Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
2,500,000 members. Thank you!
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 10-02-2011, 02:05 PM
 
Location: Willow Spring and Mocksville
275 posts, read 394,182 times
Reputation: 482

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert kid View Post

....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.

here.
This may be true, but Slavery was the primary issue that actually led to Secession. As my previous post demonstrated, this is clearly stated over and over in the Confederates' own words. When they talk about States Rights, nearly all the speeches of the day revolve around the "right" to keep and expand Slavery. Sure, there were other issues, but when it came to Succession they were all corollary to the question of Slavery.
In the end, the South valued Slavery over Independence. Nothing demonstrates the primacy of the institution of Slavery in the South more than the fact that they clung to it to the bitter end. When people like Patrick Cleburne suggested emancipation in exchange for military service, the planters went absolutely ape. It was only during the last months of the war that the Confederate Government agreed to the official enlistment of Slaves (March '65 if I remember correctly) and then it was too late. The Confederacy was dedicated to the continuation of Slavery (see the constitution, see newspaper articles, etc.), and this doomed them. (Along with Jeff Davis's irrational loyalty to people like Braxton Bragg ....)
Ironically, when it comes to States Rights, the Confederacy really proved no better than the Federal government. Brown and Vance, among others, fought a running battle with Richmond throughout the war to keep their states' prerogatives intact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-02-2011, 02:54 PM
Status: "that's just your projection man" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: The Triad
34,091 posts, read 82,293,970 times
Reputation: 43630
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheArchitect View Post
Wrong. Without slavery, the war doesnt happen.
And without slavery the south wouldn't exist (as it was).

Quote:
And the "fundamentally different" culture of the two regions was primarily the result of the slavery institution.
Which, even at 1860, was far more about the heritage from the Colonial era. Economically and socially the southern elite still had far more social and cultural (let alone economic) affinity with and for their English factors than any New England ties they had.

The one thing they still didn't have though was cash. They remained little more than the same sharecropping planters, always in debt and always playing catch up with the next crop, that both their grandfathers were and their grandsons would later become.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2011, 05:18 PM
 
Location: Wheaton, Illinois
10,261 posts, read 21,615,709 times
Reputation: 10453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strelnikov View Post
(Along with Jeff Davis's irrational loyalty to people like Braxton Bragg ....)

Irrational? I don't think so, Bragg wasn't very good but I think he was the best man available (unfortunately for Davis and fortunately for this nation). He did better than the men who commanded the Army of Tennessee both before and after him.

Now keeping Polk around, that was irrational.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2011, 10:37 PM
 
Location: Aloverton
6,560 posts, read 14,374,876 times
Reputation: 10163
Quote:
Originally Posted by thriftylefty View Post
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.
This doesn't make sense to me in the scenario we are discussing--a what-if where slavery was abolished nationwide in, say, 1850 or 1854. For one thing, the northern states had plenty of access to the cheap immigrant labor that was beginning to pour in. For another, the southern states' 'unique labor force' would no longer be slaves under this scenario, meaning they would have had all the choice in the world to go wherever they wanted, including get the hell out of the South. We can believe they would have, because after the actual Civil War, that's precisely what a great many freed slaves did. Their labor in the south would no longer have been uncompensated, in any case--they'd have to be paid, or they wouldn't work.

Bottom line: abolish slavery, and there is no reason to imagine the Civil War happens. It was the dominant wedge issue of the day, the question that illuminated and polarized a north/south cultural and ideological divide. To believe the war would happen anyway, there'd have to be a wedge issue of at least as much import, and I have yet to hear what that might plausibly have been.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 12:25 PM
 
Location: Bay Area - Portland
286 posts, read 518,994 times
Reputation: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k View Post
...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...
I agree and don’t see any likely path that would have lead to an all out war without the institution of slavery either.


Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k View Post
...Only cause? Of course not; life is not that simple. Dominant factor? Sure looks like it to me.
But I don’t follow your logic here. Of course there were many factors effecting the war, but if slavery is the ‘onlycredible scenario that leads to war, by definition, how can you say it wasn’t the ‘only’ cause?


