An asset that holds a value is not the same as liquid wealth. Assume that a wealthy plantation owner has 400 slaves at the outbreak of the Civil War. When the fighting was over, the dead were buried, the dust had settled and the carpetbaggers moved in, the presumed value of those 400 slaves had plummeted from their pre-war level and the plantation owner had nothing to show for all of the assessed value of his former slaves. Today, we all recognize that Donald Trump is wealthy. But the majority of his wealth is tied up in assets such as real estate. If Trump Tower (for example) goes up in flames or collapses due to natural causes, is his wealth the same, or is it diminshed as the result of the loss of the Trump Tower? One is only really wealthy when they can capitalize on an asset as opposed to having the asset but losing it due to any number of causes. A plantation owner may have been "wealthy" prior to the Civil War when his wealth was comprised of both liquid and non-liquid assets. However, afterward, when he was forced to release much of the non-liquid asets (the slaves), how much wealth did he really have? I think the estimated value of the slaves in general, particularly as it applies in the years prior to 1860, is a red herring.
At the time of the US Civil War, between 25% and 50% of all northerners (depending on which state) lived on small subsistence farms, with substantially lower standards of living than a typical Deep-South farmer. Northerners who lived in cities and worked in factories also endured living conditions certainly no better than average white Southerners.
Again, this is a misdirection. 25 - 50% is not the same as upwards of ~80% in the south. The reason that so many northern cities, today, are so large is because the factories attracted those people who couldn't or didn't want to farm. In addition, most major transportation routes were in the north. Trains were used to move both raw and manufactured goods across the northern tier of states whereas most agricultutal goods from the south were move by sailing ship, riverboat or river barge.
Whoever told you that was seriously pulling your leg, FRiend. There were no Federal price controls in the 1850s, and any state rules were certainly intended to benefit the ruling slave-holders.
My professor, a PHD in an Economic History class. In addition, the economies of both the north and the south were such that an increase in the cost of agricultural products would have been both inflationary and ill-advised. Given the economics of the period, agricultural products were priced at a level the market would bear. Northern cities always had the option of purchasing agricultural produce from Canada or Europe, an option that was less available to the south due to the costs involved.
All Founders' documents, without exception, treat their new Union as a "compact" like a good marriage, to be "perpetual", "more perfect" and dissolved only under conditions of mutual consent, or from "oppression" and "usurpations" amounting to the same thing. None wrote that secession "at pleasure" (meaning for no material reason) was acceptable.
Again, not true. Following the failure of the Articles of Confederation under which the newly formed U.S. of A. operated for ~the first 10 years after the Revolutionary War, the Founders were particularly sensitive to the issue of a functional government that would work FOR the people without becoming either a slave of the people or a tyrant over the people. The Founders knew too well the ills of a monarchy such as that found in western Europe of the day. As they began to create the Constitution, the assembled group knew only too well of the need to establish and maintain a careful balance, not only between the branches of government, but between the government and those who consented to be governed. Thus, the balance of power was woven throughout the articles of the Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights. When the question of secession was initially broached, several of the Founders acknowledged that secession by the states was always implied as part of the balance of power and they mentioned it in the Federalist Papers.
But only as a result of mutual consent or some material breach of contract like "oppression" and "usurpation", neither of which happened in 1860.
From the southern perspective, that breach of contract and usurpation was exactly what Lincoln was doing when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. The grounds were met to justify the south's secession.
The Union slowly geared up for war in 1861 because the Confederacy provoked, then started and formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
At the time the Confederates fired on Ft. Sumter, South Carolina had seceeded and joined the Confederacy. They asked the fort's commander to abandon ALL federal facilities in Charleston Harbor, which he refused to do. Given that SC no longer had any ties to the Union of the United States, the request was proper and appropriate. When the Union army refused to abandon its facilities, the Confederate army fired on them, particularly after a stealth effort by Lincoln to re-supply the fort using a merchant cargo ship.
While I am enjoying this discussion, we are clearly not going to change each other's opinions. I believe that there are two sides to the story and both sides believed that they had justification for the actions they took. The result is a chapter in American history that will always be embroiled in controversy because the very nature of the conflict pitted us against each other, just as it continues to do today.
Then you're not seeing the point.
I used the term "ante-bellum", would you rather I say "before 1860" instead?
