Causes of the Civil War--Part 2 --"King Cotton"..and slavery.
So the carnage of our American Civil War begins. Not that the losses at Ft. Sumter were great ( 1 southerner is killed when a cannon accidently explodes ), but what will follow will take the nation by surprise..and put our people into a climate of death for four long years. A national sadness blankets the population.
"A house divided against itself..cannot stand".( A.Lincoln) No truer words were spoken. And we were a house..and a nation divided.
Did the division of slave state versus free state finally catch up with us? Yes.
Were the differences between the southern "antebellum" slave states and our industrial northern free states reaching a point where the issue of slavery could no longer be ignored, a religious and political hotbed that finally showed the northern population the truth with the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act ( basically stated that people were responsible for harboring runaway slaves that could now be apprehended anywhere within the Union..done for a reward of course.)
Now northerners would see manacled slaves brought throught their own streets. A pretty strong visual experience. Coupled with the power of the northern press..northern sentiment to abolition was growing.
And how did this greater slavery start. At a time when the US population is approx. 31 million .. there are 8 million slaves within the Union.
Eli Whitney had invented the cotton gin way back in 1793 that could seperate cotton seeds from the cotton so fast it became a very profitable agriculture. Not that it is a good idea to be bound to one crop. But now add cheap slave labor and you have the makings of growth and easy profit. Add 60-70 years and you have a regional lifestyle that is more than comfortable..and not easy to part with.
So the southern lifestyle and economy becomes dependent on one crop, cotton ..and also dependent on slavery. A dependency that will bind and restrict the slave states decisions in the future as states rights are squared off against the rights of the federal government. The idea of "nullification" ( to nullify Federal Acts) is proposed by certain slave state proponents within the political arena.
When nullification untimately fails..the proposition of secession is tabled.
Brought to the brink of our Union dividing..by
... the growing economic and social differences between the north and the south.
... the constant and often bloody struggle between slave state and free state supporters and proponents ( ex: Kansas - Nebraska Act of 1854)
... the renewed and increasing political battle of States Rights versus Federal Rights.
... the growth of the northern abolition cause.
When you really come down to it..slavery is within most of the severe problems plagueing the nation and the hallowed halls of our capitals..state and federal.
Has the sin of slavery finally caught up with and entangled the workings of a supposed free nation..yes.
More to come on the final straw that brings about the increasing struggles..debates..threats..and finally secession. That final straw..the election of a gaunt, inexperienced one term Congressman from the wilds of the midwest. His name was Abraham Lincoln.
I am a native of New York State, a Northerner, and I once thought as you and then read a great deal on the subject. State secession was related to issues centered on slavery however that did not cause the war itself. There is a difference. Slavery was already legal and was in no danger of being declared illegal given it would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and slave holding states would vote against that. President Lincoln made clear in 1860 when he ran for president he had no intentions to make slavery illegal, but would limit it in the U.S. Territories. This would affect the balance of power in Washington over time as there would be more free states than slave master states. Meanwhile had the States that seceded reversed course and rejoined the Union there would not have been War. They refused to, and President Lincoln declared secession to be rebellion. Peaceful means to settle the disagreement failed. One can argue who provoked the violence that began the War Between the States, however it is closer to the truth to say it was over the right of a state to leave the Union than to say it was over slavery, given there was no threat of making it illegal in the South.
20-20 hindsight. Slavery would have eventually ended once it became uneconomic.
"Cherokees eject slave descendants" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6416735.stm There were also free blacks who owned slaves too, In fact, the first slave owner in Virginia (Anthony Johnson) was black: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
In our Revolution we embraced such terms as "Don't tread on me" and "fraternity and liberty". But those phrases don't disclose the less noble economic issues that might be clearer in a statement that is blunt and born of the moment's reality. The colonists felt economically strangled ... it was a wallet issue more than anything else. But that sort of harangue doesn't have the popular appeal a loftier chant might capture. Same holds true for the Civil War. Dozens of underbelly issues were masked by the more popular and simplistic (and obvious) roots. There was a rough economic argument on many levels. And rough politics. Just as Obama has reduced his current revenue appeal to essential and simplistic terms ... "Fair share" & "One Percent" ... those slogans do not strike at the real heart of today's debate. Yes, efforts can succeed because of catchy and sketchy appeals, but the real reasons are usually way more complex that what's rolled out in common consumption history books. That sort of stuff perpetuates the simple and thus presents a warped and insufficient explanation have what actually happened.
Even with manufacturing slaves could work in the factories. The issue centers on the cost of free labor vs. enslaved labor. There would always be economic incentives to enslave people somewhere because it costs less in a particular location. What about religious motivations? Traditional Christianity did not oppose enslaving a person as it was not a sin. It was a sin to mistreat that person. It was not until the late 1960's when the Roman Catholic Church began the process leading to making it a mortal sin, thus destining the master to Hell. Bible based traditional Protestants are correct pointing to many scriptures clearly allowing slavery. Witness the Ten Commandments and thou shall not covet your neighbor's servant (slave). Thus had there been no War Between the States you and I might have met a former slave.
See this article on distribution of tour tax dollars in 2010, the latest year with figures: .http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps From the article "Red states are more likely to be rural, and rural states were more likely to receive more federal spending than they paid in taxes in 2010. Among predominantly rural states, 81 percent received more federal spending than they paid in taxes. In contrast, 44 percent of urban states received more federal spending than they paid in taxes. Rural states, on average, received $1.40 in federal spending for every tax dollar paid; urban states, on average, received $1.10. (Rural states are defined as states whose urban population rate is below the national average of 79 percent.)" If you want to move to Texas or the likel, that's fine of course, it's a free country. Places liek that are alrady taking an unfair piece of the pie based on what they put in.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&: JMand smellypants-- You don''t have to like my sources either. They are real and based on real figures. Please find me some figures that back up your positions on this kindly, instead of just knocking the sources for mine!