I've heard claims from both sides; one that slavery was the maor reason for cessation, the other that there were other factors, slavery was just the excu..."/>

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Looking at the Civil War

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Saturday, December 25, 2010 07:52
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 687
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, December 24, 2010 11:37 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I've heard claims from both sides; one that slavery was the maor reason for cessation, the other that there were other factors, slavery was just the excuse. So I spent a bit of time investigating. It was educational. This is what I found about the South:
Quote:

... though agriculture thrived in the South, planters focused on cash crops like tobacco and cotton and did not produce enough food to feed the southern population.

Without gold and without banks, the Confederacy did the only thing it could: it printed money. Lots and lots of money. However, it could not do much to collect taxes to support this huge printing effort because the Confederate Constitution forbade the central government from imposing taxes on the states, and left it up to each individual state to tax its citizens. As in the American Revolution decades before, states collected little money and, thus, the Confederacy was left nearly broke.
Quote:

The Confederate government levied taxes in 1864
, but by that time it was too late to do much good. With money flooding the market, its value fell dramatically, and horrendous inflation dogged the Confederate war effort from beginning to end.

Still searching for ways to gather more money, the federal government introduced the first income tax in 1862, and the Bureau of Internal Revenue, later known as the IRS, was established. All of this worked relatively well, and the Union dealt with a rate of inflation that never topped 80% per year, while the South suffered a rate that reached 9,000% by the end of the war

http://www.shmoop.com/civil-war/economy.html

In other words, even the Confederacy in the end levied taxes, so those who say states' rights would mean no government taxes would seem to me to be wrong. It seems to me that any GROUP of states needs must levy taxes in order to survive.

If the reason GIVEN for cessation was slavery, explain this:
Quote:

Most Southern white families did not own slaves: only about 384,000 out of 1.6 million did. Of those who did own slaves, most (88%) owned fewer than 20 slaves, and were considered farmers rather than planters. Slaves were concentrated on the large plantations of about 10,000 big planters, on which 50-100 or more slaves worked. About 3,000 of these planters owned more than 100 slaves, and 14 of them owned over 1,000 slaves.
http://www.historycentral.com/CivilWar/AMERICA/Economics.html

Looks to me like a minority of wealthy interests were the ones who wanted slavery the most and were most willing to secede to get it, not the whole South. I wonder how the non-slave-owning populace felt about this?
Quote:

In Congress, Southern Representatives and Senators were concerned that their interests would not be suitably addressed. As immigrants flocked to the Northern areas, swelling the ranks, Southerners were afraid the Northern states would increase their representation in the House of Representatives, blocking "Southern-friendly" legislation. The interests of Southern Americans who were African Americans, however, did not seem to concern a large number of Southern Congressmen. By the late 1850s, the fear of Northern domination in national economic policy, combined with the desire to maintain Southern institutions (including slavery), became a major influence on the people who eventually chose to secede from the Union
(this and all further quotes from the same cite)

It appears to me that the South wanted to keep more representation in the federal government, despite the fact that they had less population.
Quote:

The Union had more than double the population of the Confederacy (including slaves)
Wouldn’t there be nothing wrong with representation by population? Aren't we a country of government by the majority? How else would it be right? If the population in the North was higher than in the South, so MUCH higher, then I see their representation as being fair---while yes, this means the federal government would do things the South didn’t want, again, weren’t we created as a “majority rules” government? This aspect of it doesn’t appear to be a “states’ rights” issue to me. They wanted more than they rightfully deserved.

Quote:

What did the Confederacy hope to accomplish by seceding from the Union? The clearest goal was to defend and preserve the right of Southern Whites, including the right to own slaves. While the concept of owning another human being would obviously be a moral and criminal issue today; many slaveowners either ignored or tried to justify their way out of that dimension, focusing on the economic aspects of slavery. They held that the right to own people was a property right, just like owning land or buildings. Thus, when Northern politicians tried to ensure that new states admitted to the Union were "free-soil" (i.e., that no slavery was allowed), slaveowners felt that their right to settle in the West with their "property," including slaves, was being infringed. In addition, in the minds of secessionists, the threat of national abolition not only had the potential of reducing the wealth of many prominent Southerners, but also interfered with the "property" rights of Southern Whites. Thus, secession seemed to be the only way of preserving those rights.
Again, it appears they wanted to have it their own way, despite the majority of Americans wanting it to change. It also appears to me that the movement was driven by RICH (i.e., “prominent”) Whites, not by the South entirely, given the vast minority of Southerners WERE slave owners.

