Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

It's not like black people could be citizens in the North before the war.  Following the war they were quickly granted citizenship (separately from emancipation), but still couldn't vote until the 15th amendment 4 years later.

As for the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln offered the southern states a chance to rejoin the union and *not* have their slaves emancipated.  He only "freed all the slaves" because they didn't accept.

Yes slavery was a major issue of secession, because it was a large part of the South's economy.  The Southern states didn't secede because abolitionists were freeing (or in some cases, arming and inciting) slaves.  They were worried about suffering economic collapse if the North continued to aggressively push abolitionist ideals which barely effected the North's industrial economy, but would devastate the South's agricultural economy.  It was possible to abolish slavery carefully, without weakening the South, but the North *wanted* a weaker South.

See:  Sherman.

If it was just a righteous crusade against racism, why weren't Native Americans offered citizenship until 1890?  Not to mention the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.  This was largely a war to keep the South under control, providing raw materials to Northern industry at low prices.  Abolition was just a better rallying cry, and a fortunate result (which wasn't actually guaranteed until the war was nearly over).

[mainiac]

States rights, a federal government seen to be supporting northern industrial development, general American orneriness, slavery.

States rights for what?
"a federal government seen to be supporting northern industrial development" actually the government was doing a splendid fucking job blocking northern development.  The US started the transcontinental railroad in the middle of the freaking war because it was easier to fund the project while funding the army then it was to get a law through southern obstruction.

And please, tell me how the government was supporting this?  It wasn't tarrifs or land grants or excise taxes or income taxes or banking policy.  What mechanism were they using to fund the north at the expense of the south?

For instance, mainiac, protective tariffs,

... is a massive anachronism considering that tarrifs were very low and the nullification crisis was three decades past.   The reason why people say it was slavery and it's that fucking simple is because people come back with lazy did not do the research shit like this constantly.  Slavery was a huge fucking issue.  Tarrifs policy was extremely accomodating towards the south.

And in retrospect, slavery is focused on the most because it's the thing that made the winners look best.

People who dont have any evidence for their views will come up with narratives for how their views might be right.

And in retrospect, slavery is focused on the most because it's the thing that made the winners look best.

I need that on a plaque somewhere.

Dont worry, confederate revisionists have put thousands of them all over the country.

It's not like black people could be citizens in the North before the war.

Are you shitting us?

You say we are simplifying history and then you write this?  Black people could be citizens in north and south since before the american revolution.

[Rolan7]

It's not like black people could be citizens in the North before the war.

Are you shitting us?

You say we are simplifying history and then you write this?

Do you have an objection?  It's obviously true, thanks to the Dred Scott case 4 years before the war.
I could guess at why you don't think I should say it the way I did, but that's your little game I refuse to play.

Also, I never said you were simplifying history, so... yeah, good retort?

[RedKing]

I need that on a plaque somewhere.

Dont worry, confederate revisionists have put thousands of them all over the country.

That's cute, coming from someone in Maryland.

[mainiac]

I need that on a plaque somewhere.

Dont worry, confederate revisionists have put thousands of them all over the country.

That's cute, coming from someone in Maryland.

Otherwise known as the state that was on the right side of history when push finally came to shove. 

Dont worry though, less bad Carolina.  You can be like us.  Just look at Virginia.  Hell some parts of that state are even nice these days.

It's nice, having an argument in this thread where I have no skin in the game. Sometimes being towards the bottom of a long line of immigrants and poor people has its perks.

My ancestors all immigrated after 1866, I just dont like bullshit.

[nenjin]

@nenjin: Don't agree about the North being responsible for the lack of infrastructure, or at least not in the sense of war damage. The South lacked major infrastructure outside the coastal regions even before the war. That's one of the reasons it was so easy to divide and conquer it -- blockade the Mississippi, the Gulf Coast and the Mid-Atlantic Coast and you basically shut it down.

IIRC the North had something on the order of 80% more railway track laid than the South by the start of the war. By the end it was in the high 90s.

Sherman's March and other efforts didn't help, but it's not like we had gleaming roads and the finest of bridges prior to the war.

No but the war made it clear pretty quickly that Railroads were a war advantage that the South tried to close the gap on. They were literally laying track as the war was going. Sherman may not have crippled the South on that front but I think he basically destroyed any forward progress toward industrialization and urbanization that the South needed for it not to be a post-reconstruction shithole.

Most of the infrastructure damage was that done to farmsteads and light industry like grain mills. Which contributed to urbanization (see below).

Yep. The South was an agrarian economy at the start of the war. Which is why they shot better than Union soldiers but their equipment was shit. It was a policy of the North to undermine whatever economic base the South had during the war. You can say that burning cotton fields was a symbolic gesture to freed slaves...but it was arguably a total war policy as well. As long as southerners had their homes and their crops, they'd continue to fight. That self-sufficiency mentality is one reason the war went on as long as it did. But it wasn't leaving the South in a good place post Reconstruction. Eggs all in one basket, that kind of thing.

