you want a reason other than slavery?
(again, I am not denying slavery was THE biggest issue, it certainly was not the ONLY issue and things were starting to boil regardless)

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/civ ... Causes.htm
"The widening of the gap between slave and free states was symbolic of the changes occurring in each region. While the South was devoted to an agrarian plantation economy with a slow growth in population, the North had embraced industrialization, large urban areas, infrastructure growth, as well as was experiencing high birth rates and a large influx of European immigrants."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of ... _Civil_War
Overall, the Northern population was growing much more quickly than the Southern population, which made it increasingly difficult for the South to continue to influence the national government. By the time of the 1860 election, the heavily agricultural southern states as a group had fewer Electoral College votes than the rapidly industrializing northern states. Lincoln was able to win the 1860 Presidential election without even being on the ballot in ten Southern states.

The American System, advocated by Henry Clay in Congress and supported by many nationalist supporters of the War of 1812 such as John C. Calhoun, was a program for rapid economic modernization featuring protective tariffs, internal improvements at Federal expense, and a national bank. The purpose was to develop American industry and international commerce. Since iron, coal, and water power were mainly in the North, this tax plan was doomed to cause rancor in the South where economies were agriculture-based. Southerners claimed it demonstrated favoritism toward the North.

Allan Nevins argued that the Civil War was an "irrepressible" conflict, adopting a phrase first used by U.S. Senator and Abraham Lincoln's Secretary of State William H. Seward. Nevins synthesized contending accounts emphasizing moral, cultural, social, ideological, political, and economic issues. In doing so, he brought the historical discussion back to an emphasis on social and cultural factors. Nevins pointed out that the North and the South were rapidly becoming two different peoples, a point made also by historian Avery Craven. At the root of these cultural differences was the problem of slavery, but fundamental assumptions, tastes, and cultural aims of the regions were diverging in other ways as well. More specifically, the North was rapidly modernizing in a manner threatening to the South. Historian McPherson explains:[34]

When secessionists protested in 1861 that they were acting to preserve traditional rights and values, they were correct. They fought to preserve their constitutional liberties against the perceived Northern threat to overthrow them. The South's concept of republicanism had not changed in three-quarters of a century; the North's had.... The ascension to power of the Republican Party, with its ideology of competitive, egalitarian free-labor capitalism, was a signal to the South that the Northern majority had turned irrevocably towards this frightening, revolutionary future.

Enough "other" examples for you?
Drop the slavery only issue, it simply was not the case, seldom is any war fought over one issue only. And reading my kids text books when they were younger was simply nothing but ignoring the realities of history and repainting things with an agenda in mind. Pointing to slavery as THE issue, fine, I'm in agreement but to completely ignore all other reasons is a shame a real travesty to do such a brain washing of our younger generation robbing them of historical truths.

Tom, I find your entire post interesting. Please provide documentation about how Northerners felt about southerner in the 1830-1860's.

Further, all of those things listed above are directly related to slavery. The Northern population was growing because of immigration. Immiigrents went to the nouth because that is where they could find jobs. They couldn't find jobs in the south becasue the jobs they would do were done by slaves. Therefore, they moved into the north. Without slavery, the population might have been more equalized and; therefore, the pressures of political powers is lessened. Further, without the need to protect slavery, the need for increased political power in the south to protect it.

Additionally, the national improvements happened in the north because that is where the businesses were being involved. Businesses were developed in the north because their capital was more liquid and the society was more upwardly mobile. The South has a very strict unoffical class system. The people that would create the business were the ones the slaves which represented the majority of their capital. Without slavery, the wealth in the south would have been freed up for investment for other projects.

So you willing to admit slavery was the cause of the war.

The jobs were in the north because of industrialization, factories were where jobs were being generated. Picking crops wasn't much of a job, besides, the vast majority of farms in the south had no slaves, what of those jobs to pick crops?

The upward mobility and jobs and all the rest were not based on slaves. You ignore the vast majority of the population in making this claim, what of all those other people? Slavery was the only reason manufacturing was not created in the south? Then it would follow that once slavery ended, manufacturing would take off in the south? Funny, that took how long to happen and in many many areas still, they are dominated by agriculture. The two areas were on different paths, slavery can certainly be part of why and maybe even why it started that way but the two paths were there, Manufacturing, education, immigration, infrastructure, and so on.

and would it not follow that slaves working a factory would make that factory incredibly profitable?
...Your argument is greatly flawed if you wish to ignore this fact.

So you willing to admit slavery was the cause of the war.

Slavery was THE major reason for the war, I did not say it was not. (randy made that claim, not myself) It was however not the ONLY reason as is taught to kids today and what you would also have us believe.
You willing to accept it was not the ONLY cause of the war?

Tom, I find your entire post interesting. Please provide documentation about how Northerners felt about southerner in the 1830-1860's.

