Was the American Civil War truely a civil war? A civil war is fought bewteen a nation and an internal faction. But my history teacher told me today when me and him were having a private discussion due to a high number of absents, that it was techinally called the "War of Northern Aggression" because the Confederacy was independent, because the Union enacted a blockade, which he said was an act that could techinally only be undertaken against another soveign nation.

was the american revolution........a revolution? no, it was a rebellion and war for independence.

Sounds like your teacher is from the south?

Semantics are a wonderful thing.

The South was not ALLOWED to leave the union, therefore they were forcibly kept in it. They were never independent.

Originally posted by Flatlander Fox
Sounds like your teacher is from the south?

Semantics are a wonderful thing.

The South was not ALLOWED to leave the union, therefore they were forcibly kept in it. They were never independent.

Not too sure about that. The US Constitution doesnt say anything about leaving the US.

However, it was a civil war since the Sout broke off of the US, but was never recognized by European countries.

I think it does say something about states not being able to do their own thing, I think that was one of the big reasons for getting rid of the Articles of Confederation.

It was a civil war as it was more or less a war between different factions within a single country.
Of course the point of the "single country" is a bit tricky when it comes to the United States of about 1860, as it was in fact (and somehow still is) a union of states. But that's states, not countries.

Befroe the United States were reformed under the Constitution, States were countries. As much as anything that was the genius of the Constitution.

That being said the Civil War was as much a civil war as any ever was. In the endit was about the governmental franchise.

J

PS It was not very civil for the most part. Quite the opposite in fact.

The American Civil War is probably the saddest chapter of our history.

Over 600,000 dead. More US casualties than both World Wars combined.
Countrymen fighting countrymen, cousins fighting cousins, brothers fighting brothers.

Americans killing Americans.

Its no wonder we were isolationist after that, and tried to stay out of European wars.

It was a civil war in every sense of the word, the political circumstances are just details.

But my history teacher told me today when me and him were having a private discussion due to a high number of absents, that it was techinally called the "War of Northern Aggression" because the Confederacy was independent...
Funny how some people still think this. The south fired first, at Fort Sumter. Yet for many years, this is what the Civil War was refered to by many southerners.

BTW, in official government documents, the war was termed "The War of Rebellion."

To have stopped being a civil war, I think you would have had to have seen mass international recognition of the South as an actual state. That did not happen. In international eyes, the south was not really a country because it hadn't really secured its own soveriegnty.

R.III

Originally posted by napoleon526

Funny how some people still think this. The south fired first, at Fort Sumter. Yet for many years, this is what the Civil War was refered to by many southerners.

BTW, in official government documents, the war was termed "The War of Rebellion."

This was the point i tried to make also.

Originally posted by Richard III
To have stopped being a civil war, I think you would have had to have seen mass international recognition of the South as an actual state. That did not happen. In international eyes, the south was not really a country because it hadn't really secured its own soveriegnty.

R.III

Another very valid point i tried to make.

IMO, The Civil War was fought between two Factions.

Killing 600,000 people doesn't seem civil behaviour to me;
so it can not have been a civil war.

Originally posted by EdwardTking
Killing 600,000 people doesn't seem civil behaviour to me;
so it can not have been a civil war.

And this what we call spam.

Hard to define it as either.

I lean towards that it was not a civil war because there was the north, and the south. A civil war has no fronts.

Though what is in a name, anyway...

Archer_007 wrote:

Was the American Civil War truely a civil war? A civil war is fought bewteen a nation and an internal faction. But my history teacher told me today when me and him were having a private discussion due to a high number of absents, that it was techinally called the "War of Northern Aggression" because the Confederacy was independent, because the Union enacted a blockade, which he said was an act that could techinally only be undertaken against another soveign nation.

Was your teacher by any chance named Trent Lott...?

I am amazed this foolishness about a "Northern War of Aggression" still persists. My impression from friends from the South was that this died out in the 1970s at the latest. As Napoleon 526 mentioned, since the South actually launched the war it's a bit of a stretch to call it a Northern war of aggression. The British historian Paul Johnson mentions that the states' rights argument was a bunch of bullsh*t, that the war from the Southern perspective was all about protecting the rights of an entrenched elite (plantation owners) and their lifestyle. The poor whites who fought in the Confederate Army so well were really fighting for their continued impoverishment. The Southerners did the one thing by firing at Fort Sumter (so says Johnson) that really could give the North the opportunity to break their power; by starting the war they brought about their own destruction. If they'd just stuck to speeches, Congress would surely never have dared ban slavery until slavery collapsed of its own dead economic weight. Also, as RIII said, usually to be considered independent a state requires the recognition of at least one or two other states - something the Confederacy never achieved.

As for what constitutes a civil war, I think all you need is two or more sides from within a state fighting each other. EdwardTKing's comment was not really spam, as the Civil War killed more Americans than any other conflict. In the popular histories much has been glorified and whitewashed, with a lot of the nasty bits edited out. It was indeed a most uncivil war.

Agreed Vrylakas. Me and my friend had a conversation about the ignorance of his comments after he had left the room (we were in another class when he said this). I was just setting up a question for debate. I do not personally buy into this view at all.

In the movie Gettysburg Tom Berringer, playing Gen. James Longstreet, said something interesting. When talking to the British observer Col. Freemantle, he says "We should have freed the slaves, then fired on Fort Sumter." This makes sense, because it would have showed the world that the Confederacy was about more than just an attempt to uphold an archaic and immoral economic system (which it was).

Towards the end of the war, some southern politicians proposed to the Confederate congress that slaves should be armed and trained to fight for the Confederacy, and receive their freedom as a reward. The question was, how far was the Confederacy willing to go to achieve independence? Far enough to arm the very people they held in servitude? This proposal was of course rejected, since the southern elite cared more about maintaining slavery than it did about winning southern independence.

That, and the slaves proboly would have turned on them.

Actually, hundreds of thousands of slaves did fight for the South, as did freed slaves fight for the North.

To call it anything but the Civil War is incorrect. Vrylakas' post was dead on. The Civil War had little to do with any state right except the preservation of slavery, i.e. modern feudalism where the local lord (plantation owner) held life and death sway over his subjects (slaves). The men who fought in the Southern armies were fighting to protect their homes, nothing more, due to the nature of the Civil War.

In essence, to establish itself as a nation, the CSA merely had to preserve some semblence of a nation, thus they were on the defensive. The North, to preserve the Union, was forced to conquer the rebellious areas (southern states). It was a clash between the new America and the old world, and I thank God the new America won.

Originally posted by Remorseless
Actually, hundreds of thousands of slaves did fight for the South, as did freed slaves fight for the North.

Wha'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis?

Black slaves did NOT fight for the Confederacy. Period. Towards the end of the war, a few black companies drilled, but none saw combat. The argument that blacks fought for the Confederacy is a complete fiction created by southern apologists.

Blacks eventually came to supply 10% of the Union army's manpower, despite the fact that they consisted of only 1% of the north's population.

i think hes write about 100,000 blacks fought for the south.......

Napoleon526 is right on this one. There were some trained late war, but they never set foot on the field.

Originally posted by archer_007
Napoleon526 is right on this one. There were some trained late war, but they never set foot on the field.

Lee suggested it, tough.

But i'm not sure if the bill passed or not in the confederate congress :confused:

I'm suprised that no one has pointed out that the very question archer raises was indeed what actually started the US civil war. Initially, it was not a war to end slavery. Lincoln's primary concern from the start was preservation of the Union. The South on the other hand did ultimately vote to not only seceded from the Union, but to form an "independent nation," as archer's teacher claimed.

To the North, it was obviously civil war. To the South, it was indeed a "War of northern Agression."

He who wins the war may get to write the history books, but there's always some teacher who will give the contrary viewpoint during recess, and off the record!

Lee also sugested the use of pikes..................

3,000 blacks where fighting in Jacksons Corps at Antietam

a link to the enlistment of slaves latter in the war
http://www.civilwarhome.com/proposal.htm

and would could of happened if it had been passed
http://www.civilwarhome.com/negroenlistments.htm

and blacks who fought for the south
http://www.civilwarhome.com/blacks.htm

Originally posted by Ancient Grudge
Lee also sugested the use of pikes..................



Enjoy (http://www.psu.edu/ur/NEWS/news/civilwar.html)

Lee supported and urged the hiring of african-americans

Lee urged that blacks be allowed into the Confederate army and that those who served be given their freedom. The Confederate Congress hedged about the liberation part.

Originally posted by Ancient Grudge
Lee also sugested the use of pikes..................

3,000 blacks where fighting in Jacksons Corps at Antietam

a link to the enlistment of slaves latter in the war
http://www.civilwarhome.com/proposal.htm

and would could of happened if it had been passed
http://www.civilwarhome.com/negroenlistments.htm

and blacks who fought for the south
http://www.civilwarhome.com/blacks.htm
I'm sorry, AG, but the links you provide are nothing but a big steaming pile of DOG SH!T.

3000 blacks at Antietam? I have never seen an order of battle or any other source to give this any merit. How come the guy who wrote this article provides no sources except what one loser professor says? Because there is NO EVIDENCE. IT NEVER HAPPENED. No eyewitness account on either side mentions blacks fighting for the Confederacy. The theory that slaves fought for the south is nothing but a perverted idea invented by those who see the Confederacy as something other than a revolting institution meant to uphold an archaic and immoral economic system. If you read more of this guy's article, you'll see him badmouth Lincoln and attempt to justify the founding of the CSA. Now what possible reason could he have to promote the fiction that blacks fought for the south? Could it be a feeble attempt to try to make the Confederacy seem to be more than A REVOLTING INSTITUTION MEANT TO UPHOLD AN ARCHAIC AND IMMORAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM???? :rolleyes:

Let's use a little logic. One of the three links you provide tell about how Gen Cleburne wanted to use blacks in the army, but his plan was rejected. Another link tells us how SW Jackson was allegedly using slaves in his army at Antietam, BEFORE Cleburne's proposal! So, which one is true? (correct answer: neither)

I'll write more scathing commentary later. This one was just too stupid to let go.

Since the South lost and the view of the North on Secession was thus upheld (it is the sort of question courts would normaly punt as being a 'political' question rather than a 'legal' one) then it was civil war. If the south had won and vidicated they viewpoint of the 'political' question, it would have been what they called it.
Trial by combat, he who wins establishes the answer to the question. The law can be very pragmatic that way.

Nap526 - if you'll check one of the numerous historical studies of the war, you will find black soldiers (and I admit, it's a loose term) digging trenches, working as wagon drivers, etc., for the Confederates. Trust me, I'm no apologist for the South -- I personally consider them traitors and their commanders should have been shot out of hand after the war. But the sad fact was, many slaves were impressed into the Confederate Army to handle non-combat duties in order to free up whites for combat.

So get off my case.

Originally posted by Remorseless
Nap526 - if you'll check one of the numerous historical studies of the war, you will find black soldiers (and I admit, it's a loose term) digging trenches, working as wagon drivers, etc., for the Confederates. Trust me, I'm no apologist for the South -- I personally consider them traitors and their commanders should have been shot out of hand after the war. But the sad fact was, many slaves were impressed into the Confederate Army to handle non-combat duties in order to free up whites for combat.

So get off my case.

That summarize what we said. Blacks doing duties for the Confederate Army were forced to do those tasks. But i don't believe there were blacks that join CSA army by themselves to FIGHT (except by Lee's call but see below). You cannot force someone to fight for a cause he don't believe in. I cannot imagine blacks in grey uniform advocating the cause of Fort Pillow murderers (no need to explain what happened there, I guess, thus no need to tell you that generals like Forrest would have never accepted blacks soldiers under their command), for example. BUT I think Lee was a different man, and saw no problem to arm southern blacks. Maybe he treaten them differently, or had a better opinion of them, or whatever. And he promised them freedom.

BTW, I don't want to start a controversy about what happened at Fort Pillow. That's simply an example why it should have been difficult to make blacks fight for the South

lee and jackson where both against slavery anyway and blacks still did 'fight' for the south

What is a "civil war"? Lets define some terms. The English civil war was between the royalists and the roundheads (supporters of the rights of Parliament, mostly dissenters from the Church of England with somewhat shorter hair than the "cavaliers" who supported the King. This is the two factions in one country. If the KIng had won, doubt this would have been called a civil war, just another rebellion, like wat tyler, the stuarts in 1745 mostly in Scotland, etc.

The Spanish Civil war was also won by the insurgents (Franco) against the Socialist Government.

The russian civil war was the reds against the whites. I have trouble spelling bulshovic. The whites were in part the original government after the Czar, the Kerensky government, with some monarchists and other factions that didn't want the country to be communist. Some of these were foreign nations and others were trying to obtain national independence. Finland had been part of Russia.

What I am leading up to, is that based on these examples, you don't get a civil war until the winning side overthrows the orginal government. On that basis, what the confederatacy had was a rebellion, not a civil war. Maybe I am not working with the right definition of a civil war, if it includes all rebellions, was the Vietnam war protest a civil war? There were even bombings of college campuses to support the "rebellion."

Originally posted by Vrylakas
I am amazed this foolishness about a "Northern War of Aggression" still persists. Why not the myth that George W Bush stole the election is still around. Nothing is harder to kill than a desirable misconception.

J

Originally posted by onejayhawk
Why not the myth that George W Bush stole the election is still around. Nothing is harder to kill than a desirable misconception.

