I think there has been a lot of cross talk about this topic. I'd like to put together a list of what people think were the reasons why the war was fought. I'm hoping there are no value judgements about which side was right or wrong. We've had plenty enough of those types of threads. I'm hoping to see a more clinical discussion about the merits of the causes themselves - not emotional reactions to whether a symbol should be banned from view. I'm sure that 100% of the people on this forum would agree that slavery is morally repugnant and is indefensible today. Also, I think everyone would agree that black people were viewed as less than human by the majority of people in both the slave and free states in the 1860s. Please, let's get those 2 facts out of the way. It is what it is, so there's no debate on those items. Here is what I understand to be the root causes of the war.
- Slavery - The abolitionist movement was very strong in the north. With that plus the prohibitions to slavery in Europe, the north felt pressure to prevent the spread of slavery.
- Income redistribution - The south at that time was the primary means by which capital flowed into the U.S. The northern manufacturing base was in its infancy, and as such tariffs were enacted to help protect the manufacturing sector of the U.S. The south thought this was a wealth transfer by preventing them from buying cheaper goods from Britain.
- Loss of influence in the Federal Gov't - The south was losing the population battle with the north on 2 fronts: 1) the north was growing in population faster and 2) curbs on allowing new territories to become slave states was effective.
That's how I understand it. I did not explicitly state states rights, because I think that is heavily contingent upon the slavery issue. I also understand that southerners were opposed to the laws that northerners enacted that prohibited the transportation of slaves through free territory, the importation of slaves, and the loss of the value they invested in a slave whenever a slave successfully escaped into a free territory.
Regarding trade, I'm not sure if the south thought states rights were violated via the tariffs. Honestly, I'm not sure if the south thought it had the right to negotiate its own trade deals, i.e. Georgia making trade agreements with Britain for example. I thought that was against the Constitution and that the trade deals could only be between the U.S. and foreign countries.
(07-10-2015 01:10 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]Slavery
Shortened Department of Education version.
(07-10-2015 01:17 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2015 01:10 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]Slavery
Shortened Department of Education version.
I expanded the slavery bullet. Am I missing anything? I'm trying to get everyone's knowledge out in the open. And maybe there are a few things that I don't know about the war that I could learn. There's no gotcha plan on my end.
- Preventing people occupying new territories to vote on the matter of slavery
- Violation of property rights by not enforcing the return of slaves to their rightful owners if a slave escapes to a free territory
- Prohibition from importing slaves from abroad
- Denying a property owner the right to move his/her slaves through a territory that's designated as free
I would not argue against your points.
(07-10-2015 01:17 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2015 01:10 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]Slavery
Shortened Department of Education version.
I went to school in NY and our textbooks said states rights.
Importing slaves was prohibited in 1808. It wasn't a cause for the war.
Internal improvements. North wanted Federal govt. to fund and construct internal improvements to advance industry. The agrarian South had little interest in paying for that.
(07-10-2015 01:10 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]I think there has been a lot of cross talk about this topic. I'd like to put together a list of what people think were the reasons why the war was fought. I'm hoping there are no value judgements about which side was right or wrong. We've had plenty enough of those types of threads. I'm hoping to see a more clinical discussion about the merits of the causes themselves - not emotional reactions to whether a symbol should be banned from view. I'm sure that 100% of the people on this forum would agree that slavery is morally repugnant and is indefensible today. Also, I think everyone would agree that black people were viewed as less than human by the majority of people in both the slave and free states in the 1860s. Please, let's get those 2 facts out of the way. It is what it is, so there's no debate on those items. Here is what I understand to be the root causes of the war.
- Slavery - The abolitionist movement was very strong in the north. With that plus the prohibitions to slavery in Europe, the north felt pressure to prevent the spread of slavery.
- Income redistribution - The south at that time was the primary means by which capital flowed into the U.S. The northern manufacturing base was in its infancy, and as such tariffs were enacted to help protect the manufacturing sector of the U.S. The south thought this was a wealth transfer by preventing them from buying cheaper goods from Britain.
- Loss of influence in the Federal Gov't - The south was losing the population battle with the north on 2 fronts: 1) the north was growing in population faster and 2) curbs on allowing new territories to become slave states was effective.
That's how I understand it. I did not explicitly state states rights, because I think that is heavily contingent upon the slavery issue. I also understand that southerners were opposed to the laws that northerners enacted that prohibited the transportation of slaves through free territory, the importation of slaves, and the loss of the value they invested in a slave whenever a slave successfully escaped into a free territory.
Regarding trade, I'm not sure if the south thought states rights were violated via the tariffs. Honestly, I'm not sure if the south thought it had the right to negotiate its own trade deals, i.e. Georgia making trade agreements with Britain for example. I thought that was against the Constitution and that the trade deals could only be between the U.S. and foreign countries.
No. Stupidity caused the Civil War.
/thread
(07-10-2015 01:48 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2015 01:17 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2015 01:10 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]Slavery
Shortened Department of Education version.
I went to school in NY and our textbooks said states rights.
Same for us. Our history teacher told us that slavery was not the primary cause of the war, but state rights was.
The people of the south were not and did not take up arms so that a few rich white and black slave owners could continue to own slaves.
(07-10-2015 01:58 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2015 01:48 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2015 01:17 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2015 01:10 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]Slavery
Shortened Department of Education version.
I went to school in NY and our textbooks said states rights.
Same for us. Our history teacher told us that slavery was not the primary cause of the war, but state rights was.
We may have been told that as well. But I think the other items could have been compromised on. Slavery was the biggest issue regarding states rights.
(07-10-2015 01:56 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2015 01:10 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]I think there has been a lot of cross talk about this topic. I'd like to put together a list of what people think were the reasons why the war was fought. I'm hoping there are no value judgements about which side was right or wrong. We've had plenty enough of those types of threads. I'm hoping to see a more clinical discussion about the merits of the causes themselves - not emotional reactions to whether a symbol should be banned from view. I'm sure that 100% of the people on this forum would agree that slavery is morally repugnant and is indefensible today. Also, I think everyone would agree that black people were viewed as less than human by the majority of people in both the slave and free states in the 1860s. Please, let's get those 2 facts out of the way. It is what it is, so there's no debate on those items. Here is what I understand to be the root causes of the war.
- Slavery - The abolitionist movement was very strong in the north. With that plus the prohibitions to slavery in Europe, the north felt pressure to prevent the spread of slavery.
- Income redistribution - The south at that time was the primary means by which capital flowed into the U.S. The northern manufacturing base was in its infancy, and as such tariffs were enacted to help protect the manufacturing sector of the U.S. The south thought this was a wealth transfer by preventing them from buying cheaper goods from Britain.
- Loss of influence in the Federal Gov't - The south was losing the population battle with the north on 2 fronts: 1) the north was growing in population faster and 2) curbs on allowing new territories to become slave states was effective.
That's how I understand it. I did not explicitly state states rights, because I think that is heavily contingent upon the slavery issue. I also understand that southerners were opposed to the laws that northerners enacted that prohibited the transportation of slaves through free territory, the importation of slaves, and the loss of the value they invested in a slave whenever a slave successfully escaped into a free territory.
Regarding trade, I'm not sure if the south thought states rights were violated via the tariffs. Honestly, I'm not sure if the south thought it had the right to negotiate its own trade deals, i.e. Georgia making trade agreements with Britain for example. I thought that was against the Constitution and that the trade deals could only be between the U.S. and foreign countries.
No. Stupidity caused the Civil War.
/thread
Concur. All other nations found a way to peaceably end slavery save America.
States rights was the underlying cause of seccesssion. The issue of slavery in the context of states rights was a tipping point. The cause of the war itself was the refusal of the federal government to recognize the confederate states and leave Fort Sumter.
(07-10-2015 01:52 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]Internal improvements. North wanted Federal govt. to fund and construct internal improvements to advance industry. The agrarian South had little interest in paying for that.
That's why it appears that the south thought the Fed gov't was using southern tax receipts to fund northern interests. The north did not export many goods because British goods were superior in quality and cheaper costs. The south was the primary export engine at the time. With that being said, the U.S. suffered a persistent balance of payments problem over the majority of the time period from 1820 to 1860. While overall, the southern way of life was great at the time, the overall country was going to lose over the long term. In particular, I believe had the CSA won its independence and it continued in the model of being an exporter of agricultural products, it would have lost in the long term on balance of payment issues and the outflow of gold and silver. What it would have sold as unfinished agricultural goods would come back as more expensive finished goods from Europe.
Interesting paper on the subject.
http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2491.pdf
(07-10-2015 01:49 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]Importing slaves was prohibited in 1808. It wasn't a cause for the war.
What does importing slaves have to do with owning slaves?
(07-10-2015 02:12 PM)EverRespect Wrote: [ -> ]States rights was the underlying cause of seccesssion. The issue of slavery in the context of states rights was a tipping point. The cause of the war itself was the refusal of the federal government to recognize the confederate states and leave Fort Sumter.
It was only about states rights insofar as the state right they were almost entirely worried about was slavery. No civil war is fought for a single reason or cause, but that doesn't mean we should really mince words here. They seceded over slavery, and issues derived from slavery.
(07-10-2015 02:21 PM)Hitch Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2015 01:49 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]Importing slaves was prohibited in 1808. It wasn't a cause for the war.
What does importing slaves have to do with owning slaves?
I was responding to a bullet point saying that opposition to importing slaves was a cause of the Civil War.
It was not since that had been prohibited since 1808.
Where you took it from there, I have no idea.
(07-10-2015 02:08 PM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2015 01:56 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2015 01:10 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]I think there has been a lot of cross talk about this topic. I'd like to put together a list of what people think were the reasons why the war was fought. I'm hoping there are no value judgements about which side was right or wrong. We've had plenty enough of those types of threads. I'm hoping to see a more clinical discussion about the merits of the causes themselves - not emotional reactions to whether a symbol should be banned from view. I'm sure that 100% of the people on this forum would agree that slavery is morally repugnant and is indefensible today. Also, I think everyone would agree that black people were viewed as less than human by the majority of people in both the slave and free states in the 1860s. Please, let's get those 2 facts out of the way. It is what it is, so there's no debate on those items. Here is what I understand to be the root causes of the war.
- Slavery - The abolitionist movement was very strong in the north. With that plus the prohibitions to slavery in Europe, the north felt pressure to prevent the spread of slavery.
- Income redistribution - The south at that time was the primary means by which capital flowed into the U.S. The northern manufacturing base was in its infancy, and as such tariffs were enacted to help protect the manufacturing sector of the U.S. The south thought this was a wealth transfer by preventing them from buying cheaper goods from Britain.
- Loss of influence in the Federal Gov't - The south was losing the population battle with the north on 2 fronts: 1) the north was growing in population faster and 2) curbs on allowing new territories to become slave states was effective.
That's how I understand it. I did not explicitly state states rights, because I think that is heavily contingent upon the slavery issue. I also understand that southerners were opposed to the laws that northerners enacted that prohibited the transportation of slaves through free territory, the importation of slaves, and the loss of the value they invested in a slave whenever a slave successfully escaped into a free territory.
Regarding trade, I'm not sure if the south thought states rights were violated via the tariffs. Honestly, I'm not sure if the south thought it had the right to negotiate its own trade deals, i.e. Georgia making trade agreements with Britain for example. I thought that was against the Constitution and that the trade deals could only be between the U.S. and foreign countries.
No. Stupidity caused the Civil War.
/thread
Concur. All other nations found a way to peaceably end slavery save America.
You may think this is odd, but it's been my belief that the biggest issue that resulted in the war was economics. Specifically, the tariff on European goods and the anger the south felt about subsidizing the north. While slavery was a part of it, I think the south felt more threatened by the economics, i.e. interfering with the ability of the south to trade freely with Europe.
(07-10-2015 02:21 PM)Hitch Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2015 01:49 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]Importing slaves was prohibited in 1808. It wasn't a cause for the war.
What does importing slaves have to do with owning slaves?
Nothing. I mentioned it early in the thread. Not sure if it would have been a factor or not. If the south was given more free reign within the context of slavery, would it have desired to resume the importation of slaves from Africa? Granted, there was a large enough of a population of slaves in the south that it probably makes it a moot point and that the children of slaves were enough to keep the system humming.
(07-10-2015 02:28 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2015 02:21 PM)Hitch Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2015 01:49 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]Importing slaves was prohibited in 1808. It wasn't a cause for the war.
What does importing slaves have to do with owning slaves?
Nothing. I mentioned it early in the thread. Not sure if it would have been a factor or not. If the south was given more free reign within the context of slavery, would it have desired to resume the importation of slaves from Africa? Granted, there was a large enough of a population of slaves in the south that it probably makes it a moot point and that the children of slaves were enough to keep the system humming.
I don't think there was much interest in restarting importation. In fact, I think there was starting to be concern in some quarters about too many to control.
Especially the fear of northern "agitators" egging on a slave rebellion.
There was interest in expanding outward though...such as Cuba.