American Civil War

[DesertFox]

Just want to see people's opinions on this subject.

 

It might fight better in the General "Free Fire" but decided to put it here due to being about a War even though more on the politics end of it.

 

Edit: I am also curious what your ties are. Do you consider yourself a Southerner for example?

 

For example, being honest, I consider it more slavery than anything else. The states rights for slavery I don't really understand why it would be seperate but many people in another group seemed to have felt that way. I figured I would put it down for completeness.

 

I also consider myself to be a Northerner even though I live in Virginia

Edited December 7, 2005 by DesertFox

[medicjim86]

None of the above. Pure conflict of economy... southern plantation vs northern industry.

 

My mother's family fought for the north, I have the 1863 springfield hanging in my living room. Ironically, I'm as anti-federalist as they come.

[DesertFox]

None of the above.  Pure conflict of economy... southern plantation vs northern industry.

 

My mother's family fought for the north, I have the 1863 springfield hanging in my living room.  Ironically, I'm as anti-federalist as they come.

255859[/snapback]

 

I don't know if I agree with you but it is a good argument...wouldn't that be under "Other" though?

[SCFalken]

Other: Friction between competing interest groups. Industrialists, planters, political radicals (abolition by rifle, John Brown types), State vs Federal authority.

 

In the end it came down to fundamental differences in the fabric of Society on each side of the Mason-Dixon Line.

 

 

Moot point anyway. If the War didnt happen, and Slavery kept on truckin', the South would be an economic basket case NLT 1880. Egyptian cotton and the money sinkhole that was the Plantation Lifestyle would have bankrupted the entire region.

 

Chattel slavery can compete with free-labor industry. For about a year.

 

 

Falken

[FlyingCanOpener]

The attempt by the North to flouridate the South's drinking water supply.

[DesertFox]

The attempt by the North to flouridate the South's drinking water supply.

255884[/snapback]

 

Ummm.......

[DougRichards]

Just want to see people's opinions on this subject.

 

It might fight better in the General "Free Fire"  but decided to put it here due to being about a War even though more on the politics end of it.

 

Edit: I am also curious what your ties are. Do you consider yourself a Southerner for example?

 

For example, being honest, I consider it more slavery than anything else. The states rights for slavery I don't really understand why it would be seperate but many people in another group seemed to have felt that way. I figured I would put it down for completeness.

 

I also consider myself to be a Northerner even though I live in Virginia

255842[/snapback]

 

The percentage of slave owners in the South was always a very small minority. The slave owners provided economic competition for the small holding white farmers, so that slavery was actually not in the interest of the majority of the southern population.

 

But ideology can be strong, it was more about state rights ideology, as expressed in the institution of slavery, than it was about slavery itself.

[Rocky Davis]

. . .  it was more about state rights ideology, as expressed in the institution of slavery, than it was about slavery itself.

255989[/snapback]

 

Exactly. The southern states are still big on States Rights and despise Federal intervention and micromanagement where it is neither warranted or wanted.

[Richard Lindquist]

States Rights is just a "code word" for other interests. Among the grievances of the south (or their differences with the north):

 

 

1. Northern states were interested in federally funded public works, most of which were targeted at improving the communications between the northern states and the midwest. The southern states were opposed to the expenditure as their need for "pork" was less.

 

2. Northern states desired high tarrifs to protect developing industries and to strengthen the federal budget. Southern states wanted low tarrifs to make manufactured goods cheaper.

 

3. While northern states generally did not want immediate abolition of slavery in the south, they did not want slavery extended into new states. The south wished to have slavery extended into new territories so that the number of slaves states in the union was equal to the number of "free states" thus assuring a deadlock in the senate.

 

4. Massive immigration of Germans and irish to the northern states 1848-1860 worried the south as they felt they would be reduced to insignificance in the House of Representatives with the explosive growth of northern populations.

[Old Tanker]

The Elites of both societies basically didn't get along.

The Elites of Northern society were largley descended from Cromwell's & Wnithrops Puritan base of immigrants.

The Elites of the South were largely descendants of the Royalists who opposed Cromwell. So some historians call the ACW the last battle of the English Civil War.

 

My English ancestors and King Sargants came over with Winthrop's Puritan group.

