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.
Every issue you mentioned in this thread is related to slavery. Again, it is odd and funny to me that you admit that it is about slavery then try to act like it was not. Slavery was the economic, political, cultural, and traditional issue of the south.
Again it is interesting to me that you cannot admit this to be the truth when it is, indeed the truth when it comes to the war. And slavery in the context or the Civil War is not "useless." Chattel slavery is no longer in our modern day. As historians, you discuss/study history (at least you should) based upon the context of that time period based on independent study of the era.
Independent study of the era shows that the American Civil War was about slavery from all angles - politically, economically, and culturally/traditionally
The takeway for me and what it should be for the entire nation is not to get paranoid when you guy doesn't win and do something stupid that may kill over half your male population and decimate you. Also that when you know your position is immoral, don't try to make it moral. Wrong is wrong and when you know it is wrong, it is dumb to try to reason that "wrong" is somehow "right." ETA: the last part of that comment speaks directly to what I mentioned is one of the main focuses of my own research of the early 19th century to the Civil War in America - the fact that abolitionists implored Lincoln and the Union to make the war one about freeing slaves instead of just putting the union back together. They did not gain the upper hand in the war fully until they did that. I do believe they would have even without going the emancipation route, but it galvanized blacks in particular to join the Union Army as soldiers which was a benefit to the war effort of the north and it made the north morally superior to the south and caused any partnerships the south could have made with European powers null and void due to the north being on the "right" side of morals/ethics in regards to slavery.
Nobody said slavery wasn’t an issue. It’s just over emphasized issue.
What is it exactly that you want people to admit to?
The “moral superiority” argument gets blown out of the water when the North then resumes annilhilationn of Native Americans. Trying to look back 150 years ago trying to figure who the “good guys” were is naive.
Nobody said slavery wasn’t an issue. It’s just over emphasized issue.
What is it exactly that you want people to admit to?
The “moral superiority” argument gets blown out of the water when the North then resumes annilhilationn of Native Americans. Trying to look back 150 years ago trying to figure who the “good guys” were is naive.
Actually I want to know why you believe it is "over emphasized" or a "small" issue when it was the direct issue and slavery is involved in all the reasons you cite.
I think you doing your best to not admit that slavery was the major issue of the war probably for some personal reason related to your political views in the modern era. The moral issue of slavery was not a huge factor until 1863 but the economic and political and traditional/cultural aspects of slavery to the south was the reason for the war. It was the primary issue in 1860 for the south to secede, nothing else because without it they would have no reason.
That is why it K-12 education in the US says the war was "about slavery." It was.
People like you confuse more naive, unlearned people into thinking that slavery wasn't the economic, political, traditional/cultural cause when it was because you refuse to acknowledge that it wasn't "minor" and you insert your modern context into 19th century politics when all of them admitted (save NC) that it was about slavery. It is all over their articles of secession.
Actually I want to know why you believe it is "over emphasized" or a "small" issue when it was the direct issue and slavery is involved in all the reasons you cite.
I think you doing your best to not admit that slavery was the major issue of the war probably for some personal reason related to your political views in the modern era. The moral issue of slavery was not a huge factor until 1863 but the economic and political and traditional/cultural aspects of slavery to the south was the reason for the war. It was the primary issue in 1860 for the south to secede, nothing else because without it they would have no reason.
That is why it K-12 education in the US says the war was "about slavery." It was.
People like you confuse more naive, unlearned people into thinking that slavery wasn't the economic, political, traditional/cultural cause when it was because you refuse to acknowledge that it wasn't "minor" and you insert your modern context into 19th century politics when all of them admitted (save NC) that it was about slavery. It is all over their articles of secession.
I’ve explained this too many different ways by now and it’s getting exhausting. Take slaves out of the equation completely and the South would have likely succeeded anyway. What other choice would they have? They were an agricultural global exporter and the North was an industrial center in competition with the rest of the industrialized world. The two economies were on a collision course. The Nullification Crisis wasn’t about slaves and that had happened just a few decades earlier. There were fractures in the two regions for decades prior to the Civil War. By the 1860’s it slavery had become yet another difference as the north became less reliant on it.
It’s not me that has the modern political agenda wrapped up in this 19th century topic. If this was about anything other than slavery you likely wouldn’t have an interest at all.
I’ve explained this too many different ways by now and it’s getting exhausting. Take slaves out of the equation completely and the South would have likely succeeded anyway. What other choice would they have? They were an agricultural global exporter and the North was an industrial center in competition with the rest of the industrialized world. The two economies were on a collision course. The Nullification Crisis wasn’t about slaves and that had happened just a few decades earlier. There were fractures in the two regions for decades prior to the Civil War. By the 1860’s it slavery had become yet another difference as the north became less reliant on it.
It’s not me that has the modern political agenda wrapped up in this 19th century topic. If this was about anything other than slavery you likely wouldn’t have an interest at all.
