Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (38700)	5/31/1999 11:55:00 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I'm sorry, but I must again say the economic argument that tariffs were the primary cause of the Civil War doesn't make sense to me. The Civil War happened because the Southern states tried to secede form the Union and the Northern states, reluctantly at first, refused to let them. The Southern secessionists stated very plainly that their reasons for seceding were to protect the distinctive southern way of life. And it was slavery that made the southern way of life distinctive. Southern slaveowners felt that institution was threatened by the antislavery movement in the north and the violence against slaveowners it produced - in Kansas and in John Brown's raid. The industry of the north and the agricultural economy of the south made those sections of the country natural complementary trading partners. Probably why the North wouldn't let the South go perhaps, but not the reason for secession in the first place. In fact the complementary nature of the regional economies was a strong reason not to secede. Note that the South passed tariff legislation itself when it became independent. They needed the money and the little industry the south had needed to be protected and sheltered from competition.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (38700)	5/31/1999 12:31:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Respond to of 108807

Steven, I disagree. I believe the core issue was one of the economics of slavery and to argue that it was the economic consequences rather than the institution is pointless hair-splitting. The south continued to embrace slavery because it had no other source of wealth. An in fact, it attempted to extend slavery not only to new states being admitted to the Union (and thus increasing its wealth by creating new markets for slaves), but also by engaging in imperialist wars. For example, the South was behind an aborted coup in Nicaragua. That was also the motivation to "liberate" Texas. The reason was simply this: If you extend the area open for slavery you increase your potential wealth by creating new opportunities for slave trade. By the time of the Civil War, virtually the entire civilized world had abandoned slavery. The opportunity to convert the wealth tied up in slaves was limited to trade within the South. As a result, the wealth of the South was largely illusory. The slavery/plantation system was a drug. While the illusion of wealth existed, the inability of the South to convert its "slave wealth" into cash for industrialization guaranteed a colonial status for the South and a economic impediment for the nation as a whole. Regardless of the proximate reasons -- moral indignation of the Abolitionist, economic indignation from nascent labor unions, or economic pressure from the industrializing North, the common thread to all of these objections was slavery. TTFN, CTC