GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies

Jack Lawrence jlawrence at kc.rr.com
Thu Jan 5 13:52:45 CST 2012


Jim,

All of the money reasons fold back into slavery.

If you want to claim that the civil war was not about freeing the slaves at 
the beginning, I will be the first to support you.

If want to say that the Civil War was not about freeing the slaves at the 
end, I will say Fortress Monroe.

Regards,

Jack
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Ferguson" <jaferg at comcast.net>
To: "'GDG'" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: GDG- NPS, Slavery and Economies


> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> 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
>
>
> ----------------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