Morons who believe the civil war wasn't about slavery

[marsupial]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Of course, you are excepting Virginia from this.

The South with rise again!

[woot]

Yea when I lived in Louisiana it was the "war of northern aggression." It's crazy how southerners can so lament the end of slavery. That was 20 years ago or so now, so maybe things have settled down a bit.

Also, what's up with Wyoming in that picture?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

On another note, what explains Utah being the Alabama of the west I wonder.

I am guessing that it is at least partly due to the fact that we lead the league in # kids per household. Thus our denominator is higher.

[K-dog]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I see what you mean. Clearly, the agrarian states had economies based on slavery and that ended. I have no doubt that the many of them historically are less wealthy than their northern counter parts as a result of this. Still, that was a long time ago and as my map shows several of those states have pulled them selves while not all of the northern states have done so.

So, basically I think the thesis as I understand it was asserted is right. I am curious to know what is meant by "carry" however. I assume that means some kind of transfer of wealth?

On another note, what explains Utah being the Alabama of the west I wonder.

I consider the federal subsidy and various housing/welfare programs being disproportionately applied to poor states at the cost of northern states to be carrying.

I think Utah's place as Alabama of the West is a result of a stubborn preference and reliance on an agrarian lifestyle late into the 20th century as evidenced by the predominance of gardens in every suburban yard.

[Clark Addison]

When I was in High School, the Civil War was generally explained as being caused by a number of causes, such as states rights or economic issues, with Slavery being a minor component. I was very surprised then, when I started reading real history books and first-hand material, and slavery was almost the only thing that everyone was talking about from 1835 or so onward. It wasn't state rights, it was the rights of southern states to have slaves. It wasn't economic issues, it was the fear of southern states that their economies would be destroyed with the abolition of slavery. Almost every cause was tied very closely to the question of slavery.

Slavery was not the only issue, but it was the clear number 1. Take slavery out of the equation, and succession doesn't happen. There isn't anything else that you can say that about.

[All-American]

It was slavery. There's no way around it. You take slavery out of the picture, and nobody in the south wants to fight the war.

I'm doing a study right now on East Tennessee, where the isolation and rough terrain discouraged cash crop farming, which meant fewer slaves. The rest of the south had a slave population of roughly 33%, while East Tennessee had a population of about 10%. They were just as interested in defending their homes, rights, liberties, etc. as any other Confederate, but they sided with the Union by a ratio of about 4:1. Even those who did side with the Confederacy generally had significant economic ties to the South, or even political ties-- about 80% of the officers in the Tennessee 19th Regiment, which fought for the South, were Democrats.

You take slavery out of the equation, and they have no dog in the fight. Simple as that.

[SeattleUte]

If AA and I agree it must be the right answer.

I think we can settle the dispute over Virginia if we can agree that Northern Virginia is no longer part of "the South." Just as Europe and Asia represent more of a cultural than a geographic divide, North and South during the Civil War and since is more a cultural than a geographic phenomenon.

[creekster]

Yes, but was it slavery as an issue of human rights or was it slavery as an economic issue?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by creekster

Yes, but was it slavery as an issue of human rights or was it slavery as an economic issue?

Does it matter?

I think it was both.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Yes, but was it slavery as an issue of human rights or was it slavery as an economic issue?

Economic issue to the North?

I think the North wanted to abolish slavery because largely the North was moral and righteous, and the South wanted to preserve slavery because its leaders were immoral or amoral and for financial reasons. The pressure brought to bear on the South by the North caused the South to plot secession, and Lincoln's election was the straw that broke the camels back.

I think it was mainly an economic issue with the Southern gentry. Probably the North could not have won the war had the South scorched the earth like the Russians fought Napoleon and the Bolsheviks fought Hitler. I don't think the Southern cause was supported at that kind of grass roots level, which is why the South failed and the North accomplished something quite extraordinary, i.e., permanently subjugate such a huge land mass and millions of people. Consider also that for much of the war Lincoln's political mandate for the war was not strong which is why he nearly lost the second term election to McClellon.