Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

The American Civil War

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 2:24:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races" - Abraham Lincoln

Was it really about slavery?

I think for the Northern troops it was but for the government it was a different issue.

I can't confirm this, that's why I made this thread to have your input, but I heard that the reason the South seceded from the North in the first place is because the North was implementing strong regulations on the South to prevent it from industrializing.

Why? Because that means a lot more profit for the North.

And both history and theory show that the more industrialized a country becomes the less economically efficient slavery becomes. This is why the North was made of free-states and the South was made of slave-states.

So, in effect, the Northern government actually caused the Southern states to hold on to slavery.

The south, desperately wanting to industrialize, seceded from the Union.

Then Lincoln went against explicit text in the constitution which allowed any state secede.

Lincoln also, for the first time in American history, instituted the draft to more easily win the war. That draft, ironically, would later be outlawed by the same amendment added to the constitution to stop slavery which forbid involuntary servitude. In other words, Lincoln himself instituted slavery in the war supposedly meant to stop it.

In this war, more Americans would die than in all of it's other wars combined.

At two different instances this could have been avoided. The North could have initially let the South be so it could industrialize and get rid of slavery the same way the North did. Or even if they didn't do that they could have let the Southern states secede thus letting them industrialize, eradicate slavery on their own and save countless lives.

But I'm just theorizing. What do you think?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 2:28:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 2:24:38 PM, FREEDO wrote:
the reason the South seceded from the North in the first place is because the North was implementing strong regulations on the South to prevent it from industrializing.

I never heard that.

The south was agrarian, but they were ok with that...

So long as they had lots of slave labor it worked... though I think the North was passing all sorts of laws that were better for industry than Agrarian economies... and also the religionists were set to ban the human bondage that supported their agrarian well being.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 6:25:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
This might be the dumbest post I ever read..!!! Wow it was economically unproductive to have slaves..! where are you geting your facts.? The bigest heros are bad .!! Linclon is now a bad guy.? Let's exchange linclon with muhammud..!! What a idiot..!!
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 6:53:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 6:25:04 PM, banker wrote:
This might be the dumbest post I ever read..!!! Wow it was economically unproductive to have slaves..! where are you geting your facts.? The bigest heros are bad .!! Linclon is now a bad guy.? Let's exchange linclon with muhammud..!! What a idiot..!!

Haha, Banker, your the idiot. My post is a question, not a statement. Perhaps you could be of some use for a change instead of being a troll all the time. Dismiss the points I provided with either some form of reasoning, evidence, or preferably both instead of just making your blind ramblings about how you feel about things.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 6:58:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 6:53:31 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/10/2010 6:25:04 PM, banker wrote:
This might be the dumbest post I ever read..!!! Wow it was economically unproductive to have slaves..! where are you geting your facts.? The bigest heros are bad .!! Linclon is now a bad guy.? Let's exchange linclon with muhammud..!! What a idiot..!!

Haha, Banker, your the idiot. My post is a question, not a statement. Perhaps you could be of some use for a change instead of being a troll all the time. Dismiss the points I provided with either some form of reasoning, evidence, or preferably both instead of just making your blind ramblings about how you feel about things.

Banker won't argue. He'll just try to compare everything to what his idea of islam and liberalism is.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 7:03:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Of what I know of the Civil War, there were no issues over industrialization or the North doing anything to the South along those lines.

The South was simply a very different place than the North. It was controlled mostly by agrarian oligarchies and interests, and while industrialization did take hold in some cities, there was never much of a market in the South for it as compared to the more populated North which had better infrastructure and more needs. The South was quite economically happy at that time, hence how they were able to finance their war efforts so well.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 7:10:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 7:03:36 PM, Volkov wrote:
Of what I know of the Civil War, there were no issues over industrialization or the North doing anything to the South along those lines.

The South was simply a very different place than the North. It was controlled mostly by agrarian oligarchies and interests, and while industrialization did take hold in some cities, there was never much of a market in the South for it as compared to the more populated North which had better infrastructure and more needs. The South was quite economically happy at that time, hence how they were able to finance their war efforts so well.

What made them so different?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 7:14:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 7:10:26 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/10/2010 7:03:36 PM, Volkov wrote:
Of what I know of the Civil War, there were no issues over industrialization or the North doing anything to the South along those lines.

The South was simply a very different place than the North. It was controlled mostly by agrarian oligarchies and interests, and while industrialization did take hold in some cities, there was never much of a market in the South for it as compared to the more populated North which had better infrastructure and more needs. The South was quite economically happy at that time, hence how they were able to finance their war efforts so well.

What made them so different?

The South ultimately had a better climate for growing crops than the North, which more-or-less naturally led to the division of industrialization and agrarian dominance in the North and South.

Although, I agree that the war could quite easily have been avoided. So many other countries ended slavery in much more peaceful ways. A radical abolitionist suggested letting the South secede, so that the fugitive slave laws would be nullified, and slaves would escape North, eventually crippling slavery.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 7:25:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 7:14:57 PM, mongeese wrote:

Although, I agree that the war could quite easily have been avoided. So many other countries ended slavery in much more peaceful ways. A radical abolitionist suggested letting the South secede, so that the fugitive slave laws would be nullified, and slaves would escape North, eventually crippling slavery.

The South would've just gripped the reins on slaves even harder if that happened.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 7:54:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Freedo,
One of the issues was simply tariffs. The Northern states had huge tariffs on imported British goods, which the Southern states purchased. The issue the southern states had (according to some historians) were simply, they were in a minority position concerning the votes. For some southern state leaders this was equal to "taxation without representation". But near 1860, the tariff was becoming less and less an issue and the economic issues starting falling to states rights concerning slavery in the territories and within the southern states themselves. States rights over slavery seems to be the main point.

I live in Tennessee and attended college in Montgomery, Alabama so I have been exposed to many of the economic arguments, but they seem to fall away near 1860. For a hardline, in my opinion inaccurate, portrayal of the Southern apologetics, read "The South was Right" and "Southern by the Grace of God". The writers are modern day secessionists. They present the economic and states rights issues from an advocates position.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 8:29:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 7:54:58 PM, sherlockmethod wrote:
Freedo,
One of the issues was simply tariffs. The Northern states had huge tariffs on imported British goods, which the Southern states purchased. The issue the southern states had (according to some historians) were simply, they were in a minority position concerning the votes. For some southern state leaders this was equal to "taxation without representation". But near 1860, the tariff was becoming less and less an issue and the economic issues starting falling to states rights concerning slavery in the territories and within the southern states themselves. States rights over slavery seems to be the main point.

Couldn't have been over the territories, really. It would make no sense to protest the inability to bring slaves into a territory by relinquishing all claims to that territory whatsoever.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 8:55:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Don't forget that "Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended the writ of habeas corpus and had the military arrest tens of thousands of Northern political opponents, including dozens of newspaper editors and owners."[1]

He was a sick, sick man.

[1] http://www.lewrockwell.com...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 9:25:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 8:55:07 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Don't forget that "Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended the writ of habeas corpus and had the military arrest tens of thousands of Northern political opponents, including dozens of newspaper editors and owners."[1]

He was a sick, sick man.

That's an interesting little fact, but how is it relevant to the subject of why the South was different from the North, and what the cause of the Civil war was? Why did you post an attack focused on Lincoln when no one mentioned Lincoln? Just for sh*ts and giggles?
theitalianstallion
Posts: 1,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2010 6:33:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 2:24:38 PM, FREEDO wrote:

Was it really about slavery?

No, at least not in the beginning. Originally it was to preserve the Union, but as the war dragged on, a moral cause was needed for the Union troops, so Lincoln gave them one. (It wasn't that simple, but you get the picture)

I can't confirm this, that's why I made this thread to have your input, but I heard that the reason the South seceded from the North in the first place is because the North was implementing strong regulations on the South to prevent it from industrializing.

That was a large part of the reason, but the secession began with South Carolina becoming disgruntled over a tariff placed on many of its exports.

But I'm just theorizing. What do you think?

Lincoln did what was necessary - maintain the Union.

In Europe, many countries were hovering vultures, just waiting for the States to split so they could, not necessarily recolonize the states, but take control of vast resources in the area. With two wounded nations possibly materializing from the North not rejoining the Union would've made this inevitable.
When Reach fell, I came.
theitalianstallion
Posts: 1,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2010 6:35:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 7:14:57 PM, mongeese wrote:

Although, I agree that the war could quite easily have been avoided. So many other countries ended slavery in much more peaceful ways. A radical abolitionist suggested letting the South secede, so that the fugitive slave laws would be nullified, and slaves would escape North, eventually crippling slavery.

Very few slaves ever actually escaped; most freed slaves had either bought their own freedom or been given their freedom by their masters.
When Reach fell, I came.