Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: NKP_Vet

Here we go again with revisionist history writing slavery out of the background for the Civil War, and yet what do we get at the end of the Civil War - the end of slavery.

The end of slavery had an importance all to itself such that other considerations could be assigned lesser importance, no matter how anyone considered them in their own mind.

The north was industrial and industry provides greater return on capital than aqriculture, which is why the north had more capital. That was not “stolen” from the south, “deprived” from the south, it was a condition relative to the different primary economic drivers in each of them.


20 posted on 05/03/2019 8:31:06 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Wuli

The cotton gin and other inventions helped the south industrialize, too.

Philosophical differences were the formal start of the Civil War, but the warped thinking that got those differences bad enough to actually get a hot conflict going was born partly in acquiescence in chattel slavery. The bible said don’t do things that way, and a society that was striving ostensibly to act Christian was foolish to ignore that advice.


24 posted on 05/03/2019 8:36:14 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (May Jesus Christ be praised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: All

Come on...if slavery never existed in the South would there have been a secession/civil war?...no...

Slave owners, who were a wealthy but distinct minority, could never sell secession to the rest of the population on the premise of them keeping their slaves and their wealthy life style, so they sold it as ‘economic exploitation of the north’...politicians were charlatans back then too.


26 posted on 05/03/2019 8:39:00 AM PDT by DHerion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: Wuli
Here we go again with revisionist history writing slavery out of the background for the Civil War, and yet what do we get at the end of the Civil War - the end of slavery.

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.

46 posted on 05/03/2019 9:10:36 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: Wuli

However, it was not a war of ‘North versus South’.

This was actually a war of Republican versus Democrat.

The Republican party was formed in explosive opposition to the ‘Kansas-Nebraska’ act by top democrat and Lincoln’s main rival - Douglas (D).

The Democrats were led by the Democrats Al. Gore of that era - the treasonous John C. Breckenridge.

- Breckenridge WAS the sitting Vice President !

- Breckenridge failed to win the Democrat nomination (from Douglas), so he split the Democrat party into two and ran as the leader of the rump Democrat party.

- The split democrat party lost the Presidency to President Lincoln (first Republican elected President)

- The split democrat party lost the House to the Republicans (the second Republican house majority following 1858. Amazing for a brand new party !!!)

1852. D 158. Whig 86 Free Soil 4. or 234 seats
1854. D 83 R 37 Whig 54. Know Nothing 51 People 9. of 234 seats
1856. D 133. R 90 KN 14
1858. R 116. D 98. Opp 19. KN 5
1860. R 108. D 45 U 30

- Now that is interesting. According to the Wiki, Breckenridge remained the Senate President until March 4, 1861 !

-— Well I guess that is correct, Lincoln would not be sworn in until March 4, 1861. So the treasonous sitting Vice President would remain the Senate President !!!


96 posted on 05/03/2019 10:36:04 AM PDT by Pikachu_Dad ("the media are selling you a line of soap)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson