It's Confederate History Month in Dixie

[Strike For The South]

As for the causes of the war, slavery was not the primary reason. The reasons were economic. Slavery was the heated issue used to stoke the fires in the north for an otherwise unpopular war.
.

Slavery and the Antebellum economy are hand in hand.

The secession speechs bear themselves out, Slavery was the primary reason.

[Fisherking]

Slavery was the emotional issue. Just as abortion takes center stage in arguments over states’ rights today.

But only 10% or less of the population owned slaves. Why was it that South Carolina fired on Ft. Sumter? I don’t think slaves were involved in that.

[Strike For The South]

Slavery was the emotional issue. Just as abortion takes center stage in arguments over states’ rights today.

But only 10% or less of the population owned slaves. Why was it that South Carolina fired on Ft. Sumter? I don’t think slaves were involved in that.

Those 10% were the most powerful people though, and the most powerful people tend to get there way...

I was always under the impression the taking of Ft.Summter was for the weapons cache there....The CSA plea for surrender was ignored and the rest is history.

The point is you can not talk about states rights nor the south economy without talking about the slavery issue because those areguments stemmed out of things like the fugtive slave act (commonly reffered to in the ordinances of secesion) and tariffs (which really only hurt the south because they had created a false market by using slave labor)

[Fisherking]

No. They attacked Ft. Sumter because Lincoln would not with draw the troops from there.

They saw it as foreign occupation. The Union was sending reinforcements.

It was still a dumb thing to do. I am from one of the 4 states that didn’t join in until after the crises.

It also caused a civil war among the Cherokee but most of the tribes of what is now Oklahoma were friendly to the Confederacy.

I would agree that it was all about slavery as far as South Carolina was concerned but the causes run far deeper and farther back than 1861.

The rank and file were not concerned with slavery which was a rich mans problem but joined and fought for different reasons.

Even is the 7 deep south states there was lots of anti war sentiment from the beginning.

It is much more complicated than slave and free. It has been an issue of division for almost 200 years and there have been no slaves for more than 147 of those.

[Strike For The South]

No. They attacked Ft. Sumter because Lincoln would not with draw the troops from there.

They saw it as foreign occupation. The Union was sending reinforcements.

It was still a dumb thing to do. I am from one of the 4 states that didn’t join in until after the crises.

It also caused a civil war among the Cherokee but most of the tribes of what is now Oklahoma were friendly to the Confederacy.

I would agree that it was all about slavery as far as South Carolina was concerned but the causes run far deeper and farther back than 1861.

The rank and file were not concerned with slavery which was a rich mans problem but joined and fought for different reasons.

Even is the 7 deep south states there was lots of anti war sentiment from the beginning.

It is much more complicated than slave and free. It has been an issue of division for almost 200 years and there have been no slaves for more than 147 of those.

I agree that it is more complex but the centerpeice is still Chattel Slavery

[DisruptorX]

You could argue that the North was not fighting against slavery. As slavery in the Confederacy was only abolished with the emancipation proclamation and slavery in the Union with the 13th Amendment. The were fighting because of slavery, as disagreements over the spread of the institution led more or less directly to the secession, but they were not initially fighting to abolish it.

Arguing that the South was not fighting for slavery, however, is disingenuous. The conflict over territories becoming free or slave states upon admission was the biggest issue of argument between the North and South.

[Subotan]

Land redistribution does indeed have a track record of success

Of course. To pull a random example out of my History Hat, huge land redistribution in Japan post-WWII broke the power of the pre-war landlords and created a small-farmer class who were the backbone of the Liberal Democratic Party's support, thus leading to Japan's economic miracle.

I remember reading that the key to the United State's success as opposed to other post-colonial American nations which relied heavily on immigrants, such as Argentina, was the lack of a landlord class which could dominate politics and society.

Except, of course, in the South. Perhaps if radical redistribution had occured, and each black slave had acquired his 40 acres and a mule, then the Southern backlash wouldn't have occurred.