On the contrary, the South dominated the Union for decades; of the first 5 Presidents, 4 were Virginia slaveowners. The South demanded that their slaves be counted fully, when calculating how many Representatives (and thus electoral college votes) the South would received and “compromised” at 60%. The South pushed through legislation like the Fugitive Slave Laws forcing the north to enforce returned the South’s victims back to it, and censored publication of anti-slavery material. Naturally, when the South’s political power waned, and they faced the prospect of being in the minority, they tantrumed.
The southern and northern colonies were founded at the same time during the colonial period. The declaration of independence was written by a southerner. The man they call the “father of the Consitiution” was a southerner. 8 of the 16 presidents up to the civil war were from the South, and two more (Harrison and Lincoln) were born in southern states. The South used their control over the Senate to prevent bills they considered anti-Southern or anti-slavery from passing.
If the South was a banana republic before the Civil War, much of the blame on that has to do with the South itself. If the South was slow to develop industrially, most of that had to do with the slavery system, and the way it concentrated wealth in the hands of an agrarian elite that had neither the inclination or the heavy capital to industrialize. And if the democratic institutions in the south withered, leading to control by a so called “slavocracy”, that was also due to the enormous inequality of wealth, as well as the ability of the large slaveholders to manipulate racial fears to keep control.
I think the Dred Scott decision and most especially the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 did a tremendous amount to galvanize the North against slavery and towards war to end slavery. Before the Slave Law, I think Northerners didn’t like slavery but weren’t really up in arms about it. Once the South pushed the law into effect, it basically forced Northerners’ noses in it and they didn’t like having to be part of the institution of slavery (being forced to help return slaves, etc). Southerners thought they were solidifying their hold on slavery but it really backfired on them and started making it a major moral issue among the general population in the North.
Also, if the South had successfully seceded, it might have put further pressure on the survivability of slavery. If the North no longer had to abide by the Fugitive Slave Law, then they could be just like Canada, helping slaves to escape and not returning them. It also would have been interesting to see what free blacks living in the South would have done, whether they would have stayed or hightailed it out of there for the North.
The slave trade being made illegal upped the prices/profits and all parties concerned thrived on business as usual. It is true that the slave trade per se was significantly reduced after 1810 but by then, of course, the South had accumulated a good breeding stock.
My point really is that the South’s dependence on/addiction to slavery made it hostage to the Union from the gitgo.
There was also the issue of the territories. Should slavery be allowed or not? Compromises were suggested - southern territories would allow slavery and northern territories would not or maybe each territory would be allowed to decide for itself if it allowed slavery. Southerners would not accept these suggestions - they wanted the federal government to legalize slavery in all territories.
That was one of the controversial aspects of the Dred Scott decision. Taney said that Congress did not have the power to prohibit slavery in the territories.
What you’re saying really doesn’t make any sense. How could slavery make the south hostage to the north if the slave trade was illegal?
Slavery doomed the South from the beginning. The North with its wealth and industry was destined to break it and pick up the pieces. Think about the rest of my posts. They offer a context for what I’m saying here.
Aloha
But the north had no slaves to sell. (Yes, there were kidnappings and “ransom gangs” but they dealt in comparatively small numbers of people and completely extralegally.) Your implications that the north was some major supplier of slaves after about 1810 is just whack.
There is no question that the south had a slave-based economy while the north had shed theirs a hundred years prior and had increasingly turned to mechanical industry. There is no question that an industrialized economy will outperform a human-strength based one, whether the latter workers are free or slave.
So yes, the south was on a doomed path no matter what, and the north was likely to become dominant in almost any scenario. But you seem to have taken the rest of your arguments off a cliff. The options were to let the south secede, weakening the US as a nation overall and allowing the preservation of slavery and leaving all the problems for some future generation; or go to war to preserve the Union for many reasons, eliminate slavery, and give the southern states a road to modernity and industry.
If you get near a further point, do make it.
ETA: It seems that only pride and greed kept the south from throwing in the towel, giving up their slaves and asking for national help to industrialize and reform.
Earlier from me:
Do you read whole posts or just cherry pick nit picks?
Wage slaves and indentures are free? Alohahahaha
Weaken the Union? It would have destroyed it as The Power in North America. See previous post. You think our Civil War spared us problems? The last battle of the Civil War took place in Mississippi in 1964.
Pride, greed and a way of life. War seemed a better way than capitulation. Bankers and arms manufacturers everywhere agreed.
Aloha
Yes, they do.
Well, thank you, myself.
Aloha
Does anyone else have the sense that jsutter is participating in a slightly different argument from the rest of us?
Dude, seriously, you keep raising arguments to arguments and going in circles. I think I have the gist of what you’re trying to say, but your base aim seems to be to exculpate the south from all wrongdoing (it warn’t their fault, the north made 'em do it), which is pure Oscar Meyer pink stuff.
When you can form a coherent argument about the south’s “way of life” that doesn’t equate to “living the good life off the backs of slaves,” get back to me.
From my very first post in this round of nonsense:
And this recently from you:
Please …
I tried to edit the above but was tripped up by the five minute rule. My proposed edit can be summed as, Dear AB, RMFP before you disagree with what I’ve said.
Aloha
Andy,
I wrote this:
And you replied this?
On the contrary? Please, RMFP before you leap.
Aloha
This is laughably ignorant of the fact that the South was paying the majority of the taxes under the tariff regime before the Civil War because the Southern economy was built on exports. The Whig cronyist Abraham Lincoln stated in his inaugural address that he would invade the South in order to keep the tariff revenue flowing for his government looting cronyists in the North.
While the aristocratic slaveowners were indeed living off the slave labor, so were the Northern industrialists who taxed the South for all it was worth to pay for their crony deals.
You claimed that the South was founded as a Union colony; I wrote that in the contrary, the South was was far more powerful than the North during the early days of the USA, and provided evidence to that effect.
Precisely. You’ve described the South as a typical banana republic, which, if anyone has noticed, is my original thesis.
Aloha
Slavery was the cause of secession. Secession was the cause of war. The fact that Northern white supremacists didnt want slavery in the territories was also a factor. Of course, this was because they wanted to save the territories for whites only and deport freed blacks, not because they were concerned with human rights.