If the U.S. has another civil war?

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

that would be a...err.. revisionist interpretation?

It is. The road to the American Civil War was long and complicated, but the Clff's Notes version is that the southern states (mostly southeastern in the modern US) had a largely agricultural economy. The bulk of the southern wealth was in cotton, which, traditionally, was man-intensive to grow and harvest. With a much lower population than the north, the south relied on African slaves to perform much of the labor. Slavery, of course, was opposed by a number of mostly northern abolitionist politicians. Given the numerical divisions between free and slave-holding states, that opposition could not amount to much, making the situtation one of stasis.

As westward expansion accelerated, prompted by the federal government's efforts to have people 'go west, young man', new states came into the union, which threatened to upset the balance of power. After a series of compromises that, in retrospect, only seemed to exacerbate the problem, Abraham Lincoln was elected as President. Fearful that his adminstration would permanently swing the pendulum in favor of the abolitionists, resulting in the end of slavery and threatening the south's economic system, the southern states undertook the treasonous act of succession.

I have no intention of continuing the argument that will likely follow this post, as we have had it many, many times. Simply stated, Confederate apologists prefer to revise history so that it reads that it was the evil northerners who invaded the peace-loving south in order to plunder it's riches. This is not true, but I am resigned to the fact that attempting to dissuade them of it is a pointless endeavor. It only bears noting that some of the same individuals portray the south's treason in a favorable and heroic light are the same that, in another thread, damn another's treason for an act that can also be seen has heroic.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

It is. The road to the American Civil War was long and complicated, but the Clff's Notes version is that the southern states (mostly southeastern in the modern US) had a largely agricultural economy. The bulk of the southern wealth was in cotton, which, traditionally, was man-intensive to grow and harvest. With a much lower population than the north, the south relied on African slaves to perform much of the labor. Slavery, of course, was opposed by a number of mostly northern abolitionist politicians. Given the numerical divisions between free and slave-holding states, that opposition could not amount to much, making the situtation one of stasis.

As westward expansion accelerated, prompted by the federal government's efforts to have people 'go west, young man', new states came into the union, which threatened to upset the balance of power. After a series of compromises that, in retrospect, only seemed to exacerbate the problem, Abraham Lincoln was elected as President. Fearful that his adminstration would permanently swing the pendulum in favor of the abolitionists, resulting in the end of slavery and threatening the south's economic system, the southern states undertook the treasonous act of succession.

I have no intention of continuing the argument that will likely follow this post, as we have had it many, many times. Simply stated, Confederate apologists prefer to revise history so that it reads that it was the evil northerners who invaded the peace-loving south in order to plunder it's riches. This is not true, but I am resigned to the fact that attempting to dissuade them of it is a pointless endeavor. It only bears noting that some of the same individuals portray the south's treason in a favorable and heroic light are the same that, in another thread, damn another's treason for an act that can also be seen has heroic.

We are not going to rehash that issue again Takeda, no worries.
Wars are about economics. They are about who controls what, land, power, government or whatever. Show me a war that isn't and I will revise my opinion.

I am not saying that slavery was not an issue in the civil war. However, remember that history is written by the "victor", and a close study will show that there were more factors than just slavery involved. Slavery was an economic engine at the time, so by definition it had to be in part about slavery.

The key in the original post question however remains the same - there is no economic reason to support a federal government that goes to war against its people en masse when such a conflict has no geographical boundaries.