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

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

lurid

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
638
For the south it was economics all the way, they knew no other way to make money other than grow and export cotton. I would imagine if you calculated the weekly wage x 52 weeks x number of slaves it would be a hefty amount. Over a billion dollars a year to pay slaves, there's no way greedy southern planters were going to pay that amount of money.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,289
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Slavery wasn’t the only Primary Cause.

So, I guess all those good Southern men lied when they made their speeches and wrote their secession declarations.


Obtaining control of the Federal Government was the single most Primary Cause.

As it had been for the slaveholding South for nearly 70 years.

That is what the Lone Toner, don’t get, and never will.

Love that name-calling when facts can't be used.

Because he only recognizes Slavery.

Because all those Good Southern Men said it was. There are your Lone Toners with the Single Cause. You just don't believe them, more the wonder.

Single Cause Fallacy has blinded some.

Denial will do that.

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.
Stay with your beliefs and that special study so that your Lone Toner belief will forever be a comfort.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
2,446
Location
SE Tennessee
For the south it was economics all the way, they knew no other way to make money other than grow and export cotton. I would imagine if you calculated the weekly wage x 52 weeks x number of slaves it would be a hefty amount. Over a billion dollars a year to pay slaves, there's no way greedy southern planters were going to pay that amount of money.
Slaves were not Free.

Cotton was not the primary interest but in maybe AL, MS, GA and TX. Those States had other interest. The Majority of the South was not dependent on Cotton.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,289
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Perhaps you can elaborate on the "fairy tale" by telling us why secession didn't occur earlier if threatened Northern economic and political control wasn't the reason.
Nope, I'm tired of repeating myself to people who won't acknowledge actual history.

But tell you what. Click on my username, go to my profile page and pick any of the hundreds of threads I've created over my time here and see if you can bother to read any of them. They are remarkable in their content and have hundreds of historical references and sources.

Good luck.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,289
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Slaves were not Free.

In a personal or financial way?

Cotton was not the primary interest but in maybe AL, MS, GA and TX. Those States had other interest. The Majority of the South was not dependent on Cotton.
There was sugar, hemp, rice, and what else were they dependent on? Those nearly 4 million slaves had to be doing something else besides picking cotton.
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
2,446
Location
SE Tennessee
There was sugar, hemp, rice, and what else were they dependent on? Those nearly 4 million slaves had to be doing something else besides picking cotton.
There were 5 million whites in the South. Go figure?

If all the South wanted to do was to grow Cotton. Lincoln and the Republicans had pledged to leave them alone. The North consumed half of the Cotton, Exported the rest. Financed and made money at every turn throughout the Process. If growing Cotton was all they wanted to do. The Union was the Place for them.

Obviously that wasn’t the entire Story!

I have no inclination of proving anything to you. Others who read these arguments will be able to see the Lone Toner Argument crumble under it’s own Weight.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

lurid

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
638
Slaves were not Free.

Cotton was not the primary interest but in maybe AL, MS, GA and TX. Those States had other interest. The Majority of the South was not dependent on Cotton.
I know slaves were not free, I made an example what planters would have had to pay slaves, and they wouldn't have paid it, nor do I believe they had the money to pay the wages.

Okay, if cotton wasn't the south's bread winner then why did the southern economy contract, contract and then crash once Lincoln ordered the blockade to stop cotton exports?
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
20,080
Location
Laurinburg NC
Nope, I'm tired of repeating myself to people who won't acknowledge actual history.

But tell you what. Click on my username, go to my profile page and pick any of the hundreds of threads I've created over my time here and see if you can bother to read any of them. They are remarkable in their content and have hundreds of historical references and sources.

Good luck.
I'm supposed to do all of that when a simple source per post would do. :nah disagree:
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,604
The logical answer to the question of the OP, is No, deminishing the profitability of Slavery, would not anwer the question of what to do with the excess slaves.

The institution of Chatle Slavery in America, was an affront to the principles of the DoI and any gov't aspirting to thos principle's.

In Lincoln's Peoria Speech, during his debates with Douglas, Lincon expounded upon exactly why he hated Slavery. It had nothing to do with Economics and everything to do with the promise of the DoI and its future effects for the whole world. There was a reason Slavery was the indigestible lump within the Body Politic of the United States, it ran counter to the very reason there was a United States of America, and its Constitutional form of government.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,289
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
There were 5 million whites in the South. Go figure?

So? Nearly four million slaves, according to you, that's an almost 1 for 1 factor.

If all the South wanted to do was to grow Cotton.

"White Gold" as it was called.

Lincoln and the Republicans had pledged to leave them alone.

They had pledged to leave SLAVERY alone where it was already established. Let's be clear about our history. It was the desire to expand slavery, into the federal territories, even into the Free States, that was a political issue of the time. Ane let's not forget that Southern secession over slavery because Lincoln had been elected president and the slaveholding South feared that slavery would not be secure under his administration.

The North consumed half of the Cotton, Exported the rest.

And money, LOTS of it, was made by Southern cotton growers using slave labor.

Financed and made money at every turn throughout the Process.

Yep, growers made money, jobbers made money, shippers made money, textile factories made money and sea captains transporting the cotton overseas made money. What have you got against all these people in the entire process making money? And remember, no tariff was ever charged on cotton exports.

If growing Cotton was all they wanted to do.

Almost everyone's dream in the South, to grow cotton, own slaves, and make money.

The Union was the Place for them.

Certainly was until that fear, the primary labor force in harvesting all that money, came under a presumed threat of a Republican President.

Obviously that wasn’t the entire Story!

Taken in full context of the historical events would tell you that entire story, if you were willing to learn it.

I have no inclination of proving anything to you.

You've made that perfectly clear.

