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)
 
Old 10-16-2017, 01:25 PM
 
11,610 posts, read 10,404,273 times
Reputation: 7217

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWFL_Native View Post
The north really didn't care that much about "slavery" in it's traditional form. Sure there were abolitionist in Boston and a few diverse areas of the Union but they didn't make up is primary constituency.
Neo-Confederate bunk. The anti-slavery Republican Party won over 50 percent of the vote in northern states in 1860. See post 202 here:

//www.city-data.com/forum/histo...-1860s-21.html

See post 255, regarding the Republican beliefs in "free labor."

//www.city-data.com/forum/histo...earned-26.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWFL_Native View Post
The primary reason for the American Civil War was the North needed the south but the South did not need the North.
The primary Union war goal was to preserve the Union. As Lincoln repeatedly expressed, only majority rule could maintain a democratic government, and secession was anarchy. The Perpetual Union also ensured that Constitutional outcomes, not military conflict, resolved political differences, providing for domestic tranquility. See post 270 here:

//www.city-data.com/forum/histo...earned-27.html

Slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War. As noted throughout this thread, the Confederate secessionists emphasized this point. A primary reason that the South, especially the slave-owning leaders of the Confederacy, cared so much about slavery was because slaves were the foundation of their wealth.

<< In the 11 states that eventually formed the Confederacy, four out of ten people were slaves in 1860, and these people accounted for more than half the agricultural labor in those states. In the cotton regions the importance of slave labor was even greater. The value of capital invested in slaves roughly equaled the total value of all farmland and farm buildings in the South. Though the value of slaves fluctuated from year to year, there was no prolonged period during which the value of the slaves owned in the United States did not increase markedly. Looking at Figure 1, it is hardly surprising that Southern slaveowners in 1860 were optimistic about the economic future of their region. They were, after all, in the midst of an unparalleled rise in the value of their slave assets.>>

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-econ...the-civil-war/

See post 242 here:

//www.city-data.com/forum/histo...earned-25.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWFL_Native View Post
Our primary role at this point was importing human capital (North and West from Europe and South from Africa).
Immigration was not the "primary role" of the U.S.

You apparently don't know that the U.S. made the import of African slaves illegal in 1807, over a half century before the Civil War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Pr...tion_of_Slaves

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWFL_Native View Post
Now if you look at the wealth distribution the south had far more "wealthy" people that controlled large industries and plantations. The north had far more people, manufacturing, and industry but the wealth per person was far lower.
Please substantiate this, as it contradicts the reality that wages were far higher in the North, and the location of the nation's major financial centers in the North. It also ignores that slaves, a substantial portion of the Southern population, had relatively no wealth.

Higher wages, higher mechanization in the North, both industrial and agricultural, and much greater urbanization, made land much more valuable in the North.

<<The following excerpt from the work of Hinton R. Helper(The Impending Crisis of the South: How to Meet It by Hinton Rowan Helper of North Carolina, pages 325-330, A. B. Burdick, New York, 1860), might get the ball rolling. The book was noticed by Northern Abolitionists and Republicans, who then financed a wide-spread distribution. In the South it was banned, confiscated and burned. It was a major controversy at the time.
Non-Slaveholding Whites! Look Well to Your Interests!
Hinton Helper


In 1856, there were assessed for taxation in the State of

NEW YORK
Acres of land ............ 30,080,000
Valued at ................ $1,112,133,136
Average value per acre ... $36.97
NORTH CAROLINA
Acres of land ............ 32,450,560
Valued at ................ $98,800,636
Average value per acre ... $3.06>>

The original Confederates, like the today's neo-Confederates misrepresent the reality of the Southern economy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWFL_Native View Post
Go to Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Ohio, west Virginia, and even most of NY state and you wouldn't have found that much apathy around the institution of slavery.
Correct, there was little apathy about slavery in North. In fact, as demonstrated by the election of the Republicans, northerners were very opposed to slavery.

