% of the money was returned to Southern states. The agricultural South was without question financing the industrial North. The North wanted Southern resources for pennies on the dollar.
That is fundamentally incorrect. Tariffs had been low for 20 years prior to the Civil War. The most recent tariff of any significance was the Tariff of 1857, which had lowered tariff rates due to mid-decade tax surplusses. It was heavily supported by the South, which relied heavily on cotton export, and import of manufactured goods.
The next tariff which raised rates again was the Morill Tariff. It passed and became law after secession, as Southern States opposed no longer had members in Congress to vote against it.
Not going to say that tariff issues had nothing to do with Secession. Just very little. Meanwhile, contention over slavery had been building for 40 years.
Tariffs were at record low levels in the 1850's.
Because some anon on teh interwebz says so...yeah ok.
The panic of 1857 initiated a general inquiry between free traders and protectionists into the deficiencies of American economic practices. A key aspect of this debate was the ultimate fate of the American worker, an issue that was given added emphasis by a series of labor demonstrations and strikes. In an attempt to maintain the material welfare of laborers, northerners advocated a program of high tariffs, free western lands, and education. But these proposals elicited the opposition of southerners, who believed that such policies would not serve the needs of the slaves system. Indeed, many people of the period saw the struggle between North and South as an economic one whose outcome would determine whether laborers would be free and well paid or degraded and poor.
more here: The Panic of 1857 and the Coming of the Civil War by James L. Huston
Depends. Which traditional values are we talking about, and how was the north trying to stamp them out?
LOL .... which makes us different how ?
C'mon, you can look it up.
I have provided links earlier in the thread .. how 'bout choo
Here is a paragraph of a review about a book that heavily examines what is known as "The Panic of 1857", and how it exacerbated relations between the North and South. The book examines all the tariff issues, and much more:
As I have noted from the beginning, the issue of slavery was a component of every other cause explained here.
From one "anon" to another, the ball is in your court
Look at what has become of the North? It's a moral cesspool.
And that has what to do with the Civil War?
I stated my position, you did not, you tried to make a claim. That's the difference.
Silly anon, no one ever said it wasn't a mere 'component'.
But I'm in the bleachers....
the war started when confederate forces attacked fort sumter in south carolina, a U.S. military installation.They were not at war. War was started by the attack on the forts. The only way to regain the fort and the states, is to attack them. The north damn well knew this, and they are the ones that started the war by those acts.
if lincoln could have preserved the union without freeing the slaves, he would have done so....he believed that slavery would die out on its own...history put lincoln in a very favorable light....a sidenote, lincoln didnt believe that blacks and whites were equal.The North didn't want to free the slaves. Your garden variety working stiff in the North didn't want to have to compete with former slaves for jobs. Plus, they didn't want a bunch of, "darkies", running around, free. In fact, Lincoln had planned to ship all the freed slaves back to Africa. Ever hear of Liberia?
lee was first offered command of the union forces before the start of hostilities, but chose to return to his home state, and lead his state's forces..lincoln was very fond of grant, for the simple reason that grant wasnt afraid to fight, as some of the earlier union generals appeared to be.Well while Grant was a horrible general aswell, Lee had no strategical sense, he just wouldn't gauge a situation and would run into situations attacking things head first. His basic idea in war was that it was about strength and that if you pitted his army against another he would win in a head on approach. The proper way to fight war is fought seeking the least path of resistance. My problem with Lee and the reason I listed Gettysburg as my example of his ignorance and cockiness is because of this basic failure on his part.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?