J


Misguided history will bury us all. South yells "Northern Aggestion", yet they fire the first shot. Democrats yell "Bush stole it". They wouldn't be talking so quickly if the system would have benifited them. It only luck that both Presidents who didn't get a majority of the vote were Republicans.

Originally posted by Remorseless
Nap526 - if you'll check one of the numerous historical studies of the war, you will find black soldiers (and I admit, it's a loose term) digging trenches, working as wagon drivers, etc., for the Confederates. Trust me, I'm no apologist for the South -- I personally consider them traitors and their commanders should have been shot out of hand after the war. But the sad fact was, many slaves were impressed into the Confederate Army to handle non-combat duties in order to free up whites for combat.

So get off my case.
I understand what you're saying, but do you consider digging trenches, etc. "fighting" for the CSA? There's a big difference between risking your life for a cause you believe in and being forced to aid a government that supports your enslavement.

As to Lee and Jackson disapproving of slavery, it is true that Jackson may have had reservations about slavery, Lee actually owned slaves on his plantation at Arlington.

Of course, why wouldn't blacks want to fight for a system that uses things like this:
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/cph/3a30000/3a32000/3a32400/3a32403r.jpg

Or subjects them to such luxurious accomidations as this:
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/cph/3a40000/3a44000/3a44200/3a44236r.jpg

Or even takes such lovely pictures of them!
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/cph/3b30000/3b36000/3b36700/3b36701r.jpg

Who wouldn't want to live such a life?!
http://museum.gov.ns.ca/blackloyalists/images/gordon.gif

Having gone through a lot of consumption of information on this topic and era just recently and longer before that I can form this opinion:

There are different theories about what the motives of the Civil War were. The war of northern agression label is strictly southern which finds good reason in this:

In the U.S. prior to 1860 the government was overwhelmingly dominated by Southerners. Only 2 out of 13 presidents to that time were southern with Lincoln being the 3rd. The Supreme court was dominated by the South for which the Dred Scott decision speaks, and would find more southern behinds in its seats than northern ones. Economically, the South was the richest region of the country with King Cotton finding its peak in the state of Mississippi which was the 2nd richest state in the country ATT. Militarily, the Mexican-American war had been fought with an overwhleming majority of soldiers from the South, the most famous of those being Jefferson Davis and Robert Lee who would go on to do their thing.

The North has always opposed this and if you look at the post war american history then you will see that southern power has been squelched to the point of where only 3 southern democrats have been elected president (1912, 1964, 1992). Economically, because of Reconstruction, the south was not much different as wage-slavery replaced regural slavery gradually and blacks and poor whites where trapped in the sharecropping cycle. The south had a defacto colonial status after the war as resources were tapped to the north and the textile factories moved south in anticipation of dirt cheap labor and child labor.

So if the North was truly agressing then all this warrants the title "The War of Northern Agression".

The south can be viewed as a seperate country during all this time. Only language and an experimental government held the South and the North together. The South's social system was aristocratic, chivalric, and extremely proud regionally. Most importantly, they were all states' rights supporters. During the civil war, Stephens of Georgia wanted to seperate from the Confederacy and fight the North and the South in spite of the fact that he was Vice President of the Confederacy!

I think the "War of Northern Agression" label is fair when looking at the facts.

Originally posted by napoleon526

I'm sorry, AG, but the links you provide are nothing but a big steaming pile of DOG SH!T.

3000 blacks at Antietam? I have never seen an order of battle or any other source to give this any merit. How come the guy who wrote this article provides no sources except what one loser professor says? Because there is NO EVIDENCE. IT NEVER HAPPENED. No eyewitness account on either side mentions blacks fighting for the Confederacy. The theory that slaves fought for the south is nothing but a perverted idea invented by those who see the Confederacy as something other than a revolting institution meant to uphold an archaic and immoral economic system. If you read more of this guy's article, you'll see him badmouth Lincoln and attempt to justify the founding of the CSA. Now what possible reason could he have to promote the fiction that blacks fought for the south? Could it be a feeble attempt to try to make the Confederacy seem to be more than A REVOLTING INSTITUTION MEANT TO UPHOLD AN ARCHAIC AND IMMORAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM???? :rolleyes:

Let's use a little logic. One of the three links you provide tell about how Gen Cleburne wanted to use blacks in the army, but his plan was rejected. Another link tells us how SW Jackson was allegedly using slaves in his army at Antietam, BEFORE Cleburne's proposal! So, which one is true? (correct answer: neither)

I'll write more scathing commentary later. This one was just too stupid to let go.

Blacks did fight for the South out of loyalty for their masters but you would have to go a lot beyond the decimal to depict this as a percentage. It was very rare but did happen.

During all this time I think the quality of life that comes from living as a slave is better than the wage-slavery in the North.

As a slave you got 3 warm meals a day, housing, clothes and ample leisure time.

As a slave in the north you got up in the morning, worked from sunrise to dawn, went home and repeated the process again without any days off. If you lost a finger, an arm, an ear or whatever and you couldn't do your job anymore, they hire someone else and you can see how you come along disabled. Strikes were illegal as factory owners just paid the judges to make it illegal. This was so until the 1930's. There was no such thing job security, pensions etc.

Compare the life of a free black in the North, to a slave black in the South. As a free black you have to go through the same shi!t that a normal factory worker goes through plus on top of that you face incredible discrimination from your surroundings. As a slave in the south you work in the field alongside your masters for a while, go fishing, do whatever and lodging and food is all free.

Of course slavery is immoral but how much moral is the way of life in the north? How much freedom did you have in the north if your life was dictated by the factory owner who could fire you at his discretion and pay you whatever he wants.

And also, the war never began as a struggle to abolish slavery. Lincoln, as a republican, stood for the non-proliferation of slavery into the new territories, not against the abolition of it. If the south had lost 1st bull run then a reintegration would have been painless with slavery still intact in the south. If McClellan had won his peninsula campaign this still would have been true. Only to appeal to foreign nations did Lincoln announce his emancipation proclamation after Antietam. Now the war became about freeing the slaves and this was the major reason why England and France didn't intervene on the side of the South.

Blacks did fight for the South out of loyalty for their masters but you would have to go a lot beyond the decimal to depict this as a percentage. It was very rare but did happen.

Out of loyalty for their masters? Which masters? Those who divided families to make profit?

As a slave you got 3 warm meals a day, housing, clothes and ample leisure time.

Yeah, you lived in five stars cabins :rolleyes:

As a slave in the south you work in the field alongside your masters for a while, go fishing, do whatever and lodging and food is all free.

Did you know that on plantations slave owners often employed overseers, thus slaves might rarely see their masters. But sometimes, many took advantage of their position to exploit slave women sexually. So as you can see, It's great to recieve 'visits' from owners.