Others who read these arguments will be able to see the Lone Toner Argument crumble under it’s own Weight.
I've been on this forum since 1992 and have yet to see historical fact crumble under Lost Cause denials.

Unionblue
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,289
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Still too vague. Whose primary documents and period speeches? Be more specific like actual sources.
No, I won't, as I have done so many times before on various threads and posts, even some of which you have been a participant on. Why the dance, when you know full well what I have said and when I have said such.

No. I'm too tired to play the game anymore. When a sincere question is asked, when a sincere request for a source is requested, then I will answer.

Besides, you've read my sources and answers and are no longer surprised by them.

Game over.
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
2,446
Location
SE Tennessee
I've been on this forum since 1992 and have yet to see historical fact crumble under Lost Cause denials.

Unionblue
Slaves grew the Vast Majority Of Cotton. News Flash!

Here is a Primary Source I will share with you. Credit to Jim Lutzweiler, he sent it to me form Baton Rouge, guess he is doing some research: From a Baton Rouge Planter

"In our new confederacy the forms of a republican government will no doubt be adopted, but notwithstanding this I am afraid to see it placed under the sway of an autocrat--King Cotton is going to rule--All our sister states will cheerfully acknowledge his authority, can Louisiana do the same?. . In our state cotton is no doubt an important staple; it adds to our wealth, but it is not the paramount interest."

". .except on the institution of slavery[the cotton states] have no common interest with us & are on the contrary, our competitors for the commerce of the valley of the Mississippi & Ohio." A. B. Roman to Duncan Kenner

Insight to LA's interest with respect to Cotton and Slavery. It was not as important as Commerce.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,289
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Slaves grew the Vast Majority Of Cotton. News Flash!

Here is a Primary Source I will share with you. Credit to Jim Lutzweiler, he sent it to me form Baton Rouge, guess he is doing some research: From a Baton Rouge Planter

"In our new confederacy the forms of a republican government will no doubt be adopted, but notwithstanding this I am afraid to see it placed under the sway of an autocrat--King Cotton is going to rule--All our sister states will cheerfully acknowledge his authority, can Louisiana do the same?. . In our state cotton is no doubt an important staple; it adds to our wealth, but it is not the paramount interest."

". .except on the institution of slavery[the cotton states] have no common interest with us & are on the contrary, our competitors for the commerce of the valley of the Mississippi & Ohio." A. B. Roman to Duncan Kenner

Insight to LA's interest with respect to Cotton and Slavery. It was not as important as Commerce.
The same Duncan Kenner who was sent in secret to Europe with a proposal from Jeff Davis that the Confederacy would free the slaves IF England and France recognized the Confederacy? The same Duncan Kenner who failed in his mission because the Confederate diplomats in place could not bring themselves to put forth his proposal that the Confederacy would give up slavery if only England and France would recognize them as an independent nation and come to their aid against the Union?

Now let's get past that bit of news and look at your source.

It appears, from what I read and not what I HOPE to see is, LA (and LA alone) is concerned it can't compete with the other slave states in the area of cotton production "of the valley of the Mississippi & Ohio."

Now, first off, what is the date of this letter? Can I see ALL of the letter so I can see the above part in proper context? Or did Jim only send you a portion of the letter?

Until that time,

Unionblue
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

SeaSoldier

Private
Joined
Sep 17, 2018
Messages
93
Location
Texas
Not sure where this is all going or why it was suddenly revived except by someone like myself.
A few facts:
in 1860 / 1861 a good field hand slave would set the buyer back around $900 (in period money for comparison)
In 1860 / 1861, Cotton was valued at the source at about 10 cents a pound.
Plantation owners ( a minority of the total population) who used extensive slave labor not only grew the big cash crop of cotton but also tobacco. Plantation owners grew what they could sell - even slaves!
Small farms also grew these two (cash) crops but often saved some for personal use.
Irish (and other hired) labor was a competing labor force that was usually paid about .50 cents a day plus room and board.
Louisiana had one of the biggest slave uprisings before the Civil War killing ANY white around in their path. Would freeing slaves after paying owners for their freedom (not approved by Congress) prevent clashes between whites and blacks?
Could plantation owners survive after selling slave at market value in return for the slaves freedom? I think yes - However.
Finding labor that would work for .50 cents a day plus room and board may not have prevented a sudden decrease in plantation production until new labor could be hired.

UnionBlue, in case you missed it, many new subscribers come on here all the time. One must be prepared to provide some basis for some of one's statements. Keep in mind, I understand if you cite that you are tired. Just DON'T use the Southern Persecution Law Center as a reference! Doing that destroys ALL of your credibility! Oh, but you have no problem asking others for their sources? What if they are "tired".
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
2,446
Location
SE Tennessee
The same Duncan Kenner who was sent in secret to Europe with a proposal from Jeff Davis that the Confederacy would free the slaves IF England and France recognized the Confederacy? The same Duncan Kenner who failed in his mission because the Confederate diplomats in place could not bring themselves to put forth his proposal that the Confederacy would give up slavery if only England and France would recognize them as an independent nation and come to their aid against the Union?

Now let's get past that bit of news and look at your source.

It appears, from what I read and not what I HOPE to see is, LA (and LA alone) is concerned it can't compete with the other slave states in the area of cotton production "of the valley of the Mississippi & Ohio."

Now, first off, what is the date of this letter? Can I see ALL of the letter so I can see the above part in proper context? Or did Jim only send you a portion of the letter?

Until that time,

Unionblue
You Never Disappoint; If you read it again, Mr Roman says Cotton isn’t that Important to Louisiana. The most important thing is Commerce, or Trade. Might want to Google New Orleans, Baton Rouge and the Mississippi River. May help with your Understanding, or it might add to your Confusion?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top