The type of agrarian system that formed southern attitudes was a result of slavery. Farming on a large, almost industrial scale and the need to defend slavery caused a regional insularity and a lack of enterprise and industry. Slavery affected almost all aspects of southern society including the nature of agriculture, the care of the land, migration patterns and immigration.
As for tariffs, the Southerners had the tariff thing going their way until they rebelled.
In any event the one regional difference that caused rebellion was slavery. I think if the Southern states had not had slavery they wouldn't have rebelled. Had they not had slavery their society and needs would've been profoundly different. Hell, I see lingering effects of slavery in modern southern Whites.
Do you think there would've been a rebellion without the need to defend slavery?
This fails to recognize, at the least, the difference between root cause and immediate cause. To have a root cause, there can't be any other cause that precedes it. Of course, slavery was a "root" or precedent cause for the North, before reuniting the union joined the chain of causation.Slavery was the root cause for the South. It was not a cause for the North to send troops into the South. That was Secession.
Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men.This fails to recognize, at the least, the difference between root cause and immediate cause. To have a root cause, there can't be any other cause that precedes it. Of course, slavery was a "root" or precedent cause for the North, before reuniting the union joined the chain of causation.
Just in general, every war is fought for the cause of controlling territory and the rights that control engender. The "north" and Republican Platform made it clear that they intended to take control of the West immediately. And why? Slavery!
I would defend part of his claim. First, all leadership is rightly subject to criticism. Second, I think Malcolm X figured out part of what was wrong with what he referred to as "so-called Negro leaders" when the FBI tried to recruit him as an informant, and he realized some of those ahead of him in the pecking order were already working for the same handlers, as were the leaders of NOI "enemies."So you think the Republicans offer a better contemporary alternative for American Blacks?
Absent slavery, there would have been no reason for the South to secede. Get real.Slavery was a factor, I've never said it didn't influence the South. My thesis was that it wasn't the ONLY factor. The tariffs were an on/off issue and an issue that was being discussed at the start of the Lincoln administration. It was a factor for the South.
To answer your question about would there have been a rebellion: Yes, I think there would have been a secession even without slavery. Regionalism and differing opinions about the role of government have shown that secession is possible (the New England region almost seceding because of the 1812 War) and I still think it affects our politics to this day (some say that the US is currently undergoing a cold civil war). Regionalism is a powerful enough factor to cause a rebellion and I think the South was on the path to split with the North whether slavery or not.
Not quite. It's not just threat in the abstract, but unconstitutional threat - as MacPherson pointed out. Northerners causing insurrection was another perceived threat mentioned in two documents (like John Brown).These documents are unanimous in declaring the perceived threat to the institution of slavery to be the cause of secession.
|Similar History Discussions||History Forum||Date|
|Tesla Discovered Free Energy/Was Suppressed||Speculative History|
|French government suppressed reports of 'gruesome torture' of Bataclan victims||Current Events|
|Agamas - Suppressed Vedas Counterpart?||Asian History|
|Will the Far-Right be suppressed?||Current Events|