Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7401272" data-attributes="member: 16814">We're going to have to agree to disagree.  The moral nature of slavery was, at best, a bottom tier reason for the war.  You touched on the one of the primary reasons, but didn't fully explore it -- the political power of the slave states due to the 3/5th compromise.  The North wanted to prevent more slave states because the slave states wielded undue political power because of how the 3/5th rule worked to allow the South control of the House.  More slave states would continue this trend, and the North desperately wanted to pass legislation that aided the non-slave states economically and politically but were halted by the slave states.  Economically, the South still brought in the lion's share of the money through trade.  As I noted, a decade or so would have inverted this, but, at the time of the war, the South was a prize economically.  The value of the slave economy was greater than the entire industrialized footprint of the whole Union at the time of the civil war and cotton prices were soaring.  The South was an economic powerhouse that was larger than the North.  However, the basis of that wealth was very different, and, as you note, the result of the war was largely due to the basis of the economy.  The slave-agrarian economy of the South was ill-suited to support a war and continue to make money, while the industrializing economy of the North could.  But, no, sorry, the South was a huge economy and the split incurred huge losses in income for the government due to the loss of the cotton trade.  It was imperative that the value be retained AND that a strong competitor for westward expansion be curtailed.  The preservation of the Union, while high on Lincoln's personal values, wasn't a strong reason for the rest of the Union to engage in a shooting war with the South.And, to go back to the moral issue of slavery, abolitionists were a small fraction of the political movement in the North.  Lincoln himself held rather, um, distasteful views on the issue of slavery and was against abolition.  Over the course of the war, he moved greatly, but when he started the war the ending of slavery was not one of his objectives.  The Proclamation, as a matter of fact, was a PR and psy-ops effort rather than a statement of moral clarity.So, population pressure -- the core crux of the political argument over slavery was westward expansion, something that the US was very keen on to move more population into more gainful use.  The conflict was how that was to be used, but more free men (and therefore more individual use) or by the continuing of the African slave trade and the slave-economy, which limited the gainful use of free men by it's nature.  This was the crux of the war -- how the country would expand westward, and population pressure is central to that crux.Again, slavery is bad, the South needed to lose the war, and whatever other caveats are needed to excuse a dry and distasteful examination of the Civil War and it's complex causes.Bad pool to dismiss examples against your thesis so cavalierly.But, sure, let's look at history.  You've picked four great examples.  Was Rome wealthy before it began it's conquests, or was it made wealthy by it's conquests?  Same with Athens, same with the US, same with Britain (although Britain is a lousy example of a newly wealthy Republic).  Athens started the Peloponnesian War, sure, but it was going to happen anyway.  The US was expansive, but didn't eat any smaller countries except the Native American nations, who were, bluntly, not capable of competing due to the difference between a Stone Age culture and an industrialized culture.  Not excusing the abuses, but there's limited use in describing US Westward expansion as going to war with other countries.  Yes, we fought the Spanish, but, at the time, both countries were engaged in rapid expansion into the same territory -- ie competing militarily for the same new resources.  Hard to describe that as a war of aggression on an established other country when the difference in arrival was measured in years and both were killing natives to grab the land, yeah?  Britain, on the other hand, well, not sure how you call a country with that much history new.  Did their massive colonization efforts reap huge rewards?  Sure, but Britain didn't do that in a vacuum -- the rest of Europe was involved in a massive worldwide land grab at the same time.  Britain came out on top, but, then, someone had to.  This kinda goes back to the US early year wars -- they were all with other colonial powers all engaged in wars of acquisition against native cultures.  You're picking on the winners and holding them up as if they're special examples of how some new countries that are rich start wars, but, really, they were in wars with other countries and just happened to be the winners and thereby got rich.  So, sure, I'll squint and give you Rome and Athens, go halves on the US (it was at least new), and say nope on Britain.  China's (and the rest of SE Asia, recall) are still on my example list unless you have a breaking news story to share?</blockquote>

Verification