This is well demonstrated by the events of the "Oberlin-Wellington rescue" and the resulting political ramifications. This general disrespect for the rights of slave owners to recovery of their human chattel slavery was an often cited excuse for secession by Confederate leaders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberli...lington_Rescue

The neo-Confederate distortion of history, as well represented by your inane post, is both tiresome and disgusting. And neo-Confederates don't want to admit the reality that human slaves comprised the majority of the wealth of the southern plantation owners who led the Confederacy.

Last edited by WRnative; 10-16-2017 at 01:44 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-18-2017, 12:26 PM
 
16,212 posts, read 10,806,610 times
Reputation: 8442
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWFL_Native View Post
The north really didn't care that much about "slavery" in it's traditional form. Sure there were abolitionist in Boston and a few diverse areas of the Union but they didn't make up is primary constituency.

The primary reason for the American Civil War was the North needed the south but the South did not need the North.

At the time we were less that a 100 years into our time of being a nation after fighting multiple bloody wars with the European powers. We had shed blood and gone through a ton of pain to birth the nation that was in its infancy. The US was just arriving as a power on a global scale. We had an infinite amount of land, resources, and opportunity but limited infrastructure/navy/military. Our primary role at this point was importing human capital (North and West from Europe and South from Africa).

Now if you look at the wealth distribution the south had far more "wealthy" people that controlled large industries and plantations. The north had far more people, manufacturing, and industry but the wealth per person was far lower. The north needed both the tax basis to cover the entire federal budget (both to maintain existing infrastructure and to expand westward) as well as the crops/commodities grown into the south to be processed and manufacturing in the north.

The north leveraged their outright population and area to combat the south's expansion westward into areas like Texas, Misery, Kansas, New Mexico, Cali, and other western territories. The south's wealth advantage depended upon cheap to free labor in the form of slavery where the north relied upon manufacturing and technology. The control of the expansion and limitation of the south's advantages are what triggered the war. Not an idealism about race and the act of slavery.

Go to Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Ohio, west Virginia, and even most of NY state and you wouldn't have found that much apathy around the institution of slavery.
The bold states actually had a pretty large amount of people that were very much against slavery. They were also the hotbeds of abolitionist activity and of the administration of the Underground Railroad (UGGR).

Contrary to what people may believe the UGGR was not in the south but the states of PA, NY, and OH in particular had some of the heaviest involvement, both whites and black.

Also FWIW, James Ashley was the congressional representative who first drafted the 13th Amendment freeing the slaves. He represented NW OH.

Will note that most white northerners were prejudiced in regards to race, but that was the time period of the era and common. But a majority of the populations of those bolded states did not agree with the institution of slavery from either/or moral or economic/jobs perspectives. NY abolished slavery in 1827. PA did a gradual emancipation starting in 1780, and Ohio never had slavery as a state (it did exist in the NW Territory prior to statehood).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2017, 12:36 PM
 
5,544 posts, read 8,305,037 times
Reputation: 11141
https://youtu.be/1SVTRWKrmKA

this was taken from a CSPAN book review
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2017, 11:59 AM
 
18,111 posts, read 25,240,899 times
Reputation: 16809
Quote:
Originally Posted by theoldnorthstate View Post
https://youtu.be/1SVTRWKrmKA

this was taken from a CSPAN book review
Why are we praising a man that took arms against the US army?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2017, 12:22 PM
 
5,544 posts, read 8,305,037 times
Reputation: 11141
Because the OP asked.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2017, 09:11 AM
 
Location: Cushing OK
14,539 posts, read 21,236,374 times
Reputation: 16939
It's been estamated that slavery was going to die on its own in time. The northern industries had found a goldmine in all the displaced emigrants from Britan and Ireland, who lived in the poor part of town they did not have to maintain, and hired only those who were able. Grandma didn't make dresses and the little ones might not have. But once the work day was over, the factory wasn't responsible for them. In a sense, it was similar to the origion of the the slave, as indentured europeans had first filled the role, but they were prone to run and hard to control, and eventually you had to let them go. Someone you owned you didn't have that problem.

The formerly indentured labor became a secondary source, kept poor but not owned. The primary labor became slaves until their economy also depended on it. Those moving on looking for opportunity for themselves did not wish it to become another south.

The problem the south was having was its land was growing tired and overused. They needed to be able to expand into the west. But while people did not necessarily disapprove of slavery, they had come for their own independence, and it wasn't going to happen in a slave economy.

So among the reasons the South had to resist the end of slavery was that it was the base of their economy, and their influence was going to shrink more as the west was settled by those who also did not want to compete with a slave economy and the upper class veneer that went with it.

Last edited by nightbird47; 10-21-2017 at 09:21 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2017, 12:22 PM
 
11,610 posts, read 10,404,273 times
Reputation: 7217
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightbird47 View Post
It's been estamated that slavery was going to die on its own in time. The northern industries had found a goldmine in all the displaced emigrants from Britan and Ireland, who lived in the poor part of town they did not have to maintain, and hired only those who were able. Grandma didn't make dresses and the little ones might not have. But once the work day was over, the factory wasn't responsible for them. In a sense, it was similar to the origion of the the slave, as indentured europeans had first filled the role, but they were prone to run and hard to control, and eventually you had to let them go. Someone you owned you didn't have that problem.

The formerly indentured labor became a secondary source, kept poor but not owned. The primary labor became slaves until their economy also depended on it. Those moving on looking for opportunity for themselves did not wish it to become another south.

The problem the south was having was its land was growing tired and overused. They needed to be able to expand into the west. But while people did not necessarily disapprove of slavery, they had come for their own independence, and it wasn't going to happen in a slave economy.

So among the reasons the South had to resist the end of slavery was that it was the base of their economy, and their influence was going to shrink more as the west was settled by those who also did not want to compete with a slave economy and the upper class veneer that went with it.
Neo-Confederates, as with the 1860s Confederates, can't resist suggesting that the conditions of northern workers were as bad, if not worse, than the slave laborers of the Confederacy. In general, although there were likely exceptions, this is patently false.

Neo-Confederates should read and ponder James McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom." This generally is considered the best one-volume history of the Civil War period, and is a volume of the Oxford History of the United States. What is somewhat unique about this history is its emphasis on economics.

Just as neo-Confederates in this thread generally attempt to inaccurately to belittle the moral opposition to slavery in the North, they also ignore the vast economic differences between the North and the South. Sadly, the Second Great Awakening has never to my memory been mentioned in this thread or similar C-D threads, with its emphasis on "my brother's keeper."

What was universally different between northern and southern labor forces, were the levels of civil liberties. Even the famous Lowell mill girls were able to organize and engage in labor actions despite lacking the power of the vote. Note also that the Lowell workers only stayed at the mills for an average of four years. Slaves rarely escaped their working places unless sold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowell_Mill_Girls

While common schools and free public education was emerging as norms in the North, Southern states generally barred the teaching of even reading and writing to slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...ompulsory_laws

McPherson notes in his first chapter how this emphasis on education transformed the North's economy, often in a revolutionary way: "Of 143 important inventions patented in the United States from 1790 to 1860, 93 percent came out of the free states and nearly half from New England alone -- more than twice that region's proportion of the free population." McPherson notes that 95 percent of New England adults could read and write. The South lagged far behind in the education of even its free white population. McPherson says only one-tenth of slaves could read and write.

Northern agrarian laborers were relatively highly paid, because of the virtuous cycle where high rural wages in the North resulted in the mechanization of northern agriculture that resulted in higher productivity that drove wages ever higher. Due to the burden of the Southern slave and caste system, mechanization lagged far behind the North in the states of the Confederacy.

These threads don't mention the impact of the transportation revolution, as transportation costs plummeted, or of the impact of standardization of production, as machines and machine tools proliferated throughout the industrial economy and interchangeable parts revolutionized the economy.

Read McPherson's "The United States at Midcentury," his first chapter, where he notes that the U.S. enjoyed the highest standard of living in the world, although the benefits of this wealth were not equally shared, and certainly not by the slave laborers of the South. Read about the "American system of manufacture" that amazed even the British:

<<Nevertheless, a test of ten randomly selected muskets each made in a separate year from 1844 to 1853 at the Springfield (Massachusetts) armory convinced British skeptics. A workman disassembled the parts, jumbled them in a box, and reassembled ten muskets flawlessly.>>

McPherson well advances the argument that the North was the revolutionary society, rapidly transforming into the modern world. And much of this incipient industrial revolution was driven by a shortage of labor and high wages, creating a broad middle class.

