“So in other words, even if there was no slavery the North would have invaded anyway.”
That’s what I ask myself anytime someone says. The civil war was not about slavery.
It was about resources? I don’t buy that.
In the south it is called the war of northern aggression.
If there was no slave produced money flowing through New York and Washington DC's pockets, they would not have invaded the South.
I point out that the Philippines was given independence. Cuba was given independence, and Puerto Rico has a standing offer to have independence if at any time it should wish it, but if you are producing 73-85% of all the European trade in your country, everyone wants you to remain under their control and continue being their milk cow.
Also John Brown was a wool merchant, and as such his product directly competed with cotton. He went bankrupt twice, and he was financed by wool merchants in Massachusetts who stood to make a huge amount of money if the cotton industry suddenly blew up for some reason.
So John Brown and his backers had a vested financial interest in disrupting the cotton industry, though you never hear anyone mention this bit.
Good point.
Maybe! But the South, much to their detriment was stuck in the past based on the failed system of slavery. Slavery kept the South from investing in mechanization in many areas, especially agriculture. This retarded their economy and prevented them from reaching parity with the North. They were continually out produced by the North
(Can’t copy and paste now)
That’s a useful, and clever, point!
And would the South have seceded absent slavery?
Probably yes. They had developed almost independent economies. If that separation continued growing eventually a foreign power qould have allied with the South and gave them a better deal then the Union.
Or maybe the South would have acknowledged the superiority of commerce and industry and changed on it’s own.
(Probably not: it’s hell to upturn an establishment- as Trump’s difficulties show.)