Of course slavery is immoral but how much moral is the way of life in the north? How much freedom did you have in the north if your life was dictated by the factory owner who could fire you at his discretion and pay you whatever he wants.

Their marriage were regonized, thus families could not be divided. That's more than enough for me.



And also, the war never began as a struggle to abolish slavery. Lincoln, as a republican, stood for the non-proliferation of slavery into the new territories, not against the abolition of it. If the south had lost 1st bull run then a reintegration would have been painless with slavery still intact in the south. If McClellan had won his peninsula campaign this still would have been true. Only to appeal to foreign nations did Lincoln announce his emancipation proclamation after Antietam. Now the war became about freeing the slaves and this was the major reason why England and France didn't intervene on the side of the South.

I agree with you, Lincoln was for from perfect. But out of him, Breckenridge ('southern democrat), Bell ( Constitutional Union) and Douglas ('northern' democrat), I would have picked Abe.

Like I said those were rare occurences but did happen and their reason for fighting was out of loyalty for their masters.

Lol, yeah the cabins...Well at least you had job security and your master wasn't gonna have you do dangerous jobs. He'd just hire an Irish so he can break his neck when fixin the roof cuz you only got to pay him by hour whereas he paid a lot for you...

I don't agree about that overseer argument. That's a misconception. The statics are as follows:

1/2%-1% of slaveowners owned 50 or more slaves
50% of slaveowners owned 5-9 slaves
42% owned 1-4 slaves

If you were among the top 1% you would probably hire overseers because plantation owners weren't going to be there during that time. They'd be off to their vacation homes or some other resort. That's when overseers came in. The 50% who owned 5-9 slaves and the 52% owned 1-4 slaves worked with the slaves in the field. It would be an extreme waste of money to hire overseers to watch over 9 other people at most....plus what speaks against the brutality of this is that you wouldn't have the slaves flogged the whole time. What good does it do to have injured and weakly slaves running around when you paid hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars (a lot in those days) for them?

One good advantage that wage slaves didn't have over regural slaves is what you mentioned, being family cohesion. The other advantage would be that they had the means to start a new life in the west if the money was there but then that would mean social isolation as farmers in the west didn't have much contact with each other until transportation became more advanced and widespread.

I'm not trying to defend slavery and I don't think anyone is. I just find it sad that with the means circulating around that time, a good social and economic system based on wage labor. I'm also trying to point out some misconception and the wrong placement of sympathies with the North, as it was just as immoral as the South. Astronomically more people died from wage slavery than did slaves in the south die. A Million lost their lives just in mining accidents from the time of the civil war to 1920. Countless limbs were seperated from their owners from unsafe factory machines. Countless people disabled. The misery suffered by Northern laborers far exceeds any injuries that are exaggerated through photographs (such as the floggin on the back on the last page). Child labor was incredible...there were kids 6 years old with the faces of 60 year olds. If you see a photograph of the time photographing laborers, you'll see faces of despair and uncertainy, almost as if they want to die.

Another point I was trying to make is that this cruelty was forced on the South after the war. In the endeffect, blacks were worse off as sharecroppers than they were as slaves beause they were trapped in the crop lien system and couldn't do anything.

I don't agree about that overseer argument. That's a misconception. The statics are as follows:1/2%-1% of slaveowners owned 50 or more slaves
50% of slaveowners owned 5-9 slaves
42% owned 1-4 slaves

You are totally right. But those numbers don't show the % of the slaves owned by richs people. In 1860 about one-half of all slaves lived on holdings of 10 to 49, with one-quarter on smaller and one-quarter on larger units.
So if you make an average (10 to 49) it makes about 30. So 50% of the slaves lived on holdings of 30, and 25% on largers units. It makes a total of 75% of the slaves living in holdings of 30 or more.


The misery suffered by Northern laborers far exceeds any injuries that are exaggerated through photographs (such as the floggin on the back on the last page). Child labor was incredible...there were kids 6 years old with the faces of 60 year olds. If you see a photograph of the time photographing laborers, you'll see faces of despair and uncertainy, almost as if they want to die.

I agree as well, but what could have been done? USA is a capitalist country, and before Wall Street Crash, they didnt seem to realize than hardcore capitalism with no limits doesn't works. But I won't go off topic with this, tough. (BTW, I guess you're german, and I admit Bismark has been the first to deny child labor :)
But I don't want to go Off topic discussing about Wall Street Crash.



Another point I was trying to make is that this cruelty was forced on the South after the war. In the endeffect, blacks were worse off as sharecroppers than they were as slaves beause they were trapped in the crop lien system and couldn't do anything.

Of course, when you're afraid of go voting because there's KKK fanatics preventing you to do so, and when you aren,t educated, are considerated as scum by your fellow citizens, it's kinda hard to succeed.

Shady, you seriously need to lay off the bong, dude. Slaves worked from sun-up to sun-down in the fields, most of the time while their masters took care of business in the main house. They received no medical attention except what they were able to perform themselves, were tortured if they tried to learn to read or access any other form of education, they were legally property and thus could be murdered by their owners for no reason, they were beaten routinely, saw their children sold to other slaveowners, and were extremely lucky to live past 40 years of age.

Certainly, the argument could be made that factory workers in the North lived in abdominable conditions, but the solution to their problems was not the abolition of working for wages. It was instead regulation of business practices and organizing through unions to demand and receive better work conditions, pay, etc. The only solution to slavery was abolition.

And if you really think slaves "loved their massas," think for a minute about the qualitative differences between the southern and northern militias. In the early stages of the war, the southern militia ran rings around the northern militias. Why? Year and years of being honed to a razor's edge in order to put down frequent slave rebellions. I've seen estimates of more than 1,000 serious rebellions by slaves scattered across the South in the 10 years preceding the Civil War. Let's see, the slaves hated their masters enough to risk brutal death in order to rebel, and the owners feared their slaves enough to create semi-professional militia units in order to oppress them.

How the F*** is that moral?

Originally posted by archer_007
Was the American Civil War truely a civil war? A civil war is fought bewteen a nation and an internal faction. But my history teacher told me today when me and him were having a private discussion due to a high number of absents, that it was techinally called the "War of Northern Aggression" because the Confederacy was independent, because the Union enacted a blockade, which he said was an act that could techinally only be undertaken against another soveign nation.

Yes, it truly was a Civil War. The CSA WAS NOT a soveriegn nation, it could have been, had Lee invaded Pennsylvania, but he did not, and so they [CSA] were not a legitimate nation. Lee certainly would've won against any Union general at the time (1862). I am surprised at how lenient the north was on the south, certainly compared to plans for other states (utah, mormon conflicts) if they revolted.

The difference in in a civil war and a war for independence is that in a civil war either opponent tries to completely take over the entity's government and in the other instance they try to establish sovereignty for their region.

