You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
|The Market Ticker Single Post Display (Show in context)||
User: Not logged on
|User Info||Enough On Lincoln; entered at 2018-02-13 09:36:20|
Why were large numbers of poor southern whites willing to go to war to fight for slavery, an institution that did not benefit them? My guess is that (and this is alluded to in both books) - that in the south, there was a hierarchy (much like in older India with it's 'Caste System' - and much still exists) - even a poor white considered himself much better off than black slaves, and they could not countenance a system where blacks might be equal - or perhaps above the poor whites. Perhaps - a great degree of racism and unwillingness to see blacks as equal humans? Add to that the pride in 'your own state' was greater than pride in being part of the nation (consider that Robert E. Lee, a brilliant tactician and general, would have likely been given overall command of all Union forces, but he considered himself a Virginian first, and an American second, even though he opposed slavery. Lee & his wife 'inherited' slaves from his wife's father's estate, and he sought to free them within 5 years- per the father's wishes, per a letter written in 1858.
In other words, you have a bunch of "perhaps" deals, but you can't explain it. Even when you read, in a Senator's own words, exactly what some of the reasons were. That sounds like intentional dishonesty.
You think that Southerners were all a bunch of dumb hicks, in short. Too stupid to figure it out on their own. Never mind that the South had, as said Senator outlined, watched as the North enacted preferential tariffs that taxed the hell out of them (on a comparable basis) and essentially treated them as economic serfs, even though the cotton trade was a major part of what made the "engine" of economic prosperity for the North work!
Oh, by the way, the North sold their slaves into the South as others noted when Northern States abolished slavery. THEY DID NOT SET THEM FREE TO LIVE AMONG THEM IN THE NORTHERN STATES, they turned their economic value into CASH and SOLD THEM AS PROPERTY to Southerners. Then, having done that, they wished to KEEP the cash and destroy the value of the asset.
Sounds like something a bankster would do, doesn't it? Well, that's because it was.
Was slavery a big part of the war? You bet. But that doesn't explain how you get MORE THAN HALF of all non-slave-owning free men to go to war and die for something that, if the common claim that "it was all about slavery" is true, had ZERO economic or personal benefit to them.
THAT was the challenge put before everyone in the Ticker -- explain that.
Further, explain WHY, if the economics were known (specifically, that the Western Territories by the admission of both Northern and Southern states delegations were NECESSARY to "expand slavery" for it to remain economically viable) to be a ponzi scheme war was necessary to free the slaves AT ALL. You only had to cut off slavery expansion into the western territories and the scheme would have immediately collapsed. Further, even if you DIDN'T do so the scheme would EVENTUALLY collapse (although it would have taken an intolerably long time to do so, in all probability.) In other words there was a NON-WAR answer available and the political means to use it was ALSO available.
I note that not one person who holds the opinion that slavery was the motivation for the Civil War, bar none, have managed to even APPROACH either question and provide some sort of answer.
If you have a set of facts -- and in this case the FACTS are that fewer than 20% of free Southern men owned ANY slaves, and yet of the remaining 80% more than half picked up arms voluntarily (only 10% of both sides military power was via conscription, approximately) and went off to what they KNEW would be a bloody and nasty war from which MANY would not return, then any HONEST assessment of what happened needs to be able to discern what would motivate said group of people to undertake those actions.
It could not have been simply "protecting the institution of slavery" because those individuals had ZERO benefit accruing to them from doing so -- either previously or in the the reasonably foreseeable future.
Last modified: 2018-02-13 09:37:00 by tickerguy