The Civil War

VanceMack said:

I simply disagree. Anything beyond the northern industrialists being upset over the unfair economic advantage southern businessmen had by not having to pay employees is overstating the period historical reality. The southerners rebelled against being told what to do by the north. Technology was making plantation slaves irrelevant and if anything a financial burden. And horrifically, we had hundreds of thousands of people dead, maimed, families devastated...and it simply never had to happen.

Click to expand...

I contend that any such "disadvantage" was minimal. The South had no industry that competed with the North. The North had no such cotton agriculture to compete with what had become near to a one-crop South ...... cotton.

We would agree with the South not wanting to be told what to do by the North, but again, virtually all issues there of any import were significantly inter-twined with slavery. Where the passion for war existed, those issues revolved around slavery and abolition.

Eighty Deuce said:

I am not sure what you mean. Slavery was at the heart of the issue. Primarily because of its economic value to King Cotton. Abolition was sweeping the North. Issues involving the admission of states in pairs so as to have one slave, one not-slave. State nullification of Federal Law, again primarily in how those laws would impact all things slavery, as that meant the economy.

That the average Southernor did not so much care about slavery, as he owned none, may be true. However, he did care about being told how his state would behave by a Northern Government. And when the rebel-rousers in the South did secede, he was all for it, especially when Southern soil was invaded by a Northern Army.

Here is a start for those interested: Top Five Causes of the Civil War

Click to expand...

No it wasn't. Less than 1% of Southerners owned slaves, yet over 90% of them voted for seccession. There's no way that it can be said that slavery was the primary issue of The Civil War.

Eighty Deuce said:

I contend that any such "disadvantage" was minimal. The South had no industry that competed with the North. The North had no such cotton agriculture to compete with what had become near to a one-crop South ...... cotton.

We would agree with the South not wanting to be told what to do by the North, but again, virtually all issues there of any import were significantly inter-twined with slavery. Where the passion for war existed, those issues revolved around slavery and abolition.

Click to expand...

Again implying the northerners actually cared more about it than the southerners. They didnt. Abolition as a legislative process was driven by industry and economics. Left to the citizens, it would have ended much quicker than it has taken.

apdst said:

No it wasn't. Less than 1% of Southerners owned slaves, yet over 90% of them voted for seccession. There's no way that it can be said that slavery was the primary issue of The Civil War.

Click to expand...

Folks, I am near begging for a good discussion. That is not it.

It was called "King Cotton", was it not ? How many Southerners owned cotton plantations ? Yet their entire economy was hugely inter-twined with cotton. When you look at those in power, who had the political influence, you need only follow the money. It led to King Cotton directly or indirectly an overwhelming amount of the time. King Cotton was slave-based. Hugely so after the invention of the cotton gin.

How about a link and some good concurrent debate ?

Henrin said:

Well while Grant was a horrible general aswell, Lee had no strategical sense, he just wouldn't gauge a situation and would run into situations attacking things head first. His basic idea in war was that it was about strength and that if you pitted his army against another he would win in a head on approach. The proper way to fight war is fought seeking the least path of resistance. My problem with Lee and the reason I listed Gettysburg as my example of his ignorance and cockiness is because of this basic failure on his part.

Click to expand...

Your post is absurd! Lee's basic idea was about strength and hitting his opponent head on????? WTF? For the major part of the war Lee was vastly outnumbered and yet he won battle after battle. Lee was a master strategist. It is quite obvious that you haven't much of a grasp of the subject.

VanceMack said:

Again implying the northerners actually cared more about it than the southerners. They didnt. Abolition as a legislative process was driven by industry and economics. Left to the citizens, it would have ended much quicker than it has taken.

Click to expand...

But when you look to The Missouri Compromise, The Kansas Nebraska Act. The stirrings of seccession in the 1820's and 30's ............. all go to Slavery. I am not implying anything.

Abolition was clearly not "driven" by industry and economics !! Slavery was !! It is one thing to argue that much of the North had no need for slaves for economic reasons. However, that is not a motivation to abolish it !! The real early movers in Abolition were the Quakers. It was a fundamental rights issue with them. Not economics. Legislation was driven by votes and the will of the people. The passion in the North to abolish slavery was because they saw it as unjust.

ElCid said:

Who was right? Which side would you have fought for, knowing what you know today? Explain, please.

Click to expand...

The Confederacy, because the war was originally over trade tariffs, and the Union was on the big-government/high-regulation/high-tax side.

Slavery was just a political tool, it's not what the war was about.

Eighty Deuce said:

But when you look to The Missouri Compromise, The Kansas Nebraska Act. The stirrings of seccession in the 1820's and 30's ............. all go to Slavery. I am not implying anything.

