RE: What's eleven states?

RE: What's eleven states? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Musicmystery -> RE: What's eleven states? (8/30/2009 3:22:07 PM)
Leiren, Slavery WAS economics. The South was dependent on cotton, and cotton production depended on slavery--and land, which is why we took Texas. By contemporary standards, Lincoln was a liberal. By modern standards, absolutely racist. The question again isn't fighting the war--it's letting the Confederate states leave. Then what?

Leiren -> RE: What's eleven states? (8/30/2009 3:39:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Slavery WAS economics. The South was dependent on cotton, and cotton production depended on slavery--and land, which is why we took Texas. By contemporary standards, Lincoln was a liberal. By modern standards, absolutely racist. The question again isn't fighting the war--it's letting the Confederate states leave. Then what? Considering that the majority of 'slave ships' were owned by Northern merchants, and it was those Northern 'slavers' that brought the slaves to the south? Hmm. Where to start? Slavery was a very sound economic proposition for those Northern slavers. So I guess the question I'm asking is when exactly did those Northern slavers decide to declare war on the very segment of the population (the South) where they did their best business? Oh, wait. The Northern slavers didn't declare war. The south did at Fort Sumpter. But the northern response to the secession led to the bloodiest war to date. At least that's the facts I've been taught. Guess I missed something but I'll be more than happy to continue reading so that I can become more educated. [:)]

Arpig -> RE: What's eleven states? (8/30/2009 4:14:42 PM)
quote: Considering that the majority of 'slave ships' were owned by Northern merchants, and it was those Northern 'slavers' that brought the slaves to the south? Hmm. Where to start? Slavery was a very sound economic proposition for those Northern slavers. this is not quite right.The slave trade had been shut down before the Civil War began. The Northern slave traders had already been put out of business, mostly by the Royal Navy when Great Britain for all practical purposes outlawed the slave trade and sent its ships to enforce that law (despite the fact that they had no legal right to do so...but who was going to argue with the friggin Royal Navy back in those days?) quote: Oh, wait. The Northern slavers didn't declare war. The south did at Fort Sumpter. But the northern response to the secession led to the bloodiest war to date. At least that's the facts I've been taught. A slight simplification, but in essence that is what happened.

Leiren -> RE: What's eleven states? (8/30/2009 5:10:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig this is not quite right.The slave trade had been shut down before the Civil War began. The Northern slave traders had already been put out of business, mostly by the Royal Navy when Great Britain for all practical purposes outlawed the slave trade and sent its ships to enforce that law (despite the fact that they had no legal right to do so...but who was going to argue with the friggin Royal Navy back in those days?) Apparently the CSA took exception to GB shutting down the 'slave ships' owned by the Northern States. After all, by the Civil War, the United States had long since declared themselves a sovereign nation, totally separate from GB. And the Northern slavers weren't exactly complaining about the income afforded to them by shipping in slaves to the southern states. Again, the slave trade they provided to the south was a lucrative economic asset to them. [;)]

Arpig -> RE: What's eleven states? (8/30/2009 5:22:27 PM)
quote: Apparently the CSA took exception to GB shutting down the 'slave ships' owned by the Northern States. After all, by the Civil War, the United States had long since declared themselves a sovereign nation, totally separate from GB. And the Northern slavers weren't exactly complaining about the income afforded to them by shipping in slaves to the southern states. Again, the slave trade they provided to the south was a lucrative economic asset to them. The slave trade itself (i.e.the importation of slaves into the US) was made illegal by Congress in 1808, and participating in the slave trade was made an "act of piracy" punishable by death in 1820. The slave trade was dead long before the Civil War and had no part in it whatsoever...the reason why the Northern slave traders had no qualms about going to war with their main source of income was because they were already out of business...they had no lucrative trade in the South. Slavery was legal, but the importation of slaves was a capital crime under US law some 40 years before the Civil War.

Musicmystery -> RE: What's eleven states? (8/30/2009 7:23:26 PM)
Again, Arpig is correct. Bringing in slaves from OUTSIDE had long ago ended. Trade INSIDE was thriving, with plenty of native born slaves available. In any event, hypocrisy over slavery all the way around goes back to colonial days. Why not just let the Confederate states leave? Trade would still exist. No slaves would have been able to be sold in the North, but they were already Free states anyway. So again, Leirin, why not just let those states go? What would have happened if the North had done so? That's the question, slaves or no.

Termyn8or -> RE: What's eleven states? (8/31/2009 10:30:05 PM)
Interesting so far. Someone mentioned the world war(s) ? If anyone cares to follow into this, the USSR was formed after WW1, so how did the US intervention affect that ? Would it have happened when and how it happened ? Would Hitler percieve them as a threat, or as much of a threat had WW1 gone on longer without the US ? Or was that threat real, but made all the much more imminent with the solidarity of the USSR ? Even if it didn't change the battle plans drastically, timing is of the essence in war planning. Now had the timetable changed, in a way that would allow some entity of this theatre to grow in resources and strength, this essence could prove itself so in a very short "time". Of course WW2 would've been affected at least in timing and the relative strength of the players in that theatre. In such a case it may have had effect on the creation of Israel and had a profound impact to this day, affecting many many aspects of politics and economics. Now we would still have certain things, we would still have half the treasury offshore thanks to Roger B. Taney, and that was just the top of the slope. Would it have been as well slicked up as it is to bring us to our current financial condition ? I think not. Very good topic MM, but I got the impression that you meant the ramifications on a worldwide scale as well, rather than just internally here. About the exact who and why of the civil war did not seem to be the main point. Sometimes I like to plunge my mind into the "what ifs". But what happens here affects what hapens there. Would there be such a trade deficit ? (in other words would trade even get opened up in the first place, what if it hadn't ?) Actually I think international trade was bound to happen without the profiteers pushing for it, but it may have happened a bit differently. Which brings us to another point, just thought of it; about protectionism. The government purports to want to protect us from ourselves and each other all day long. So why don't they protect our economy from these voraciously exploitative external economies ? Yes it's protectionism, but so is the seat belt in my car. Might have to start a thread on that. Which brings up yet another aspect of it all, people's attitudes. This would affect people in other countries as well, and would affect their vote, or their selection(s) of which regime to support. Also which live and die, oft by geographical lines can have a profound effect on political polarizations anywhere in the world. The ramifications are awesome (and I hate that word). T

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125