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.
You tell others to "deal with it", but actually, many of you who think the war was solely about slavery don't "deal with it" at all. You never ask, "why?" Why would Southern states be afraid that slavery was going to be abolished? Wasn't it a state issue?
Obviously not a state issue, since the Fugitive Slave Act made it clear that the interpretation of people as property extended across state lines. The South was quite happy to swing the Federal club as long as it was in their favor.
Quote:
Did the federal government have the power to abolish slavery?
Not without passing an amendment.
Quote:
If so, why hadn't the federal government abolished slavery decades earlier? Slavery was an abominable institution. Do you honestly think there were no Southerners that thought that?
Undoubtedly. They turned out to be in the minority, no?
Quote:
Why was the South so dependent on slaves?
Because they were heavily financially invested in the institution, dependent on crops with a high requirement for manual labor and, frankly, because they were incredibly conservative. The proper Southern Gentleman was a plantation owner, not an industrialist.
Quote:
How many Northern banks had loaned money to Southern plantation owners using slaves as collateral? How many Northern insurance companies insured slaves?
Tons. What's the point? The North elected representatives that backed abolition.
Quote:
Why did so many non-slaveholding Southerners go to war?
Why does any poor blighter go to war? You tell him that Johnny Foreigner is coming to push him around and that he's a traitor if he doesn't pick up a rifle. Goering had a good quote about that - how the average farmer's best outcome is to go back to his farm with all his limbs.
Quote:
The truth isn't in the secession documents where they specifically identified slavery as the issue of the day, much as abortion might be identified as an issue of the day if some states chose to take a stand about that.
That's what I've been saying. The South picked slavery as their issue, their rallying cry, their cause celebre. This was the thing they could agree on - this was the institution they would not see destroyed, even if it meant secession.
Quote:
Why did the Southern states think that the federal government was suddenly going to destroy the Southern economy? Why would they fear that? Because a political reality had become terribly real in the 1860 election?
Yeah, they lost an election. They were used to wield Federal power, now it looked as if it would be wielded against them - and they didn't like it. Not one bit.
Quote:
That any system that aspires to being democratic is a political system that gives the advantage to urban areas, and necessarily disadvantages rural areas. Democracies subjugate their rural citizens.
Come on. The rural areas even got 3/5ths representation for the part of their population that by definition never got near the vote.
And there was rural population in abundance in the North, as well.
Quote:
The South had fought in the Revolutionary War, to be a part of a government where they had a voice. Less than ten decades later, the voice they thought they had was muffled. Why stay in a club where they had no say? Why not form their own club?
Yes, the South found themselves in a minority position. Which particular topic was it they found themselves in a minority on? Which issue did they use to identify themselves? What was, in the words of their Vice President, the freakin' cornerstone of their new club?
How is sharecropping that much a step above slavery?
It wasn't, in many cases. My greatgrandfather sharecropped, but he was given the chance to buy his land...150 acres, which he did. It was the same land he sharecropped.
Not all white folks were venal at the time. But my family's situation most certainly wasn't the norm. Usually, you got shafted.
Obviously not a state issue, since the Fugitive Slave Act made it clear that the interpretation of people as property extended across state lines. The South was quite happy to swing the Federal club as long as it was in their favor.
Not without passing an amendment.
Undoubtedly. They turned out to be in the minority, no?
Because they were heavily financially invested in the institution, dependent on crops with a high requirement for manual labor and, frankly, because they were incredibly conservative. The proper Southern Gentleman was a plantation owner, not an industrialist.
Tons. What's the point? The North elected representatives that backed abolition.
Why does any poor blighter go to war? You tell him that Johnny Foreigner is coming to push him around and that he's a traitor if he doesn't pick up a rifle. Goering had a good quote about that - how the average farmer's best outcome is to go back to his farm with all his limbs.
That's what I've been saying. The South picked slavery as their issue, their rallying cry, their cause celebre. This was the thing they could agree on - this was the institution they would not see destroyed, even if it meant secession.
Yeah, they lost an election. They were used to wield Federal power, now it looked as if it would be wielded against them - and they didn't like it. Not one bit.
