Tom

To attempt to simplify this as being ONE issue is just crazy talk. and so far, those other stories, personal accounts have been ignored, they do not fit the reasons so they are simply dismissed and that's flat out wrong

.
.

Tom, the Archduke has been more than comprehensive. But I'll allow that no one addressed your links
.
Here; you go:
The quotation from the London News .
The Confederate States were certain that their economic ties to England (cotton exports) would attract England to aid or even intervene in the war on their side. The problem was that public opinion in England was strongly against the South because of slavery. Those who had economic interests initially tried to reframe the war as a economic war within the free press (your story) but never managed to accomplish this. England's had outlawed the slave trade in 1803 and slavery completely 25 years later. By the way, English manufacturers shifted their imports from The South to Egypt and the South was left with crops of very little value at the time.

The quotations from Gordon? An attempt by someone who fought in the war to reframe his efforts so that aren't tied so directly to the issue of slavery. A lot of Southerners were drawn into the war based on their local loyalty. Few had ever traveled beyond their county, let alone their state borders. And Gordon wants you to focus on those who joined the war effort because of a simplistic loyalty to hearth and home. But that doesn't dismiss the fact that the defense of hearth and home wouldn't have been necessary without slavery driving a wedge through the union. There is no doubt that most of the southerners who sacrificed in the war never personally benefited from slavery. But it isn't the first time, nor is it the last, that the sacrifice of a people have been used to benefit the aims of a privileged few.
If you've read lots, you'll also understand that religion played a great role in drawing common folk into the conflict. In the North abolition efforts were often based upon Christianity. In the South the Bible was used to defend slavery.... Today, would the Christian bible be used to support the institution of slavery? The book is the same, and yet in the Civil War period the words were used very differently. Caution must be used when looking to contemporary statements for "alternate truth", which is what you seem to be doing...
The point? If the South had somehow abandoned slavery and the nation had found a way to transition the southern economy away from it as the economic fundamental....all other issues would have fallen away. Tensions would have ended. The war would not have occurred and those southern soldiers that Gordon commemorates wouldn't have had to defend hearth and home.

This debate originally started because Ruffhaus responded to my question about how he could claim to be a "neo-Confederate" and claim to not be racist. To me, and to every historian I'd read, the Confederacy was racist. And the Confederate States preserved institutional racism even after the war for another hundred years plus. I note that he has not participated in this discussion once debaters appealed to documents like the states constitutions...

Honestly, I didn't respond to the links because I find them less then credible.

Gordon is a prime example of a Lost Causer. He was an unrepetenent racist who was committed to maintaining the antebellum social order in the south even after the war. However, he tried to justify the southern war as something other then a protection of slavery. Have you read his biographical information?

As for the Donald Miller article from Lewrockwell.com. I find it really interesting that you are pulling from lewrockwell.com to support your arguments. This is one of the primary sites that Vince and Jeff used to pull from to defend their positions. I believe, but am not sure, that you are usually one of the ones that dismiss this website as unreliable and a little wack job. Just out of curiousity, did you look to any of Dr. Miller's other articles posted on Lewrockwell or did you just do a google search and pick the top links?

wow, just wow
one issue and one issue only, and any who disagree, simply give them a label and ignore them I suppose?

How about I give your position a label and ignore your view? Yep, but to be nice I will keep that label to myself, consider your position ignored but hey, you were labeled so it must be justified!?

GMTom wrote:wow, just wow
one issue and one issue only, and any who disagree, simply give them a label and ignore them I suppose?

Hence, the reason why I didn't respond originally. I am not giving them a label. It is a label other have given them. I have read their positions and find them flawed. I have explained multiple times why the position the are espousing is flawed and historically incorrect. Accept it, do not accept it, it makes no difference to me.

GMTom wrote:How about I give your position a label and ignore your view? Yep, but to be nice I will keep that label to myself, consider your position ignored but hey, you were labeled so it must be justified!?

You do what ever you want to do. I'll tell you want Tom, when you actually read the number of books I have on the topic instead of just skimming the top links in your google search I'll talk serious about you with it. Until that time, I am done with this conversation.

sorry that doesn't mean a heckuva lot. Osama Bin Laden has read the Koran a lot more than I have, I have only skimmed a little on the internet. But guess what, just because he read it more doesn't mean his position must be correct. Nor does yours, besides every book I have read always mentioned other issues, you disregard those by labeling them and/or linking them in a roundabout way to slavery, you label them and refuse to accept any other position. Heck, you mentioned education was different in the north and south, the north looked down on the southerners but do not claim that had ANYTHING to do with the situation, you find a position that did not agree and you labeled them. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Why would it be hard to believe that every economic, political and social issue that contributed to the war could be in the end linked to the central difference between the north and the south ? I'd be really surprised if that wasn't the case.

Really? You too?
every single issue was tied to slavery and no other issues?
Even though we know the north had more education, The north shut out the south politically, the north had more immigration from Europe, the north looked down upon the south, the south distrusted the north, the two were on two different paths and everything, every single issue had to do with slavery? Even though slavery had been legal in the north for so long themselves, even though the ownership of slaves was very limited in the south, there were zero other issues???

