5
5
0
One hundred fifty years after the Civil War began, we’re still fighting it — or at least fighting over its history. I’ve polled thousands of high school history teachers and spoken about the war to audiences across the country, and there is little agreement even about why the South seceded. Was it over slavery? States’ rights? Tariffs and taxes?
As the nation begins to commemorate the anniversaries of the war’s various battles — from Fort Sumter to Appomattox — let’s first dispense with some of the more prevalent myths about why it all began.
As the nation begins to commemorate the anniversaries of the war’s various battles — from Fort Sumter to Appomattox — let’s first dispense with some of the more prevalent myths about why it all began.
ABHr6jD_story.html
Posted from washingtonpost.com
Slavery
Civil War
American History
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
3
3
0
Thank you. For 50 years, Missouri Compromise, Kansas-Nebraska, Dred Scot, Fugitive Slave Act, and other slavery items were ALL the nation seemed to be worried about and the ONLY thing the sections argued about.
Lincoln was not going to free any slaves, but he said he would stop slavery in the territories. The South got so hysterical over that news they seceded to save the right of slavery for people in Montana, Idaho, Utah, etc. It really was as ridiculous as that.
And half a million people died.
Lincoln was not going to free any slaves, but he said he would stop slavery in the territories. The South got so hysterical over that news they seceded to save the right of slavery for people in Montana, Idaho, Utah, etc. It really was as ridiculous as that.
And half a million people died.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
1
1
0
Slavery and states rights are "essentially" the same issue. The state "right" that the southern aristocracy was willing to wage war over was the "state's right" to maintain the institution of slavery. Whenever someone claims that the issue was over states rights, I always ask what state's right, other than slavery, was in question. No one has ever given me a valid answer.
In addition the southern aristocracy saw the inevitable and logical consequence to the end of slavery. Black males would be declared free AND be given the vote. Suddenly there would be a huge voting block that would make the political power status quo impossible. The southern aristocracy would inevitably see a diminution of its power and prestige.
Finally, the southern economy was for all intents and purposes an agrarian, single crop [cotton] economy. Tobacco was a distant second and other crops were minor contributors. Cotton export to the global economy was coming under increasing pressure from cotton grown in the Indian sub-continent and Egypt. Those foreign cultivars were generally of a higher quality than American cotton, and under the control of Great Britain, the world leader in cotton textiles. Meanwhile the northern economy was much more diverse, and far less agrarian. When the South experienced bad harvests, (a bad cotton year is also often a bad tobacco year) southern farmers, slave holders or not, had to go to northern capitalists for loans to keep afloat. This created a growing antipathy to the North.
In addition the southern aristocracy saw the inevitable and logical consequence to the end of slavery. Black males would be declared free AND be given the vote. Suddenly there would be a huge voting block that would make the political power status quo impossible. The southern aristocracy would inevitably see a diminution of its power and prestige.
Finally, the southern economy was for all intents and purposes an agrarian, single crop [cotton] economy. Tobacco was a distant second and other crops were minor contributors. Cotton export to the global economy was coming under increasing pressure from cotton grown in the Indian sub-continent and Egypt. Those foreign cultivars were generally of a higher quality than American cotton, and under the control of Great Britain, the world leader in cotton textiles. Meanwhile the northern economy was much more diverse, and far less agrarian. When the South experienced bad harvests, (a bad cotton year is also often a bad tobacco year) southern farmers, slave holders or not, had to go to northern capitalists for loans to keep afloat. This created a growing antipathy to the North.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google