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.
Some say simplistically that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Unfortunately, there is no "simple" reason. The causes of the war were a complex series of events, including slavery, that began long before the first shot was fired. Competing nationalisms, political turmoil, the definition of freedom, the preservation of the Union, the fate of slavery and the structure of our society and economy could all be listed as significant contributing factors in America's bloodiest conflict. What say you? Do you think that this country could have another?
The plantation owners were getting richer and richer using slave labor. The Northern businessmen were jealous. The North started trying to tell the Southern States what to do. Slavery was just one of the issues. It was basically a question of States Rights. Everybody lost states rights when the South lost the war to the North.
I don't think slavery had much to do with the actual fighting, as only 5% of southerners actually owned slaves, and most northerns had probably never even seen one. But, states like South Carolina's economy depended on them. Slavery was purely incidental, not moral. Whatever drove SC's economy would have been targeted. When Lincoln threatened to become President, SC started the process of secession because Lincoln would force government power over them, and the best way to do that would be economically. SC felt that the U.S. Constitution allowed the states to decide for themselves how to govern themselves. The 10th Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."Seems pretty clear to me. SC would never have ratified the Constitution if they knew it was subject to such interpretation.
The Northern factory owners learned what the British industrialists had known for years; that it's a lot cheaper to use wage slaves than chattel slaves.
All you had to give wage slaves, like the Chinese laborers in California, or the European immigrant miners and mill workers in the Northeast, were a few dollars, and you could take back most of that by renting housing to them and making them buy food at the company stores.
Chattel slaves, used in the American plantation system, got no salary, but you had to house, feed, and take care of them for life.
The push to eliminate the chattel slavery system in the South had little to do ethical or moral considerations. The northern textile companies wanted to move south and control cotton production, but they wanted to replace the traditional and much less profitable chattel slave system with wage slavery.
They lobbied the Republican Party and it's political leader President Lincoln, made it into an emotional issue which gained religious support in the Northern cities, while at the same time fermenting a rebellious attitude based on State's Rights in the South.
The result was the Civil War, the northern economic dominance of the South, and the control of the nation by the Industrialists.
the south thought they had a right to withdraw from the union and that that right would be supported.
they did not see themselves as criminals but as an extension of the american revolution movement for freedom
from tyrany. they failed to see the connection between imperialism and industrialism. we see this continue today
in the enormous 50 year erosion of personal freedoms in contrast with corporate growth, power and influence.
This is not my opinion, I am simply repeating what I was taught as a history major at the University of Texas @ Arlington.
The North objected to the Southern states leaving the Unioin. Lincoln was quoted as saying if he could bring the Southern states back to the Union without freeing a single slave he would do it.
The Emancipation Procolamation only effected the slaves in the Southern states that were no longer part of the Union, he did this to create unrest in the day to day life and economy of the states he wanted to bring back to the Union. If he cared about slavery the proclomation would have included all slaves in the entire US. AND there were slaves elsewhere in the US at the time, not to the degree as in the South, but they did still exist.
This is not my opinion, I am simply repeating what I was taught as a history major at the University of Texas @ Arlington.
The North objected to the Southern states leaving the Unioin. Lincoln was quoted as saying if he could bring the Southern states back to the Union without freeing a single slave he would do it.
The Emancipation Procolamation only effected the slaves in the Southern states that were no longer part of the Union, he did this to create unrest in the day to day life and economy of the states he wanted to bring back to the Union. If he cared about slavery the proclomation would have included all slaves in the entire US. AND there were slaves elsewhere in the US at the time, not to the degree as in the South, but they did still exist.
Lincoln had no power to free the slaves in the Union states - so arguing that he didn't want to do so is silly. In any event, slavery was already on the way out in the Union States by this time and pretty much everyone knew that - and that it would likely happen at the State level.
Lincoln had no power to free the slaves in the Union states - so arguing that he didn't want to do so is silly. In any event, slavery was already on the way out in the Union States by this time and pretty much everyone knew that - and that it would likely happen at the State level.
Same old silly argument.
Ken
Well maybe you should speak to the Dr of history who had a concentration in Civil War and Reconstruction history that taught the classes I took. His Doctoral thesis was on this very topic. Do you have similar credientials? He was a tenured professor in the UT system.
Well maybe you should speak to the Dr of history who had a concentration in Civil War and Reconstruction history that taught the classes I took. His Doctoral thesis was on this very topic. Do you have similar credientials? He was a tenured professor in the UT system.
Actually I DO have credentials in that department (do you?). My first Bachelor's degree was in that very category and I intended to teach the subject - though I eventually decided to go on and get a second Bachelor's degree (in computing) instead. So, clearly I had professors with substantial credentials as well.
Actually I DO have credentials in that department (do you?). My first Bachelor's degree was in that very category and I intended to teach the subject - though I eventually decided to go on and get a second Bachelor's degree (in computing) instead. So, clearly I had professors with substantial credentials as well.
Ken
Well then maybe you should run down to UTA and wave your two bachelors degrees under his nose. When he stops laughing, you two can hash it out.
As I stated in my first post, I was passing along what this man taught based on his PHD studies and doctoral thesis in this area.
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.