You can argue, with some stretch, that the South was it's own unique nation due to distinct cultural distinctiveness even outside the periods of the civil war. A good parallel to this would be the American nation as a whole as the English colonies in North America had adopted a unique lifestyle and their own distinct culture and ethics, making them a nation, and as easily forgettable as the South had become, after losing the war.

In a certain way, the South was regonized by the Union. Example : Confederate P.O.Ws : They would not have been regonized and/or traded with Union's POWs if the CSA would not have been regonized Itself.

The states had a right to secede from the union. Lincoln didn't want that to happen. It was very much a war of Northern Aggression.

Well the whole war was about "the stonesfan" assertion. Based on the outcome, no , the southern states did not have a right to secede from the Union.

Originally posted by thestonesfan
The states had a right to secede from the union. Lincoln didn't want that to happen. It was very much a war of Northern Aggression.

Agression is a pejorative word, so I guess you would have supported the south, since the yankees 'agressed' the south, according to you. But you seem to forget that the South bombed Fort Sumter first. THEN the north reacted.
If secede is a right, then why only Southerns states have seceded? Not because of a different point of view on something called 'slavery'?

Originally posted by archer_007


And this what we call spam.

leave it out archer_007.

made me laugh.

The constitution was and is the supreme land of the land. The South used a theory of states' rights allowing them to nullify federal laws and leave the union when they so wished. This was no part of the constitution and so unconsitutional. The American civil war was more of a rebellion like the revolutionary war where America fought for independence from the glorious British Empire, obviously the outcome was different though. Also the South were fighting to protect slavery not for states' rights, that is just revisionist history of the worst kind.

MrPresident, i agree, Im from the South so i alienate myself for my comrades by saying this. Good thing my two best friends are from people who migrated from the north.

Originally posted by MrPresident
The constitution was and is the supreme land of the land. The South used a theory of states' rights allowing them to nullify federal laws and leave the union when they so wished. This was no part of the constitution and so unconsitutional. The American civil war was more of a rebellion like the revolutionary war where America fought for independence from the glorious British Empire, obviously the outcome was different though. Also the South were fighting to protect slavery not for states' rights, that is just revisionist history of the worst kind.

The war started as a states rights issue. Only after Antietam and the Emancipation proclamation did the war become an issue over slavery.

Lincoln was a republican and he and his party stood firmly for nonproliferation of slavery into the new territories. At no point before the Emancipation proclamation was it about slavery. If before the EP, the north would have won, the south would very likely have been reintegrated without much punishment and definetly with slavery still intact (although it would have been abolished later around the end of the century as every nation did). Sure, the underlying conflict has to do with slavery but thats a byproduct of states' rights issues.

Before 1860 the southern white population was made up of 25% slaveowning population. The other 75% had nothing to do with slavery e.g. "poor white trash". Those 75% will be the ones fighting. Now you can't tell me that they would be fighting to preserve slavery if they have nothing to do with it? Although most of the people were very racist and did aspire to be slaveowners, the reality was that they were stuck as poor white trash and in the end wouldn't benefit from preservation of slavery.

The sad part about this is that the top 1% of the population (the large plantation owners) were the ones that seceded the states and started the war, and let the other 75% fight it for them because they can obviously buy their way out.

Originally posted by napoleon526
In the movie Gettysburg Tom Berringer, playing Gen. James Longstreet, said something interesting. When talking to the British observer Col. Freemantle, he says "We should have freed the slaves, then fired on Fort Sumter." This makes sense, because it would have showed the world that the Confederacy was about more than just an attempt to uphold an archaic and immoral economic system (which it was).



This was said by Tom Berringer's character to give a weight of morality to his army's side and allow the viewer to sympathize with the their end of the story's conflict. I haven't seen it yet, but I guess they pulled the same tricks in Gods and Generals so you can sympathize with Stonewall Jackson.

A question I've asked myself many times is why did the South's salt of the Earth so to speak take up the cause? They were never going to make enough money in their lifetime to ever afford a slave. I'm not really sure. Was it anger because Lincoln was elected? (It was widely known that he wasn't even on the ballot in alot of southern counties.) Was it fear? Fear of change? Fear of falling into the bottom of the economic and social heirarchy? Or fear of being told what to do in a capital hundreds of miles away from their homes? I really don't know the answer. Interestingly enough, the chief architect of our strong federal gov't. system that we've had since the constitution was ratified was created by the Virginian James Madison. He realized that the confederate system we were using was dreck at the time, and the only way interstate commerce could succeed was through centralization of power. A Virginian spearheaded this, and was supported by another Virginian by the name of George Washington.

In my point of view slavery was just a tiny bit worse than being an immigrant in the north, because you could work like 19 hours a day and still get very little pay. There were also very unsafe houses. They were usually unsanitary. The place where the slaves lived was probably unsanitary too though.

The war started as a states rights issue. Only after Antietam and the Emancipation proclamation did the war become an issue over slavery. The war was about slavery and the South's fear that the North would free the slaves. IT WAS NOT ABOUT STATES RIGHTS. That theory was developed later as a justification for the civil war and to glorify the South.
In my point of view slavery was just a tiny bit worse than being an immigrant in the north, because you could work like 19 hours a day and still get very little pay. There were also very unsafe houses. They were usually unsanitary. The place where the slaves lived was probably unsanitary too though.
You obviously don't value freedom very highly.
Was it fear? Fear of change? Fear of falling into the bottom of the economic and social heirarchy?
It was racism. When you are at the bottom rung of the ladder like poor white Southern farmers then it is very useful to have someone below you so you can look down on them. The rich white plantation owners encouraged this view not only because it allowed them to justify slavery but it stopped the poor whites from joining with the poor blacks (they had an awful lot in common) and threatening their power and control. So the poor Southerners had lived all their life believing that the slave was less than them and now the federal government threatened or was percieved to threaten to make them equals. It all comes down to racism in the end.
the chief architect of our strong federal gov't. system that we've had since the constitution was ratified was created by the Virginian James Madison.
:lol: James Madison didn't want a strong federal government. He and Thomas Jefferson believed in states' rights and laissez-faire government. The belief that the government that governs best, governs least. The chief architect of your strong federal government was Alexander Hamiliton.

Originally posted by MrPresident
The war was about slavery and the South's fear that the North would free the slaves. IT WAS NOT ABOUT STATES RIGHTS. That theory was developed later as a justification for the civil war and to glorify the South.


Any justification or backup behind this? I offered plenty for the opposite but have to hear something other than a random blurt.

Originally posted by Shady


Any justification or backup behind this? I offered plenty for the opposite but have yet to see something other than a random blurt.

EDIT: Sorry for DP. stupid browser

Originally posted by redbone

A question I've asked myself many times is why did the South's salt of the Earth so to speak take up the cause? They were never going to make enough money in their lifetime to ever afford a slave.

