The Civil War was about economics

katzgar said:

the articles established traitors

Click to expand...

Fantôme said:

The Civil War was about economics.

bea over prospects of scooping up the plantations for less than a penny on the dollar of their worth at auctions due to foreclosure or unpaid taxes. It was a sinister plan for a hostile takeover. The South refused the hostile takeover. They seceded.

Does anyone remember that the first shots of the Civil War were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina? That is the port of Charleston. The biggest port of it's time and central to the Cotton trade.

The South made trade agreements with England and France to ship raw cotton to those countries directly thereby cutting the Northern Industrialists out of the picture completely. It was brilliant and would have worked if the Federal government had not sided with the Industrialists consortium and used their navy to blockade the port of Charleston stopping the Cotton shipments to Europe and dooming the South to a slow death by siege which is what happened. The hostile takeover was successful.

After Sherman marched to the sea burning, raping, pillaging and destroying everything in his path the coup de gras was the carpetbaggers.

All governments in the South were disbanded. Puppet regimes were set up in every state & county. High taxes were levied. Devastated land owners could not pay the taxes. All lands were sold to speculators (called carpetbaggers for the fancy luggage they brought with them=) at tax auctions. Not only were people robbed of their lives and property but they had to roam, whites and slaves alike. The Northerners didn't help the blacks. They set up Jim Crow laws with their puppet regimes. Northerners had never lived with blacks. Blacks were never prevalent in the north like they were in the South. The vast majority of Southerners were poor peasants who owned no slaves. In fact they had much in common with the slaves. They were victims of an economic system.

My family, all the way back to the first immigrants from England, Ireland and Germany, were never slave owners. They were never wealthy. We have always been 'peasants'. I've never ever been a racist. None of my family is. We have always treated blacks with respect and we've helped each other all my life. It wasn't until Obama divided the country that things have gotten this bad.

So go ahead and label every southerner a racist, KKK, Neo-Nazi like you are told too. Do it not because it's true but because you don't want to be labeled as one yourself. It's self-preservation isn't it?

Let history be 'rectified' by the 'Ministry of Truth'. Let them remove all traces of humanity from our history. Let them desecrate the memory of my families ancestors who never owned a slave but fought for our land and kin. Go ahead. Because Big Brother will come for you one day. Just ask Winston Smith.

Click to expand...

KevinKohler said:

Is creating a blockade, and dictating where a foriegn nation can trade, not an act of war?

Click to expand...

blackjack50 said:

Not that I expect you to give us anything other than the tired old party line (because ultimately that is why there is debate and division on the topic...due to regional differences in politics especially around economics)...can you tell us WHY slavery was worth seceding from the union over?

Click to expand...

KevinKohler said:

Well, actually...the north STARTED the war....but continue.

Click to expand...

Unitedwestand13 said:

Um.... fort Sumter was a northern fort fired upon by the south.

Click to expand...

KevinKohler said:

No it didn't, the articles of secession established the south as its own country.

Click to expand...

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

Click to expand...

KevinKohler said:

So...we should vilify Vietnam and Iraq veterans, too?

Click to expand...

Nickyjo said:

Of course not. The point was not to vilify your ancestors, just to say they were mistaken over what they were fighting for, or better said, fighting on account of mistakes made by their leaders. Doesn't mean that they didn't act with valor and at risk to their lives. That's why my friend who died in Vietnam has his name on the wall in DC.

I believe the point about the statues was not to honor Southern leader who in effect committed treason. Why shouldn't a statue of, say Jeff Davis, be viewed as any different than a statue of Benedict Arnold? As I may have mentioned elsewhere, one of the lines of the Battle Hymn of the Republic sung by troops was, "We'll hang old Jeff Davis from a sour apple tree." Add to that the fact that some statues went up during one of the peak lynching periods, a history not memorialized by the white south, that the Confederate flag became popular again during the reaction to the civil rights period of the sixties, and that the statues honor people who fought to keep as slaves a significant portion of the current South's population's ancestors, and it should be obvious that these mementoes belong in museums, as might a statue of Mussolini.

Click to expand...

Nickyjo said:

By the way, I looked it up... There is a memorial to Benedict Arnold... It's of his boot, as it seems he was injured when his horse fell while fighting against Britain, I believe. One US prisoner, when Arnold asked what would be done to him after the US won independence, supposedly said his leg should be cut off and buried with full honors, and the rest of him hanged. No word on whether their were rim shots (Baddabing!) back then nor of what happened to the prisoner.

Click to expand...

Goshin said:

You are correct. Most wars have economic causes in some sense, and the Civil War was no exception.


But don't expect many to thank you for your explanation. Most people don't want to hear it, and would rather believe it was all about freeing the slaves from the very beginning with the North as absolute Good and the South as pure Evil for no reason.


I took a post-grad history course in college on it, taught by a brilliant and incredibly thorough Professor, who noted that his family didn't arrive in the US until the 20th century and he didn't grow up in the South and therefore had no dog in the fight. Yet his view was that there were many contributing factors, of which slavery was only one, and probably less significant than the economic and political issues.


But, nobody wants to hear that, so brace yourself for incoming heavy fire.

Click to expand...

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

Click to expand...

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator.

Click to expand...

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Click to expand...

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slaveholding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic

Click to expand...

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

Click to expand...

katzgar said:

your view of reconstruction is simplistic and child like.

Click to expand...

The crowd is not the sum of its parts.

I am a republican who did not vote for Trump (Or Hillary).

Click to expand...

vegas giants said:

It was about slavery

Click to expand...

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

Click to expand...

The crowd is not the sum of its parts.

I am a republican who did not vote for Trump (Or Hillary).

Click to expand...

Nickyjo said:

So what's the point here? The South understandably wanted to preserve an economic system based on slavery, since they felt the "peculiar institution" served them well. The North, tho profiting from the system, had a strong anti-slavery component that had northern states generally opposed to the extension of slavery. It was a brutal, morally bankrupt system that many imperfect humans opposed with imperfect logic. Lincoln gets elected on a platform of freezing slavery to where it existed, and the South freaks out, cause that means any new state means potentially two more anti-slavery votes in the Senate. South Carolina secedes and invites others to form a "Confederacy of Slaveholding States." Other states make similar statements as does Jeff Davis. The war happens and afterwards slavery is abolished. The South then reinstitutes forms of forced labor and controls ex slaves and their descendants by terror and segregation for roughly 100 years. Nothing to see here... The war that took hundreds of thousands of lives was really an academic discussion about states rights, or maybe tariffs.

Who cares what Lincoln said? As prez, he saw his main job was to preserve the Union rather than abolish slavery. Presidential priorities. Who can argue with that? Makes sense. Strange that the South misunderstood his intentions.

Occam's razor. No slavery, no Civil War. The other proposed causes lead back to slavery.

Click to expand...

The crowd is not the sum of its parts.

I am a republican who did not vote for Trump (Or Hillary).

Click to expand...

blackjack50 said:

No competing economic systems...no war either. The reality here is that the North ONLY profited from the institution IF that institution sold the raw goods to THEIR markets. If I'm selling cotton to textile a industry in Great Britain rather than New York or New Jersey...the New York and New Jersey aren't making money. And that was a very real danger.

The North NEEDED the supply from the South. The south did NOT need the industrial North or even northern ports. They had other markets. Other ports. And this had not changed since Washington. This was a small aristocracy vs the mass population just like we had seen during the revolutionary war. And the slave based economic system was KEY here. Why? Because union states also had slavery. Only a few. But they had it. But that was not the basis of their economy. It was being phased out.

This isn't taking away from the fact that slavery was and is morally bankrupt. What this is stating is that claiming any kind of moralistic objective to the civil war is not accurate. And it does a disservice to the civil rights movement over the next 100 years. Slavery was eliminated in name as you stated. But it still existed in subforms. And one could argue that it even expanded to other "races" or "ethnicities" with the sharecropping and industrial factory life. Saying it was "slavery" is a short version that doesn't give the real picture

Click to expand...

blackjack50 said:

No competing economic systems...no war either. The reality here is that the North ONLY profited from the institution IF that institution sold the raw goods to THEIR markets. If I'm selling cotton to textile a industry in Great Britain rather than New York or New Jersey...the New York and New Jersey aren't making money. And that was a very real danger.

