Could the Civil War had been avoided if less profit was acceptable

BenKalba

Private
Joined
May 3, 2019
Remember in the movie, ' Gettysburg', when a southern soldier that had been captured was asked why he was fighting in this war? His answer was, "I'm fighting for my rights.". I bet he wasn't a slave owner. But, I bet he felt that the north was threatening his civil rights and it had nothing to do with slavery per se.



The question was(and is) except for the right to own slaves, what Civil Right of a Southerner was endangered, that was not equally endangered for Northerners?[/QUOTE]

As I tried to explain, the war was in a sense a class war. The plantation owners were threatened and this fear was passed on to the poorer and middle class people.

The fear that of the federal government can come here and do this to us, the wealthy plantation owners, think of what the federal government can to the less wealthy and powerful. A fear still felt in some corners of America today.

I can give you an example from my own childhood.

When Martin Luther King was marching for freedom and equal rights, I heard some of my father's friends claim that because of Dr. King, a black person could come to our home and force us out into the streets and we would have no recourse but to give our home and all we owned to the first black person that demanded it.

Of, course this isn't true. But, as an 8 year old that was terrifying to hear. If grown ups thought that in 1963, imagine how afraid they were in 1860. To deny that the average southerner was not afraid of the federal government and simply pushing to keep slavery alive, when most didn't own slaves is simply untrue
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Of, course this isn't true. But, as an 8 year old that was terrifying to hear. If grown ups thought that in 1963, imagine how afraid they were in 1860. To deny that the average southerner was not afraid of the federal government and simply pushing to keep slavery alive, when most didn't own slaves is simply untrue[/QUOTE]


I certainly do believe, that the unity of white southerners in their secession, did stem from a decades long policy of misinformation by their leaders, in gov't, press and pulpit, leading their people into treason and disaster.

Lincoln in his Cooper's Union Address, tried to get southern people to listen to reason, and tried to explain, how their fears were jisplaced. How, the fears for their rights under law were not threatened at all from anything the North was doing. But, to all intents and purposes, the South, had become a closed society, impervious to reason or example.
 

Silverfox

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 8, 2012
Location
Georgia Coast
It was all about money.

Some things never change thru history---It is always about the money. Had either side known the cost of what was to happen---I believe something could have been worked out. Having come from the farm myself---I know how labor intensive that work is---I can imagine what farmers today would have to say if tractors were suddenly outlawed. Both sides should have listened to Sherman about what was to take place.
 

BenKalba

Private
Joined
May 3, 2019
Of, course this isn't true. But, as an 8 year old that was terrifying to hear. If grown ups thought that in 1963, imagine how afraid they were in 1860. To deny that the average southerner was not afraid of the federal government and simply pushing to keep slavery alive, when most didn't own slaves is simply untrue


I certainly do believe, that the unity of white southerners in their secession, did stem from a decades long policy of misinformation by their leaders, in gov't, press and pulpit, leading their people into treason and disaster.

Lincoln in his Cooper's Union Address, tried to get southern people to listen to reason, and tried to explain, how their fears were jisplaced. How, the fears for their rights under law were not threatened at all from anything the North was doing. But, to all intents and purposes, the South, had become a closed society, impervious to reason or example.[/QUOTE]

I agree. But, one speech by a governemt official cannot change the minds after decades of mistrust.

Were southerners treasonous? I don't believe so, at least the vast majority were not. They were afraid of a government that was distant and demanding. I believe that many felt they had no choice bit to stand and fight. Where else could they run to and start over?

This discussion has so many facets. Imagine the worry over federal government coming to your state and dismantling your social constructs...set aside slavery for a moment. If the feds. can cause the wealthiest and most powerful family in the county to fold up and be taken down, what could they do to the little guy? A fear still felt today in many areas of our society.

You know the old joke,,," I'm from the governments and I'm here to help". That never works out well.

Couple those fears with the excitement of creating a new nation. One where the little guy might actually have a say. A naïve notion but to the poor a brass ring to be chased; a win/win situation, especially, if the if the northern agitators could be expelled from the south.

The risk of slaves being agitated into rebellion, or taking over farms, maybe, seeking revenge against white slave owners which could spill over into the surrounding populace. These were real fears.

To try and put this in terms of today, imagine the government imforms you that you must turn in all of your fire arms or face fines and prison. If you say the wrong thing you will be marginalized , fined ,or jailed. Bus loads of criminals, homeless, and illegal aliens are sent to your state and you must not only accept them as full citizens, you must give them homes to live in, and allow them to hold public office and have direct impact on your life without you having a say.. Failure to comply will mean federal troops being sent to your state to enforce these rules. Any opposition will mean imprisonment.

So, you, a law abiding citizen who probably never thought much about those people now must look at your home. community, and family nd wonder what is going to happen now? Is my property to be handed over? What will become of my family? All the while you are thinking this, you have the elites in your community telling you that you're next. What would your fear level be?

