Except it really was exploitation by the North. Look at these figures for export trade value.
.
.
Now look at where the money from Europe came back into the country.
Posted on 05/03/2019 7:54:25 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
“On the North side, it would have been possible to wait out the Confederacy to give in. It never had a viable plan, even with the slaves. A brutal war wasn’t necessary.”
Morticians for the past 150 years disagree.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wars-drive-advances-how-t_b_668827
So?
I will buy that as long as you will also acknowledge that the self-same Declaration of Independence proclaims "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as inalienable, God-given rights of men … which would imply the right of people held in bondage to secede from the institution of slavery for any reason they saw fit.
Who are you going to believe? The folks who said why they left the Union, or a historian’s lecture 150+ years later?
The revisionist history is trying to make slavery the cause of the war. The fact that Lincoln was pushing an Amendment that would have made slavery permanent in the United States demonstrates the Union did not give a crap about the continuation of slavery.
The Corwin amendment passed both houses of congress and was ratified by four Northern states.
How can you claim your war is about slavery when you offer permanent slavery in an effort to convince the Southern states to remain?
The north was industrial and industry provides greater return on capital than aqriculture, which is why the north had more capital.
Since they had rigged the game to funnel all the South produced economic trade with Europe through their own hands, we cannot say what would have happened after the South was getting full value for all their European exports. 230 million dollars per year is a lot of capital that would have moved out of New York hands and into the hands of people in New Orleans, Mobile, Charleston, and so forth.
Suddenly the South would have become quite capitalized. Northern industry would have been wrecked to a great extent, because the South could then buy European goods for themselves, and they could distribute these same European goods all up and down the Mississippi watershed.
Southern independence was a dire threat to the existing money structure of the North.
I think History is taught very poorly (on purpose).
Not poorly, but with a self-serving purpose in mind.
As Orwell noted...
“He who controls the past, controls the future; and he who controls the present, controls the past.”
Never truer than today.
It was about money. That is all it was about. Money that would have moved from the control of New York and Washington DC, to the control of New Orleans, Mobile, Charleston and other southern port cities.
In the south it is called the war of northern aggression.
That's because the Northern armies invaded them with the intent to destroy their independence and reestablish control by Washington DC.
It was the North that marched armies into the other's homeland, so yes, the "War of Northern Aggression" is actually more accurate.
That’s actually a canard used by both sides
A minority of southerners had large land holdings with many slaves.
But a lot of southerners had one or two or a family
My gg grandfather had a small intersectional farm in the less desirable farming area of east Mississippi
Land he got under Choctaw land grants prior to Dancing Rabbit treaty
Anyhow they had a family of slaves he’d bought in Mobile
He took his cattle and goods to market in Mobile or Natchez
He also acquired an orphaned indentured Irish girl in Natchez at some point who became his second wife
23 kids and two concurrent wives
Accounts from diaries of the children describe how the slave family ate what they ate and were treated well and had a decent cabin which I’ve seen remnants of.
They were arguably his biggest asset so like most small farmers they wanted them in good shape
I’ve read the North Carolina WPA slave interviews from the 30s where surviving slaves tell of plantation and farm life and house life versus field life
It surprised me to learn that smaller landowners tended to provide better care since it was proportionally a much larger asset
That defies conventional wisdom where one would think “Tara” could afford better clothing and food
Slavery was a primary issue of the War Between the States but it morphed into resisting an invasion in my opinion.
I’m unaware the South intended to occupy the north or defeat the north in a total victory sense which might explain why they didn’t move on DC the several times they could
That proved to be a mistake
Nope. You don't get to excuse the Union. Slavery remained legal in the USA longer than it did in the CSA. Slavery was actually protected by the United States Constitution. See Article IV, section 2.
The entire nation was a slave nation when it was created. All 13 states were slave states. Lincoln was going to make slavery permanent in exchange for the Southern states remaining in the Union.
How evil is that?
Anyone who excuses that is scum.
And anyone who thinks slavery is what caused the war is a fool. What caused the war was the Southern states leaving with their money, and no longer letting New York and Washington get their share of it.
“and they could distribute these same European goods all up and down the Mississippi watershed.”
pipe dream on your part, totally unsubstantiated by anything, other than your imagination. What If History at its Best.
Actually, a brutal war was inevitable.
If you read the articles of secession, its clear that it was about slavery, but more specifically it was about the western states. They had an offer on the table that they could keep their slaves in the states where it was already legal, but Lincoln drew the line at allowing it to spread into the western states.
The south's position was that, over the years, as the west was settled and incorporated into the union, they would eventually be outvoted and slavery would die as an institution and a way of life. The idea of letting slavery die a natural death was a non-starter from their point of view.
The war was about who controls the western territories. A war between US and CSA was coming either way, and the south made it crystal clear its reasoning.
It is true that the rank and file did not fight for slavery, they fought out of loyalty to their state. The leadership, though, were quite clear what they were about.
The moneyed interests in the South stood to lose billions if slavery was abolished. These interests were the war hawks of the day. The common soldier didn’t own slaves and was fed the line of patriotism, defend your homeland and fought accordingly.
Much like the first Gulf War. The moneyed interests stood to lose billions in oil revenue. The common soldier was fed the line it’s patriotic to defend people from the tyranny of Saddam and do your patriotic duty.
Wars start for reasons that are completely inane to the lives of the soldiers who fight them.
Okay, this guy's an idiot. First off, the "revenue" line attributed to Lincoln comes from one source, a confederate politician, after the war, recounting a conversation he had five years earlier. So, "invariably" actually means "once, maybe, if we trust a former confederate politician's memory and agenda."
Second, the idea that most of the tariff was collected at southern ports has been debunked so many times that even the more-knowledgable Lost Causers don't bring it up. Diogenes is constantly posting the image showing that the vast bulk was collected in New York.
Third, the "most of it was spent in the north" is also BS, because you can look at the federal budget for the years leading up to the war and see where it was spent. Of the $85 million the government spent in 1859, half went to pay for the army and navy, and most of the army was in the west, and Texas in particular. and another $16 million was was spent on the postal service. You can find a detailed breakdown of federal spending for FY 1859 here: Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the State of the Finances for the Year Ending June 30, 1859
How Many U.S. Presidents Owned Slaves?
George Washington. Thomas Jefferson. James Madison. James Monroe. Andrew Jackson. Van Buren, Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, Polk.
So other than the two Adams, which of the early Presidents weren't evil, according to you?
This is the history we learned at The Citadel.
Except it really was exploitation by the North. Look at these figures for export trade value.
.
.
Now look at where the money from Europe came back into the country.
The men you name, otherwise good men, were engaged in an evil practice.
People are complicated creatures. They are inevitably men of their time, and most of them actually knew it was wrong, but didn't know how to fix it (and didn't know how their personal fortunes would survive fixing it). Whats interesting is that, despite being men of their time, some men are able to step outside their personal situation and see the wrong even in themselves.
Exactly.
And I will posit that there has never been a greater man than George Washington.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.