Americans tend to view themselves as world leaders, but the more I learn about history, the more I realize that in so many ways that’s not really the case.

Almost all of the developed nations had outlawed slavery 50 years or so before we dragged the south kicking and screaming into civilized world. Our refusal to end the death penalty and to make health care a right, that most every other citizen in the civilized world enjoys, are only two current day examples…
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 01:08 PM
 
12,859 posts, read 13,507,425 times
Reputation: 9536
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k View Post
This doesn't make sense to me in the scenario we are discussing--a what-if where slavery was abolished nationwide in, say, 1850 or 1854. For one thing, the northern states had plenty of access to the cheap immigrant labor that was beginning to pour in. For another, the southern states' 'unique labor force' would no longer be slaves under this scenario, meaning they would have had all the choice in the world to go wherever they wanted, including get the hell out of the South. We can believe they would have, because after the actual Civil War, that's precisely what a great many freed slaves did. Their labor in the south would no longer have been uncompensated, in any case--they'd have to be paid, or they wouldn't work.

Bottom line: abolish slavery, and there is no reason to imagine the Civil War happens. It was the dominant wedge issue of the day, the question that illuminated and polarized a north/south cultural and ideological divide. To believe the war would happen anyway, there'd have to be a wedge issue of at least as much import, and I have yet to hear what that might plausibly have been.
I think the bigger question is how could something exist for 248 years and suddenly in the 249th year the nation goes to war with its self in order to abolish it ? Slavery was always there to fight about but something else occurred in that 249th year that put the union and slavery on the line.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 01:31 PM
 
Location: Aloverton
6,560 posts, read 14,374,876 times
Reputation: 10163
Quote:
Originally Posted by thriftylefty View Post
I think the bigger question is how could something exist for 248 years and suddenly in the 249th year the nation goes to war with its self in order to abolish it ? Slavery was always there to fight about but something else occurred in that 249th year that put the union and slavery on the line.
No credible reader of history thinks that the purpose of the war was to abolish slavery. For the Union, it was to quash an armed secession. For the Confederacy, it was to protect slavery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 01:42 PM
 
Location: Aloverton
6,560 posts, read 14,374,876 times
Reputation: 10163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dual Citizen CA-OR View Post
But I don’t follow your logic here. Of course there were many factors effecting the war, but if slavery is the ‘onlycredible scenario that leads to war, by definition, how can you say it wasn’t the ‘only’ cause?
As a wedge issue, it exposed and heightened passions of all kinds, including the factors you refer to. In short, "We're really mad that you don't like new slave states and that you don't like us having slaves, and here are the rest of the grievances and reasons why you Just Don't Get It." Kind of like when a wife suspects a husband of infidelity, and while she's at it, she also doesn't like all sorts of things about his conduct, from his failure to pick up his socks to his fairly constant referring to her trampy little sister as 'your little tramp of a sister'. While it's getting fairly far out there to imagine (economic matters tending to interlock), perhaps if slavery were the only issue and everything was harmonious otherwise, maybe slavery alone would not have been enough to lead to war. Does that clarify the logic?

Oh, and on the leadership issue, fully concur. We did not invent every social advance nor device created by humanity since 1800, and it's astonishingly naive and arrogant for anyone to imagine or pretend we did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 01:58 PM
 
Location: FROM Dixie, but IN SoCal
3,484 posts, read 6,475,455 times
Reputation: 3791
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.
Finally, someone who realizes that the Civil War, like nearly all wars, was caused by money issues! The North wanted to abolish slavery; the South would have gone along had they been compensated for the financial loss this would have caused.

It ain't pretty, friends, but it is one of the core truths.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 02:05 PM
 
Location: FROM Dixie, but IN SoCal
3,484 posts, read 6,475,455 times
Reputation: 3791
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
...while most of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana return to the kudzu jungle they once were;
Heh-heh-heh! There's a slight temporal problem here. Kudzu, native to Japan, wasn't introduced into the South after the 1876 World's Fair. One of those "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions..." kind of things.
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.

© 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