Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, you’re not seeing the forest through the trees. You’re getting distracted by the word slavery.
Slavery itself isn’t the lessons learned. It’s just a 19th century political topic which is useless in trying to avoid similar future conflicts and making the same mistakes.
I'm asking you to explain it to me, but you are not explaining anything
Again, you’re not seeing the forest through the trees. You’re getting distracted by the word slavery.
Slavery itself isn’t the lessons learned. It’s just a 19th century political topic which is useless in trying to avoid similar future conflicts and making the same mistakes.
Quote:
In the waning years of the Civil War, advertisements like this began appearing in newspapers around the country:
Quote:
"INFORMATION WANTED By a mother concerning her children.
"Mrs. Elizabeth Williams, who now resides in Marysville, California was formerly owned to-gether with her children, vis: Lydia, William, Allen, and Parker, by one John Petty, who lived about six miles from the town of Woodbury, Franklin County, Tenneesee. At that time she was the the wife of Sandy Rucker, and was familiarly known as Betsy, - sometimes called Betsy Petty.
"About twenty-five years ago, the mother was sold to Mr. Marshal Stroud, by whom, some twelve or fourteen years later, she was, for the second time since purchased by him, taken to Arkansas. She has never seen the above named children since. Any information given concern-ing them, however, will be gratefully re-ceived by one whose love for her children sur-vives the bitterness and hardship of many long years spent in slavery."
More than 900 of these "Information Wanted" notices — placed by African-Americans separated from family members by war, slavery and emancipation — have been digitized in a project called Last Seen: Finding Family After Slavery, a collaboration between Villanova University's graduate history program and Mother Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Philadelphia. ...
These ads, which date from 1863 to 1902, come from six newspapers: Philadelphia's Christian Recorder, the newspaper of the AME Church; New Orleans' Black Republican, Nashville's The Colored Tennessean, Charleston's South Carolina Leader, the Free Men's Press of Galveston, Texas, and Cincinnati's The Colored Citizen.
I'm asking you to explain it to me, but you are not explaining anything
It’s been explained throughout this thread but I’ll attempt to recap.
Take two regions of a country, make one a cash crop exporter, the other industrial, one dependent on low import taxes, the other dependent on high import taxes, throw in some unclaimed territories and the first region who can get a political majority can ensure political dominance over the entire country forever through the political designation of those territories at the detriment of the other. Adding slavery as the only cause is a distraction as the two sides were both ambivalent to the slaves themselves and were more preoccupied with national political dominance in order to favor each respective economy.
You might be familiar with some of the old slave runaway posters. One poster has a reward of $2500.00 for the return of maybe three or four slaves. That is roughly the equivalent of 16 years wages for the average farm worker in the south. The slow trickle of slaves running off was a major concern. There is a well known case of southerners forcing the US government to spend over a million dollars for the return of a single slave.
It was more than an irritant. In today's dollars a conservative number for the price of a slave is over $23,000 per slave but the real problem was the loss of earning income of that slave. That figure is closer to $200,000. It didn't take a mass exodus for southerners to start to panic and try to change laws to force the national government to intervene on their behalf for the return of slaves in the north.
I am not questioning runaway slave posters or the importance of the Underground Railroad. I am questioning one poster's assertion that is what caused the Civil War. The reasons for what caused the Civil War are far more complicated then just that.
Stop and think for a moment. Which Southern states seceded after Lincoln was elected? Was it the Upper South states where slaves could more easily escape to the Northern Free states? No, it was South Carolina and the other 6 Deep South states, the states furthest from the free non-slave states and presumably harder for slaves to escape to the North.
Then there is the other elephant in the room, how would breaking away from the Union, reduce the amount of slaves escaping to the North? If the South believed she had little influence in stopping the Underground Railroad to the Free States while she was part of the Union, she would have even less influence if she left the Union.
I am not questioning runaway slave posters or the importance of the Underground Railroad. I am questioning one poster's assertion that is what caused the Civil War. The reasons for what caused the Civil War are far more complicated then just that.
