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.
I said it was fought over the issue of slavery. I never claimed the war was fought to free slaves. The South initiated the war . And I went to Catholic school. My information came from a book written by a Civil War scholar. Not that one book makes you know any great deal on a subject. Actually, reading one book on a subject can sometimes be worse than reading no books at all on the subject because you risk thinking you know more than you do, plus you only get one perspective.
However, I found the author's position rather persuasive. He quoted some Confederate leaders themselves. And he seems to have wrote that book (my impression from some comments he made) as a response to a growing number of people that suggest the U.S. Civil War did not result from any concerns or interests involved over slavery whatsoever.
But the Confederate leaders seem to have thought themselves that their principle reason for waging war against the North (the U.S. Government) was their (Southern) cultural and monetary interest in slavery.
The south did not initiate the war. The south paid for all the (former) federal facilities it occupied and peacefully evacuated the troops from all of them...except lincoln knew that having a fort in charleston harbor and reinforcing it...in other words illegally invading a sovereign country (The C.S.A.)...would provoke the south and give him the excuse he needed to wage total war on civilians and soldiers alike.
After negotiations broke down with Maj Anderson in the fort...Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard ordered his cannon to fire on the fort for effect....no one was killed...but lincoln now had his excuse.
You are correct. The United States like powerful empires before here were built off of slavery. It's inexpensive labor.
Your opinion just isn't backed up by the factual realities of slavery in the Americas. As I posted earlier:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lerner
The thing about slavery is that it was a very inefficient economic system- it didn't really "build" anything except for the personal wealth of a very small aristocratic slave owning class. They just put their profits back into their plantations. It was an extremely agrarian, limited system with very little internal innovation. It's part of the reason that during the war the South couldn't hope to compete with the industrial capacity of the immigrant-attracting North, which is where the wealth of this country was largely built in the 19th and and first half of the 20th century.
The south did not initiate the war. The south paid for all the (former) federal facilities it occupied and peacefully evacuated the troops from all of them...except lincoln knew that having a fort in charleston harbor and reinforcing it...in other words illegally invading a sovereign country (The C.S.A.)...would provoke the south and give him the excuse he needed to wage total war on civilians and soldiers alike.
After negotiations broke down with Maj Anderson in the fort...Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard ordered his cannon to fire on the fort for effect....no one was killed...but lincoln now had his excuse.
Too bad the South had a morally indefensible position. Kinda hard to claim the right of self rule when keeping chattel slavery. And thanks to this Lincoln had the pretext to create the conditions of our servitude in destroying state rights. So if you are descended from a plantation owner, thanks a bunch man.
Um...I don't think Africa is my country either. Generations of my family were slaves...their entire heritage was taken away. It's such an idiotic statement to make. Thanks like saying all white people need to go to Europe....not considering individual countries of origin like France, GB, etc.
Your opinion just isn't backed up by the factual realities of slavery in the Americas. As I posted earlier:
False.
Typical finacialized economics working one side of the equation.
The thing about slavery is that it was a very inefficient economic system- it didn't really "build" anything except for the personal wealth of a very small aristocratic slave owning class. They just put their profits back into their plantations. It was an extremely agrarian, limited system with very little internal innovation. It'd part of the reason that during the war the South couldn't hope to compete with the industrial capacity of the immigrant-attracting North, which is where the wealth of this country was largely built in the 19th and and first half of the 20th century.
The profits is just the seller side of the equation. What was being down with the cheaper output that the buyer enjoyed?
You have to account for the entire equation. You can't just sell gun powder , recycle the profits into a flower garden for the promotion of peace on Earth.
Not necessarily true. Africans are like any reasonable race, they move in the neighborhood, get to know those who are kind to them and get along well with African Americans...the same as the whites that move in our communities. The realize and accept there are good and bad in all races of people.
False.
Typical finacialized economics working one side of the equation.
