Restricted Debate Sustaining Slavery was Unequivocally the Primary Economic Reason the South Rebelled

Status
Not open for further replies.

lurid

Corporal
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
406
#1
It is undisputable that slaves accounted for more than $3 billion in 1860, and slave labor even more. In the seven states where most of the cotton was grown, almost one-half the population were slaves, and they accounted for 31 percent of white people’s income; for all 11 Confederate States, slaves represented 38 percent of the population and contributed 23 percent of whites’ income.

There is a marked similarity between the trends in the export of cotton and the rising value of the slave population, and I don't believe it was coincidence that the more cotton that was produced the slave's value increased. Note chart below:

1559935505510.png



Imo, all the talk about secession, tariffs were nothing but a façade personified with rhetoric. The south's economy of exporting cotton depended on slavery. Period...

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economics-of-the-civil-war/
 

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
13
#3
If slavery had not existed in the South, would the differences between South and North have been enough for them to go to war?

No.

It's a no-brainer in my opinion. Yes, the Civil War was about slavery, because it is impossible to imagine it happening if slavery had never existed.

But that does not make all Southern generals and leaders evil. They were products of the time and place in which they were born.
 

lurid

Corporal
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
406
#5
If slavery had not existed in the South, would the differences between South and North have been enough for them to go to war?

No.

It's a no-brainer in my opinion. Yes, the Civil War was about slavery, because it is impossible to imagine it happening if slavery had never existed.

But that does not make all Southern generals and leaders evil. They were products of the time and place in which they were born.
That does not make all Southern generals good either :smile:. Well, stick around for awhile and you will come to the shocking conclusion there are members here who believe otherwise...
 
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
13
#6
That does not make all Southern generals good either :smile:. Well, stick around for awhile and you will come to the shocking conclusion there are members here who believe otherwise...
Well, I was raised in the South, so I'm familiar with that attitude. Right now I'm living in Chattanooga, and it's quite common to see the Stars and Bars displayed in front yards and on bumper stickers. What's funny to me is that I doubt a single one of those Confederate flag fliers are aware that this area of Tennessee was predominantly PRO UNION !
 
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
740
#7
It is undisputable that slaves accounted for more than $3 billion in 1860, and slave labor even more. In the seven states where most of the cotton was grown, almost one-half the population were slaves, and they accounted for 31 percent of white people’s income; for all 11 Confederate States, slaves represented 38 percent of the population and contributed 23 percent of whites’ income.

There is a marked similarity between the trends in the export of cotton and the rising value of the slave population, and I don't believe it was coincidence that the more cotton that was produced the slave's value increased. Note chart below:

View attachment 311087


Imo, all the talk about secession, tariffs were nothing but a façade personified with rhetoric. The south's economy of exporting cotton depended on slavery. Period...

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economics-of-the-civil-war/
I dont think there is any doubt the souths agrarian society depended on slavery. I'm not surprised by that, slavery had existed since the early colonial days in a section of the country that economy depended on the means to plant, tend, and market agricultural products. It doesnt make slavery right, but it is understandable in my view. The two sections were different in that regard and it's easy to see why getting rid of slavery in the south was going to be more difficult. It's a shame the countries political leaders couldn't have tried harder, done more, to work towards some type of gradual emancipation instead of a war costing so much.
 
Joined
Nov 19, 2018
Messages
91
Location
MS, USA
#8
...t's easy to see why getting rid of slavery in the south was going to be more difficult.
. "IMPOSSIBLE" describes true difficulty for the south to rid itself of the same evil that drives its own economic gravy train. No way it would happen one day before hell froze over! Or any day after slave 'master' types fill its bottomless pit to bursting wide open. PERIOD.

It's a shame the countries political leaders couldn't have tried harder said:
Given no practical or theoretical possibility that southern die-hard rebel lard *** elite class would peacefully give up its position, why expect no less than defeat for a politician who'd try to affect that net result? In fact, perhaps fiercest opposition to slow liberation came from the very same victimized population it's aim was to protect. Enslaved Blacks and Abolition movement leaders both launched vicious backlash from righteous indignation at any prospect of gradual emancipation as infeasible and impractical.

