Different kind of agriculture, as explained above.
The plantations were heavily dependant on export of their cotton and tobacco, the western and northern food producting agriculture hardly or not at all.
Later, when grain becomes more exportable and mass produced, the US dropped tarrifs like a hot brick.
xxx
What I’ve posted in this thread was based on my recollections of things I’ve read over the years. Having looked around a bit more, I am no longer confident that the weight of the evidence supports that position. So I retract everything I’ve written in this thread.
The South fired the first shot.
Yes this is true. It is also one of the most simplistic and naive ways of explaining the start of a war ever given.
In his first inaugural Lincoln stated expressly that he would bring “bloodshed” only to keep the union intact and “collect duties and imposts”. IOW, maintaining monopoly taxation power over the South, and enforcing that taxation power.
"I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people "
Lincoln was a great political speaker. The above paragraph is like an intruder saying there will be no bloodshed unless you interfere with me raping your wife, but it sounds somewhat benign without knowledge of what actually transpired under Lincoln’s dictatorial reign of mass murder. Some will accuse of me reading tea leaves, make your own judgement
After South Carolina seceded, which was not yet illegal even according to the law of the federal government, Fort Sumter remained under the control of federal forces. The Union was arming a fort in a foreign harbor.
Southern attempts to negotiate the issue of federal property were ignored. Lincoln was clearly acting on his promises in his inaugural.
If I am reading tea leaves, why did what he promised come to pass?
Say Japan decided to disallow US military occupation, and the U.S. refused to negotiate terms. The Japanese would be justified in attacking US property. It really is as simple as that.
Slavery was oftentimes very brutal, and always a horrific abuse of human rights. All slavers should have been administered justice by slaves. Their property should have immediately been turned over to the slaves. The North did not administer property rights properly after the Civil War. This is because they were still white supremacists.
Slavery in the form of military conscription was also a brutal and horrific abuse of human rights.
What states’ rights was the federal government opposed to? Please be specific.
It’s pretty simplistic, true. Slightly more complicated – Southern white leaders couldn’t fathom a future in which their capacity to control and rape and brutalize black people might be threatened, so they declared secession. It’s not reasonable to say that the South in general wanted to secede, considering how many millions of people’s opinions were ignored.
After they declared secession, a Union army officer moved his troops from one Union base to another that was under construction in one of the states in which the white leaders claimed had seceded. This pissed off the local assholes, and the local assholes shot at these soldiers.
And so a war was started.
He certainly had as much right, and much more considering the powers enumerated in the Constitution, to do this as the white rapist/brutalizers-in-chief did to declare secession without anything close to a mandate from their people.
I’ll accuse you of bringing your political weirdness to blame a war started by rapists and brutalizers on a political leader you have an ideological beef with.
So all it takes for a state to secede is a bunch of rich rapists and brutalizers to write a letter to the government? It doesn’t take an actual mandate from the people? And this is somehow morally superior to a government and military moving around and sending supplies to property they had occupied for decades?
Lincoln was clearly sending supplies to soldiers – something that happens in peacetime quite frequently. He sent supplies, and this pissed off the local asshole rape/brutalization fans, so they fired at US soldiers doing their duty.
Because rich rapists/brutalizers and those they were able to con into supporting them armed themselves and attacked US soldiers.
You man a bunch of rich rapists in Japan write a letter to the US? That’s not quite a nation deciding to “disallow US military occupation” – that’s rich assholes throwing a temper tantrum. The South didn’t decide to secede, strictly speaking – not even close. Rich assholes decided to secede, and ignored the opinions of millions of their fellows. The US isn’t required to honor the wishes of every group of rich rapists and brutalizers who gets a bug up their ass about possibly not being able to do as much raping and brutalizing as they’d like.
The United States was already a major exporter of grain to Europe during this period. This was one reason why Britain and France hesitated over support of the CSA. They wanted access to Confederate cotton but they didn’t want to risk losing access to American wheat and corn.
That is simply a preposterous analogy. It is nothing at all like that.
What Lincoln said is quite literally a description of the purpose of his office and the federal government of the United States of America. Of course the government of a civilized nation plans no bloodshed but will use force to enforce the exact laws and powers it was founded to enforce. That is what government is.
A much better analogy - one that is precisely correct, where yours is precisely wrong - would be a cop saying “I prefer not to use force against people, but if a person tries to rape your wife, I’ll force them to stop.”
Characterizing Lincoln’s reign as dictatorial is silly, and characterizing South Carolina as “foreign” territory is preposterous. There is technically no law on the books that specifically prevents YOU from declaring your house a sovereign country, but somehow I doubt the authorities will buy your explanation if you try to stop paying your taxes or make rape legal in your back yard. It is a fundamental characteristic of a cohesive and functional nation-state that subdivisions can’t just up and decide “we aren’t part of this anymore” and instantly be independent; that’s just a way to avoid the law, nothing more.
Of course, as the old saying goes, rebelling is justified if you win. But they didn’t win, so too bad.
It sure is, because Japan is a sovereign nation that is not and has never been part of the United States, even during the period of time it was occupied. South Carolina was not and never was a sovereign nation and was part of the United States. It simply isn’t a legitimate comparison.
I agree that Reconstruction didn’t go far enough.
Of course, you know the Confederacy instituted conscription about a year before the USA did?
The Confederacy said and did use force to hold, occupy, and possess the property of places belonging to it’s government, and to collect duties and imposts. I’m not sure why Lincoln saying he was going to operate a functioning government is supposed to be scary or intimidating; no government is going to remain in power long if it’s not willing to hang on to it’s property and collect taxes.
