Origins of slavery in the US

[exnihilo]

So lemme get this straight. The Southern economy which was agricultural and slave based was paying a disproportionate share of the Federal Government’s expenses. So the Union fought the war to bring that revenue back and then amended the Constitution for a 13th time, completely destroying the Southern economy and the tax base. Yep, that makes perfect sense.

A consistent problem when discussing this topic is people trying to simplify history. There were many reasons for the Union waging war on the CSA. But I’m pretty sure one of the was to acquire wealth. Do you not believe most conflicts are about money?

The Southern economy would have been harmed by the sudden end of slavery, especially if masters were not compensated. But what really destroyed the Southern economy was a foreign nation waging war on it which included destroying whole cities by fire, a war crime if ever there was one. After the war the Southern economy was harmed through military occupation, disenfranchisement and in other ways.

In many ways the war harmed the South, but that did not prevent the North from gaining an advantage in fighting the war, winning, and enforcing a harsh peace.

Btw, at the time Maryland legislature was discussing secession, the Civil War had already begun. Thus the legislature attempting to commit treason, which is one of the 3 crimes mentioned in the Constitution.

You are free to think that it is treasonous for the states to secede. But having such an opinion means you are against political self determination. If your opinion is true then the US is a nation of traitors and the American Revolution treason.

It just does not make sense to think that the Union wanted to seize wealth from the South.
Without slaves the South turned into a “dust bowl”. If the Union was a greedy conqueror it would have to re-instate slavery. No it wasn’t about wealth.

As I asked above, do you not think most wars are about money? Really, how many wars have ever been fought over principles? It is true that politicians proclaim righteous causes as justification for their wars, but we shouldn’t believe them, either in the past or today.

 

[starshiptrooper]

A consistent problem when discussing this topic is people trying to simplify history. There were many reasons for the Union waging war on the CSA. But I’m pretty sure one of the was to acquire wealth. Do you not believe most conflicts are about money?

I judge wars on a case by case basis. If the Union really wanted to restore a source of money, they would have both fought and concluded the war differently.

You are free to think that it is treasonous for the states to secede. But having such an opinion means you are against political self determination. If your opinion is true then the US is a nation of traitors and the American Revolution treason.

This is not a question of opinion; it is a question of fact. Here is the relevant section of the Constitution, Article III Section 3. “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

Now for a quick look at the relevant circumstances. At the time the Maryland legislature was debating secession and joining the CSA, the CSA had already started the war by attacking Fort Sumter. Thus the CSA was an enemy of the USA. Therefore if Maryland joined the CSA, it would be adhering to the enemies of the United States. So no matter how you slice and dice it, the Maryland legislature was committing attempted treason.

As for your point about political self-determination, it might have some validity if the CSA was not completely hypocritical about it. What political self-determination did they give to their slaves? What political self-determination did they give to the section of Tennessee that tried to secede? Why did they attempt to take over West Virginia?

 

[starshiptrooper]

If Maryland had left the Union, Washington DC would have been encircaled and would not have been the Capital of the Union very long.

I do not deny the tactical reasons to prevent Maryland’s secession, but as I pointed out, there were also reasons which justified the arrest of the legislature, such as the fact that they were committing a crime.

As for slavery, the Northern supporters of it were glad for the raw products (cotton, sugar, tobaco) that the South produced.

As for slavery, the Northern abolitionists were horrified by the barbarism the South inflicted.

 

[tabycat]

I do not deny the tactical reasons to prevent Maryland’s secession, but as I pointed out, there were also reasons which justified the arrest of the legislature, such as the fact that they were committing a crime.As for slavery, the Northern abolitionists were horrified by the barbarism the South inflicted.

And what ‘wage slaves’ had it any better in the North? It was not uncommon to have 10 to 14 year old children working in the mines, factories, milles, farms, millitary, and plants in the North during the that time, under condutions just as bad as slaves were keeped in the south.

 

[on_the_hill]

But what really destroyed the Southern economy was a foreign nation waging war on it which included destroying whole cities by fire, a war crime if ever there was one.

You state this as if it were true. It’s completely bogus to refer to the U.S. as a foreign nation.

As for the consequences: The weed of crime bears bitter fruit.

They weren’t victims–they were perpetrators.

 

[starshiptrooper]

And what ‘wage slaves’ had it any better in the North? It was not uncommon to have 10 to 14 year old children working in the mines, factories, milles, farms, millitary, and plants in the North during the that time, under condutions just as bad as slaves were keeped in the south.

So Southern slaves had it better than Northern factory workers? Please tell me more about the plantations voluntarily staffed by unionized slaves who could vote.

 

[on_the_hill]

So Southern slaves had it better than Northern factory workers?

Of course they did. Haven’t you imagined hearing the beautiful harmonies rising up out of the cotton fields as the happy slaves sang all those heartfelt and uplifting Spirituals? And all that good ol’ Southern cooking!

 

[starshiptrooper]

Of course they did. Haven’t you imagined hearing the beautiful harmonies rising up out of the cotton fields as the happy slaves sang all those heartfelt and uplifting Spirituals? And all that good ol’ Southern cooking!

It reminds me of this clip from American Carol.

youtube.com/watch?v=ITSnGSsdF5A

 

[tabycat]

So Southern slaves had it better than Northern factory workers? Please tell me more about the plantations voluntarily staffed by unionized slaves who could vote.

Please read what I posted I did not say that the slaves, in any of the slave states North or South were unionized or could vote. Maybe you think that working in a coal mine, in the North, at the age of 13 was easy or working on a ship as a cabin boy or being a 13 or 14 year old drummer in the Union army (pick your battle).

 

[tabycat]

Of course they did. Haven’t you imagined hearing the beautiful harmonies rising up out of the cotton fields as the happy slaves sang all those heartfelt and uplifting Spirituals? And all that good ol’ Southern cooking!

Where has anybody on this thread have said that? Except for you.

 

[BrassAnkles]

Their was nothing romantic about the Old South that was built on the backs of innocent men who were treated as animals.

As the Bible tells us God hears the call of the poor and will vanquish those who oppress them. In this case God spoke and He punished the Southern States of the US - and He didn’t do it because of “self determination”, but because what they were doing was evil, nothing more.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Please read what I posted I did not say that the slaves, in any of the slave states North or South were unionized or could vote. Maybe you think that working in a coal mine, in the North, at the age of 13 was easy or working on a ship as a cabin boy or being a 13 or 14 year old drummer in the Union army (pick your battle).

You claimed conditions in the North and the South were equally bad whether you were a slave or a laborer in the North. This is manifestly false as Northern laborers had the vote, a free market, and the opportunity to unionize. In essence, the North’s freer system was self-correcting in contrast to the South which relied heavily on government to prop up slavery.

 

[Catholic_farmer]

The Civil War has so many perspectives. We haven’t fully worked out all the reasons we went to war in Iraq and that is within all of our recent memory. Is it any wonder that we are still debate about what happened in the Civil War?

It seems like there was a great divergence between the North and the South for decades before trigger events pushed into the Civil War. Could it ever happen again? We are at another divergence between Democrats and Republicans. What would happen if it deteriorated even further? We need a unifying president. I hope and pray that will happen in 2016.

 

[exnihilo]

As for your point about political self-determination, it might have some validity if the CSA was not completely hypocritical about it. What political self-determination did they give to their slaves? What political self-determination did they give to the section of Tennessee that tried to secede? Why did they attempt to take over West Virginia?

Governments, all governments at all times, do not really support political self determination. It is absolutely true that Confederate states did not support self determination of areas in their existing dominion. But that is really irrelevant. What is relevant is was the Union justified in waging war on the South simply because they chose to end their ties? The Confederate states can be wrong in what they did. But it was the Union effort that led to 600,000 dead and entire cities burnt to the ground.

Also I’d add regarding WV that state was created in violation of the constitution which is rather explicit in how a state can be created from another state. According to the constitution the state’s government has to approve the division. This did not happen with WV. If the Union was so diligent about following the constitution WV should not be a state.

You state this as if it were true. It’s completely bogus to refer to the U.S. as a foreign nation.

If the states are sovereign then the US was a foreign nation. If the US is a blood in, blood out gang then it would be bogus.

As the Bible tells us God hears the call of the poor and will vanquish those who oppress them. In this case God spoke and He punished the Southern States of the US - and He didn’t do it because of “self determination”, but because what they were doing was evil, nothing more.

So you know the mind of God? Maybe he did punish the South. I wonder what the North and West Coast will get for promoting abortion, homosexuality and same sex marriage. If the South were independent, ceteris paribus, all those would be illegal in her territory.

You claimed conditions in the North and the South were equally bad whether you were a slave or a laborer in the North. This is manifestly false as Northern laborers had the vote, a free market, and the opportunity to unionize. In essence, the North’s freer system was self-correcting in contrast to the South which relied heavily on government to prop up slavery.

Measuring badness is difficult. But certainly you would agree that the North tried to exploit labor. If it took the force of government to end slavery it also took the force of government to end the various explorations of labor in the North. How were the railroads built? Did the North take advantage of poor, hungry immigrant labor? The railroads were built with a close association between corporations and the government with advantage being given to the corporations by the state. The point is the history of the US is not of one vilely evil region and one pure and holy region.