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/granor.html

many examples, one of note:
In support of this thesis, Grant examines attitudes toward the South expressed by writers, travelers, and politicians. Focusing on works of such prominent writers as Ralph Waldo Emerson, William Cullen Bryant, and Horace Mann, she shows that the North used the South as a negative point of reference against which to define its own--hence American--identity, effectively excluding the South from full participation in the process of American national construction.

Tom, an interesting link, in that it doesn't say what the northerners were actually saying about southerners, just that there's a very good book about it. What were they saying?

Were, perchance, any of the negative comments related to the South keeping people as slaves? Were they perchance, contrasting the struggle for individual liberties that led to the formation of the USA with the restriction of individual liberties that is slavery?

So, yes there were jobs in the north because of industrialisation. But ARJ is pointing out that:

a) The north was more able to industrialise because capital was not tied up in slaves
b) The south was less able to offer jobs because there were people as slaves

The economic differences are related to the economic effects of slavery.

As for why you didn't use slaves in factories...

Slaves are not well suited to factory work. It requires (and particularly did at the time when machinery was less reliable and less efficiently designed) higher levels of skills and varying skills to carry out. Agricultural labour is usually simpler to do. Also, the pace of industrial change meant that skillsets had to change over time, sometimes rapidly. Before the advent of agricultural machinery, the skills required to sow, reap and process plants, or to keep animals didn't change much, and slavery encouraged the retention of manually intensive and simple and repetitive processes. So people working in a factory need more training than those who were working in fields. Slaves are not well suited to being trained (and let's be clear, training slaves means educating them, and that's the last thing you need if you want to keep them in place). Also, more complex tasks means more stringent supervision to ensure that work is being done properly, meaning you need more people as overseers, who are themselves well trained.

Also, keeping slaves means keeping them in a place. Farms are large sprawling chunks of land that don't need to change much, and erecting basic housing for people isn't hard. Industrial areas in urban areas don't have so much land (and land costs more), and what's more you don't really want to keep slaves in the same place as the equipment, in case they sabotage it.

Oh, yeah, and you need to feed slaves. In an agricultural area, that's easier. If your farm isn't producing the required range of food, one nearby will be. So it's cheap and readily available. Industrial slavers would need to buy in food, adding to the costs.

Another thing... Agriculture was a generally stable activity with well known annual cycles. Industry, particularly in the early days, was not stable it was growing exponentially, but various enterprises would rise and fall unpredictably. Agriculture was generally less susceptible to the economic cycles of boom and bust than industry. Slaves are a long term investment and a constant overhead.

So, no, it would not follow that using slaves in a factory would increase profits.

GMTom wrote: Slavery was the only reason manufacturing was not created in the south? Then it would follow that once slavery ended, manufacturing would take off in the south? Funny, that took how long to happen and in many many areas still, they are dominated by agriculture.

That is not surprise if you think it through dude. The poeple who create the businesses, the wealthy and educated, has most of their capital tied up in their slave population. Seriously, when Southerners borrowed money it was collaterized by the values of their slaves. You have to remember the average value of a field hand was about $2,000 in 1860. That means a person who owned 2-3 slaves (the most typical number) had about $4,000 - $6,000. When the average salary at the time was $13 month (what a private solider in the Union Army was paid), that means a large portion of a person's net worth was tied up in slaves. So come the end of the war, and those slaves are set free with no compensation. They saw their net worth just disappear. All they were left with was the farmland they owned and a requirement to pay for field hands to help farm it.

GMTom wrote:The two areas were on different paths, slavery can certainly be part of why and maybe even why it started that way but the two paths were there, Manufacturing, education, immigration, infrastructure, and so on.

absolutely. They were on separate paths because of slavery. In 1860, the cotton crop for the entire south was worth $248.7M. The 10 richest men in the country all lived in the south and were cotton plantation owners. The only way that economy works is with slavery.

GMTom wrote:and would it not follow that slaves working a factory would make that factory incredibly profitable?

No, at least not to the 19th century southern Gentleman. There are two reasons for it. First, whites thought that african slaves were of a lessor intelligence. Therefore, they were unable to handle anything thing more complicated then the most basic of chores, i.e. couldn't handle operating anything more then the most basic of machines.
Now some factory owners would hire slaves from owners who had excess. However, this lead to the second problem with urban slavery. Namely, white workers didn't like working on the same level as a negro. Therefore, if a factory owner who used slaves would have a hard time finding whites to do the work as well. Which would mean he would have to hire more slaves. This would cut into his bottom line. Because he not only had to pay the slave's owner the slaves salary but also had to pay for the upkeep and maintence of the slave.

GMTom wrote:...Your argument is greatly flawed if you wish to ignore this fact.

My argument is fine as long as you are willing to do some actual reading a little deeper then the average high school history text book and you look at thing not through a 21st century mindframe.

Oh, by the way, one thing that came along with industrialisation was the need for a market for products. That required having more people with money to buy things. Slaves don't buy things. So a slave-ocracy finds it harder to develop markets for consumer goods, which is what fuels industrialisation.

