Slavery

[johan_steele]

Slavery was the root cause of Secession & Secession was the root cause of the war. Every argument comes back to slavery.

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by bankerpapaw

First, I want to thank Ole for the history lesson about
reconstruction.
Now another subject. First, I want to say that slavery is a stain on our country's history that, as a
Southerner, I am ashamed of.
Now, my question. What would the history of the United States have been had there not been slavery?
Would there have been a Civil War over States Rights?

Well, according to some folks on this forum, it could have been all about tariffs, tho I think it unlikely that the Fire-eaters would have provoked an attack on Fort Sumter just about a dispute about tariffs. There was a more important thing for them, and it had to do with a certain type of "property".


-

[ole]

come on give me a break! I know slavery was a huge part in the years leading up to the war but you can't convince me that slavery was the entire reason for the war.

Of all the possible "reasons" for secession, the only one I can't tie directly to slavery is that tariff argument -- which isn't much of an argument from what I can see. (But I can argue that it would have been no issue at all if there was no slavery.

Divergent culture and sectionalism? Why? Slavery.

States Rights? For what purpose? Slavery.

Fear of losing political power? For the preservation of what? Slavery.

Resentment of tariffs? Advantage to manufacturers. Why? There were next to none in the south because of the pervasive pursuit of slaveocracy.


ole

[clara_barton]

Originally Posted by ole

Of all the possible "reasons" for secession, the only one I can't tie directly to slavery is that tariff argument -- which isn't much of an argument from what I can see. (But I can argue that it would have been no issue at all if there was no slavery.

Divergent culture and sectionalism? Why? Slavery.

States Rights? For what purpose? Slavery.

Fear of losing political power? For the preservation of what? Slavery.

Resentment of tariffs? Advantage to manufacturers. Why? There were next to none in the south because of the pervasive pursuit of slaveocracy.


ole

ole,

Best summary that could be given. Took me a while to believe this, but everywhere I turn (except DiLiarenzo, as Cash aptly entitles him), the historical facts are incontrovertible.

After reading, American Slavery, and a few other works (including Civil War Medicine: Challenges and Triumphs, nothing to do with slavery, by the way), I perused Abraham Lincoln and the Union; a chronicle of the embattled North by Nathaniel W. Stephenson, 1918:

"As early as the opening of the nineteenth century, the social tendencies of the two regions were already so far alienated that they involved differences which would scarcely admit of reconciliation. It is a truism to say that these differences gradually were concentrated around fundamentally different conceptions of labor--of slave labor in the South, of free labor in the North."

[clara_barton]

ole,

Bankerpapaw indicated you "straightened him out about reconstruction". Where would that thread be located? I'd, also, like to be straightened out about that.

Thanks.

Found the thread!!

[OpnDownfall]

Historically, all through the early years of the Union under the Constitution, all problems of national import were amenable to compromise through the normal give and take negotiations of the normal political process that grew up with the nation. Even the 'percieved' inequalities of tariffs were negotiable. Only slavery became nonnegotiable.
As long as the political process worked there was no overwhelming problem, when the political process broke down (over slavery) there was war.
SC tried nullification, over the tariff question, no other state North OR South joined her in defying the Constitution, over tariffs BUT when SC Seceded to save its slaves all the southern states (100% slave holding) joined SC, in defying the Constitution over slavery. The historical record is quite clear.

[bankerpapaw]

Originally Posted by ole

We're not ever likely to know about that, are we? It was. And no matter how much we regret or apologize or excuse or argue, that piece of our history was there.

Maybe. Just maybe. One of these days I'll tire of talking about it (don't you wish?) But history is a passion and I can't see the day when it isn't.

Anyway. You asked a serious question and deserve a serious answer.

No. Without slavery, there were indications that the south would have industrialized and worked on its infrastructure and brought its ruralness into parity with the rest of the country.

The northern farmer had the same advantages and disadvantages as the southern farmer. Sunup to sundown, they did the same things. But, in the north, the farmer had a market within a day or two on a road. The plantation system built roads only for itself. The best the southern farmer could hope for was to feed his family and maybe, just maybe, sell some corn or wheat to the plantation next door while there were farmers in Iowa selling their surplus grain to England.

Sorry. Banker, but the entire mess resides on the backs of those who repressed their slaves as well as their neighbors. Given a fair chance at fair trade, I stongly suspect that the southern farmer could have at least equalled his northern counterpart. But he was not given that opportunity, simply because he didn't have a road on which to travel to peddle his surplus. What roads there were were made to get the cotton bales to a boat or a railhead.

ole

Ole, just because the war was over didn't mean that the oppression by the rich southern planters was over. The blacks were oppressed and treated unfairly until the Civil Rights Act was passed in the 1960's. The poor whites were equally mistreated until the farm boys left their farms and went to fight in World War ll. I believe at that point the strangle hold the rich planters was broken. Do you agree?