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.
The civil war was basically an economic war between the north and south.
The south was basically an agricultural region that predicated its living on cash crops, that was benefited by slavery since the late 17th century.
The north was more geared to trade and finance. After the mid 1840s its economic base became much more industrialized- while the south for many factors remained agricultural.
The south and its plantations in order to remain solvent relied on African American slaves- while the north, which had abolished slavery in the late 18th century because of its different economic factors.
Northern states became more abhorrent of slavery- while the south which predicated its existence on slavery became increasingly polarized politically from the north.
I thought Texas was the only state whose entry into the Union left them the option of becoming an independent republic if they so chose?
Texas already tried that once (along with several other states) and it didn't wokr out too well. I don't think it would work out well these days, either.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,326 posts, read 54,350,985 times
Reputation: 40726
Quote:
Originally Posted by brattpowered
Texas already tried that once (along with several other states) and it didn't wokr out too well. I don't think it would work out well these days, either.
Maybe so but I think they're the only state that has the specific right to even make the attempt.
Today, most Americans generally adhere to the following logic.
-Slavery was racist
-Slavery was legal in southern states
-Therefore, if I acknowledge that southern states had a right to secede, that makes me a racist.
And since nobody wants to be a racist, it doesn't really matter if secession was "legal" in the 1860's. No muss, no fuss.
The south and its plantations in order to remain solvent relied on African American slaves- while the north, which had abolished slavery in the late 18th century because of its different economic factors.
If slavery were not needed by the North due to its economic factors, why go all the way and abolish it? If only economic factors came into play, then couldn't the North have just let slavery continue in the isolated cases where it did exist, and not go all the way in formally abolishing it? Since I haven't heard the argument that slavery in the North hurt the economy, it seems like more than economic factors were in play.
If slavery were not needed by the North due to its economic factors, why go all the way and abolish it? If only economic factors came into play, then couldn't the North have just let slavery continue in the isolated cases where it did exist, and not go all the way in formally abolishing it? Since I haven't heard the argument that slavery in the North hurt the economy, it seems like more than economic factors were in play.
I understand your post and your question.
Historically and economically there are many reasons why the North realized that slavery was immoral- and it was not totally based on economics.
The far south was largely populated by a different group of people from the British Isles then the New England states and mid Atlantic.
From my own understanding of History you make a valid point in which there may be many reasons for why slavery was so accepted in the south- and rejected in the north.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,326 posts, read 54,350,985 times
Reputation: 40726
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymous
Today, most Americans generally adhere to the following logic.
-Slavery was racist
-Slavery was legal in southern states
-Therefore, if I acknowledge that southern states had a right to secede, that makes me a racist.
And since nobody wants to be a racist, it doesn't really matter if secession was "legal" in the 1860's. No muss, no fuss.
I'm talking more about legalities than causes. I don't know about the original 13 but when other states entered the Union I believe Texas was the only one to insist on and be granted the specific right of secession. Was just asking if anyone knew anything to the contrary?
Who has the power to prevent it? The federal government derives its power from the consent of the governed. If the governed no longer consent, then the government has no power.
At least that is the way it's supposed to work.
We don't have to look any further than the Declaration of Independence:
Quote:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I can't imagine that Thomas Jefferson would say that sentiment only applies to separating from a tyrannical king.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,326 posts, read 54,350,985 times
Reputation: 40726
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMX
Who has the power to prevent it? The federal government derives its power from the consent of the governed. If the governed no longer consent, then the government has no power.
At least that is the way it's supposed to work.
We don't have to look any further than the Declaration of Independence:
.
If we can believe the current polls and other divisive times in the country's history I'd say that doesn't hold true.
Since moving to Texas I have heard several times that the Civil war (or "War of Northern Aggression") was not fought over slavery, but I still don't understand. The most coherent explanation I've heard was that it wasn't fought over slavery, but the right of the South to keep slavery legal-- which is just a convoluted way of saying that it was fought over slavery.
If you asked that question to 10 different historians, you'll get 10 different answers. All of them probably valid and plausible.
As with all wars, it was primarily economics. States rights played a big part. But slavery is THE issue that ignited the war. (And again, this was an economic issue.) Without slavery, the Civil War never would have been fought.
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.