Without slaves the south would have been a collection of Yeoman subsistence farmers. It was slaves that made them wealthy enough to think they didn't need the rest of the United States. The Plantation economy collapsed without slaves. That's why they didn't go back and try to do the same thing with free labor after the Civil War
Belle Grove was owned by John Andrews, a wealthy sugar planter originally from Virginia.[3] Andrews owned over 7,000 acres (2,800 ha) spread over several plantations, with Belle Grove having 3⁄4 mile (1.2 km) of river frontage. He founded Belle Grove during the 1830s, with Dr. John Phillip Read Stone as a partner. Andrews assumed full ownership in 1844, when the partnership was dissolved. By the 1850s, his more than 150 slaves were producing over one-half million pounds of sugar each year.[1]
Andrews built the mansion from 1852 to 1857 at a cost of $80,000, not including the free (slave) labor or the plentiful cypress lumber and hand-made bricks produced on the plantation.Following the American Civil War and ensuing collapse of the plantation economy, Andrews sold the home and plantation in 1867 to James Ware, for the meager sum of $50,000.
Without slaves the south would have been a collection of Yeoman subsistence farmers. It was slaves that made them wealthy enough to think they didn't need the rest of the United States. The Plantation economy collapsed without slaves.
You can theoretically work a plantation with hired labor (as we do now). The plantation economy collapsed because the massive amount of money in slaves vanished overnight. That’s the equivalent of illegalizing tractors you just bought. Foreign armies decimating your infrastructure doesn’t help anything either.
It's pretty clear that your position won't be changed by anything that I say. That's why I suggested that one should undertake the research on their own. You're more likely to believe what you are able to discover for yourself.
Quote:
The north did not invade the south and tell them to get rid of their slaves. SC attacked first.
Upon secession, Fort Sumter was Confederate territory, not Union. The Confederates were more than willing to allow the union troops at Fort Sumter to leave peacefully. The attack happened because the Union troops refused to leave, and instead, attempted to re-arm and re-supply the fort.
As I've said before, when a bully backs you into a corner, and you punch him as a result, you didn't start the fight. He did.
You can theoretically work a plantation with hired labor (as we do now). The plantation economy collapsed because the massive amount of money in slaves vanished overnight. That’s the equivalent of illegalizing tractors you just bought. Foreign armies decimating your infrastructure doesn’t help anything either.
So you admit that the slave labor system collapsed due to the Civil War's effect on the value of slaves but you won't admit that slavery was a fundamental cause of the war. The only constitutional amendments ratified in 1865 did not deal with states’ rights or the right to secede, but the abolishment of the slave economic system... ...drops the mic
So you admit that the slave labor system collapsed due to the Civil War's effect on the value of slaves but you won't admit that slavery was a fundamental cause of the war. The only constitutional amendments ratified in 1865 did not deal with states’ rights or the right to secede, but the abolishment of the slave economic system... ...drops the mic
Pick the mic back up because you didn’t prove anything other than being blind to the bigger picture.
They could have illegalized cotton gins overnight and kept the slaves and it still would have collapsed. The fear of collapse of the southern economy is what caused the war. It could have been slaves, cotton gins, or import tariffs. They mention slaves because that’s what the threat was about. If you get hung up on slavery itself, then you’re blind to the actual lessons of conflicts of federal vs state law.
Anytime somebody answers the cause of a war with a one word answer they're always wrong.
You are claiming to know better than the people that wrote the secession articles
Actually, No I am not. When your reading a long thread like this its easy for responses to run together, i do that a lot but in my response i was not talking about the articles of secession. I was simply pointing out that there were many different reasons for Southerners to support the Civil War and that it was more than a outlier here or there that might have went to war for reasons other than slavery.
IMO, the articles of secession and the war are two different things. There was certainly a domino effect in place but it still takes two dominoes.
Pick the mic back up because you didn’t prove anything other than being blind to the bigger picture.
They could have illegalized cotton gins overnight and kept the slaves and it still would have collapsed. The fear of collapse of the southern economy is what caused the war. It could have been slaves, cotton gins, or import tariffs. They mention slaves because that’s what the threat was about. If you get hung up on slavery itself, then you’re blind to the actual lessons of conflicts of federal vs state law.
Anytime somebody answers the cause of a war with a one word answer they're always wrong.
"Could have," that's your rebuttal? We have to deal in facts. This is the History forum and I can only draw conclusions from what actually happened.
The problem with southern sympathizers who won't acknowledge that slavery was at the center of the conflict is they are looking for something to be proud of, something that was worth fighting for and for them to end slavery is not it. They would much rather try to prove that over 250,000 (95,000 combat)people from the south died in a war as pawns for the wealthy planter class because someone thought they found a loop hole in the tenth amendment.
I have read many diaries of southerners and confederate soldiers and some of them seem to think they didn't benefit from the slave system at all. One diary entry confesses that the plantations are run for "the benefit of Negroes and Planters.. ....mic still rolling around on the floor.
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.
