It was about money, pure and simple

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

JeffCSA

Private
Joined
Apr 10, 2019
Messages
85
Its amazing that people actually believe the war was over slavery. It was about money, pure and simple, and for the central government to control the flow of it instead of the states. "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government".

They've got to come up with some moral reason to invade and murder the citizens of those that enacted their right to abolish their present form of government and institute their own, new government. So, to disguise the real reason, they came up with slavery. They still play that card today to bring hate against monuments and flags. Liberals want to freely express their views and thoughts but control, stymie and suppress anything counter to what they want people to accept, think and believe. We're still paying the price, today, for the end war result from 1865.
 

GwilymT

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
882
Location
Pittsburgh
Its amazing that people actually believe the war was over slavery. It was about money, pure and simple, and for the central government to control the flow of it instead of the states. "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government".

They've got to come up with some moral reason to invade and murder the citizens of those that enacted their right to abolish their present form of government and institute their own, new government. So, to disguise the real reason, they came up with slavery. They still play that card today to bring hate against monuments and flags. Liberals want to freely express their views and thoughts but control, stymie and suppress anything counter to what they want people to accept, think and believe. We're still paying the price, today, for the end war result from 1865.
The war was over secession. Secession was over slavery. The Southern Slave States seceded to protect slavery. They then took federal property and fired on federal soldiers to force their secession. In reaction the government went to war to suppress the rebellion.

No slavery, no secession. No secession, no war.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

19thGeorgia

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
3,088
"the North is fighting for money. It is fighting for its supremacy to rule and levy tribute upon us. Its all is based upon its connection with us--commerce, manufactures, industry and wealth of all sorts. The people of the North know it. Financial ruin for all times stares them in the face. They are staking all--life, blood, political liberty--all upon the hazard. They must have money." -Charleston Mercury, August 8, 1861
 

GwilymT

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
882
Location
Pittsburgh
One Charleston Mercury article deserves another:

It was on account of encroachments upon the institution of slavery by the sectional majority of the old Union, that South Carolina seceded from that Union. It is not at this late day, after the loss of thirty thousand of her best and bravest men in battle, that she will suffer it to be bartered away; or ground between the upper and nether mill stones, by the madness of Congress, or the counsels of shallow men elsewhere.

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

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
86
Its amazing that people actually believe the war was over slavery. It was about money, pure and simple, and for the central government to control the flow of it instead of the states. "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government".

They've got to come up with some moral reason to invade and murder the citizens of those that enacted their right to abolish their present form of government and institute their own, new government. So, to disguise the real reason, they came up with slavery. They still play that card today to bring hate against monuments and flags. Liberals want to freely express their views and thoughts but control, stymie and suppress anything counter to what they want people to accept, think and believe. We're still paying the price, today, for the end war result from 1865.
Hello Mr. JeffCSA. Weren't slaves worth over 3 billion dollars? Wasn't the plantation economy of the South supported by slave labor force? I believe it was about money, too. Slaves were money and I can understand why so many Southern aristocrats chose slavery over the Union when people decided to elect anti-slavery Lincoln as a president who openly opposed the expansion of slavery. Without the expansion, it is questionable whether the prices of slaves were sustainable or not. It would have been a devastating blow to the economy of the South. Although I believe slavery was more than just money, the slave states (and many free statss which were indirectly involved in the business through banking and other commercial activities) invested too much in their peculiar institution and they were ready to take some drastic measures such as unilateral secession & rebellion to protect their 'properties'.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,870
"the North is fighting for money. It is fighting for its supremacy to rule and levy tribute upon us. Its all is based upon its connection with us--commerce, manufactures, industry and wealth of all sorts. The people of the North know it. Financial ruin for all times stares them in the face. They are staking all--life, blood, political liberty--all upon the hazard. They must have money." -Charleston Mercury, August 8, 1861
It would appear much more valid to say that "the South" was fighting over money -- particularly all the money they saw in the investment in slaves and the money they could make from cotton/tobacco/sugar/rice. One of their goals in seceding was the expansion of slavery into new territory. Example: John B. Gordon, Fire-Eater and future Confederate general, speaking for the Fire-Eater Yancy at a gathering in Alabama during the Election of 1860:
"Do this and the day is not far distant when the Southern flag shall be omnipotent from the Gulf of Panama to the coast of Delaware; when Cuba shall be ours; when the western breeze shall kiss our flag, as it floats in triumph from the gilded turrets of Mexico's capital; when the well clad, well fed, Southern Christian slave shall beat his tamborine and banjo amid the orange-bowered groves of Central America; and when a pro-slavery legislature shall meet in council in the Halls of Montezuma."
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
2,369
The United States Plantation Economy was in the South. The Plantation Economy that Lincoln and the Republicans Pledged to Protect! Why would the North attack their cash Cow? Where they got their Sugar, Cotton, Rice and other commodities. Commodities they used and based much of their Capitalism on. Banking, Shipping, Cotton Mills. Also was the outlet of where the illegal Slave Trade went to.

Ever Wonder why the Lower South never ask or replied to the Yankee overtures to Protect Slavery?
 

lurid

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
529
The south could not make any real money without slavery. Slavery kept cotton prices down while the demand for it was an all time high from 1820-1860 increased production.The more cotton the slave picked the more its value increased. Take one component out of the equation and the expression are unequal, that's because free labor along with the high demand for cotton were codependent. Once demand for cotton shifted to grain and the slave were emancipated the south was totally destitute.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,870
The United States Plantation Economy was in the South. The Plantation Economy that Lincoln and the Republicans Pledged to Protect! Why would the North attack their cash Cow? Where they got their Sugar, Cotton, Rice and other commodities. Commodities they used and based much of their Capitalism on. Banking, Shipping, Cotton Mills. Also was the outlet of where the illegal Slave Trade went to.

Ever Wonder why the Lower South never ask or replied to the Yankee overtures to Protect Slavery?
"The North" (as in "the rest of the country") did not attack "the South". In reality, "the South" attacked "the North".

The "illegal Slave Trade" was something the United States had committed to ending. "The North" (in particular the Republican Party) was leading the effort to end it -- "the South", not so much.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,870
The south could not make any real money without slavery. Slavery kept cotton prices down while the demand for it was an all time high from 1820-1860 increased production.The more cotton the slave picked the more its value increased. Take one component out of the equation and the expression are unequal, that's because free labor along with the high demand for cotton were codependent. Once demand for cotton shifted to grain and the slave were emancipated the south was totally destitute.
Please note: demand for cotton did not shift to grain. They were independent of each other.

What did happen is this:
  • bad harvests (Britain and northern Europe) in the early 1860s created food shortages
  • farms were increasing in numbers and productivity in the US, particularly in "the North" (as in "the rest of the country")
  • the railroad development in the US made shipping to central warehouses and transportation to the ports more efficient and cheaper
  • steam technology made trans-Atlantic shipping faster and enabled larger cargo capacity as new ships were built.
All of that made the need for US food crops in Europe increase while increasing the supply available and driving down the cost of US imports. This trend continued for most of the rest of the nineteenth century.
 

lurid

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
529
Please note: demand for cotton did not shift to grain. They were independent of each other.

What did happen is this:
  • bad harvests (Britain and northern Europe) in the early 1860s created food shortages
  • farms were increasing in numbers and productivity in the US, particularly in "the North" (as in "the rest of the country")
  • the railroad development in the US made shipping to central warehouses and transportation to the ports more efficient and cheaper
  • steam technology made trans-Atlantic shipping faster and enabled larger cargo capacity as new ships were built.
All of that made the need for US food crops in Europe increase while increasing the supply available and driving down the cost of US imports. This trend continued for most of the rest of the nineteenth century.
Do you really believe that I was saying that the "total" demand from cotton shifted to grain? Did you notice in my post I said that cotton demand was at an all-time high?

I said this 100 times on this board and I'll say it again, the 4 decades prior to the CW cotton demand increased 5% per year and it increased 1% a year the 4 decades flowing the CW. This was do to the British demand for cotton because they had an agriculture contraction and among other reasons, and the important one was the dollar appreciation due to the FED's deflationary policies meant higher foreign currency prices for American cotton. All I'm saying is the high demand for cotton shifted to grain, not a total shift.