 

The slavery issue in new states ( The Missouri Compromise )along with the Dred Scott case made for extreme hard feelings in the North. Northern farmers also felt that new states would take away the small farmers ability to make a living competing with large slave labor plantations. This was fought out in Bloody Kansas.

 

The led to the creation of the Republican party and when Lincoln was elected the South decided to go it alone.

[swerve]

States Rights is just a "code word" for other interests.  Among the grievances of the south (or their differences with the north):

 

2.  Northern states desired high tarrifs to protect developing industries and to strengthen the federal budget.  Southern states wanted low tarrifs to make manufactured goods cheaper.

 

I think this was a big one. Rich southerners (those with most political clout) profited from the export-oriented slave labour using plantation economy, & wanted to buy manufactures wherever prices were lowest & quality highest. Therefore, they wanted free trade & no tariffs. Rich northerners - and many northern workers - made their money from manufacturing, & wanted the shelter of tariffs, to have southern agricultural exporters as a captive market for their manufactures behind that tariff wall, & thus capture the souths export earnings (though they didn't put it, or necessarily think of it, in those terms). Economically, the south would have been better off independent, in the short term.

[FlyingCanOpener]

Ummm.......

255885[/snapback]

 

You of course don't "realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous...plot that [the United States] have ever had to face?"

[DavT]

You of course don't "realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous...plot that [the United States] have ever had to face?"

256290[/snapback]

 

A Communist plot dating back to before the USSR? Good lord, the Soviets have a time machine!

[Panzermann]

None of the above.  Pure conflict of economy... southern plantation vs northern industry.

255859[/snapback]

I am on that train too. AFAIK the south was economically stronger than the north in the beginning of the war and the southerners wanted to have more power over their own affairs. Slavery was only a small part and is over emohasized in history, films, novels etc. as slavery is today labeled as bad bad thing.

 

And really, the north drafting of freshly arrived immigrants directly to the US Army and sending them to war was questionable at best. So both were anything but clean, as both (north and south) let the work be done by others.

[Red Ant]

AFAIK the south was economically stronger than the north

256515[/snapback]

 

How so?

[Panzermann]

How so?

256563[/snapback]

 

Because the southerners lived quite well on their cotton exports and were wealthier overall. But the economic system was on it's way down, as was already pointed out in this thread.

 

But that is just IIRC, I could just as well be wrong.

[swerve]

I am on that train too. AFAIK the south was economically stronger than the north in the beginning of the war�

 

It was significantly poorer per head, with little industry. Exporting cotton & tobacco & importing manufactured goods isn't economic strength, at least not when you're trying to fight a war.

 

Estimates of income per head for 1860 - average = 100

New England 143

Mid Atlantic (NY down to DC) 137

E N Central (Ohio to the Mississippi) 69

W N Central (Iowa/Missouri/Minnesota) 66

 

S Atlantic (Va down to Florida) 65

E S Central (Ky down to Miss & Ala) 68

W S Central (La/Arkansas/Texas) 115

 

No estimates for the west. Note that population distribution was very different from now. More east, less west.

 

Some southerners lived very well off cotton exports, but plantation owners weren't typical.

Edited December 8, 2005 by swerve

[Panzermann]

It was significantly poorer per head, with little industry. Exporting cotton & tobacco & importing manufactured goods isn't economic strength, at least not when you're trying to fight a war.

256567[/snapback]

Sure, in the longer run it is bad, especially when the north blocks your ports, as has happened. But in the short they had more money, but maybe my knowledge is somehow faulty, as this really sounds to me suspiciously so.

[Guest aevans]

Sure, in the longer run it is bad, especially when the north blocks your ports, as has happened. But in the short they had more money, but maybe my knowledge is somehow faulty, as this really sounds to me suspiciously so.

256569[/snapback]

 

Another structural weakness the South had was that half of its "capital" was figured in the market value of slaves. IOW, they had a tremendous amount of savings tied up in "property" that could be declared valueless by an act of Congress -- which is of course why they wanted to protect the slave/free state ratio by expanding slavery into new sates.

 

No matter what rhetorical sugar you put on it, the base cause was slavery.

[Panzermann]

No matter what rhetorical sugar you put on it, the base cause was slavery.

256577[/snapback]

 

Well, yes, but not in the too often promoted sense that slavery is evil or something like that. It is a very bad idea for an economic system. e.g. tying up so much funds and in not even very productive workforce.

[JOE BRENNAN]

Well, yes, but not in the too often promoted sense that slavery is evil or something like that. It is a very bad idea for an economic system. e.g. tying up so much funds and in not even very productive workforce.

256592[/snapback]

I see it the other way around in terms of "often promoted". What people think is wrong or more importantly are willing to act against as wrong has a lot to do with their economic interests; still does always will. OTOH it's just not historically accurate to pretend everyone viewed the institution of slavery from a purely economic point of view and had no moral opinions; that the moral aspect all somehow sprung out of the ground suddenly during the war, or even was itself some kind of a smokescreen when it did.

 

In fact many Northern proponents of the Revolution thought slavery was odious (Adams, Hamilton etc well documented in their writings) even that far back. The Northern states went about abolishing it after independence; often slowly (like only preventing people being newly born into it, and Hamilton may have helped his brother in law buy a slave, we're not talking clearcut black and white). That was in part because it had less economic impact there than the same action would have had in the South. But also because of the obvious contradiction between the Revolutionary ideals and slavery. It's pseudo history to make believe everyone was blind to that, which I've often heard "promoted", even here. If slavery had simply been totally obsolete there would have been no reason to abolish it in the North either.

 

It was recognized as evil by many in Northern elites and masses alike (doesn't mean many had modern racial attitudes, that's not the same thing). The Southern elites knew that, and they had an intense fear that that would someday void their "property rights" unless the South maintained a reasonable parity of representation. That was a major if not the major theme of US politics right from the start of the Constiutional govt til the ACW. States rights as a doctrine was influenced heavily by that issue, rather than being the some pre-existing concept and slavery just an issue that came along later. It's not just sugar coating but absurdity to deny the centrality of slavery to the ACW.

 

Joe

[FlyingCanOpener]

A Communist plot dating back to before the USSR? Good lord, the Soviets have a time machine!

256336[/snapback]

 

You never played Command and Conquer have you?

[Animal Mother]

You never played Command and Conquer have you? 

256639[/snapback]

 

Should be Command & Conquer: Red Alert, no?

 

[FlyingCanOpener]

Should be Command & Conquer: Red Alert, no?

 

257571[/snapback]

 

Meh, same franchise.

[Richard Lindquist]

I see it the other way around in terms of "often promoted". What people think is wrong or more importantly are willing to act against as wrong has a lot to do with their economic interests; still does always will. OTOH it's just not historically accurate to pretend everyone viewed the institution of slavery from a purely economic point of view and had no moral opinions; that the moral aspect all somehow sprung out of the ground suddenly during the war, or even was itself some kind of a smokescreen when it did.

 

In fact many Northern proponents of the Revolution thought slavery was odious (Adams, Hamilton etc well documented in their writings) even that far back. The Northern states went about abolishing it after independence; often slowly (like only preventing people being newly born into it, and Hamilton may have helped his brother in law buy a slave, we're not talking clearcut black and white). That was in part because it had less economic impact there than the same action would have had in the South. But also because of the obvious contradiction between the Revolutionary ideals and slavery. It's pseudo history to make believe everyone was blind to that, which I've often heard "promoted", even here. If slavery had simply been totally obsolete there would have been no reason to abolish it in the North either.

 

It was recognized as evil by many in Northern elites and masses alike (doesn't mean many had modern racial attitudes, that's not the same thing). The Southern elites knew that, and they had an intense fear that that would someday void their "property rights" unless the South maintained a reasonable parity of representation. That was a major if not the major theme of US politics right from the start of the Constiutional govt til the ACW. States rights as a doctrine was influenced heavily by that issue, rather than being the some pre-existing concept and slavery just an issue that came along later. It's not just sugar coating but absurdity to deny the centrality of slavery to the ACW.

 

Joe

256614[/snapback]

 

 

 

Western European culture had, by the late 18th century come around to the position that slavery and serfdom were immoral practices and that men were "born free". Black slavery was justified morally on the basis that blacks were "subhuman" or it was justified on the religious basis of the "Curse of Ham" where Noah cursed Ham (the father of blacks) and condemned Ham and his descendants to be servants in the houses of Shem (father of jews and muslims) and Japheth (father of gentiles) in perpetuity.