Stop and think for a moment. Which Southern states seceded after Lincoln was elected? Was it the Upper South states where slaves could more easily escape to the Northern Free states? No, it was South Carolina and the other 6 Deep South states, the states furthest from the free non-slave states and presumably harder for slaves to escape to the North.
Then there is the other elephant in the room, how would breaking away from the Union, reduce the amount of slaves escaping to the North? If the South believed she had little influence in stopping the Underground Railroad to the Free States while she was part of the Union, she would have even less influence if she left the Union.
If the south was allowed to secede the northern states might be subject to extradition laws between two countries with regard to fugitive slaves.
If it wasn't that, then what was it?
That's what all the secession articles say
Secession and the war weren't the same thing. The war was fought to maintain the union, not to free the slaves. If Lincoln would have simply let the south secede, there would likely not have been a war.
Going to war to keep the south from seceding is kind of like killing your spouse to keep them them from leaving you. When people no longer want to be a part of something, they should be free to go.
If the south was allowed to secede the northern states might be subject to extradition laws between two countries with regard to fugitive slaves.
An interesting guess but there was no real chance that would happen. .
Think about it, there is no way that people in the North who were aiding runaway slaves while the South was part of the same country, were suddenly going to stop and return the runaway slaves if the South left the Union and became a foreign country!
This is especially true in 1860 when the anti-slavery party, the Republicans came to power winning almost the entire North and even the far West (California and Oregon). Not only did the Republicans take over the Congress and the Presidency (Lincoln), they were winning the Governor's mansions in key states like New York and Pennsylvania.
By 1860/1861 almost every Northern state had a Republican governor (in contrast to the South which mostly had Democratic governors). And it would literally be political suicide for a Republican to support the return of runaway slaves if the South left the Union.
Go read the Articles of Secession. The Confederacy was about maintaining slaves. I say this as someone who was born and raised in a former Confederate state.
Also, research "Lost Cause of the Confederacy" to see why so many people romanticize the Civil War.
You say you are from the North and were taught it was about slavery.
I am from the South and was taught it was about states' rights.
Then, I went to college. When I was working on my first Masters degree, I ventured off into a 2nd Masters in US History to the Reconstruction, and let me reassure you...
That "it was about slavery" explanation is pretty much enough for most people who aren't historians.
The Civil War would never have happened if the slaveholding states hadn't wanted to uphold the status quo (continue slavery) and the other states had not wanted to maintain the union.
So, in effect, it WAS about slavery.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Secession and the war weren't the same thing. The war was fought to maintain the union, not to free the slaves.
Nobody here has said that the war was fought to free the slaves.
The South seceded because they felt that the federal government wasn't defending slavery
Slavery => Secession => Civil War
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100
It’s been explained throughout this thread but I’ll attempt to recap.
Take two regions of a country, make one a cash crop exporter, the other industrial, one dependent on low import taxes, the other dependent on high import taxes, throw in some unclaimed territories and the first region who can get a political majority can ensure political dominance over the entire country forever through the political designation of those territories at the detriment of the other. Adding slavery as the only cause is a distraction as the two sides were both ambivalent to the slaves themselves and were more preoccupied with national political dominance in order to favor each respective economy.
I'll answer you later, I don't have much time right now,
You are making that bigger than what it is .... in reality, they had a "balance of power" when it came to free vs slave states.
Nobody here has said that the war was fought to free the slaves.
The South seceded because they felt that the federal government wasn't defending slavery
Slavery => Secession => Civil War
I'll answer you later, I don't have much time right now,
You are making that bigger than what it is .... in reality, they had a "balance of power" when it came to free vs slave states.
I think you’re getting it.
It’s like saying the Revolutionary War was over taxes on tea. There were increased taxes on tea, but that’s not the basis of the war.
Or another analogy is saying the allies went to war against Germany due to their treatment of Jews in concentration camps. We did liberate the camps but that’s not why they went to war.
Or saying the Europeans colonized Africa to end African slavery. We all know that’s just flat out propaganda.
Ask any average high school educated person on the street and they’ll tell you the war was because the north wanted to free the slaves. The reason they believe that is because so much time is spent about talking about slavery, one would assume that must have been the objective.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