I can't think of any war that was linked to one issue and one issue only, one primary issue most certainly! It was the big driving force I agree, but you guys want to actually claim there were ZERO other issues???
Funny how any serious accounts always offer us several lesser "other" reasons that you want to ignore.

tom

Even though we know the north had more education, The north shut out the south politically, the north had more immigration from Europe, the north looked down upon the south, the south distrusted the north, the two were on two different paths and everything, every single issue had to do with slavery? Even though slavery had been legal in the north for so long themselves, even though the ownership of slaves was very limited in the south, there were zero other issues???

In this debate the evidence presented supports exactly this Tom. That you choose to ignore the evidence can't be helped.
Why, for instance, was immigration higher in the North?

You can choose to ignore historians who claim there are indeed several other lesser issues, that's up to you. But you are ignoring those other facts and in doing so buying into the northern revisionist history.
Why was immigration higher in the north? Partly due to slavery, no doubt. Partly is important though, it is not THE only reason now is it? Cities in the north were larger, they had more manufacturing jobs, they had more ports of entry, they offered more to the immigrant than the south did, you seem to be forgetting slavery was almost rare for the common man of the time, slaves were overwhelmingly held by large plantation owners and the average man had no slaves. The cities had very few if any slaves, plantation owners were certainly rich but they were not the only wealthy people in the south.

The north imposed taxes on the south's cotton, the north had oppressive tariffs and port fees that affected southern goods but not northern goods, they controlled the political system and imposed their will on the south, what about the collapse of cotton prices around the world? That had nothing to do with things either? No war is fought over one issue and one issue only. This is like saying the US fought in WWII because of Pearl Harbor and Pearl Harbor only.
Slavery was THE issue of the day, no doubt about it. And the actual stated reason for all the rebellion states, one simply can not deny slavery was THE driving force, I am not going there, do not confuse my position with the earlier stated one by Randy. But there were indeed other issues, of that there simply is no doubt. The two areas were in different worlds and headed in polar opposite directions, they were a divided nation on so many issues, slavery was a main reason and caused many of the other reasons, I get it! But not everything can be linked to slavery, not by a long shot.

GMTom wrote: Really? You too?
every single issue was tied to slavery and no other issues?

I've not read extensively about your civil war, but how would you divorce matters of tarifs for example from the slavery issue. You can go ahead and call it a trade issue, but if you trace the problem to its roots it's cheap slave labor that gave the South other economic incentives than the North.
Or you can talk about states rights vs federal power, but that too in the end was about the slavery issue at that time.

GMTom wrote:Even though we know the north had more education, The north shut out the south politically, the north had more immigration from Europe, the north looked down upon the south, the south distrusted the north, the two were on two different paths and everything, every single issue had to do with slavery?

Not even in the good old days did wars start over something as trivial as being looked down upon by someone if there wasn't some preexisting point of contention.

GMTom wrote:Even though slavery had been legal in the north for so long themselves, even though the ownership of slaves was very limited in the south, there were zero other issues???

So what would those reasons be then ?

GMTom wrote:I can't think of any war that was linked to one issue and one issue only, one primary issue most certainly! It was the big driving force I agree, but you guys want to actually claim there were ZERO other issues???

That would have lead to a war in and of themselves ? I can't think of one, but maybe i just don't know the history well enough.

GMTom wrote:Funny how any serious accounts always offer us several lesser "other" reasons that you want to ignore.

Tom i've no stake in this debate, i'm just saying that it seems more than possible that you can trace all the different points of contention back to the central issue that divided the North and South both morally and economically.

First off, I haven't labeled anybody. Rather respected historians like Bruce Catton, James McPherson, David McCullough, Kenneth Stamp and William Davis have. Nor have I read what they had to say and decided to ignore it because it doesn't agree with me. Rather, I have read it, considered in regards to all the other information I know and placed it in the appropriate context.

When a person makes one argument at the beginning of something and then change the argument after the fact, which do you hold to be more correct? For example, let us posit a car accident in which person driving a car is talking on a cell phone runs a stop sign and t-bones another car. Said driver gets out of the car, and says something along the lines of "I am so sorry, I was talking on my cell phone and didn't see the sign until it was too late." Unfortunately the accident caused a fatality. When the driver appears in court, he denies talking on his cell phone and claims he tried to stop but his brakes failed. He maintains this position even though the prosecution provides documentation from the phone company that says the phone was in use at the time of the accident, a mechanics report that says there is no problems with the brakes and a video tape of the accident showing the driver talking on the phone, making no attempt to brake and capturing the immediate confession. Which are you going to believe is more accurate?

This is the case with Lost Causers like Gordon. There is documented proof that at the start of the war, they admit that slavery is the sole reason for secession. Yet after the war, they try to change the story. Which are you going to believe more?