The more I learn, the more it seems to me that a minority of rich Southerners wanted slavery to continue, for their own welfare, and were who actually pushed for cessation, if not DECIDED to secede.
Quote:

...the image of the large plantations and elegant Scarlet O'Hara-esque Southern belles sipping mint juleps was applicable to only a small minority of southern farms
goes further to enhance that theory. Another thing that makes me see it this way is
Quote:

In addition to reducing millions of Americans to the status of chattel, it made it very difficult for non-landed, unskilled Whites to succeeded in the face of labor competition from slaves.


In addition,
Quote:

By the time of the Civil War, an extensive railroad system had been built, with new lines through the Northwest being added. In the South, disputes between states prevented the construction of interstate railroad systems.
They COULD have had infrastructure, in other words, except they weren’t willing to work with one another to achieve it. Doesn’t look to me like they would have survived very long as an independent “country”, regardless of industrial and economic issues, and that they were quite willing to subsist on easy income, rather than gain an infrastructure.

It’s interesting to learn more about the conflict; I’ve always heard one side say it was solely about slavery while the other side says it was about “Northern dominance”...I’m getting a bit clearer picture through investigating. It appears to me that the North industrialized, the South didn’t, given their wealth was easily attained by agriculture and slavery—-the wealth of the very few, that is. It seems to me that there was a certain amount of willingness by the North to “overlord” it over the South. It appears that if the South had put any investment into anything BUT a slave-based society, they could have better held their own. And more than anything, it appears that, whatever the many causes may have been, it was the minority of RICH Southerners who were determined to gain from keeping their society the way it was.

It also seems obvious to me that slavery was, if not the ONLY reason for the Civil War, the largest one, and so to ignore it completely when "celebrating" the South and the Civil War is avoiding reality to romanticize something which didn't actually exist (except for the very few) and deliberate attempts to revise history.




Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 24, 2010 12:31 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Looks to me like a minority of wealthy interests were the ones who wanted slavery the most and were most willing to secede to get it, not the whole South. I wonder how the non-slave-owning populace felt about this?

Um, Niki, isn't this exactly how it is today? The interests of a minuscule minority determine the "red state" agenda? You know that the "red states" of today mirror almost exactly the states that seceded 150 years ago, yes? Poor red staters voting against their own economic interests to maintain an ideal of conservative and extremely hierarchical values?

La plus ça change, non?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 24, 2010 1:25 PM

DREAMTROVE


Niki

1) the institution of the house slave was created and subsidized by the ag-slavery business in order to try to create popular support for the slavery. This was generally considered to be a failure, even in the south.

2) the imposition by the Federalists of the Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation was generally considered to be an abuse of power and pseudo-loyalism by the bulk of the population. This is the reason for the name "The Confederacy." about this, the confederates were not wrong. The major objections to the constitution were the creation of a king, or president, and the creation of a national supreme court, which was seen as a Quasi-religious body much akin to the supreme courts of Iran and Israel or today.

3) The conferacy cannot run out of money, as money is an artificial construct, but it had been seeking a foreign backer, largely Britain, but also France.

4) industry as a corrupting factor of the CSA was a major problem.

5) the idea of invading Mexico was abandoned pretty earlier on, but the agenda group with the idea was the same ag biz, which lost influence steadily to the point where the CSA had abandoned all of the ag biz demanded points by about 1863 or so. Given this, I think its a lock certainty that the CSA would have abolished slavery upon secession if they had won the war.

That might be a controversial position to some, but I've studied the politics of it a lot, and if you follow the influence of each power group throughout the history, the path becomes murky. And then clear again.

Its like Nazi Germany. The more you study it, the more you realize that from very close to day one, Goering wanted to assassinate Hitler and end the war, and even more digging reveals that ultimately, this is exactly what happened.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 25, 2010 7:52 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Excellently said, Cav, right on target. Hadn't thought of that, but yes, plus c'est la meme chose

Some interesting thoughts, DT; some debatable by my thinking, but I DEFINITELY agree with your last theory; makes sense.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
White Woman Gets Murdered, Race Baiters Most Affected
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:40 - 20 posts
Alex Jones makes himself look an even bigger Dickhead than Piers Morgan on live TV (and that takes some doing, I can tell you).
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:29 - 81 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:11 - 7514 posts
Hollywood exposes themselves as the phony whores they are
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:02 - 46 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 06:03 - 4846 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 28, 2024 05:58 - 4776 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:56 - 44 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:51 - 48 posts
Where Will The American Exodus Go?
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:25 - 1 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:06 - 21 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:05 - 238 posts
Bald F*ck MAGICALLY "Fixes" Del Rio Migrant Invasion... By Releasing All Of Them Into The U.S.
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:03 - 41 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL