4 ms·

The Civil War was preceded by a constitutional issue divided geographically. The question of slavery in new states was forced by pro-slavery presidents, congres

by ipnon 4y ago

The Civil War was preceded by a constitutional issue divided geographically. The question of slavery in new states was forced by pro-slavery presidents, congressman, and justices. They sought to erase all middle ground, the tenuous bridge maintaining the union. Once it came to blows, the geography of slavery allowed the slavery states to band together. The upshot is that not all of these factors seem possible at once today.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
States are increasingly polarized, as people move to states that have politics that they like. The states don't clump all that nicely, though.
TheCondor 4y ago
Further on this... Free states refused to honor slaves states' "property rights." If a slave were to make it to a free state, they could get away and the authorities wouldn't do anything about it. If someone owned (I hate this language) a slave and traveled through a free state they could potentially lose "their property" with no recourse. I don't know which states have actual fighting forces that makes a civil war like situation possible, there is the whole mob mentality thing where maybe a group of really angry citizens would start to take actions on their own. Something else to consider is that the bluest of states still have a fairly large red contingent (north of 30%) and the same is true for the reddest states. I think that dilutes the mob. There might be places like rural Montana and Idaho where things could light up but I couldn't see Texas taking up arms against New Mexico. I think there would be a lot of obvious build ups. The abortion laws create a lot of interesting inter-state problems. If we were willing to have a shooting war because of "property," it doesn't seem far fetched that there could be one if one state supports the "murdering" of "killing" of lives from another state that tries to protect them.
- watwut 4y ago
  No, fugitive slave laws required return of slaves from free states to slave states. Free states activists resented it, because it imported slavery. This was by Supreme Court decision by the way. Also, the judges making decisions in runaway slave cases were financially motivated to rule that "this person is ex slave", so kidnappings of free black people were common. (Man, children, women were kidnapped in free states and sold in slave states.) The slave states had slave patrols - armed men looking for escaped slaves. They would also check people on trains and borders, whether no one is escaping. It just so happen that slavery don't hold itself - it requires a lot of effort, arms and violence to keep slaves.
waterheater 4y ago
Geography will always matter to a certain extent, but you elide the economic component of the Civil War. The business interests in the South were economically dependent on the existence of a slave-based economy. Northern states either moved to a different economic model or avoided it altogether. As such, the moral issues were much more front-and-center in the North, whereas Southerners were whipped around because of the economic aspect. As the quote goes, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." I do think that differences between the urban and rural workforce are creating divergence, especially when you consider the increased population density and service-based economies we have today. Generally, the coastal states have significantly diverged from the rest of the country, at least politically. As such, they tend to house and draw people with similar values. Value-based migration is not inherently problematic, as the population shift will increase competition between states and force reevaluation of certain policies, both among states losing and gaining different population segments. Real issues may start if a governor decides (and the associated governing apparatus then complies) that certain federal laws and judicial rulings will be ignored. We may be moving in that direction right now (see the NY governor's views on constitutional carry), and I hope we turn back.

by ipnon 4y ago

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

States are increasingly polarized, as people move to states that have politics that they like. The states don't clump all that nicely, though.

TheCondor 4y ago

Further on this... Free states refused to honor slaves states' "property rights." If a slave were to make it to a free state, they could get away and the authorities wouldn't do anything about it. If someone owned (I hate this language) a slave and traveled through a free state they could potentially lose "their property" with no recourse. I don't know which states have actual fighting forces that makes a civil war like situation possible, there is the whole mob mentality thing where maybe a group of really angry citizens would start to take actions on their own. Something else to consider is that the bluest of states still have a fairly large red contingent (north of 30%) and the same is true for the reddest states. I think that dilutes the mob. There might be places like rural Montana and Idaho where things could light up but I couldn't see Texas taking up arms against New Mexico. I think there would be a lot of obvious build ups. The abortion laws create a lot of interesting inter-state problems. If we were willing to have a shooting war because of "property," it doesn't seem far fetched that there could be one if one state supports the "murdering" of "killing" of lives from another state that tries to protect them.

watwut 4y ago
No, fugitive slave laws required return of slaves from free states to slave states. Free states activists resented it, because it imported slavery. This was by Supreme Court decision by the way. Also, the judges making decisions in runaway slave cases were financially motivated to rule that "this person is ex slave", so kidnappings of free black people were common. (Man, children, women were kidnapped in free states and sold in slave states.) The slave states had slave patrols - armed men looking for escaped slaves. They would also check people on trains and borders, whether no one is escaping. It just so happen that slavery don't hold itself - it requires a lot of effort, arms and violence to keep slaves.

waterheater 4y ago

Geography will always matter to a certain extent, but you elide the economic component of the Civil War. The business interests in the South were economically dependent on the existence of a slave-based economy. Northern states either moved to a different economic model or avoided it altogether. As such, the moral issues were much more front-and-center in the North, whereas Southerners were whipped around because of the economic aspect. As the quote goes, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." I do think that differences between the urban and rural workforce are creating divergence, especially when you consider the increased population density and service-based economies we have today. Generally, the coastal states have significantly diverged from the rest of the country, at least politically. As such, they tend to house and draw people with similar values. Value-based migration is not inherently problematic, as the population shift will increase competition between states and force reevaluation of certain policies, both among states losing and gaining different population segments. Real issues may start if a governor decides (and the associated governing apparatus then complies) that certain federal laws and judicial rulings will be ignored. We may be moving in that direction right now (see the NY governor's views on constitutional carry), and I hope we turn back.