I dunno, to me the South always seemed like landed aristocracy banding together to defend their holdings against a unified North, supported by the non-landowning classes as infantry. It doesn't surprise that their anachronisms couldn't withstand a unified, federal US military force, even if Southern gentry had about 5x the military experience of the North. But this isn't anything most don't already know. Shit loads of soldiers and supplies will generally win out over skilled fighters given a long enough time line. And that timeline ran out when Sherman hit the sea.

[mainiac]

No but the war made it clear pretty quickly that Railroads were a war advantage that the South tried to close the gap on. They were literally laying track as the war was going.

Both sides were laying massive amounts of rail.  Rail was an economic no brainer but government subsidies for rail were a political non-starter until the war started.  That's why the trans-continental railroad started in 1862.

You can say that burning cotton fields was a symbolic gesture to freed slaves...but it was arguably a total war policy as well. As long as southerners had their homes and their crops, they'd continue to fight. That self-sufficiency mentality is one reason the war went on as long as it did. But it wasn't leaving the South in a good place post Reconstruction. Eggs all in one basket, that kind of thing.

Cotton production actually recovered pretty darn fast when you consider that the late 1850s were a cotton bubble, taxes were placed on cotton production after the war, Egyptian competition rose a ton during the civil war and that southern agriculture diversified after the war.  I think 1870 was when cotton production reach a new peak but I would have to look that up.

[Neonivek]

No but the war made it clear pretty quickly that Railroads were a war advantage that the South tried to close the gap on. They were literally laying track as the war was going.

Both sides were laying massive amounts of rail.  Rail was an economic no brainer but government subsidies for rail were a political non-starter until the war started.  That's why the trans-continental railroad started in 1862.

So... what do you know.. The American Civil War and World War 2 have a lot in common

In that they were both, essentially, huge economic vehicles.

[mainiac]

Which has probably given the US a very skewed experience since war is not generally good for the economy.

[nenjin]

Which has probably given the US a very skewed experience since war is not generally good for the economy.

War profiteering isn't an exclusively American behavior, but yeah, we seem to have gotten especially good at it. Maybe we just love Silver Linings.

[mainiac]

Most of our other wars were very unprofitable.  The economy really nosedived during the american revolution and took decades to recover.  WWI resulted in a huge transfer of wealth to Germany and France.  The Iraq war cost trillions.  It's just the two most famous wars that were good for the economy and only because they resulted in very bad economic policies ending.  And even with WWII its debatable how much good it did to the economy considering that the country was recovering from the 1937 recession even before the war started, let alone american involvement.  But those details dont really matter too much to the narrative in the back of your head that war is good for business.

[nenjin]

Most of our other wars were very unprofitable.  The economy really nosedived during the american revolution and took decades to recover.  WWI resulted in a huge transfer of wealth to Germany and France.  The Iraq war cost trillions.  It's just the two most famous wars that were good for the economy and only because they resulted in very bad economic policies ending.  And even with WWII its debatable how much good it did to the economy considering that the country was recovering from the 1937 recession even before the war started, let alone american involvement.  But those details dont really matter too much to the narrative in the back of your head that war is good for business.

Well I'd ask: which sectors? Maybe they were a net loss in GDP as we measure it now, but production alone and the diverting of resources to certain sectors I have no doubt was good for someone's pocket book. Or is it perhaps that the war looked profitable because of the difference in consumption after the years of rationing?

How does Vietnam stack up in that? Other than arms and vehicle manufacturers I'd imagine it was one of our least profitable wars?

[WealthyRadish]

Democracies are meant to be dysfunctional to a degree, war just happens to clear up most immediate political obstacles. Of course, the US government today has somehow gotten in the lucky position where it can enjoy all the massive waste of endless military adventures and readiness, while reaching new heights of political dysfunction at home.

[Neonivek]

Most of our other wars were very unprofitable.  The economy really nosedived during the american revolution and took decades to recover.  WWI resulted in a huge transfer of wealth to Germany and France.  The Iraq war cost trillions.  It's just the two most famous wars that were good for the economy and only because they resulted in very bad economic policies ending.  And even with WWII its debatable how much good it did to the economy considering that the country was recovering from the 1937 recession even before the war started, let alone american involvement.  But those details dont really matter too much to the narrative in the back of your head that war is good for business.

Usually war isn't profitable because money spent on the war isn't spent on infrastructure and building businesses.

The reason the American Civil War and WW2 are an exception is because those wars specifically required them to build an infrastructure.

The American Civil War caused the Rail system to expand... and WW2 single handedly industrialized the entire US.

Though I should say "The economy took a nosedive" would have occurred in WW2 as well. It was the after effects on WW2 that caused the economy to flourish. You see the effect on the economy during the recovery, not during the war itself.

[mainiac]

Though I should say "The economy took a nosedive" would have occurred in WW2 as well. It was the after effects on WW2 that caused the economy to flourish. You see the effect on the economy during the recovery, not during the war itself.

Well the war resulted in a peace featuring a peacetime draft and huge weapons expenditure, devastation of several trading partners, the terminal weakening of colonial arrangements that been good for industry, american included and the cold war cutting off trade with a number of nations (the eastern block, China and the Soviet Union itself).  Not really great for business...