The point is: before 1860, your average Southern farmer, particularly in the Deep South, was better off than his northern cousins, because of the benefits of slave-owning.
Slaves produced wealth in at least two ways: first by growing cash crops (i.e., cotton) more effectively than any other farming method, and second by being marketable as assets themselves.
And just as you might take out a home-equity loan on your house today, expecting it to increase in value, so slave-owners could borrow money on the increasing values of their slaves.
That's what made the South prosperous, and it's why they could not tolerate any discussion of subjects like abolition.
DustyMoment: "Again, this is a misdirection. 25 - 50% is not the same as upwards of ~80% in the south."
Yes, your figure of 80% applies in 1860, but only to Mississippi, while in Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri the number was closer to 50%, same as, say, Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnisota.
The number of farmers in Border States like Maryland and Delaware (25%) compare to those in Northern states like Illinois, Indiana and Ohio.
DustyMoment: "In addition, most major transportation routes were in the north.
Trains were used to move both raw and manufactured goods across the northern tier of states whereas most agricultutal goods from the south were move by sailing ship, riverboat or river barge."
It's wrong to think of the South as technologically backward in 1860.
Yes, there were fewer miles to train track than northern states, but a larger percentage of southerners living within reasonable commute to to them, according to some studies.
There was also serious manufacturing going on in Upper South and Border States -- Maryland and Tennessee most notably.
Of course, I'm not trying to exaggerate things, just provide perspective.
For example, Pennsylvania alone had more manufacturing than all Confederate states combined.
But the average Mississippi white family lived more comfortably than their relations in Pennsylvania.
So Southerners in 1860 knew they were well off, and knew the source of their wealth.
What they did not realize was how weak they would be in time of war.
And that lead them to make very foolish mis-judgments.
DustyMoment: "Given the economics of the period, agricultural products were priced at a level the market would bear."
And that is the point to remember, the rest of it is irrelevant or nonsense.
DustyMoment: "When the question of secession was initially broached, several of the Founders acknowledged that secession by the states was always implied as part of the balance of power and they mentioned it in the Federalist Papers."
In fact, the Founders never condoned secession "at pleasure", meaning without mutual consent or some serious material breach of contract like "oppression", "injury" or "usurpations."
But that is exactly what secessionists did do, beginning in 1860 they declared secession "at pleasure", with no efforts to achieve mutual consent or prove some constitutional breach of contract.
DustyMoment: "From the southern perspective, that breach of contract and usurpation was exactly what Lincoln was doing when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
The grounds were met to justify the south's secession."
Surely you've just temporarily "forgotten" that Lincoln was elected in November 1860 on a Republican platform which said nothing about emancipating slaves.
Within days Deep South slave-holders began the process to declare secession, and first did so on December 20, 1860.
That was 10 weeks before Lincoln's inauguration, must less his even thinking about emancipating anyone.
The Confederacy declared war on the United States on May 6, 1861, and Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation first issued 16 months later, on September 22, 1862.
So, I'm certain you remember now, that emancipating slaves in 1862 had nothing to do with declarations of secession in 1860, right?
DustyMoment: "When the Union army refused to abandon its facilities, the Confederate army fired on them, particularly after a stealth effort by Lincoln to re-supply the fort using a merchant cargo ship."
First of all, remember that Brits occupied forts in the US northwest territory for 30 years between the end of the Revolution and the War of 1812.
These British forts in US territory were never considered a cassus belli, US presidents never made demands or threats against them, never assaulted them.
What they did do was add those forts into negotiations for the 1812 War, 30 years later.
Second, any seizures of Federal property were acts of rebellion, insurrection and war against the United States.
Third, there was no "stealth effort by Lincoln" to resupply Fort Sumter because Lincoln officially notified South Carolina Governor Pickens it was coming.
But Pickens urged Jefferson Davis not to wait, and Davis started the Civil War before Lincoln's resupply arrived.
DustyMoment: "While I am enjoying this discussion, we are clearly not going to change each other's opinions."
But it's not your opinions which worry me nearly so much as the mis-information on which they are based.
That's what I'm hoping to help with... ;-)
There was no stealth in resupply of Ft. Sumter. Rather, Lincoln had corresponded with the governor of SC, to notify him, and Lincoln had out of good will, limited supplies to non-lethal items.
Based on that, SC fired on the ship and the fort.