Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-01-2011, 11:01 AM
 
Location: Aloverton
6,560 posts, read 14,452,170 times
Reputation: 10165

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by thriftylefty View Post
When we say the Civil War was or was not about Slavery , Its like saying today we have a problem with our economy. Slavery is a very broad term. Each plantation defined Slavery as to their particular needs. The economic, moral , and social variability that existed on each plantation did not exist equally and in harmony. Perhaps we could say the Civil War happened because wealthy southerners couldn't take their "servants" to live with them in California. Chinese servants were okay I guess.
You're confusing morals with with the original premise of 'obvious cause.' Neither side had very high moral ground. When one says that slavery is the obvious cause of the war, one should mean that it was the dominant and contentious national issue of the day, the wedge that caused two regions to decided they no longer had much in common, and to react to that in different ways.

I once asked someone to present me a credible scenario in which the Civil War happens if slavery had been abolished nationwide in 1850. I didn't get a single plausible scenario. Only cause? Of course not; life is not that simple. Dominant factor? Sure looks like it to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-01-2011, 11:30 AM
Status: "119 N/A" (set 18 days ago)
 
12,952 posts, read 13,663,665 times
Reputation: 9693
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k View Post
You're confusing morals with with the original premise of 'obvious cause.' Neither side had very high moral ground. When one says that slavery is the obvious cause of the war, one should mean that it was the dominant and contentious national issue of the day, the wedge that caused two regions to decided they no longer had much in common, and to react to that in different ways.

I once asked someone to present me a credible scenario in which the Civil War happens if slavery had been abolished nationwide in 1850. I didn't get a single plausible scenario. Only cause? Of course not; life is not that simple. Dominant factor? Sure looks like it to me.
In order to call Slavery the Dominate Cause of the Civil War , we would have to establish that under no circumstances the North and South would have gotten into a conflict over who would control the global cotton trade. With slave or free labor the South controlled the trade and for many plantation owners cotton as apposed to slaves was the source of their wealth and political power.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2011, 01:10 AM
 
Location: Aloverton
6,560 posts, read 14,452,170 times
Reputation: 10165
Quote:
Originally Posted by thriftylefty View Post
In order to call Slavery the Dominate Cause of the Civil War , we would have to establish that under no circumstances the North and South would have gotten into a conflict over who would control the global cotton trade. With slave or free labor the South controlled the trade and for many plantation owners cotton as apposed to slaves was the source of their wealth and political power.
I didn't call it the dominant cause. I called it the dominant issue of the day, and the dominant factor, so dominant that absent slavery, the war would never have occurred. The political speeches and public statements of the day make interesting reading today--and slavery dominates the debate.

If you can concoct a plausible scenario in which the war happens anyway even if slavery were abolished nationwide, say by 1854, I'll be fascinated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2011, 10:33 AM
Status: "119 N/A" (set 18 days ago)
 
12,952 posts, read 13,663,665 times
Reputation: 9693
The scenario that I would submit is , slave holding states cut a deal with the federal government to end slavery in trade for being compensated for their slaves. They are compensated at pre-Civil War slave prices of 1854. (There is a popular poster from about 1854 which advertises slaves for sale at about $850.00-$1200 a piece) There are approximately 4 million slaves. With this wealth the Southern slave barons intend to expand cotton agriculture to the west as well as venturing into gold territory and taking over northern industries. They still have access to 4 million "laborers" which they offer free transportation to the gold mines in the west and northern factories to work under something akin to the share cropper system.IMO I think during the subsequent four of five years many bills and acts would have been sponsored and passed by northern politicians to rein in this expansion of power in the south. The south would have seen this as an obvious infringement on their constitutional rights and civil war would break out by 1861.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2011, 10:59 AM
 
Location: The Triad
34,088 posts, read 82,911,742 times
Reputation: 43660
Quote:
Originally Posted by thriftylefty View Post
The scenario that I would submit is , slave holding states cut a deal with the federal government to end slavery in trade for being compensated for their slaves...
...the slaves then get transported to the Caribbean, S. America and Africa where they get sold yet again while most of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana return to the kudzu jungle they once were; Florida gets offered to the Zionists who drain the swamps and still create Miami Beach; and the Cherokee's still manage to get screwed in the shuffle.

Last edited by MrRational; 10-02-2011 at 11:21 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2011, 11:29 AM
 
Location: Aloverton
6,560 posts, read 14,452,170 times
Reputation: 10165
Quote:
Originally Posted by thriftylefty View Post
The scenario that I would submit is , slave holding states cut a deal with the federal government to end slavery in trade for being compensated for their slaves. They are compensated at pre-Civil War slave prices of 1854. (There is a popular poster from about 1854 which advertises slaves for sale at about $850.00-$1200 a piece) There are approximately 4 million slaves. With this wealth the Southern slave barons intend to expand cotton agriculture to the west as well as venturing into gold territory and taking over northern industries. They still have access to 4 million "laborers" which they offer free transportation to the gold mines in the west and northern factories to work under something akin to the share cropper system.IMO I think during the subsequent four of five years many bills and acts would have been sponsored and passed by northern politicians to rein in this expansion of power in the south. The south would have seen this as an obvious infringement on their constitutional rights and civil war would break out by 1861.
So you think the southern moguls would have had more money to spend exploiting poor people out west than northern moguls, thus creating a threat? And/or that the Federal government, seeing the country in purely north/south terms, would draw an distinction: northern exploiting moguls good, southern ones bad? And a war over that?