Would you fight or say okay take what you want?
 

Silverfox

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 8, 2012
Location
Georgia Coast
From some of my readings it was amazing how the first votes for leaving the Union did not pass in the South in some states but when Lincoln called for volunteers the votes changed. The threat became real in their minds. Even the great Stonewall voted to stay in the Union at first ---But once the decision was made they put it all on the line. Also noted was that many wanting to leave did not want anything to do with the fighting part---And when Union troops arrived in their home towns they talked Union forever.
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2019
Location
Dedham, MA
My cousins owned sixty plantations which I document in "Rebels in my Tree". In the book I have proposed my thoughts on how the planters could have been successful in a paid-labor economy and I included basic economic facts based on post civil war cotton exports to support that belief.
Unfortunately, the planters and politicians were unable to develop an agreeable method to peacefully end slavery. President Madison had proposed selling western land to raise funds to compensate slave owners but didn't get enough support for that plan. For a paper on the general subject (not mine) see https://www.westga.edu/~bquest/2018/endslavery2018.pdf
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
The North, Garrisons, other Abolitionist groups, denounced a gradual, compensation Emancipation. Congress would of had to approve an expenditure of this amount. Lincoln didn’t have the power to do it.

For 30 years Abolitionist Propaganda had spewed how Slavery, ie Southerners had destroyed their Land. This fear was used in the Free Soil Arguments. The North believed that land ownership should be restricted to smaller partials. Republicans wanted the Wealth of Planters Destroyed. It became the thought that Slavery and Aristocrats were Disunion.

All of this was used as a means for the North to gain control of the Federal Government. Which would allow the North to settle the remaining Territories and to control the Economics of the Country. It took them 40 years to Politically do this. Happened about 1860.
 

Southern Unionist

First Sergeant
Joined
Apr 27, 2017
Location
NC
After the slaves were freed, and the only way to grow cotton in the South was with paid labor, most plantations couldn't sell enough to continue operations. That answers the question for me.
 

JeffCSA

Private
Joined
Apr 10, 2019
Ahh, here we go again....like the war was over slavery. I believe the correct question would be "Could the war have been avoided if the north paid a fair share of tax and returned to the south much of what they paid in instead of keeping it". Of course this raises the real question of what caused it all, "Could the war have been avoided if the liberals abandoned their agenda of a central government ruling supreme telling the states what they can and can't do". Therein is the cause of war.

Many of our problems today are a result of the outcome of that war. We are overran with illegal aliens but previous central government officials want it that way and move to tell the states we must protect them because if they are provided for they see it as votes for them and their party. Liberals band together within the central government and pass laws to advance the gay cause and the federal government makes the individual states accept them. So many freedoms have been lost to a central power that if you speak out about the Bible's teaching on this then it is some kind of crime ......freedom of speech is taken away on this. You can go on and on. These plagues can be laid at the cause of what the war was over. That's why the South seceeded. Alas, many are so gullible to believe, and want to believe, it was fought over some noble cause to divert what it was truly about and what was done to the southern populace.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Hi list,
Just pondering this question.. What economic loss would the South had taken, i.e. large plantation owners, if the CSA freed the slaves but paid them a meager wage to still work the plantation.. What Im wondering is how much profit margin was there in a bale of cotton, could the slaves been worked like the emigrants in Northern factories , with company housing in the form of their slave quarters and company store..Was the war really over a profit margin?



The Southern landed gentry adjusted to the lack of slaves and gradual diminishing of Cotton's Kingship. So, in the end, economics does not realy ex0lain the necessity for secession, even at the expense of a Great Civil War.

Remove Economic incentives, there wouuld still be Afreo-americans and what to do with them, without proper social controls, would still have to be addressed, which, I believe, Jefferson Davis explained well enough in his Farewell Address to the Senate.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
The North, Garrisons, other Abolitionist groups, denounced a gradual, compensation Emancipation. Congress would of had to approve an expenditure of this amount. Lincoln didn’t have the power to do it.

For 30 years Abolitionist Propaganda had spewed how Slavery, ie Southerners had destroyed their Land. This fear was used in the Free Soil Arguments. The North believed that land ownership should be restricted to smaller partials. Republicans wanted the Wealth of Planters Destroyed. It became the thought that Slavery and Aristocrats were Disunion.

All of this was used as a means for the North to gain control of the Federal Government. Which would allow the North to settle the remaining Territories and to control the Economics of the Country. It took them 40 years to Politically do this. Happened about 1860.

Excellent.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
The North, Garrisons, other Abolitionist groups, denounced a gradual, compensation Emancipation.

As did Southern slaveholders, time and time again, when plans were put forward to gradually get rid of slavery.

Congress would of had to approve an expenditure of this amount.

Southern members of Congress would have blocked such efforts.


Lincoln didn’t have the power to do it.

