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 point is that the North helped create an economic dependency of the South on slavery because the North benefited from that economic dependency.
I don't have a problem with the connection between the economic prosperity that slavery afforded both the north and the south, but to describe the relationship a dependency is more than a stretch. Southern farmers could have chosen to be hard working and prosperous farmers of agricultural goods like prosperous northern farmers but instead chose to produce crops that were dependent upon slave labor. Something they should have thought of before provoking a war in which they found it ever increasingly difficult to produce food for their army.
Quote:
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...
Why do apologist for the South insist on portraying the Union as one big industrial land mass dotted with factories and large cities when the fact is the North was just as agricultural if not more so than the south. Nor based upon present mythology was the South devoid of large urban cities?
Quote:
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.
Regional elections? Must have been a different constitution in 1860.
How can you say that? I don't see us being treated any differently by the Man.
I think their argument is not about being treated differently by "the Man." Their argument is about the fact that black men are far more likely to be unemployed than white men. Their argument is about the fact that black men are far more likely to be imprisoned than any other demographic. Their argument is about people crossing the street when they see a pair of black men standing on a corner. Their argument is about, no matter how wealthy or educated, a black man has to ALWAYS be on the defensive. Because society, including "the Man", make assumptions about black men solely based on their color. I think that many people who are not black, or even a member of a minority, can relate to the discrimination. But I don't think that most of us can relate to a life where you ALWAYS have to be prepared for discrimination. No matter what, no matter how successful you are. To know that at any moment something can be said, something can happen, that potentially strips you of your humanity, and that our society tolerates it, that's a tremendous burden to place on someone.
The people in power and authority of the rest of us poor, undervalued peons.
Do you believe that the richest Americans are purposely keeping you poor?
I believe that economic policies have lead to wealth pool to the richest Americans, but to say that it was done on purpose to keep you down is a little irrational.
The poverty cycle has been going on forever all over the world. When you're poor its harder to get an education, its harder for you to invest when you have little to nothing to invest. But I've never once seen a law that said "If you are only making 10 dollars an hour, you can never earn more than 15 dollars an hour in your lifetime".
The war has been re-branded as celebrations come up to drastically play down the role of slavery, and the fact it even happened. Instead many are making it all about "states rights" while the good ol' southern boys were defending their homes from the warring North.
Screw that one of the tantamount reasons to secession was to keep human beings as property I guess.
Another good reason that the Civil War never should have happened. The Union should have let the backwards bible thumpers have their own little theocratic, slave owner country. It would have saved a lot of problems that we have today. Lincoln was a d*ckhead for going to war.
But hey, it's not too late. Maybe the South could withdraw.
I don't have a problem with the connection between the economic prosperity that slavery afforded both the north and the south, but to describe the relationship a dependency is more than a stretch. Southern farmers could have chosen to be hard working and prosperous farmers of agricultural goods like prosperous northern farmers but instead chose to produce crops that were dependent upon slave labor. Something they should have thought of before provoking a war in which they found it ever increasingly difficult to produce food for their army.
Why do apologist for the South insist on portraying the Union as one big industrial land mass dotted with factories and large cities when the fact is the North was just as agricultural if not more so than the south. Nor based upon present mythology was the South devoid of large urban cities?
Regional elections? Must have been a different constitution in 1860.
Southern farms were hard-working and productive. They didn't choose to grow cotton because it was dependent upon slave labor. They chose to grow a profitable crop that was suited to the climate and the soil, exactly as Northern farmers chose to grow crops suited to Northern conditions. They grew crops on large acreages because they lived in states large enough that large acreages were possible. Slavery was accepted the world over when many of those large acreages were developed. The South didn't invent slavery. And the North engaged very profitably in the slave trade. It wasn't ships from the South venturing to Africa. It was Northern shipowners who profited. It was Northern bankers who profited when they enabled the large plantation owners to borrow against their slaves. It was Northern insurance companies that profited by insuring slaves. That's not apologism. That's looking at the whole picture. The North profited. The North didn't one day say no more slaves. They gradually abolished slavery. Even in 1860, New Jersey had slaves according to the census.
As for your remark, why would it "must have been a different Constitution in 1860"? Where does the Constitution require that Presidential candidates run national campaigns? Even in this last election, an argument could be made that Obama didn't run a national election. He didn't campaign in every state. He didn't even have a campaign headquarters in every state. Did I get a single flyer in my mailbox telling me about Barack Obama and what he stood for? The advent of national television, national radio, and national newspapers can present the illusion of a national campaign. But candidates do make decisions about whether to visit a state, and whether to expend any campaign funds in a state. And most certainly there are some states that are low on the totem pole. But in 1860, when there was no national media, the situation was much more bleak. No candidates had the time or funds to run anything approaching a national campaign. Candidates during 1860, and prior to 1860, ran regional campaigns. Look at the laws regarding how electors could cast their votes. None of those laws are federal, are they? And look at the political parties during that era. They weren't really national parties. They were regional parties. "Southern Democrats" weren't Southerners who were part of the Democrat Party. They were a distinct party, with their own platform, their own candidates, weren't they?
We are not the same country we were back then. In order to understand any historical events, it's necessary to understand how different our reality is from their reality.
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.