The North NEEDED the supply from the South. The south did NOT need the industrial North or even northern ports. They had other markets. Other ports. And this had not changed since Washington. This was a small aristocracy vs the mass population just like we had seen during the revolutionary war. And the slave based economic system was KEY here. Why? Because union states also had slavery. Only a few. But they had it. But that was not the basis of their economy. It was being phased out.

This isn't taking away from the fact that slavery was and is morally bankrupt. What this is stating is that claiming any kind of moralistic objective to the civil war is not accurate. And it does a disservice to the civil rights movement over the next 100 years. Slavery was eliminated in name as you stated. But it still existed in subforms. And one could argue that it even expanded to other "races" or "ethnicities" with the sharecropping and industrial factory life. Saying it was "slavery" is a short version that doesn't give the real picture

Click to expand...

Fantôme said:

The Civil War was about economics.

The false narrative spewing from every radio, pulpit, MSM outlet and vile politician today is revisionist history. Everybody knows it except the prozac zombies who find it easier to blindly obey than to think for themselves.

Click to expand...

Fantôme said:

The Civil War was about economics.

The false narrative spewing from every radio, pulpit, MSM outlet and vile politician today is revisionist history. Everybody knows it except the prozac zombies who find it easier to blindly obey than to think for themselves.

In ante-bellum America slavery existed. Period. Everyone living in America profited from it. The war lords in Africa who procured the black slaves from weaker tribes to sell to Europeans profited too. No one wants to point a finger at Africa as the source of all the slaves as most at fault. The financiers and industrialists of the North profited more from slavery than the plantation owners.

Cotton was King in those times. The price of cotton depended on production costs and demand. The North made incredible profits from slave produced cotton. It was the fabled pot of gold. They made 1,000 of times more from slavery than the South.

Slaves were not only a labor force they were the primary asset of plantations along with land. Cotton growers used their assets, slaves, as collateral in the same way as industrialists used their equipment and property. This was how the system worked. Slaves were assets worth tens of millions of dollars.....

Click to expand...

Perotista said:

From another site.

Real reasons for the Civil War:
This is well-reasoned document concerning the reasons the Civil War occurred.

Many people think the Civil War of 1860-1865 was fought over one issue alone, slavery. Nothing could actually be further from the truth. TheWar Between the States began because the South demanded States' rights and were not getting them.

The Congress at that time heavily favored the industrialized northern states to the point of demanding that the South sell is cotton and other raw materials only to the factories in the north, rather than to other countries. The Congress also taxed the finished materials that the northern industries produced heavily, making finished products that the South wanted, unaffordable. The Civil War should not have occurred. If the Northern States and their representatives in Congress had only listened to the problems of the South, and stopped these practices that were almost like the taxation without representation of Great Britain, then the Southern states would not have seceded and the war would not have occurred.

I know for many years, we have been taught that the Civil War was all about the abolition of slavery, but this truly did not become a major issue, with the exception of John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry, until after the Battle of Antietam in September 1862, when Abraham Lincoln decided to free the slaves in the Confederate States in order to punish those states for continuing the war effort. The war had been in progress for two years by that time.

Most southerners did not even own slaves nor did they own plantations. Most of them were small farmers who worked their farms with their families. They were fighting for their rights. They were fighting to maintain their lifestyle and their independence the way they wanted to without the United States Government dictating to them how they should behave.

Why are we frequently taught then, that the Civil War, War of Northern Aggression, War Between the States, or whatever you want to call it, was solely about slavery? That is because the history books are usually written by the winners of a war and this war was won by the Union. However, after following my family around since I was just a year old to Civil War Living History scenarios in Gettysburg and elsewhere, I have listened to both sides of the story, from those portraying historical figures, both Union and Confederate. Through listening to these people and also reading many different books, including some of the volumes of The Official Records of the Civil War, Death in September, The Insanity of It All, Every Day Life During the Civil War, and many others, I have come to the conclusion that the Civil War was about much more than abolishing the institution of slavery.

It was more about preserving the United States and protecting the rights of the individual, the very tenets upon which this country was founded. I personally think that the people who profess that the Civil War was only fought about slavery have not read their history books. I really am glad that slavery was abolished, but I don't think it should be glorified as being the sole reason the Civil War was fought. There are so many more issues that people were intensely passionate about at the time. Slavery was one of them, but it was not the primary cause of the war. The primary causes of the war were economics and states' rights.

...

Click to expand...