No, you fail to read past the very generic text books and it is you who buy into the whole revisionist writings. Again, I can't say this enough, slavery was indeed the main issue for the war. It was not me who denied this, but to those who insist it was the only reason, no, you are fooling yourself. To try and link every reason to slavery is like trying to say WWII was due entirely to Jews.
You can argue every aspect back to Hitlers views on Jews, is that the real reason for the war?
...nope

Slavery was the main issue, because of slavery, much of this separate path was due to slavery.
It was not the ONLY issue and that is flat out wrong as wrong can be.

GMTom wrote:No, you fail to read past the very generic text books and it is you who buy into the whole revisionist writings.

Wow this is rich. You know I have been trying to be polite but ....

I have been reading about the American history for the period of the founding until 1865 since I was 15 years old, which makes it almost 30 freaking years of studying the topic. And I am not talking about just reading the basic level stuff either. I read the crunchy crap that has very specialized topic. Understand that I know what I am talking about. Every issue that affected this country prior to 1865 was at its core about slavery. Period. end of story.

Good to know you know everything there is to know about the civil war, I guess we can all ignore these "other" reasons for the civil war mentioned in oh so many books since YOU have dismissed them with a waive of your all knowing hand. You have decided the civil war was 100% about slavery and nothing else, forget what we hear from others, forget the feelings and writings of the time for only you, in reading your chosen sources can know all about the war and others simply can not hold a candle to your enlightened views.

Ignore this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/miller1.html
they refer to a London News account of the time:
"The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty."

Ignore a personal account by a Southern Major General (John B Gordon):
http://www.civilwarhome.com/gordoncauses.htm
He agrees the main cause was slavery but he delves into many other reasons, he was there, he was part of the south's thinking, he in fact (dare I say) knows more about things than do you!

I had mentioned the conflict between the north and south when the nation was formed, it was not a slavery issue at that time but the strife existed then, but you seem to pass everything off as slave related? Why are southerners still called slow by some northerners today? Is this a new phenomenon or one that has existed for a VERY long time?
hint, think LONG time

another first hand southern account (not from revisionist northern winners write the history accounts:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/gordoncauses.htm
by Honorable Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter, of Virginia
Read the very first paragraph and he agrees with most of what you have had to say, but he goes on (where you leave off)

The late civil war which raged in the United States has been very generally attributed to the abolition of slavery as its cause. When we consider how deeply the institutions of southern society and the operations of southern industry were founded in slavery, we must admit that this was cause enough to have produced such a result....

see he agrees with you, so go ahead and read on, he was there as well, he was part of the south, he knew the score.

Now please spare me your holier than though, you know everything diatribe. There were of course more reasons than slavery for the civil war, only grammar school children are taught this to be the SOLE reason, if you have studied it so much you simply could not have ignored the other side, you could not have simply glossed over anything that didn't fit your presupposed position learned in grammar school yourself? Other reasons are there, don't belittle us into thinking there were NO other reasons and you are the expert because you say so.

GMTom wrote:I had mentioned the conflict between the north and south when the nation was formed, it was not a slavery issue at that time but the strife existed then, but you seem to pass everything off as slave related?

This is the only thing worth responding to because it shows an amazing ignorance of American History. Yes the strife between north and south at the founding can be traced to slavery.

everything?
it ALL boils down to slavery?
amazing you seem to have a different theory than historians?
and how do you explain away these feelings of southerners i had posted?
They simply do not matter because the victors get to write the history books?

GMTom wrote:everything?
it ALL boils down to slavery?
amazing you seem to have a different theory than historians?
and how do you explain away these feelings of southerners i had posted?
They simply do not matter because the victors get to write the history books?

Listen to me Tom. I have read a lot on the topic from Lost Causers to others. I have read the people who claim the war and other issues were not all related to slavery. I have read books from people who have said it was all related to slavery. I have read primary source documents, i.e. things written during the time such as diaries and transcripts of speeches and debates as well as official government documents. I have read Bruce Catton, Shelby Foote, the Declarations of Secession from the various states, the transcripts of the cornerstone speech, John Qunicy Adams Jubilere of the Constitution speech, and probably 100's of other books and documents on the subject. I have synthesized all this information into an educated theory. Is it different then some historians...yes. Is it the same as most historians. Yes.

I am not trying to sound arrogant when I say this Tom but I am willing to bet I have read more on this topic then the total amount of books you have read. I am not saying I know everything. I am just trying to get you to understand that I know what I am talking about. And it is not just based on a cursory reading of wikipedia or other websites.

As for the attitude towards Southerners. Well, there was no public education system in the antebellum south. The government was controlled by the Planter elite. Their children were educated by private tutors or at expensive private schools so they didn't see the need for a public education system. There were some charity schools in the more urban areas of the south but a lot of people wouldn't send their children because they didn't like charity. Add to this it was illegal to educate slaves. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of southerners were undereducated. I am sure that could have something to do with any alleged negative attitude towards the common Southerner.