I will point out, again, the irony of using a rape analogy to defend the side that was fighting for the right to literally rape people at will. It kind of deflates the whole 'we are innocent victims of that EVUL LINCOLN rhetoric to remember that raping pretty black slaves was a major hobby of slaveowners.
Cite please.
It was fought because the wealthy in the south who depended upon slave labor used the media of the times to get the working class and poor to believe that the federal governmnent was “over-reaching” and bossing them around. Many of them worked for slave-holders and plantations but never owned slaves. But it is relatively easy (just as it is today) to manipulate a mob of low information people into getting all hot and bothered if one couches our government as if just a foreign interloper bullying distant locals for their own amusement. Therefore the war didn’t start over slavery in the minds of those who would fight, but in essence it was about a conspiracy of heartless profiteers who wished to continue their flawed and barbaric economy as the rest of the country and the western world was progressing to industrialization without slave power.
Arguably slavery continued and continues to exist for all of the working class who are paid just enough to sustain their lives with food and housing but never make enough to achieve economic upward mobility. Therefore, those on the political right who would take away the social safety net, believing that hard work leads to the freedom and ability to own property, live in luxury and/or create new business are deluded and/or grossly misinformed. Age and ill-health befalls us all and the promise of nothing but more hard work for wages that stay the same IS just a different slant on indentured servitude or slavery.
The soldiers of the south were in essence slaves themselves as were many of the north where the wealthy could buy their way out of service. So you could say that the war eventually became one about overt slavery when Lincoln made it so by emancipation proclamation, but it was not about covert slavery which still envelopes both black and working class whites who live from pay-check to pay-check and live in fear of loss of the job that allows them to simply subsist.
Arguable, but irrelevant to the war’s issues; and, both sides used conscription.
So you equate conscription with slavery? Wow…
That’s a standard Libertarian talking-point, I first heard it in a campus lecture in 1986 or thereabouts.
Many millions of people are ignored in every action of government. I’m not going to defend government action. If you want to make a claim that government action is illegitimate when millions of people are ignored, i will stand by you, but I doubt you will be consistent on this position. In any case, I did not say the South in general wanted to secede.
As the quote from the murderous butcher Abe Lincoln demonstrates, Lincoln was very concerned about collecting tariffs to enrich his crony friends and not so interested in the people under the thumb of the brutal rapists.
The white supremacist leaders of the North, who enslaved thousands of conscripts in a war modern day amateur historians claim was to end slavery, ignored pleas for peace and just compensation from the brutal rapists of the South and continued to stock implements of death alongside a foreign shore in a clear sign of hostility only Ray Charles would miss.
“And so a war was started.”
The Torturer in Chief of the U.S. had no such right to commit atrocities such as he did. I will not defend the Constitution either, but torture, rape, and pillaging are not among the enumerated powers as I recall.
.
I accuse you of ideological devotion to a white supremacist despot who started a war to collect taxes within the unalterable bounds of the holy UNITED STATES of AMERICA.
No government has any moral standing. I will not defend a government.
It was a provocation. Even Lincoln idolaters like yourself hail it as a strategic move to provoke an attack. What happened was the assholes fired on the fort killing nobody. Not even a butcher like GWB or LBJ could pull off a war after such a non event.
Rich rapists/brutalizers and those they were able to con into supporting them elected Lincoln and he carried out the mass murder of thousands after a deliberate provocation.
As I said, I will not defend the legitimacy of government action. All government action is done against the will of millions. Your statist position is inconsistent.
Of course, the confederacy was a government, therefore immoral. I like how some people claim the war was about the North ending slavery when they enslaved thousands themselves.
…
It’s actually socialism and slavery at the same time.
In but not on. It’s quite possible for a Nation to own a bit of land inside another nation- Hong Kong, GITMO, Gibraltar.
Not to mention Embassies, etc.
Yes, and both Lincoln and the CSA knew this- that with Abe in, Slavery was going to come to a end, of some sort, in some schedule.
Some government actions are legitimate. The actions of the Confederacy were not.
The quote does not demonstrate this. You are incorrect.
Comparing conscription in war to slavery is not reasonable.
Bullshit. There were no (or no substantial or significant) such “pleas”, especially for “just compensation” (as if any compensation for the brutalizations of slavery could be “just”).
No, having military forces on property that federal troops and workers had occupied for decades continuously is not a “clear sign of hostility”.
No idea what you’re talking about here. Considering the irrationality of your other arguments, I doubt it’s anything significant, but if you have any cites that Lincoln ordered torture, rape, or pillage, I’m open to see them.
Lincoln was definitely a white supremacist, but compared to others of the time he was less so than many (and far less so than most Southern whites). So far I’ve seen no reason to believe he was a despot.
I will. Passing laws to free slaves, and guarantee rights, is a good thing. The US government has done some good things to protect people’s rights. It has done bad things too.
No I don’t. Let’s have a cite that I’m a “Lincoln idolater”, or that I “hailed it as a strategic move to provoke an attack”.
Do you normally say incorrect things about other posters, or is this a new thing for you?
Assholes demanded surrender, came in force, and bombarded until they surrendered, unlawfully attacking and taking by force property that US soldiers and workers had been occupying continuously for decades. The Union reasonably saw this as prelude to further action, and prepared for war, and to retake this property that was unlawfully taken by force.
More silliness. Comparing the brutality of slavery to any contemporary institutions is not reasonable. Slavery really was different, and really was a lot worse than anything else going on at the time.
Your position is ludicrous and inconsistent with reality.