One prime example from that time is an "Open Letter to the People" by William Lloyd Garrison in the first issue of his then fledgling newspaper dubbed The Liberator, a fitting title for a publication oft cited among major catalysts of Civil War outbreak in this nation. Here's an excerpt as it appears in exact verbatim text redact:

"No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; ... [or] moderately rescue his wife ...; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; -- but urge ... not ... moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD." (emphasis in original) - Garrison, 1831
The fact is that no major social revolution has met gradual success ever since time began as its known to man. Rather, it takes disruption and complete destruction before status quo breaks down in total self-defeat of no true good purposes from the outset.
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
5,738
Location
Mt. Gilead, North Carolina
#11
I agree totally. Legal slavery was the economical lifeline of the South.....................To lose it was to take the bread out of the mouths of the families. The results from slavery also provided an economical lifeline of many a textile worker in England and the North. Slavery was a national sin, a worldly sin.


Respectfully,
William

One Nation,
Two countries
Confed-American Flag - Thumbnail.jpg
 

lurid

Corporal
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
406
#12
I agree totally. Legal slavery was the economical lifeline of the South.....................To lose it was to take the bread out of the mouths of the families. The results from slavery also provided an economical lifeline of many a textile worker in England and the North. Slavery was a national sin, a worldly sin.


Respectfully,
William

One Nation,
Two countries
View attachment 311113
I agree with this post whole heartedly that slavery was a national sin. But the north recovered rather well after the slavery ended by bringing this country to superpower status. Whereas the south did not recovery from it until the 1940s, and I'm not quite sure the south fully recovered yet. All the difference in the world...
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
5,738
Location
Mt. Gilead, North Carolina
#14
I agree with this post whole heartedly that slavery was a national sin. But the north recovered rather well after the slavery ended by bringing this country to superpower status. Whereas the south did not recovery from it until the 1940s, and I'm not quite sure the south fully recovered yet. All the difference in the world...

The North really never had to recover after gradual emancipation of it's slaves, as slavery never was the sole lifeline of the North. The by products of slavery, it's textile mills relied heavily on. Slavery was a national sin, a worldly sin.

Respectfully,
William

One Nation,
Two countries
Confed-American Flag - Thumbnail.jpg
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
2,189
#15
An immediate set of decisions was presented to the London bankers--should they do business with the new Confederate nation? Despite the Rothschilds' consistent antislavery position, and despite the firms's forceful role in the British abolition of slavery, they were pragmatic businessmen and, like many others, had a complicit relationship with slavery. They kept many southern clients, traded in vast quantities of southern tobacco and cotton, and invested in southern state bonds, which financed the huge railroad boom in the South built almost entirely with slave labor. And because southern clients sometimes listed slaves as collateral or as assets on balance sheets, the prominent London bankers, whether Rothschild, Peabody, or Baring Brothers, found themselves one step removed from the slavery economy of the U.S. South and, after 1861, the American Civil War.

And, like many observers in Europe, the Rothchild firm could see only one result from the American crisis; two nations, two confederacies, two peoples North and South, irreconcilably split. It seemed unlikely that the North could force a region as large, wealthy, and modern as the South to remain in the Union against its will.

Clearly, the Confederacy's idea of itself as a modern nation was tied to its standing in the world. To be viable, a nation needed to be globally engaged to announce its autonomy, and to have that respected and reciprocated by others in the world. These expectations could take various forms--not only diplomatic but also businessmen at the center of the nation's institutions, had long been on the edge of shifting borders, and cultural and economic vitality rested in large measure on their society's openess. Before the war they were connected to plantations in the West Indies, the Bahamas, Mexico, and Cuba, and to banking houses in London, Paris, and Frankfurt. Their cosmopolitanism has gone largely unrecognized until quite recently. Southern slaveholders as a whole constituted a highly mobile, networks of association and information--from the transatlantic to the regional, and from the regional to the local. And they saw themselves modernizing their society with railroads and telegraphs in a world that was rapidly taking shape around aggressive nation-states whose borders were becoming ever more sharply defined.pp131-132 The Iron Way by William G Thomas