McPherson analyzes the emergence of the wage labor system and the perception of "wage slavery," so popular among neo-Confederates.

What McPherson doesn't do sufficiently, perhaps, is to document the brutality of the slave system, the relative Southern caste system that impoverished even free whites (lack of universal education), and of course the denial of even basic civil liberties to the African American slaves.

McPherson does document that Lincoln, and the Republican Party, rejected the concept of a "wage slave" so widely popularized as a Northern reality by neo-Confederates. Just as the Lowell girls labored on average only four years in the mills, so did northern laborers find upward mobility in the emerging capitalist system of the North, which is the prevalent economic model today in the entire U.S.

<<"Wage slave" was a contradiction in terms, said Lincoln. "The man who labored for another last year, this year labors for himself, and next year he will hire others to labor for him." If a man "continue through life in the condition of the hired laborer, it is not the fault of the system, but because of either a dependent nature which prefers its, or improvidence, folly, or singular misfortune.">>

Lincoln, as McPherson well explains, represented the capitalist Yankee North, and not the "Butternut," Southern-like sentiments of the southern portions of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois.

Neo-Confederates ignore that Southern leaders were actually dismissive of wage laborers. McPherson's "Mudsills and Greasy Mechanics for A. Lincoln" chapter is a fascinating examination of the difference in Southern and Northern perspectives on the North's emerging wage labor system.

The apologists for the Confederacy never focus on the denial of civil liberties to the slaves, or even the reality that they and their family members could be bought and sold. There was no upward migration for slaves, and relatively little for poor free whites compared to their counterparts in the North. DISGUSTING.

Last edited by WRnative; 10-21-2017 at 12:57 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2017, 04:17 PM
 
Location: New York Area
34,897 posts, read 16,905,285 times
Reputation: 30014
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
The apologists for the Confederacy never focus on the denial of civil liberties to the slaves, or even the reality that they and their family members could be bought and sold. There was no upward migration for slaves, and relatively little for poor free whites compared to their counterparts in the North. DISGUSTING.
Very well written post which I'll rep if I can.

I don't think there was any good intention with slavery. However, quite by accident the slaves' conditions were overall far better than the conditions of those remaining in Africa. And that continues for the descendants of both to this day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2017, 04:27 PM
 
11,610 posts, read 10,404,273 times
Reputation: 7217
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
Very well written post which I'll rep if I can.

I don't think there was any good intention with slavery. However, quite by accident the slaves' conditions were overall far better than the conditions of those remaining in Africa.
I would like to see the thesis that African American slaves were better off than their relatives in Africa explored. E.g., were African families split up and sold, other than by slavers supplying demand in the Americas? Were death rates actually lower in Africa than in the U.S.? What were the torture rates in Africa vs. among U.S. African American slaves? Was the African literacy rate in 1860 actually lower than the 10 percent estimated rate among African American slaves?

Of course, the major consideration in this thread is that African Americans were being brutally subjugated and the American political system was greatly swinging in opposition to the continuation of slavery in the U.S., and most definitely against its expansion into U.S. territories and new states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2017, 05:35 PM
 
Location: New York Area
34,897 posts, read 16,905,285 times
Reputation: 30014
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
I would like to see the thesis that African American slaves were better off than their relatives in Africa explored. E.g., were African families split up and sold, other than by slavers supplying demand in the Americas? Were death rates actually lower in Africa than in the U.S.? What were the torture rates in Africa vs. among U.S. African American slaves? Was the African literacy rate in 1860 actually lower than the 10 percent estimated rate among African American slaves?

Of course, the major consideration in this thread is that African Americans were being brutally subjugated and the American political system was greatly swinging in opposition to the continuation of slavery in the U.S., and most definitely against its expansion into U.S. territories and new states.
Without doing an impossible amount of work it would be hard to know what African death and torture rates were. If modern times are any judge things were far worse in Africa. Of course that's a pretty low bar.
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

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