The thing about slavery is that it was a very inefficient economic system- it didn't really "build" anything except for the personal wealth of a very small aristocratic slave owning class. They just put their profits back into their plantations. It was an extremely agrarian, limited system with very little internal innovation. It'd part of the reason that during the war the South couldn't hope to compete with the industrial capacity of the immigrant-attracting North, which is where the wealth of this country was largely built in the 19th and and first half of the 20th century.
The profits is just the seller side of the equation. What was being down with the cheaper output that the buyer enjoyed?
You have to account for the entire equation. You can just sell gun powder , recycle the profits into a flower garden for the promotion of peace on Earth.
What I'm stating isn't exactly a controversial position. The United States did not become the world's largest economy because of agriculture. The 19th century was the story of agriculture, the primary labor of human societies for literally thousands of years, being surpassed by the industrial revolution. Industry and factory jobs brought millions of immigrants banging at the door to get these jobs. No one was banging at the door to become slaves, and the outlaw of the slave trade in the early 1800s meant that the growth of the slaveowners' labor force was directly limited by the human gestation period.
Now, if the great factories of places like New York and Philadelphia had been powered by slave labor you might have a point, but I haven't seen (and please quote it if I missed it) any evidence provided by you to back up your claim that the US was built by slave labor. Its not a moral thing (go a few pages back if you want to see my very strong opinions on the Confederacy), its just a factual issue. The wealth created by slavery was almost completely limited to the Southern aristocracy. The only thing it built was their personal fortune, which didn't drive development or infrastructure- it just drove larger plantations and more profitable agriculture for their families.
What I'm stating isn't exactly a controversial position.
Surely not since most people are horrible in their economics , typically not accounting for complete economic systems.
Quote:
The United States did not become the world's largest economy because of agriculture. The 19th century was the story of agriculture, the primary labor of human societies for literally thousands of years, being surpassed by the industrial revolution. Industry and factory jobs brought millions of immigrants banging at the door to get these jobs. No one was banging at the door to become slaves, and the outlaw of the slave trade in the early 1800s meant that the growth of the slaveowners' labor force was directly limited by the human gestation period.
According to Ricardian trade theory in his arguments against the corn laws, grain prices were a major factor in competitiveness. In this case it was the issue of rising rents and the cost of labor tending marginal land.
In our finacialized economy its not so obvious since agricultural expenses now account for a much diminished share of expense.
I do not even really contend so much with your conclusions, but the method of merely looking at the profits of the seller. The real value is in the economic surplus. If you can demonstrate that surplus in the sale of those commodities went largely to the seller then, I'll concede to you. I may even investigate this myself. Yes the major cash crop was cotton in the south.
Quote:
Now, if the great factories of places like New York and Philadelphia had been powered by slave labor you might have a point, but I haven't seen (and please quote it if I missed it) any evidence provided by you to back up your claim that the US was built by slave labor. Its not a moral thing (go a few pages back if you want to see my very strong opinions on the Confederacy), its just a factual issue. The wealth created by slavery was almost completely limited to the Southern aristocracy. The only thing it built was their personal fortune, which didn't drive development or infrastructure- it just drove larger plantations and more profitable agriculture for their families.
New York and Philadelphia were powered by agriculture. There was no mortgage, school loan or toll way expenses to keep labor in subsistence. Thus the marginal advantages weighed more heavily on agriculture. However again if it can be demonstrated that the buyer were at the indifference level with slave labor, then you shall win your argument.
However I will agree that slave labor is not very efficient. Marx pointed out that is was cheaper to have wage slaves as they did in Britain. However American industrialists complained that the home stead was too great a competitor to low wage labor. Why work a lousing 16 hour job when you can just farm your own subsistence?
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.
. And I went to Catholic school. My information came from a book written by a Civil War scholar. Not that one book makes you know any great deal on a subject. Actually, reading one book on a subject can sometimes be worse than reading no books at all on the subject because you risk thinking you know more than you do, plus you only get one perspective.