 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,870
Do you really believe that I was saying that the "total" demand from cotton shifted to grain? Did you notice in my post I said that cotton demand was at an all-time high?

I said this 100 times on this board and I'll say it again, the 4 decades prior to the CW cotton demand increased 5% per year and it increased 1% a year the 4 decades flowing the CW. This was do to the British demand for cotton because they had an agriculture contraction and among other reasons, and the important one was the dollar appreciation due to the FED's deflationary policies meant higher foreign currency prices for American cotton. All I'm saying is the high demand for cotton shifted to grain, not a total shift.

I am saying that absolutely no demand for cotton shifted to grain at all. They were completely different products, used for completely different ends, and no one replaced cotton in their manufacturing process with grain that I have ever heard mentioned. I do not believe anyone was using cotton as a food source, but if they were I would like to know about it and would expect the people eating cotton would prefer grain.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

lurid

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
529
I am saying that absolutely no demand for cotton shifted to grain at all. They were completely different products, used for completely different ends, and no one replaced cotton in their manufacturing process with grain that I have ever heard mentioned. I do not believe anyone was using cotton as a food source, but if they were I would like to know about it and would expect the people eating cotton would prefer grain.
The boatloads of money that was spent on cotton was no longer being spent on cotton but on grain..
 

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,440
Location
Denver, CO
The evidence is that it was about control of the development of west.
The opening skirmishes were in Kansas. The bitterest contest, though small in scale, took part in Missouri.
Small, but wide ranging battalions from California and Colorado, conquered New Mexico and Arizona for the US.
The most audacious naval operation in the Civil War was the capture of New Orleans, which the British had failed to accomplish.
The largest combined operations of the war was the campaign to capture Vicksburg. Two naval squadrons were involved. There were multiple cavalry raids. There was a large and secret intelligence operation in Tennessee and Mississippi, and every US commander in the west was co-operating in one way or the other with Grant.
When the Republicans had control of Congress in March of 1862, most of their program was concerned with building a national railroad, subsidizing agricultural colleges in the Midwest, and making some land available to small farmers.
California and Missouri were given direct participation in the railroad project.
By July of 1862, the US had wired in California, controlled the Mississippi River below Memphis and pushed the Confederates, but not the NA's out of the Southwest.
Further when the US conquered the Confederacy, it turned out the US was uninterested in the land, or in land reform. They did not take the land and redistribute it, and the old power structure of the ante-bellum south gradually returned.
But in the post Civil War development surge, free of slavery, Texas and Missouri got the railroads they needed.
 

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,440
Location
Denver, CO
There was a very large speculation in cotton which lasted until 1867. Then it turned out that both India and Texas could compete in cotton production and world demand did not support purchasing cotton for any reason other than producing textiles.
The British textile market declined. Workers forced suffrage reform on the Conservative British government and turned out the 1850's cotton boom was an aberration.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,870
I am saying that absolutely no demand for cotton shifted to grain at all. They were completely different products, used for completely different ends, and no one replaced cotton in their manufacturing process with grain that I have ever heard mentioned. I do not believe anyone was using cotton as a food source, but if they were I would like to know about it and would expect the people eating cotton would prefer grain.
The boatloads of money that was spent on cotton was no longer being spent on cotton but on grain..
In an economic sense, the answer to that is no, that is not how it worked.

People who bought cotton may have looked around for a different business while there was no cotton around to be bought -- that does not equate to demand for cotton turning into demand for grain. If you were looking for a commodity that replaced cotton, you'd look to see what happened to the demand for flax or another alternative. Demand for American grain was driven by the shortage of traditional British/European grain supplies; the availability and delivered price of American grain supplies made it a natural source to meet British and European demand.
 

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,440
Location
Denver, CO
There is not much evidence that northerners wanted to take the southern land, or buy the southern land, or live in the south.
To the extent that there was new investment in southern railroads, they seemed to have been built in Texas, Missouri and the Cherokee portion of OK.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top