The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-18-2007, 03:13 PM   #1
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
(from the bellyflop thread)
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce View Post
They didn't fire on Ft Sumter to protect slavery.
Not directly, at least.
Quote:
The majority of the northern politicians were moderates that wanted to see the spread of slavery stemmed, but were willing to accept a 50/50 split on new states.
The point of the 50/50 split was to prevent the "other side" from getting too much power in the Senate. The South was worried that if there were too many free states, there would be a federal ban on slavery. Or even an Amendment, as that too is based on state count.

- Acceptance of new states hinged on their position on slavery. That is a MAJOR issue. -

Quote:
The handful of abolitionists didn't have the power to put an end to slavery in all the new states, let alone the south.
Right, the Civil War wasn't "to free the slaves". But slavery was at the base of most of the economic and cultural differences that caused the split between North and South. Claiming that slavery was a minor issue is as off-base as claiming that it was the only issue.
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]

Last edited by Happy Monkey; 07-18-2007 at 03:19 PM.
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2007, 03:32 PM   #2
xoxoxoBruce
The future is unwritten
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey View Post
But slavery was at the base of most of the economic and cultural differences that caused the split between North and South. Claiming that slavery was a minor issue is as off-base as claiming that it was the only issue.
The economic differences were agricultural vs industrial which made them look at trade from an entirely different perspective and cultural differences were all over the ball park. There were plenty of southern farmers, eager to follow the stars and bars, that never owned a slave. In 1860, a male slave would bring thousands of dollars which made it a rich man's game.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.
xoxoxoBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2007, 04:23 PM   #3
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce View Post
The economic differences were agricultural vs industrial
Both sides had plenty of small non-slaveholding farms. The economic differences were between the wealthy powerhouses- industrial vs plantation.
Quote:
In 1860, a male slave would bring thousands of dollars which made it a rich man's game.
It wasn't the poor men making the 50/50 statehood deals. It wasn't the poor men who formed the CSA government.
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2007, 04:33 PM   #4
xoxoxoBruce
The future is unwritten
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
I'll buy that.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.
xoxoxoBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:16 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.