The trouble here is that your north/south division is based largely on a civil war which, we should remember, in this scenario had not happened and had not drawn an imaginary line across the country. That's people's challenge when answering this question. Only the fact that the states fought a war etched the division so clearly. Why not New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia aligned as the haves vs. the have-nots? Why not the westernmost states having more in common with one another than any of them back east?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2011, 12:22 PM
 
1,300 posts, read 959,348 times
Reputation: 2390
The OBVIOUS cause of the civil war was the desire to preserve the slave system and expand that system into new territories. Take away this "states rights" issue and attempted sucession & war dont happen. No other states rights issue or set of issues lead to anything more than debate in congress.

They saw Lincoln as a sneaky abolitionist who was looking to stop the spread of slavery into new territories (he was) and saw the increasing anti-slavery sentiment in the north as something that made staying together in the long term unlikely.


Of course, southern propogandists have been spinning revisionist nonsense ever since then in order to control the minds (and thus the behavior) of the white populace in order to preserve the caste order and quasi religion of white supremacy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2011, 12:34 PM
 
Location: Southeast Arizona
3,378 posts, read 5,006,712 times
Reputation: 2463
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheArchitect View Post
The OBVIOUS cause of the civil war was the desire to preserve the slave system and expand that system into new territories. Take away this "states rights" issue and attempted sucession & war dont happen. No other states rights issue or set of issues lead to anything more than debate in congress.

They saw Lincoln as a sneaky abolitionist who was looking to stop the spread of slavery into new territories (he was) and saw the increasing anti-slavery sentiment in the north as something that made staying together in the long term unlikely.


Of course, southern propogandists have been spinning revisionist nonsense ever since then in order to control the minds (and thus the behavior) of the white populace in order to preserve the caste order and quasi religion of white supremacy
What? State's Rights in no way is some propaganda piece, the right of secession (and the use of) is the purest use of the State's Rights arguement. Much of the pre-War fighting over the territories was over congressional balance, that is why there was so much of a beef over having New Mexico/Oklahoma/Northern Mexico as slave states to balance out the Slave/Free states. When the CSA seceded they forfeit that right, the 5 Civilized Tribes (Oklahoma) and Arizona seceding with them was an added bonus.

Even without the slave issue the South and North are fundementally different in terms of culture, if not slavery it would have started over something else.

It doesn't seem us "southern propagadists" are doing the spinning here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2011, 12:57 PM
Status: "119 N/A" (set 18 days ago)
 
12,952 posts, read 13,663,665 times
Reputation: 9693
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k View Post
So you think the southern moguls would have had more money to spend exploiting poor people out west than northern moguls, thus creating a threat? And/or that the Federal government, seeing the country in purely north/south terms, would draw an distinction: northern exploiting moguls good, southern ones bad? And a war over that?

The trouble here is that your north/south division is based largely on a civil war which, we should remember, in this scenario had not happened and had not drawn an imaginary line across the country. That's people's challenge when answering this question. Only the fact that the states fought a war etched the division so clearly. Why not New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia aligned as the haves vs. the have-nots? Why not the westernmost states having more in common with one another than any of them back east?
I think at the dawn of the industrial revolution labor was a hot commodity, and the south had a unique abundance of it. While recruiting slaves to enlist in the USCT, recruiters routinely found young men who were born in Africa, some speaking 10 or more languages. A "legal African born Slave" would have to be well beyond the age of military service as the Atlantic Slave Trade was made illegal in 1808.

Sure there were Europeans immigrants in the North and Asian immigrants in the West but the South had four million people who had no choice but to work for another man. It was difficult to get the average man to work for another man as apposed to living off his own land or opening his own shop. These things were denied black people. IMO they were de facto slaves until the Civil Rights movement changed it.The Tredegar Iron Works gave the Confederacy a big advantage in part because of its use of Slave Labor.

If we remove the North and South from argument and ask "who was in the best position to take advantage of the industrial revolution" I would say those who had access to labor. The south had a unique labor force that had no choice but to work for another man. I don't think the North could have competed fairly with free labor in the South as long as the social system was in place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2011, 12:58 PM
 
1,300 posts, read 959,348 times
Reputation: 2390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert kid View Post
What? State's Rights in no way is some propaganda piece, the right of secession (and the use of) is the purest use of the State's Rights arguement. Much of the pre-War fighting over the territories was over congressional balance, that is why there was so much of a beef over having New Mexico/Oklahoma/Northern Mexico as slave states to balance out the Slave/Free states. When the CSA seceded they forfeit that right, the 5 Civilized Tribes (Oklahoma) and Arizona seceding with them was an added bonus.

Even without the slave issue the South and North are fundementally different in terms of culture, if not slavery it would have started over something else.

It doesn't seem us "southern propagadists" are doing the spinning here.

Wrong. Without slavery, the war doesnt happen.
And the "fundamentally different" culture of the two regions was primarily the result of the slavery institution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:11 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top