He could not even muster enough support for a bill by him to get rid of slavery in Washington D.C. when he was a Congressman.


For 30 years Abolitionist Propaganda had spewed how Slavery, ie Southerners had destroyed their Land. This fear was used in the Free Soil Arguments. The North believed that land ownership should be restricted to smaller partials. Republicans wanted the Wealth of Planters Destroyed. It became the thought that Slavery and Aristocrats were Disunion.

(Yawn!) I see a lot of opinion but none of that study I've heard about. For 30 years the Abolitionist movement was mostly ignored, it's petitions "laid on the table" by Congress because it had no political power to sway anyone. It was looked upon as a crackpot movement. See the Gag Order on Congress for more information. Republicans wanted slavery out of the federal territories and it was slaveholders and aristocrats on the plantations that wanted disunion.

All of this was used as a means for the North to gain control of the Federal Government. Which would allow the North to settle the remaining Territories and to control the Economics of the Country. It took them 40 years to Politically do this. Happened about 1860.

All of this means that a nation had finally turned it's attention to the spread of slavery and decided to vote for a party that held some of their views. It was the slaveholding South that had been in control of the federal government for nearly 70 years that panic and brought on a war to now force it views after it had lost a free and fair election.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Ahh, here we go again....like the war was over slavery.

So, all the Southern slaveholding states that said it was about slavery are what? Liars?


I believe the correct question would be "Could the war have been avoided if the north paid a fair share of tax and returned to the south much of what they paid in instead of keeping it".

(Sigh!) Tax? What tax? Do you happen to mean the tariff? The tariff that was the same in New York City as it was in Charleston, South Carolina? The North did not have a tariff discount card and the South got plenty of the tariff money spent on it. Just check out what the former VP of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens had to say about it.

f course this raises the real question of what caused it all, "Could the war have been avoided if the liberals abandoned their agenda of a central government ruling supreme telling the states what they can and can't do". Therein is the cause of war.

And this, therein, is more like personal opinion than actual history. Is this your opinion?

Many of our problems today are a result of the outcome of that war. We are overran with illegal aliens but previous central government officials want it that way and move to tell the states we must protect them because if they are provided for they see it as votes for them and their party. Liberals band together within the central government and pass laws to advance the gay cause and the federal government makes the individual states accept them. So many freedoms have been lost to a central power that if you speak out about the Bible's teaching on this then it is some kind of crime ......freedom of speech is taken away on this. You can go on and on. These plagues can be laid at the cause of what the war was over.

Sounds like you got a lot of issues with current political situation than you do the Civil War and it's causes. So far I have yet to see a historical source to back up any of the views you list above.

That's why the South seceeded.

You mean seceded, don't you? Because in the end, the slaveholding South did not "seceed."

Alas, many are so gullible to believe, and want to believe, it was fought over some noble cause to divert what it was truly about and what was done to the southern populace.

And name calling others is not proof of anything.

I suggest a bit more reading of actual history and discussing modern day politics in a public bar.

Unionblue
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
And totally wrong. But excellent in it's wrongness.

This was the specific paragraph I referred to: “All of this was used as a means for the North to gain control of the Federal Government. Which would allow the North to settle the remaining Territories and to control the Economics of the Country. It took them 40 years to Politically do this. Happened about 1860.”

This was the reason secession occurred in 1860 and 1861 and not before. The poster couldn't have stated the reason leading to secession better.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
This was the specific paragraph I referred to: “All of this was used as a means for the North to gain control of the Federal Government.

You mean when Lincoln won the White House? The reason the South seceded because a Republican had finally won the White Houe? Not the other two branches of government, but the White House? Oh, the horror!

Which would allow the North to settle the remaining Territories and to control the Economics of the Country. It took them 40 years to Politically do this. Happened about 1860.”

And the Congress and the Supreme Court would have sat there and twiddled their fingers, that about right?

This was the reason secession occurred in 1860 and 1861 and not before. The poster couldn't have stated the reason leading to secession better.

I agree, the poster dare not state the reason leading to secession as it would ruin this fairy tale.
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
All of this means that a nation had finally turned it's attention to the spread of slavery and decided to vote for a party that held some of their views. It was the slaveholding South that had been in control of the federal government for nearly 70 years that panic and brought on a war to now force it views after it had lost a free and fair election.

Slavery wasn’t the only Primary Cause. Obtaining control of the Federal Government was the single most Primary Cause.

That is what the Lone Toner, don’t get, and never will. Because he only recognizes Slavery. Single Cause Fallacy has blinded some.

Abolitionist got tired of being Chased, tared and feathered, Murdered, and seeing black Schools burned to the ground, when they ask for some Black Rights. They changed their arguments about what Slavery did to the Soil. That had merit with the mid-west where 80% were Farmers. The Argument was That Soil should be left for Whites and not Blacks.
 
Top