| Takeda Shingen |
07-06-10 08:55 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl
(Post 1436576)
I trust you won't be surprised if I disagree. You may be surprised to hear that I've heard the same argument from Southern nationalists, many of whom believe that North and South cannot coexist without one dominating the other. I consider that to be lazy thinking on their part, and to some degree, on the part of Yanks (for lack of a word I like using more to describe Northerners :DL)
|
Do you start all of your papers with an insult?
Quote:
In my view, the primary causation behind the war was purely economic. It is somewhat difficult to find statements to this effect, given the political atmoshpere of those times, but I believe the numbers speak for themselves, as they often do in the years following a "good" war. The North was suffering from a lack of cotton to fuel its growing textile industry, as it simply could not compete the prices Britain was willing to pay. The agricultural advances that would make the US the breadbasket of the world were not yet in place, and in any case the worldwide demand was not there, as most nations of the time were still largely agrarian. While thousands upon thousands flocked from the farms to the mills to earn a better wage and (contrary to popular belief, better working conditions), the mills themselves were without supply, which raised prices, which forced demand down. The North was in an economic pickle.
|
You have side-stepped a whole lot to try and prove your point, but the facts of history are against you. However, you are correct about one thing: Modern agricultural techniques were not in place. The gains of the industrial revoluntion, however, were in full swing. The northern states' industrial capacity, of which the textile industry was only a small part, gave those states an enormous amount of wealth and manufacuring capacity, which translated into jobs, population, and ultimately, power. The South, being an agrarian society, was largely the proverbial one-trick pony. It relied on slavery to fuel it's output. In fact, it relied so heavily on slavery that anywhere from 35-44% of the some 9 million people in the southern states was the property of another person.
The south was reeling after the Tariff of 1828, and following the Nullification Crisis in 1832, in which President Jackson prepared to use the US Army to enforce a compromise tariff in South Carolina, the southern states were, to say the least, sore. With western expansion imminent, and the northern abolition movement catching the ears of their politicians, the southern economic way of life was threatened. So, yes, economic reasons were the primary concern of the south, but at the heart of every economic issue was that of slavery. It is inescapable.
Quote:
The South controlled the primary market (agrarian), by virtue of its usage of slaves, which made the then-labor-intensive industry considerably more practical. Were it not for slaves, it is dubious that the South ever would have risen to its status as the number one cotton exporter in the world in such a short time. None of us would condone the usage of slaves today, but both the North and South did at the time, as the South used the slaves and the North supplied them. People tend to overlook this fact and the nature of the slave trade when they subscribe to the common "knowledge" that the North refuted slavery while the South endorsed it.
|
The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the 1804 establishment of the Mason-Dixon Line and the 1808 ban of the importing of African slaves would speak otherwise. While it is true that this process did not eliminate slavery overnight, and that some states, like Pennsylvania, reported slaves on the census into the mid-19th century, this became the exception, rather than the rule.
Quote:
There were two primary factors behind the usage of the abolitionists' cause as a way to dictate policy in the South, both economic. The first was that tariffs levied unevenly on exports would make it more attractive for the South to sell cotton to the North, while a tariff on British imports of machinery would make Northern goods more appealing to Southern consumers.
|
See Tariff of 1828.
Quote:
This is the reason oft-touted by Southern nationalists and apologists when they argue that the cause of the South was, in fact, States' Rights. I also used to be a proponent of the same argument until I flipped the table and looked at things from the Southerners' economic point of view; their industry simply wasn't viable if slavery was abolished. It was simply too labor-intensive and too seasonal. This is evidenced by the fact that after slavery was abolished, it was replaced by share-cropping, which was virtually always little more than indentured servitude.
|
Finally, we agree on something.
Quote:
This leads us to the second reason for the North adopting the abolitionists' cause, and it is again an economic rationale. If the former slaves had to be paid, Southern exports would become more expensive and thus less attractive to British consumers, forcing Southern producers to export to the North instead, as there was no significant importer overseas (other than France, whose trade was impeded by Britain) who would pay enough to make the shipping costs worth the while. As it turns out, this was the weaker part of the reason, due to the aforementioned adoption of sharecropping, which the North evidently didn't care about.
|
This is sophism. You ignore the wealth, political control, and industrial capacity of the north in order to make your point. To reiterate, it was the south who was economically and politically threatened by the north. Hence, a change in policy towards slavery was a real threat to southern prosperity. You, to prove your point, have inverted the equation.
Quote:
The next interesting phenomenon, though not a cause of the war, is also purely economic, and it comes in the form of maltreatment that blacks suffered in the North. Free blacks were almost always paid less, and violence was used against them when they undercut the wages of white immigrant workers. Enslaved blacks in the South were often treated with a "paternalistic" attitude, though this does nothing to alleviate the fact that they were slaves and that they were cared for because they were property, but it does provide a stark contrast to the way blacks were treated in the North when they were "free men".
|
I would take Steve's line in stating that photographic evidence refutes the above.
Quote:
The final nail in the coffin is the way the Union itself treated blacks, both slave and free, during the war and reconstruction. Don't make me go over what a bunch of horse-crap the Emancipation Proclamation was, we all know it didn't free anyone.
|
The Emancipation Proclamation was a political maneuver, designed to state that Union victory was inevitable, and as such, it did not require southern consent in eliminating slavery. A shrewd decision, in my opinion.
Quote:
Similarly, I will not discuss the Union's acceptance of slavery in member states.
|
Please do.
Quote:
But what is really interesting is the number of black Confederates who served in the war, or who remained in the service of their former master's families thereafter. This could be attributed to poor education, as I'll readily admit, and it could be due to the natural relationships that people tend to develop over time, or both, but it is interesting that so many newly "free" men would choose to remain in their place of bondage. Numbers from the period are sketchy at best, but there is plenty of written testimony, and even today there is a far higher percentage of blacks in former Confederate states than in former Union states. Did they stay because they didn't know anything else? Did they stay because they were comfortable there? Did they stay just because others did? I don't know, but it seems like the South wasn't full of black slaves who were willing to run for the North at the first opportunity.
|
According to the official records:
Total African American Recruitment
Union Army: 186,097
Confederate Army: Less than 50
Quote:
My intent is not to prove that slavery is, or ever has been, an acceptable institution, nor is it to mitigate the plight of slaves, but I would like to shed some light on whether or not slavery was really the cause of the civil war or whether there were other, more prominent economic motives, as often tends to be the case.
|
No one is calling you a white supremacist or an advocate of the institution of slavery, and I will take exception to anyone who does.
Quote:
I sincerely doubt that, but I guess it depends upon how we define greatness and ignobility. I've already described what I see as "greatness" in the aforementioned presidents, and I trust the cost in lives and material between Lincoln and FDR are aleady well understood. In what case did any of my picks outweigh the discrepancy between the two?
|
See above for a small piece on Andrew Jackson. Of course, he also supported slavery and was an outspoken advocate of the Native American genocide, let alone discussion of the Battle of Horseshoe bend and the subsequent Treaty of Fort Jackson.
Thomas Jefferson could be cited as an example of weak vacillation, unable to part with his creature comforts and effectively end the abominable practice of slavery.
George Washington could be characterized as a second-rate milita colonel, who's near limitless ambition, masked by a pretentious pseudo-modesty, cost countless lives and required the efforts of a foreign military to rectify.
Of course, much of the above is true, as are Lincoln's failing. Still, they common trait they all share is that the quality of their work and their legacies outweighs their flaws. It is more than most of us could expect of ourselves. |