Abolition was clearly not "driven" by industry and economics !! Slavery was !! It is one thing to argue that much of the North had no need for slaves for economic reasons. However, that is not a motivation to abolish it !! The real early movers in Abolition were the Quakers. It was a fundamental rights issue with them. Not economics. Legislation was driven by votes and the will of the people. The passion in the North to abolish slavery was because they saw it as unjust.

Click to expand...

1820, 1830, and the climate was continuing to change. The country was less than 50 years old. Countries with centuries of slave owning history were making changes during that time period. Its foolish to think that the US would not have as well in a MUCH more healthy manner than what ended up happening.

Jerry said:

The Confederacy, because the war was originally over trade tariffs, and the Union was on the big-government/high-regulation/high-tax side.

Slavery was just a political tool, it's not what the war was about.

Click to expand...

That is fundamentally incorrect. Tariffs had been low for 20 years prior to the Civil War. The most recent tariff of any significance was the Tariff of 1857, which had lowered tariff rates due to mid-decade tax surplusses. It was heavily supported by the South, which relied heavily on cotton export, and import of manufactured goods.

The next tariff which raised rates again was the Morill Tariff. It passed and became law after secession, as Southern States opposed no longer had members in Congress to vote against it.

Not going to say that tariff issues had nothing to do with Secession. Just very little. Meanwhile, contention over slavery had been building for 40 years.

VanceMack said:

1820, 1830, and the climate was continuing to change. The country was less than 50 years old. Countries with centuries of slave owning history were making changes during that time period. Its foolish to think that the US would not have as well in a MUCH more healthy manner than what ended up happening.

Click to expand...

I never said the US would not have. I never even implied it. In fact, I have posts earlier here that say that the war was a huge waste, as slavery would have died on its own in due time. However, if anything, it reinforces that slavery was both the issue, and therefore, such a waste as the issue.

Eighty Deuce said:

Folks, I am near begging for a good discussion. That is not it.

It was called "King Cotton", was it not ? How many Southerners owned cotton plantations ? Yet their entire economy was hugely inter-twined with cotton. When you look at those in power, who had the political influence, you need only follow the money. It led to King Cotton directly or indirectly an overwhelming amount of the time. King Cotton was slave-based. Hugely so after the invention of the cotton gin.

How about a link and some good concurrent debate ?

Click to expand...

Actually, the South and in particular Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia were unjustly taxed to the point that the South was paying 75% of national federal budget and only about 10% of the money was returned to Southern states. The agricultural South was without question financing the industrial North. The North wanted Southern resources for pennies on the dollar.

Risky Thicket said:

Actually, the South and in particular Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia were unjustly taxed to the point that the South was paying 75% of national federal budget and only about 10% of the money was returned to Southern states. The agricultural South was without question financing the industrial North. The North wanted Southern resources for pennies on the dollar.

Click to expand...

Tariffs were at record low levels in the 1850's.

Eighty Deuce said:

That is fundamentally incorrect. Tariffs had been low for 20 years prior to the Civil War. The most recent tariff of any significance was the Tariff of 1857, which had lowered tariff rates due to mid-decade tax surplusses. It was heavily supported by the South, which relied heavily on cotton export, and import of manufactured goods.

The next tariff which raised rates again was the Morill Tariff. It passed and became law after secession, as Southern States opposed no longer had members in Congress to vote against it.

Not going to say that tariff issues had nothing to do with Secession. Just very little. Meanwhile, contention over slavery had been building for 40 years.

Click to expand...

Because some anon on teh interwebz says so...yeah ok.

Eighty Deuce said:

Tariffs were at record low levels in the 1850's.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the South was paying 50% of the federal tax and getting back 10%.

Jerry said:

Because some anon on teh interwebz says so...yeah ok.

Click to expand...

LOL .... which makes us different how ? C'mon, you can look it up. I have provided links earlier in the thread .. how 'bout choo

Here is a paragraph of a review about a book that heavily examines what is known as "The Panic of 1857", and how it exacerbated relations between the North and South. The book examines all the tariff issues, and much more:

The panic of 1857 initiated a general inquiry between free traders and protectionists into the deficiencies of American economic practices. A key aspect of this debate was the ultimate fate of the American worker, an issue that was given added emphasis by a series of labor demonstrations and strikes. In an attempt to maintain the material welfare of laborers, northerners advocated a program of high tariffs, free western lands, and education. But these proposals elicited the opposition of southerners, who believed that such policies would not serve the needs of the slaves system. Indeed, many people of the period saw the struggle between North and South as an economic one whose outcome would determine whether laborers would be free and well paid or degraded and poor.
more here: The Panic of 1857 and the Coming of the Civil War by James L. Huston

Click to expand...

As I have noted from the beginning, the issue of slavery was a component of every other cause explained here.

From one "anon" to another, the ball is in your court

Kandahar said:

Depends. Which traditional values are we talking about, and how was the north trying to stamp them out?

Click to expand...

Look at what has become of the North? It's a moral cesspool.

I am a Westerner at heart. Having lived in the South for a long time, I identify with it, in many critical ways. Whenever I think of the 'North', I imagine New York, which I loathe. I would have fought for the South. If I had survived, I would have immediately withdrawn back to the West.

Eighty Deuce said:

LOL .... which makes us different how ?

Click to expand...

I stated my position, you did not, you tried to make a claim. That's the difference.

Eighty Deuce said:

C'mon, you can look it up.

Click to expand...

If I were getting paid or collage credit for my participation, I might see a reason to.

Eighty Deuce said:

I have provided links earlier in the thread .. how 'bout choo

Click to expand...

Just got here.

Eighty Deuce said:

Here is a paragraph of a review about a book that heavily examines what is known as "The Panic of 1857", and how it exacerbated relations between the North and South. The book examines all the tariff issues, and much more:

Click to expand...

Eighty Deuce said:

As I have noted from the beginning, the issue of slavery was a component of every other cause explained here.

Click to expand...

Silly anon, no one ever said it wasn't a mere 'component'.

Eighty Deuce said:

From one "anon" to another, the ball is in your court

Click to expand...

But I'm in the bleachers....

ElCid said:

Look at what has become of the North? It's a moral cesspool.

Click to expand...

And that has what to do with the Civil War?

Kandahar said:

And that has what to do with the Civil War?

Click to expand...

I think he's referring to the Union in general, and his overall disapproval of American ethics today.

Jerry said:

I stated my position, you did not, you tried to make a claim. That's the difference.

Click to expand...

We all have stated positions. "Claims" if you will.

Silly anon, no one ever said it wasn't a mere 'component'.

Click to expand...

"Silly anon", the argument is cause. Tariffs were a mere "component". The argument is that slavery was the under-lying cause. Solve the slavery issue in the 1820's or 30's, and no war. Virtually every other influence for the war linked to it as well. Kind of like your engine being a "component" of how well your car runs. :roll:

But I'm in the bleachers....

Click to expand...

So is the ball.

Henrin said:

They were not at war. War was started by the attack on the forts. The only way to regain the fort and the states, is to attack them. The north damn well knew this, and they are the ones that started the war by those acts.

Click to expand...

the war started when confederate forces attacked fort sumter in south carolina, a U.S. military installation.

In case people try to contort what I say as being something I don't mean, I will pre-face this by saying I am anti-slavery and I think what happened in our history was barbaric.

I ultimately favor the north, but I can sympathize with the south. If you can put yourself in the context of those times as much as is possible, the south relied heavily on slavery as its economic base. The north had more industry - it had the luxury of being righteous because it was where a lot of the industrial manufacturing took place. The south was primarily agriculture and slavery was the long-standing norm for their agrarian base. Then you had the north with its cushy advancements suddenly coming in and telling them that not only was their whole way of life immoral, but that it had to be changed immediately.

How would you react? I am not surprised at all that it caused war. Every western European nation, its colonies, and its offshoots partook in the Atlantic slave trade. Back then it was a normal part of life. Yes, we can all agree that it was horrible in hindsight, but they were of a different consciousness back then. What the north tried to do, back then, would have been very controversial, given the state of the western world as a whole. Telling us we can't have or buy slaves? Who the hell are you?

Ultimately what the north did was very brave, bold, and progressive - much like how every civil rights movement has to fly in the face of established norms - but I can still understand why the south reacted the way it did. It had big economic, social, and political implications.

What we can garner from the civil war is not that one side was right and one side was wrong, but that if change is too radical and too fast, it can tear a nation apart. Again - for emphasis - I AGREE with what the north did, I am just trying to take a broader lesson away from the history.

apdst said:

The North didn't want to free the slaves. Your garden variety working stiff in the North didn't want to have to compete with former slaves for jobs. Plus, they didn't want a bunch of, "darkies", running around, free. In fact, Lincoln had planned to ship all the freed slaves back to Africa. Ever hear of Liberia?

Click to expand...

if lincoln could have preserved the union without freeing the slaves, he would have done so....he believed that slavery would die out on its own...history put lincoln in a very favorable light....a sidenote, lincoln didnt believe that blacks and whites were equal.

Henrin said:

Well while Grant was a horrible general aswell, Lee had no strategical sense, he just wouldn't gauge a situation and would run into situations attacking things head first. His basic idea in war was that it was about strength and that if you pitted his army against another he would win in a head on approach. The proper way to fight war is fought seeking the least path of resistance. My problem with Lee and the reason I listed Gettysburg as my example of his ignorance and cockiness is because of this basic failure on his part.

Click to expand...

lee was first offered command of the union forces before the start of hostilities, but chose to return to his home state, and lead his state's forces..lincoln was very fond of grant, for the simple reason that grant wasnt afraid to fight, as some of the earlier union generals appeared to be.