Tweet
Re: South Korean hostage \'beheaded\'
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I believe that "The Late Unpleasantness" was historically the most 'civilized' term for it... [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
Anyway, to give a somewhat short statement of my version--the Civil War was *partially* about slavery. The issue of slavery in the emerging western territories had been an issue for decades, and it was probably the most emotional and deeply dividing issue between North and South. The failure of the Missouri Compromise to really settle the issue undoubtedly was the deepest cause of strife leading to Southern secession.
But the 'slavery only' theorists conveniently ignore the fact that the issue of tariffs on imported goods was as big an issue to the combatants as was slavery--even if it was not the issue that ultimately had the bigger impact on our society. Northern states favored high tariffs to protect the fledging industrial sector in the North. In contrast, the Southern states were much more reliant on exporting their crops (especially cotton and tobacco) abroad and were greatly hurt when European countries increased their tariffs on U.S. goods in retaliation for our tariffs. That was actually the triggering event for secession, if I recall my history correctly.
The U.S. government did not harbor any notion of forcing the emancipation of southern slaves at the beginning of the war--not until the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, actually, which Lincoln proclaimed primarily in an attempt to disrupt the South through slave revolts. Although Lincoln was a moderate abolitionist, he was not of the fanatical John Brown variety--who favored the war as a tool to force abolition on the South.
Originally posted by fett:
Let's get back on track and leave the Civil War: War between the States; the Rebellion or whatever you want to call it for another thread. And then [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] duck.
Let's get back on track and leave the Civil War: War between the States; the Rebellion or whatever you want to call it for another thread. And then [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] duck.
Anyway, to give a somewhat short statement of my version--the Civil War was *partially* about slavery. The issue of slavery in the emerging western territories had been an issue for decades, and it was probably the most emotional and deeply dividing issue between North and South. The failure of the Missouri Compromise to really settle the issue undoubtedly was the deepest cause of strife leading to Southern secession.
But the 'slavery only' theorists conveniently ignore the fact that the issue of tariffs on imported goods was as big an issue to the combatants as was slavery--even if it was not the issue that ultimately had the bigger impact on our society. Northern states favored high tariffs to protect the fledging industrial sector in the North. In contrast, the Southern states were much more reliant on exporting their crops (especially cotton and tobacco) abroad and were greatly hurt when European countries increased their tariffs on U.S. goods in retaliation for our tariffs. That was actually the triggering event for secession, if I recall my history correctly.
The U.S. government did not harbor any notion of forcing the emancipation of southern slaves at the beginning of the war--not until the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, actually, which Lincoln proclaimed primarily in an attempt to disrupt the South through slave revolts. Although Lincoln was a moderate abolitionist, he was not of the fanatical John Brown variety--who favored the war as a tool to force abolition on the South.
Comment