As for the lewrockwell.com article. I read it. I found it rather interesting. It seems to be based on the stories told him by his great grandma and the works of two authors attempting to justify secession (Charles Adams & Walter James Hummel). Now I don't recognize either author so I looked them up. Apparently they are not taken seriously amongst the historical community. Pretty much every serious historian, for example, McPherson, Davis and Stamp, dismisses them. However, having said that, I will add them to my list of books to get.

As for Miller's article, I discounted it not because I disagreed with it but because it suffered from a serious flaw. It attempted to argue that political power and economic issues were the reasons for the war but made no attempt to find out what was the cause of the political and economic issues (which is also a flaw you are making).

Another strike against Miller is that he is not a historian. He is a medical doctor with a specialty in thoracic surgery. Further, based on his other writings he is a bit of a fringe job. He argues that everybody should be taking iodine to protect from radiation poisoning, children shouldn't get vaccines and floride added to public water is poisoning us. I also found his attempted defense of slavery to be somewhat laughable.

Aside from all of that, this statment

GMTom wrote: The north shut out the south politically

is blatantly wrong. On a crap load of levels. First off, the slavery questions was rather settled with the Compromise of 1820 which admitted Maine as a Free State and Missouri as a Slave State and said that no state north of the Missouri border could be slave. It was a northern politician (Stephen Douglas) that got the Compromise of 1850, which pretty much repudiated the Cof20, and the Kansas-Nebraska act, which allowed territories to choose on their own, passed.

Further, the Import Tariff was being reduced every year to placate the South. As a matter of fact, the Import Tariff in place in 1860 was at it lowest point in something like 40 or 50 years and was also the lowest tariff in the world. All to placate the south.

So let me ask you a series of questions Tom.

Yes the South was fearful of losing it's outsized political power. (remember the slavery supporters had majorities in the House and Senate pretty much from the beginnings of the Republic. On top of this 9 out of 15 presidents had been from the south and of the 6 that had been from the North, at least 3 of them had southern sympathies in regards to slavery.)Why? What did it need all the political power to protect against?

Yes the South was not as economically advanced as the North. Why? Why was there so much industrialization in the north but not the south? (in 1860 the south had 110,000 industrial workers, which was the number of companies the North had).

Yes the north had more population (24M to 10M) due mostly to immigration. Why?

GMTom wrote:Cities in the north were larger

Why were cities in the North larger?

GMTom wrote: they had more manufacturing jobs,

Why did they have more manufacturing jobs in the north?

GMTom wrote: they had more ports of entry

The second largest port of entry in the U.S. at this time was Charleston S.C.

GMTom wrote: they offered more to the immigrant than the south did,

Why did the north offer more to the immigrant then the south did?

GMTom wrote: you seem to be forgetting slavery was almost rare for the common man of the time, slaves were overwhelmingly held by large plantation owners and the average man had no slaves.

This is wrong. Less then 3,000 people had more then 100 slave. Less then 10,000 people had more then 50 slaves. The most typical slaver holder owned 2-3 slaves.

Further you are ignoring the fact that slave owning was a status symbol. Even those who did not own slaves wanted to and planted crops based on and saved money until the could afford to purchase a slave.

GMTom wrote: plantation owners were certainly rich but they were not the only wealthy people in the south.

Provide statistics for this baseless assertion.

GMTom wrote:The north imposed taxes on the south's cotton,

No they did not.

GMTom wrote: the north had oppressive tariffs

the U.S. Tariff was the lowest in the world and was at its lowest point in about 50 years

GMTom wrote: tariffs and port fees that affected southern goods but not northern goods

false. The fees affected goods the same in the north as in the south.

GMTom wrote: they controlled the political system and imposed their will on the south,

again false. Slave supporting Democrats had majorities in both Houses of Congress pretty much since 1800. Further 9 of 15 Presidents came from the South and 3 of the northern Presidents had slave state sympathies. (Filmore, Pierce & Buchanan). Further, the Northern States bent over backward to appease the Southern States.

Slavery was the ONLY issue?
per your source, Bruce Catton's Book "The Civil War"
he says:
"Yet slavery (to repeat) was not the only source of discord..."


seems to me one of your sources disagree with you?

ever hear of the Morrill Tariff?
...designed to help the north and harm the south

and
"Further, the Northern States bent over backward to appease the Southern States."
seems like yet "another reason" you seem to want to ignore yet again, here you bring up conflict between the two regions that existed for a very long time. Face it, there are other reasons for the war, again, no denial, Slavery was the main cause! But good lord man, it wasn't so simple as you want us to believe!

Tom, the Morrill Tariff came in after several states seceded. Indeed, probably it only passed because those states seceded - it's likely that it would have been blocked. And the tariff that the Confederacy enacted was only slightly lower than Morrill (and higher than before).

Sorry, Tom, but the fact that there were other reasons doesn't detract from the point that a lot of those 'other' reasons had slavery as a factor themselves. Not always the overriding factor in all cases, but a contributory one at least. I'm still struggling to see what would have led to war if it wasn't slavery.

The history of slavery in the USA runs very deep. There were slaves in the Jamestown/Virginia colony a full year before the Mayflower arrived.