GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies

Jim Ferguson jaferg at comcast.net
Thu Jan 5 13:20:21 CST 2012


I wish you had gone further in your discussion; money was the root cause of
the Civil War in my opinion. And by root, I mean the one and only one thing
that if removed from the slavery equation would stop the event from
happening. The slave trade had become such a major portion of the South's
GDP that none of the major players in the region were going to accept the
elimination of it in the westward expansion.

There are many work's on this subject, of course, but I like Bancroft's
"Slave Trading in the Old South" for an semi-technical unvarnished
explanation.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com]
On Behalf Of joadx1 at netscape.net
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 12:59 PM
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
This is not a simplistic view; in fact, a number of modern analyses of the
Civil War focus precisely on the economic aspects of the conflict.  One that
I have read indicates that one of the reasons why non-slave-owning
southerners fought to protect slavery was because so much of the southern
economy was founded upon it that everyone would suffer economically if it
disappeared.

And while it would take us too far away from the parameters of this
discussion board, I would argue (and do argue in my own professional work)
that the peculiar institution of money has a particularly powerful role in
our history, past and present, that is often misunderstood or ignored.  But
I will go no further on that.

But I will add that the matter of slavery and the Civil War is
overdetermined--that is, there is more than one cause at work here.  Beyond
the very real economic dimensions of the matter are the racial ones (I do
not want to dwell on this, but racial hatred and feelings racial superiority
are also involved); the social class ones (the plantation aristocracy was
able to paper over the class inequalities in the south by telling southern
yeomen that without slavery they would be part of a menial class, but with
it they were part of a ruling caste); and simple fear: the southerners were
very well aware that they had, in many regions, established slave
populations that were much larger than the white populations, and they were
terrified of a slave rebellion on the order of the successful rebellion in
Haiti.

There are yet other parts to this ugly puzzle, but your own suggestion is a
very important part of it all.

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Mills <amills at jplcreative.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Sent: Thu, Jan 5, 2012 9:44 am
Subject: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies


Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
My apologies as I am not the best at getting ideas and thoughts out of my
head 
and rationalizing them so others can understand.  

Having made my disclaimer, I am curious as to why the war wasn't all about 
money?  

Secession caused the war and slavery caused secession, I think based on
emails I 
have read over the last couple days, everyone agrees with this statement.

But what caused slavery?  The immediate cause was the need for cheap labor 
centuries before the civil war, so the underlying cause of slavery was
money, 
ergo money caused slavery and slavery caused secession so the root cause was

money?

I understand that by 1860, there was also a racial element to America's
slavery 
and part of the reason for maintaining the system was this racial element
but I 
don't think this was the major force in maintaining the "peculiar
institution", 
as the major force was simply put:  money.

So why wouldn't the root cause then be economics, that without allowing
slavery 
into the territories, slavery would slowly die and as a result, so would the
way 
of life for the slave holding aristocrats of the South and their desire to 
maintain slavery was a desire to maintain their statuses, income, etc.  

One example would be Hampton Plantation outside Baltimore.  It was one of
the 
largest and richest prior to the Civil War but slowly fell into a period of 
decline once slavery was banished from the country until the NPS saved the 
mansion future generations (yes, I know other organizations originally saved
it 
in 1948, but didn't want to go into all the history of it).  We can look at
many 
of the James River plantations that had to open their doors to the public to

preserve and protect their properties because they were no longer
sustainable 
once slavery was abolished.  

I agree that the original south seceded to protect slavery, but underneath
that, 
slavery was there to support their income / economies, so if you want to say

slavery led to secession which lead to the war, why can't you further define
it 
that money led to slavery which lead to secession which led to war and as
such, 
the root cause is the all powerful dollar?

I understand this is a simplistic view and possibly an incorrect view of the

situation, but to me, secession caused the war and a desire to protect
slavery 
led to secession (I understand that you can't separate slavery from 1860
South), 
but the root cause of slavery was money.  American slavery / chattel slavery

wasn't like the Native Americans that took slaves from rival tribes to help 
replenish their population, or Rome that took slaves from captured armies.  
Slaves in those societies were not the basis of the economies as it was in
the 
Antebellum South.  

I hope this makes sense, but wanted to get some viewpoints to see if this is
a 
valid opinion or is full of holes.

Thanks,

-----Original Message-----
From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com]
On 
Behalf Of John Lawrence
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:48 PM
To: GDG
Subject: Re: GDG- NPs & Slavery

>--------------------------------
>
>Hello,
>
>I am not arguing  whether not Lincoln could have  have chosen another 
>method to react to secession.  I'm not arguing Lincoln did not go to
>war to preserve the union.   I am simply stating the  historical fact
>that secession was caused by slavery and war was the result.
>
>It is impossible to have any discussion of the causes of the war or the 
>cause secession without the inclusion of slavery.
>
>The indisputable point is  slavery was the cause of secession which was 
>the cause of the war.
>
>The other what-ifs do not apply to that.
>
>
>Take Care
>
>Dennis


----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to 
unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives

 
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives




More information about the Gettysburg mailing list