The Self Righteous Yankee and Brit, had no problem doing business with the Slave South. Did the South want Slave Labor? Yes they did, but they wanted more. They were in Direct Competition with the Yankee, Politically and Economically. They Wanted Independence. If all they wanted to do was to Grow Cotton for the Yankee, the Union would of been the place for that.
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
2,189
#16
Everywhere European investors looked, the age was one of national formation, war, and technological eruption. The United States and the Confederate States appeared as nations among nations, and part of the wider pattern of the era. In Britain, where radical leaders had widened the franchise, ended the slave trade, and brought down trade barriers, opinion makers applauded the progress of national self-determination. In 1859, as the small region of Piedmont struggled to bread free from the Austrian empire and join Italy in a newly formed nation-state based on common heritage and ideas of personal freedom, Britons cheered. When the southern Confederacy broke from the Union a year later, its struggle for national independence seemed similarly motivated and no less worthy. That most of the leading Confederate states' railroads were financed through state bonds with British capital was not widely known, but the connections would play and important role in any potential movement to extend the Confederacy diplomatic recognition.

In 1861, therefore, the American South's claim to national status struck many in Europe as entirely natural and legitimate, if grossly marred by slavery. This paradox of the South as a recognizable nation with an unrecognizable claim to civilization gave Europeans pause. The long history of cotton and its importance in Britain was complicated by the more recent developments surrounding railroads and transatlantic banking. Within a year the American war took shape as something different, and new, and terrible, but with important ideas as stake. pp132-133 The Iron Way by William G Thomas

South had 9k miles of railroad. Some of the best Railroad Stations in the Country. They wanted Empire. Decided, they couldn't get it in the Union.
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
2,189
#17
All eyes, Republican and Democratic, turned to the 1850s to new lands in the West. The United States' vast territorial acquisition in 1848 after the Mexican War was immense, encompassing the present states of Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and California. These lands totaled over 500,000 square miles and were the equivalent in size to about half of the nation in 1850. The settlement of these places and the potential for their development took shape amid a booming confidence in the power, reach, and consequence of railroads and telegraphs.

An important consequence of the rush to build railroads in the South in these years was to enhance southern identity and to fuse slavery with railroad development. For the South, the incomplete network of railroads managed to unite white Southerners who were separated vast rural spaces and overcome the region's significant natural barriers. By 1860 the most highly populated places of the South were linked in was unimaginable just a generation earlier. Only western Virginia, a significant exception, stood our as a major population of white Southerners out of reach of the southern-oriented rails. The leading southern business journal, De Bow's Review, considered the South in a "race for civilization" with the North. and few indicators of success were more important, or more closely watched, that the railroads. pp39 The Iron Way by William G Thomas.

Lone Toners need to look at a 1860 U.S. map. The West was what was up for grabs. Southerners had agreements with Mexico to go thru the Northern part of Mexico with their TRR. The South wanted Expansion. The Republicans would never agree to let them have it. Another reason for the War.
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,537
Location
Midwest
#18
...The Self Righteous Yankee and Brit, had no problem doing business with the Slave South.
We've been expecting that attempt again, the "Mommy, Billy was doing it too!" thing. The hope is that if Northern and Brit participation in slavery can be equated with Southern participation with slavery then "golly, the South wasn't any more culpable than the North or Britain for slavery!".

It won't work this time either. We realize the depiction "self-righteous " is intended to arouse indignation, but it's not actually a negative term in the context of anti-slavery actions -- the "self-righteous" of the North and Britain tended to be anti-slavery, not to be greedy disingenuous businessmen. And the small segment of businessmen up North were not "the North" any more than Confederate apologists today are "the South."

And far from having "no problem" with conducting slave business in the North and Britain, they had quite a problem. It was the stuff of scandal at the time, and it was periodically exposed (the very reason we know about it today, you realize).

Anymore we have plenty of Antebellum and CW first-person accounts and period newspaper reporting easily available to us online. Attempts at Confederate apology -- like this one -- that might have worked even ten years ago, no longer do.

Bottom rail on top.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
9,309
Location
on the long winding road
#20
I agree with this post whole heartedly that slavery was a national sin. But the north recovered rather well after the slavery ended by bringing this country to superpower status. Whereas the south did not recovery from it until the 1940s, and I'm not quite sure the south fully recovered yet. All the difference in the world...
I don’t know, man. My city is full of Yankees who came down for a paycheck.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.



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