4 ms·

There is just as much "ugh" in saying that it was about slavery instead of state's rights. Either way, you're leaving out important things. This misleads by ove

by tropo 8y ago

There is just as much "ugh" in saying that it was about slavery instead of state's rights. Either way, you're leaving out important things. This misleads by oversimplification. You'd be better off saying it was about geography! There is a band of soil running along today's black belt that is unusually good for growing certain labor-intensive crops, particularly cotton. That lead to a non-industrial economy. Meanwhile, water power to operate machinery was widely available in New England. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Belt_(U.S._region) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Belt_(U.S._region) So right off, you have a huge conflict over things like tariffs, and you'd have that even without adding the issue of slaves. The north preferred to have tariffs on manufactured goods, and the south preferred to have them on raw materials. The "state's right" in question was actually the nullification of a tariff. BTW, the usual story about slavery in the USA also leaves out the awkwardness of stuff like this slave owner: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)

mturmon 8y ago
Instead of after-the-fact musings on the role of geography, it would be smart to read what the Confederate states themselves said their reasons were for seceding. For instance, Mississippi [1]. The first two sentences of the Mississippi secession document read: "In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." [1] http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp
- noobiemcfoob 8y ago
  This argument always trots out Mississippi's declaration. Show me evidence from the CSA leadership as a whole, and I'd let the point stand without contention.
  - jonnybgood 8y ago
    The GP quote is supported by the CSA constitution [1]. Search “slave” and read every mention. The institution of slavery was such a big deal that it needed to be ensured by their constitution. Why would they do that? [1] http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

by tropo 8y ago

mturmon 8y ago

Instead of after-the-fact musings on the role of geography, it would be smart to read what the Confederate states themselves said their reasons were for seceding. For instance, Mississippi [1]. The first two sentences of the Mississippi secession document read: "In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." [1] http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

noobiemcfoob 8y ago
This argument always trots out Mississippi's declaration. Show me evidence from the CSA leadership as a whole, and I'd let the point stand without contention.
- jonnybgood 8y ago
  The GP quote is supported by the CSA constitution [1]. Search “slave” and read every mention. The institution of slavery was such a big deal that it needed to be ensured by their constitution. Why would they do that? [1] http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp