Was the American Civil War Fought Over Slavery?
Options
Comments
-
NoIt was all about money. The southern economy was growing more powerful than the northern economy and was beginning to conduct international business without the consent of the north.
Lincoln was killed because European bankers with their hands in the American economy didn't like the fact that Lincoln created his own very effective currency -
probably more accurate to say "not ALL slaves were feed." because some definitely were.
True, but my thinking is that it would often be a slaves word versus a white man's on whether he was free or not. And the recapture of slaves was still an active business and free simply meant you weren't someones property. A blacks life still wasn't valued for ? . Plus the 13th amendment still hadn't be made yet, so there's nothing to protect them. Saying they were "free" with all that ? still on they shoulders... gives the wrong impression, IMO.
Initially, Lincoln allowed slavery to continue in the states, counties in virginia, and louisiana parishes that had remained loyal to the union. The only slaves that benefited from that war were the slaves that were "freed" prior to the EP or those living in confederate states if the union had won. It wasn't till later on that the offical "end of slavery" was said to be issued out as the law of the land. Right round the beginning of the construction period, I believe, nobody was to have slaves.
It's said that what the emancipation did was bring the issue to the forefront with the civil war, but it took at least another couple years for the government to outlaw it. The most immediate thing it did was allow slaves to serve in the military.
-
Yes
something tells me this will not (and probably cannot) be supported. because why would the Civil War be started by something logical like slavery when there is a MUCH more complicated and unsubstantiated theory out there?Lincoln was killed because European bankers with their hands in the American economy didn't like the fact that Lincoln created his own very effective currency
right, but this is less "the EP didn't free slaves" and more a digression on how ? up the situation remained in spite of it (which seems fair to point out, but still).True, but my thinking is that it would often be a slaves word versus a white man's on whether he was free or not. And the recapture of slaves was still an active business and free simply meant you weren't someones property. A blacks life still wasn't valued for ? . Plus the 13th amendment still hadn't be made yet, so there's nothing to protect them. Saying they were "free" with all that ? still on they shoulders... gives the wrong impression, IMO.
but to be fair, this was a LARGE percentage of the slaves. and i would submit that even though slavery was allowed to continue in some areas in a rump form, considering that Lincoln WAS elected in a more abolitionist vein, the fact that it was issued implied where slavery was headed as long as the Union DID win the war.Initially, Lincoln allowed slavery to continue in the states, counties in virginia, and louisiana parishes that had remained loyal to the union. The only slaves that benefited from that war were the slaves that were "freed" prior to the EP or those living in confederate states if the union had won.
and freed some of them (perhaps to serve in the military).It's said that what the emancipation did was bring the issue to the forefront with the civil war, but it took at least another couple years for the government to outlaw it. The most immediate thing it did was allow slaves to serve in the military.
-
YesIt was all about money. The southern economy was growing more powerful than the northern economy and was beginning to conduct international business without the consent of the north.
Lincoln was killed because European bankers with their hands in the American economy didn't like the fact that Lincoln created his own very effective currency
False. The southern slave agrarian economy was a barrier to northern industrial expansion due to the concentration of land and wealth.
Slave labor was becoming more and more unproductive due to small scale slave rebellions (like work slowdowns, breaking of tools and the like), slave labor also slowed the growth of modern technology..this made the southern economy weak.
Southern aristocrats wanted to protect their way of life, which was based on slave and large scale land ownership.
-
NoIt was all about money. The southern economy was growing more powerful than the northern economy and was beginning to conduct international business without the consent of the north.
Lincoln was killed because European bankers with their hands in the American economy didn't like the fact that Lincoln created his own very effective currency
False. The southern slave agrarian economy was a barrier to northern industrial expansion due to the concentration of land and wealth.
Slave labor was becoming more and more unproductive due to small scale slave rebellions (like work slowdowns, breaking of tools and the like), slave labor also slowed the growth of modern technology..this made the southern economy weak.
Southern aristocrats wanted to protect their way of life, which was based on slave and large scale land ownership.
Lol no the south could trade in raw materials where the north depended on factories to produce assembled products. Raw materials were more in demand on the world market especially from europe
And that theory is not unsubstantiated if you go do your research you'll see how well the greenbacks did in its time -
YesIt was all about money. The southern economy was growing more powerful than the northern economy and was beginning to conduct international business without the consent of the north.
Lincoln was killed because European bankers with their hands in the American economy didn't like the fact that Lincoln created his own very effective currency
False. The southern slave agrarian economy was a barrier to northern industrial expansion due to the concentration of land and wealth.
Slave labor was becoming more and more unproductive due to small scale slave rebellions (like work slowdowns, breaking of tools and the like), slave labor also slowed the growth of modern technology..this made the southern economy weak.
Southern aristocrats wanted to protect their way of life, which was based on slave and large scale land ownership.
Lol no the south could trade in raw materials where the north depended on factories to produce assembled products. Raw materials were more in demand on the world market especially from europe
And that theory is not unsubstantiated if you go do your research you'll see how well the greenbacks did in its time
Lol the "world market", I see what you did there. I'll get to that in a second but The north had great demand for it's manufactured products out west and elsewhere.
Now to your point about southern exports..while not totally wrong it actually tells everybody why the south lost not why the war was fought in the first place.
The South lost simply because it ran out money and couldn't continue. If what you are saying is true (that the south was some sort of economic powerhouse) then that factoid wouldn't be true...and yet it is.