Come on. The rural areas even got 3/5ths representation for the part of their population that by definition never got near the vote.
And there was rural population in abundance in the North, as well.
Yes, the South found themselves in a minority position. Which particular topic was it they found themselves in a minority on? Which issue did they use to identify themselves? What was, in the words of their Vice President, the freakin' cornerstone of their new club?
The Fugitive Slave Act really has nothing to do with the issue of abolishing slavery in, say, Alabama. So that point is moot.
The point is that the North helped create an economic dependency of the South on slavery because the North benefited from that economic dependency. But when the issue of abolishing slavery came up, the North had no intention of suffering any liability from abolishing slavery, and indeed, had positioned themselves to profit quite handsomely from such abolishment. If you don't understand the difference between industrial economies (money-rich and land-poor) and agrarian economies (money-poor, land-rich), if you don't understand the underlying cultural differences between the North (settled by immigrants who were fleeing Europe and European culture) and the North (settled by immigrants who were extending Europe and European culture), and if you pooh-pooh the basic facts of democracies, that cities inherently have more power than non-urban areas, then you will never understand the reasons for the Civil War. Sure, it's easy to look at slavery as the sole cause. That's easy and simple and, well, stupid. It's easy to say before the war the South had slaves, after the war they didn't, so that must be why the war was fought. It should be just as easy to say that before the war the United States was referred to in the plural, these United States, inferring a level of independence among the states that ceased by the end of the Civil War, when the United States was then referred to in the singular, the United States. It should be just as easy to point out that when the United States Constitution was being accepted by the various states (plural), the driving political issue, the issue that led to the Articles being abandoned and a Constitution written, wasn't slavery at all, it was the balance of power between the states and the federal government. Hence, the first political parties of these United States were Federalists and Anti-Federalists. That issue seemed to be resolved by Jefferson's election, however Jefferson's actions while President actually fueled the issue, as did Andrew Jackson's who was also a staunch Anti-Federalist. The issue never went away, it was just raised in a different guise.
And your remark about rural areas in Northern States is simply so ridiculous. The North was characterized by urbanization. Just look at the size of Massachusetts, compare it with the size of South Carolina, and then consider the relative sizes of the populations in 1860. It doesn't matter if Walden found a lonely little pond to build a cabin and live reclusively by. Massachusetts even then was an urban state, settled by people who rejected European standards and traditions. And South Carolina was a rural state, settled by people who didn't share the antagonism towards Europe that states like Massachusetts did. The two regions of the country were opposed to one another in a multitude of ways. The dislike and distrust infected everything.
And understand that in 1860 the Presidential election wasn't a national election. The nation did not elect Presidents back then. The various regions elected their candidate, and then the electoral college and sometimes Congress negotiated the Presidency. Up until 1860, the regional candidates were all viable potential Presidents. In 1860, the Republicans didn't need to negotiate. They had sufficient population number to control the electoral college, and therefore they had sufficient population number to control the federal government. Without any input from the people who lost the election. Moreover, they were riding a demographic trend. Since they were already the most populous areas, they could expect the birthrates to continue their domination of the demographics. Adding to this that immigrants to the North outnumbered immigration to the South to the tune of 4 to 1, the rural South was looking at political domination well into the future. They simply wanted to escape that fate.
It wasn't, in many cases. My greatgrandfather sharecropped, but he was given the chance to buy his land...150 acres, which he did. It was the same land he sharecropped.
Not all white folks were venal at the time. But my family's situation most certainly wasn't the norm. Usually, you got shafted.
Guess what? I'm white, and I still get shafted.
By corporations, by government. At least your ancestors were treated with respect. I can't even get that.
And so I say, I'd rather be a Civil War era slave, and be treated as an asset, treated with respect, valued for my contribution.
Easy for a white man in 2011 to say. LOL...and of course, i don't believe it.
Hell, you wouldn't trade places with a billionaire black man (you'd have to wear his skin too, not just take the money) right now, let alone a 19th century slave!
I don't want money, but I'd trade places with any other black guy of my socioeconomic class.
I make about $10 an hour.
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.