 

[BrassAnkles]

God gave us the Bible so that we can understand His will and the consequences of good and evil.

If the South seceded now for the reasons you state, God would be with them. Good is not inherent to any particular region or group of persons. Only the Jews can claim to be called chosen, and Americans aren’t Jews, ie America has no birthright and her blessings are dependent on her actions, nothing more and nothing less. It’s in the Bible.

 

[tabycat]

Their was nothing romantic about the Old South that was built on the backs of innocent men who were treated as animals.

As the Bible tells us God hears the call of the poor and will vanquish those who oppress them. In this case God spoke and He punished the Southern States of the US - and He didn’t do it because of “self determination”, but because what they were doing was evil, nothing more.

I did not say that slavery, North or South, was romantic. Do you think that coughing your lungs out from black lung at age 30 because you were working in a coal mine from age 12 is 'romantic? Or working in the family farm fields at age 10 or 12 and treated as a slave by your parents ‘romantic’? If you do, you should have a talk with a young man named named Abe Lincoln. Or, maybe you would like to be Irish just new to the USA and not be able to get work because “No Irish Need Apply”? Two of my great-grandfathers had to go through that.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Governments, all governments at all times, do not really support political self determination. It is absolutely true that Confederate states did not support self determination of areas in their existing dominion. But that is really irrelevant.

If political self-determination is irrelevant, then why did you bring it up?

What is relevant is was the Union justified in waging war on the South simply because they chose to end their ties? The Confederate states can be wrong in what they did. But it was the Union effort that led to 600,000 dead and entire cities burnt to the ground.

Wrong, the South started the war. Who fired on Fort Sumter again?

Also I’d add regarding WV that state was created in violation of the constitution which is rather explicit in how a state can be created from another state. According to the constitution the state’s government has to approve the division. This did not happen with WV. If the Union was so diligent about following the constitution WV should not be a state.

You cannot have it both ways. You claimed the CSA was a foreign nation. Thus, you cannot bring up the Constitution. Besides, it just goes to show the hypocrisy of the South.

Measuring badness is difficult. But certainly you would agree that the North tried to exploit labor. If it took the force of government to end slavery it also took the force of government to end the various explorations of labor in the North. How were the railroads built? Did the North take advantage of poor, hungry immigrant labor? The railroads were built with a close association between corporations and the government with advantage being given to the corporations by the state. The point is the history of the US is not of one vilely evil region and one pure and holy region.

I did not raise this issue, you did. So why make a claim about the relative badness possessed by both sides and then when you get hit with the facts, back down to the position that we cannot differentiate between a free if flawed economy and a barbarous system that enslaved nearly half of it’s population?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoltan Cobalt View Post
It just does not make sense to think that the Union wanted to seize wealth from the South.
Without slaves the South turned into a “dust bowl”. If the Union was a greedy conqueror it would have to re-instate slavery. No it wasn’t about wealth.

I must agree with you about wars being fought for money. While the Union supported a noble righteous cause and there is no evidence that the Union profited from the Civil War; … the feudal South was forced to fight to retain slavery as it was the backbone of its economy.

 

[tabycat]

You claimed conditions in the North and the South were equally bad whether you were a slave or a laborer in the North. This is manifestly false as Northern laborers had the vote, a free market, and the opportunity to unionize. In essence, the North’s freer system was self-correcting in contrast to the South which relied heavily on government to prop up slavery.

Many Northern laborers did not have a vote becouse of age (to young like 10 to 15) or sex (female inclulded, at any age, with children and slaves) or other legal reason (like just ‘off the boat’). As for ‘the opportunity to unionize’, the unions, before the 1870’s, were non existed; it was not like it is to day in 2014 or even back in the 1960’s and '70’s.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I must agree with you about wars being fought for money. While the Union supported a noble righteous cause and there is no evidence that the Union profited from the Civil War; … the feudal South was forced to fight to retain slavery as it was the backbone of its economy.

But is this true?

Without defending slavery or wage slavery either one, there was a virtual explosion of enterprise in the north during and after the Civil War.

The south was not so much feudal as it was simply agrarian. Few owned slaves. Most of the free population consisted in “yeoman farmers” who owned small acreages and farmed for subsistence and some modest cash. Slavery was not the backbone of the economy. It was, rather, the backbone of the “agribusiness” of the time and place.

As wealthy as southern planters must have seemed to their fellow citizens and slaves at the time, their wealth did not begin to equal equal that of the wealthy industrialists and merchants in the north.