The south lost because both England and France refused to intervene in the war by buying up bonds backed by cotton, without those bonds the south ran out of money and had to surrender.
You just said it yourself that the South's main economy was exporting (cotton) and that their major market was Europe (namely England & France) so you can't say this isn't true lol.
The south was dependent, not self-sufficient and that was its downfall. The north was self-sufficient already and needed to expand to new markets, markets that were...once again clogged with slave holding, landowning southern aristocrats.
Now if you don't believe me then I have several citations I suggest you look into:
One is here
another is The Political economy of slavery by Eugene Genovese
And yet another is the Ascent of Money by Niall Fergusson. -
NoIt was all about money. The southern economy was growing more powerful than the northern economy and was beginning to conduct international business without the consent of the north.
Lincoln was killed because European bankers with their hands in the American economy didn't like the fact that Lincoln created his own very effective currency
False. The southern slave agrarian economy was a barrier to northern industrial expansion due to the concentration of land and wealth.
Slave labor was becoming more and more unproductive due to small scale slave rebellions (like work slowdowns, breaking of tools and the like), slave labor also slowed the growth of modern technology..this made the southern economy weak.
Southern aristocrats wanted to protect their way of life, which was based on slave and large scale land ownership.
Lol no the south could trade in raw materials where the north depended on factories to produce assembled products. Raw materials were more in demand on the world market especially from europe
And that theory is not unsubstantiated if you go do your research you'll see how well the greenbacks did in its time
Lol the "world market", I see what you did there. I'll get to that in a second but The north had great demand for it's manufactured products out west and elsewhere.
Now to your point about southern exports..while not totally wrong it actually tells everybody why the south lost not why the war was fought in the first place.
The South lost simply because it ran out money and couldn't continue. If what you are saying is true (that the south was some sort of economic powerhouse) then that factoid wouldn't be true...and yet it is.
The south lost because both England and France refused to intervene in the war by buying up bonds backed by cotton, without those bonds the south ran out of money and had to surrender.
You just said it yourself that the South's main economy was exporting (cotton) and that their major market was Europe (namely England & France) so you can't say this isn't true lol.
The south was dependent, not self-sufficient and that was its downfall. The north was self-sufficient already and needed to expand to new markets, markets that were...once again clogged with slave holding, landowning southern aristocrats.
Now if you don't believe me then I have several citations I suggest you look into:
One is here
another is The Political economy of slavery by Eugene Genovese
And yet another is the Ascent of Money by Niall Fergusson.
Once again, this country was built off of the backs of the free labor of the slaves. This is a fact. Before the war started the south was an economic powerhouse. This is another fact. The reason the south ran out of money during the war is because jefferson davis created a currency that no one outside of the south recognized after being cut off from the north
And the bold doesn't make sense at all. Just because they were a prosperous at one point in the war that doesn't mean they would have remained prosperous, which is obviously something that didn't happen
And I think it's hilarious how you think slaves were "going out of style" at the time, yet slave labor still exists in the US through prison systems and the next best thing(uber cheap labor) is being given all kinds of extra benefits even if they aren't legal citizens. You know very well that this doesn't add up to what you're saying -
Yes
i would also add that, in the years subsequent, Northern military planning/prowess has been undersold and Southern military skills overrated. there WAS a serious military component to why the South lost.The South lost simply because it ran out money and couldn't continue. If what you are saying is true (that the south was some sort of economic powerhouse) then that factoid wouldn't be true...and yet it is.
The south lost because both England and France refused to intervene in the war by buying up bonds backed by cotton, without those bonds the south ran out of money and had to surrender.
-
NoIt was all about money. The southern economy was growing more powerful than the northern economy and was beginning to conduct international business without the consent of the north.
Lincoln was killed because European bankers with their hands in the American economy didn't like the fact that Lincoln created his own very effective currency
False. The southern slave agrarian economy was a barrier to northern industrial expansion due to the concentration of land and wealth.
Slave labor was becoming more and more unproductive due to small scale slave rebellions (like work slowdowns, breaking of tools and the like), slave labor also slowed the growth of modern technology..this made the southern economy weak.
Southern aristocrats wanted to protect their way of life, which was based on slave and large scale land ownership.
Lol no the south could trade in raw materials where the north depended on factories to produce assembled products. Raw materials were more in demand on the world market especially from europe
And that theory is not unsubstantiated if you go do your research you'll see how well the greenbacks did in its time
Lol the "world market", I see what you did there. I'll get to that in a second but The north had great demand for it's manufactured products out west and elsewhere.
Now to your point about southern exports..while not totally wrong it actually tells everybody why the south lost not why the war was fought in the first place.
The South lost simply because it ran out money and couldn't continue. If what you are saying is true (that the south was some sort of economic powerhouse) then that factoid wouldn't be true...and yet it is.
The south lost because both England and France refused to intervene in the war by buying up bonds backed by cotton, without those bonds the south ran out of money and had to surrender.
You just said it yourself that the South's main economy was exporting (cotton) and that their major market was Europe (namely England & France) so you can't say this isn't true lol.
The south was dependent, not self-sufficient and that was its downfall. The north was self-sufficient already and needed to expand to new markets, markets that were...once again clogged with slave holding, landowning southern aristocrats.
Now if you don't believe me then I have several citations I suggest you look into:
One is here
another is The Political economy of slavery by Eugene Genovese
And yet another is the Ascent of Money by Niall Fergusson.
Chill with the rhetoric,man... Its silly to think anyone can run out of money when they have free laborers. Its a very simple concept.