Good question. Exactly backs up my point. There was no reason for the po white trash to fight for slavery, in spite of widesperad racism, if they were never going to benefit from it. The only reason you would see here is probably strong southern pride in their social system, culture, values, etc. which were different from those in the North. All this constitutes true southern nationalism but it's ignored because the language and political barrier has been there for a time.

I'm kind of torn between calling it a *civil war* and a *rebellion*. What these things are called does depend so much on who wins! I certainly wouldn't call it a *war of northern aggression* though for all intents and purposes the CSA was an independant country. The CSA had its own government, land and population and the USA really had no say in what the CSA did. What more does it need to be called independant? While Britain didn't recognize the CSA that did not stop them from trading with each other.

As for slaves fighting for the Confederacy, I do not recall hearing of any black units in the Confederate army. Many slaves were used to do the army's labor but that's not near the same as slaves fighting for the south. There were isolated incidents of slaves fighting along side their masters but I'd be willing to be the number that did so pales when compared to the number of slaves who fled to the Union lines and freedom.

While state's rights was touted as the raison d'etre of the Civil War, it was really always about slavery. The constitution is mute on the subject of a state leaving the union so argueing that seccession is unconstitutional doesn't carry much weight. A few states secceeded before the fighting actually started. They left the union because the delicate political balance of power between the slave holding and the free states was disintegrating. The slave states were losing power in congress and they knew it. Lincoln's election spelled the writing on the wall for slavery so the south tried leaving.

Originally posted by Shady

In the U.S. prior to 1860 the government was overwhelmingly dominated by Southerners. Only 2 out of 13 presidents to that time were southern with Lincoln being the 3rd. The Supreme court was dominated by the South for which the Dred Scott decision speaks, and would find more southern behinds in its seats than northern ones. Economically, the South was the richest region of the country with King Cotton finding its peak in the state of Mississippi which was the 2nd richest state in the country ATT. Militarily, the Mexican-American war had been fought with an overwhleming majority of soldiers from the South, the most famous of those being Jefferson Davis and Robert Lee who would go on to do their thing.


Lincoln was president #16. Here are the 15 presidents before him and their home states:

Washington / Virginia
Adams / Mass.
Jefferson / Virginia
Madison / Virginia
Monroe / Virginia
Adams / Mass.
Jackson / Tenn.
Van Buren / New York
Harrison / Indiana
Tyler / Virginia
Polk / Tenn.
Taylor / Louisiana(?)
Filmore / New York
Pierce / New Hampshire
Buchanan / Penn.

That's 8 northern and 6 southern presidents. Lincoln was born in Kentucky but lived in Illinois. He was a northerner, not a southerner. Also, the key to keeping the balance of power between the slave and free states was the senate. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was all about keeping this balance of power in the senate.

As for the south being richer than the north, I doubt that is true especially if one if looking at the whole picture. Not everyone in the south made money on cotton. I'm not even sure those who did were making as much as the Brits they were selling the stuff to!

Yeah, Davis and Lee were in Mexico and were quite famous. But Sam Grant was there, too, among other officers and men who ended up fighting for the north.

Originally posted by donsig


Lincoln was president #16. Here are the 15 presidents before him and their home states:

Washington / Virginia
Adams / Mass.
Jefferson / Virginia
Madison / Virginia
Monroe / Virginia
Adams / Mass.
Jackson / Tenn.
Van Buren / New York
Harrison / Indiana
Tyler / Virginia
Polk / Tenn.
Taylor / Louisiana(?)
Filmore / New York
Pierce / New Hampshire
Buchanan / Penn.

That's 8 northern and 6 southern presidents. Lincoln was born in Kentucky but lived in Illinois. He was a northerner, not a southerner. Also, the key to keeping the balance of power between the slave and free states was the senate. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was all about keeping this balance of power in the senate.

As for the south being richer than the north, I doubt that is true especially if one if looking at the whole picture. Not everyone in the south made money on cotton. I'm not even sure those who did were making as much as the Brits they were selling the stuff to!

Yeah, Davis and Lee were in Mexico and were quite famous. But Sam Grant was there, too, among other officers and men who ended up fighting for the north.

Where in the world do you get your info?

Washington/Vriginia-S
J. Adams/Mass -N
Jefferson/Virginia-S
Madison/Virginia-S
Monroe/Virginia-S
J.Q. Adams/Mass -N
Jackson/Tennessee-S
Van Buren/New York-N-but actually S...handpicked by Jackson-same policies
Harrison/Virginia-S
Tyler/Virginia-S
Polk/Virginia-S
Taylor/Virginia-S
Fillmore/New York-N-X-Not elected-weak president
Pierce-N-but actually S. Southern democratic policies.
Buchanan/Pennsylvania-N-but Southern policies.

So you've presented wrong information and a blunt assumption of simple facts. 13 out of 15 presidents were in effect southern, not necessarily by birth but by policy.

Ever heard of King Cotton? Pre 1860 u.s. economic attributes: The South accounted for roughly 2/3 of U.S. exports those primarily being Cotton, Sugar, Rice, Tobacco but most of all Cotton. 90% of the Cotton went to Europe and most of that went to England because that country by that time was the only one to really embrace the industrial revolution and was the textile manufacturer of the world. So that being accounted for, 2/3 of export money should come back to the south. One question that might arise...Where was this money when the south fought the civil war? It was in the European banks which couldn't get transferred back to the South because of the Northern blockade. Plus the reason the North had some capital was that Northern bankers also kept some southern money in their safe.

Also, British cotton only comes into place after they reap it from Egypt and India just a tiny bit before the civil war starts. This was also part of the doom for the south. The south thought that if Union ships won't let cotton get to england and france, and they needed it so bad as they did...england and france would HAVE to intervene. They calculated wrong because they had been overproducing cotton in the last years before the CW and thus England and France had a surplus and didn't need it. Tough luck.

Originally posted by Shady


Where in the world do you get your info?

Washington/Vriginia-S
J. Adams/Mass -N
Jefferson/Virginia-S
Madison/Virginia-S
Monroe/Virginia-S
J.Q. Adams/Mass -N
Jackson/Tennessee-S
Van Buren/New York-N-but actually S...handpicked by Jackson-same policies
Harrison/Virginia-S
Tyler/Virginia-S
Polk/Virginia-S
Taylor/Virginia-S
Fillmore/New York-N-X-Not elected-weak president
Pierce-N-but actually S. Southern democratic policies.
Buchanan/Pennsylvania-N-but Southern policies.

So you've presented wrong information and a blunt assumption of simple facts. 13 out of 15 presidents were in effect southern, not necessarily by birth but by policy.


I was not as interested in birthplace as where they spent their adult lives and particularly, which state they were from when they became president. I must confess the info comes from my memory, except for Taylor. I couldn't remember where he was from. Looked it up on the net. Here's the link. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/zt12.html) Taylor was born in Virginia, grew up in Kentucky, lived in Louisiana and owned a plantation in Mississippi. Another tidbit from memory: Jefferson Davis was Taylor's son-in-law. Can't get much more southern than that, BUT like another one of your southern presidents (Andrew Jackson) Taylor was against seccession. When even the southern presidents were pro-union I do not get your whole point. Tyler's really the only one you can argue was pro-Confederate since he actually served in the CSA congress.

Originally posted by Shady

Ever heard of King Cotton? Pre 1860 u.s. economic attributes: The South accounted for roughly 2/3 of U.S. exports those primarily being Cotton, Sugar, Rice, Tobacco but most of all Cotton. 90% of the Cotton went to Europe and most of that went to England because that country by that time was the only one to really embrace the industrial revolution and was the textile manufacturer of the world. So that being accounted for, 2/3 of export money should come back to the south. One question that might arise...Where was this money when the south fought the civil war? It was in the European banks which couldn't get transferred back to the South because of the Northern blockade. Plus the reason the North had some capital was that Northern bankers also kept some southern money in their safe.


I do not know the export stats for pre-1860 US but even if what you say is true that does not make the south richer than the north. Exports are only one measure of national (or sectional wealth). Compare manufactures and railroads. Compare populations and city sizes. Compare per capita incomes and natural resources. When the whole picture is looked at it is clear that the north was richer than the south.

Originally posted by donsig


I was not as interested in birthplace as where they spent their adult lives and particularly, which state they were from when they became president. I must confess the info comes from my memory, except for Taylor. I couldn't remember where he was from. Looked it up on the net. Here's the link. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/zt12.html) Taylor was born in Virginia, grew up in Kentucky, lived in Louisiana and owned a plantation in Mississippi. Another tidbit from memory: Jefferson Davis was Taylor's son-in-law. Can't get much more southern than that, BUT like another one of your southern presidents (Andrew Jackson) Taylor was against seccession. When even the southern presidents were pro-union I do not get your whole point. Tyler's really the only one you can argue was pro-Confederate since he actually served in the CSA congress.


That's a pretty good try to get it from memory.

I agree. Jackson was pro-union but that was later on. At first he was states' rights and many people supported him because they continued to believe that he would be. But then of course came the Jefferson Day Dinner outburts ("Our union, it must be preserved!") and he went the other way from there. Still, the whole party of the democrats is usually referred to as Jacksonian democrats but Jackson is really a weird case.

My point was that the North was jaelous of the power that the South held. Even over the presidents that hung around in the north, the southerners were able to transit some of their will through them which is why i put that 13 presidents were southern since they acted southern (i.e. states' rights).

The economic figures would speak for the South's economic superiority to the north. The south, from revolution to civil war has been the richer section of the country.Per Capita, they would of course suffer because the top percent controlled all the wealth that could be attributed to the south since all the other people were either poor white trash tenant farmers, or slaves which share just about nothing and highly decrease the per capita income figures. In the north where you had wage labor per capita figures would be stronger but that wouldnt mean much as it is always the rich people that spend the money, northern or southern. Railroads are really not important before the civil war. They were just starting out really in the 1840s and 50s and were not crucial to the economy. Plus, in the south, not as much RR was required because there was plentiful upstream navigation available and with the RR of those days you could get from point A to point B faster with river navigation etc. than you could with the RR. Manufacturing was not really significant in that day and age. The North didn't have nearly anywhere near competitive textile producing capacity as England did at any time before the civil war. The Southerners are going to sell their cotton to the british for a lesser price, rather than to their northern brothers. Even though 15% of U.S. manufacturing took place in the south, overall U.S. manufacturing is nowhere near competitive.

What do populations and city cizes have to do with anything? The south was an agrarian society that had most people living on the farms and not in the cities. In that day and age, all that a higher population meant was more slums and poor folk to walk around. Look at London and New York at that time and then again tell me if it is truly an economic benefit. As far as natural resources...Cotton is king again. Cotton, cotton, cotton. There is no resource that matters more in the 1st industrial revolution than cotton because the 1st industrial revolution is just textile manufacturing basically. The coal that's up in Pennsylvania doesn't come to fruition until after the Bessemer process is practicalized in the north. Before that, you wouldn't have any other significant resource needs. The south beats the North extensively in natural resources that were of importance.

Basically, exports and tariffs would be the prime bread-earners of the day for Americans and the South dominated the former but despised the latter.

Originally posted by Shady

What do populations and city cizes have to do with anything? The south was an agrarian society that had most people living on the farms and not in the cities. In that day and age, all that a higher population meant was more slums and poor folk to walk around. Look at London and New York at that time and then again tell me if it is truly an economic benefit. As far as natural resources...Cotton is king again. Cotton, cotton, cotton. There is no resource that matters more in the 1st industrial revolution than cotton because the 1st industrial revolution is just textile manufacturing basically. The coal that's up in Pennsylvania doesn't come to fruition until after the Bessemer process is practicalized in the north. Before that, you wouldn't have any other significant resource needs. The south beats the North extensively in natural resources that were of importance.


Well, if we're talking who was richer, I'd say the the bigger population of the north meant more wealth. If we're just adding up all the money everyone had I'd say the edge would go to the group that had more people. The bigger population of the north also gave the Union the advantage when it came to replacing combat soldiers. As for city size, if a region has no large cities how can it support an industrial base? Is it not industry that creates wealth? Railroads are important when looking at wealth because of the tremendous capital that was needed to build them. One resource you forget is iron. Even in Civ 3 you need iron to build railroads! The south had little iron and what little they did have they used to make cannons that were prone to burst when used. The Confederacy couldn't even make all their own rifles. They had to run in Enfields from Britain through the blockade. The north had the wealth to be able to make their own guns.

I agree with donsig.

I'd always understood that the North won, despite the courage and skill of the Southern troops, because it was an industrial powerhouse and was able to out-produce the South in a manner that must be familiar to Civ 3 players! That and having its territory covered with railroads.

An interesting question - had the South won, how long would it have been before slavery was abolished in the Confederacy (or would it EVER have been abolished)?

Originally posted by MrPresident
:lol: James Madison didn't want a strong federal government. He and Thomas Jefferson believed in states' rights and laissez-faire government. The belief that the government that governs best, governs least. The chief architect of your strong federal government was Alexander Hamiliton.

You're getting ahead of yourself. The Virginia Plan, which after some compromise, was adopted as our form of govt. That plan was written by James Madison not Alexander Hamilton. He created it, whatever his stance was on the issues of laissez-faire, strict or loose interperetation, etc.

Everybody, including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, recognized the problem that the Articles didn't have enough bite to govern a nation. Commerce was a disaster at the time.

I think we can keep this civilized discussion without mocking one another. Try to keep the arrogance in check. I think you're dead wrong re: "it being all about racism," but you don't see me mocking you. ;)

Originally posted by macaskil
An interesting question - had the South won, how long would it have been before slavery was abolished in the Confederacy (or would it EVER have been abolished)?

Eventually. I don't think a free market economy could work forever with the slave labor element. The fact that the vast majority of population (including blacks and poor whites) have no potential for improving their station in life doesn't do wonders for a style of economy where the ambitious are rewarded.

You're getting ahead of yourself.
Beats being behind myself.
I think we can keep this civilized discussion without mocking one another.
My apologises.
despite the courage and skill of the Southern troops
Both North and South troops had just as much courage and skill. Admittely the South had the best general but he lost them Gettsyburg and the North had Grant and Sherman.
had the South won, how long would it have been before slavery was abolished in the Confederacy (or would it EVER have been abolished)?
It would have been very hard to abolish slavery if the South had won since it was written into the constitution of the Confederacy. Having said that the civil war made it uneconomical to own slaves. Since Southern cotton couldn't be exported they had no work to do. And it is debatable whether Britain would have gone back to Southern cotton after the war was over since they had turned towards India. So the civil war might have made slavery uneconomical but whether this would have lead to emancipation I don't know.
My point was that the North was jaelous of the power that the South held. Even over the presidents that hung around in the north, the southerners were able to transit some of their will through them which is why i put that 13 presidents were southern since they acted southern (i.e. states' rights).
States' rights was just a Southern cause. New England threatened to invoke its principles during the embargo of 1807.
The constitution is mute on the subject of a state leaving the union so argueing that seccession is unconstitutional doesn't carry much weight.
It is the very fact that the constitution doesn't mention succession that makes the act unconstitutional. The constitution and the federal government were the supreme powers of the land. The states didn't have the right to nullify federal law and so didn't have the right to remove themselves from federal authority. Also the civil war started when the South attacked a federal fort making it a rebellion not a war of Northern Aggression. And the federal government had the authority to put down rebellions (as see by the Whiskey rebellion) and reassert its authority.
Any justification or backup behind this?
Jefferson Davis developed the theory of states' rights in his memoirs written after the civil war as an attempt to justify his and the South's actions. Also there has been a consistent campaign to glory the actions of the 'old' South and the only way to do this was by shifting the focus from slavery (which was seen as wrong) to states' rights (which was seen as being about freedom and liberty). Also states' right is really only a political slogan, a very good one but still only a slogan.

MY earlier post agreed with Donsig, on the original theme of this thread, the winner gets to call "the conflict" whatever he wants. The rebels (a common name for the Confederacy at the time and even now ("Rebel Yell" for example) if they had won could have called it anything they wanted and made it stick. Normally "civil wars" are pronounced as such by successful rebels. If the government wins, it was just another rebellion.

As evidence I alluded to the other "civil wars" I recall, the Spanish, English and Russian. So technically the "late unpleastantness" was not a Civil war, as the South lost. It was a Rebellion. Like the Whiskey Rebellion.

Originally posted by donsig


Well, if we're talking who was richer, I'd say the the bigger population of the north meant more wealth. If we're just adding up all the money everyone had I'd say the edge would go to the group that had more people. The bigger population of the north also gave the Union the advantage when it came to replacing combat soldiers. As for city size, if a region has no large cities how can it support an industrial base? Is it not industry that creates wealth? Railroads are important when looking at wealth because of the tremendous capital that was needed to build them. One resource you forget is iron. Even in Civ 3 you need iron to build railroads! The south had little iron and what little they did have they used to make cannons that were prone to burst when used. The Confederacy couldn't even make all their own rifles. They had to run in Enfields from Britain through the blockade. The north had the wealth to be able to make their own guns.

The economic picture at that time is very different. At that time, a nation could be primarily agrarian and still have equal opportunity as one that was leaning towards industry. More Industry=more industrial capacity =not necessarily more wealth. Wealth=money. The south had more money=they had more wealth. It seems you've ignored my point about wealth per population. The southern slaves (3 mil) and tenant farmers (6mil) are not getting paid in money. They pay half their crop as rent for a house on the farm and what they do with the other half crop is either eat it and sell the rest of it for a meager price. The amount of actual money that would be circulating around slaves and whites in the south would be absolutely minimal not even comparable to the northern population. This does not mean that more money is not in circulation overall. The people who controlled it were the rich plantation owners and they just had plenty of it. Evidence of it is that they sent their kids to Europe to go study and bought all the females some fancy gowns from paris which are just worth a whole lot. They would be extremely wealthy and their wealth put together exceeded that of all the north. You have to realize that at that time the wages are abysmal. Northerners couldnt scrape together much either.

What makes the south even more efficient at spending their money is that that fewer people control a whole lot more money which means more spending power, rather than a lot of people controlling little amounts of money that theyre not going to spend on anything.

Your logic just doesn't make sense. The north had more industrial capacity but that doesn't mean they're more wealthy. Where did the money for the railroads get pumped from? It came from the federal gov't which always got most their income from southern cotton. So it was southern money that was being put into northern railroads. The reason again, it wasn't put into the south is because it wasn't necessary at the time since the network of rivers was excellent. Although toward the latter part the south began embracing railroads in the west which is the whole reason for the gadsen purchase, to buy favorable land for a rr route.

I don't forget iron. There aren't any significant iron mining areas in the U.S. except for a moderatly large area in southeastern PA and NY. Still it's not worth mentioning because the iron deposits that will be present in Wyoming later on will dwarf any of those found in the east. The east did have large amounts of coal.

My point is that the south was more wealthy. I didn't say they had more people, more urban populations, more railroads, or more industry. They didn't need it. Cotton was all they needed and that's where that is because it brought them tremendous wealth and enough power to dominate the North.

Originally posted by Shady
Your logic just doesn't make sense. The north had more industrial capacity but that doesn't mean they're more wealthy. Where did the money for the railroads get pumped from? It came from the federal gov't which always got most their income from southern cotton. So it was southern money that was being put into northern railroads. The reason again, it wasn't put into the south is because it wasn't necessary at the time since the network of rivers was excellent. Although toward the latter part the south began embracing railroads in the west which is the whole reason for the gadsen purchase, to buy favorable land for a rr route...

The Illinois Central was the first US railroad to get government grants and by that time New England and the Mid-Atlantic states were criss crossed by railroads. Much of the capital for these railroads came from local sources, i.e., money for northern railroads came from the north not the south.

Originally posted by donsig


The Illinois Central was the first US railroad to get government grants and by that time New England and the Mid-Atlantic states were criss crossed by railroads. Much of the capital for these railroads came from local sources, i.e., money for northern railroads came from the north not the south.

The date for that is 1851. In the northeast the amount of RR is much more than in the south but in the big picture it's not significant. RR expansion was expnenonential in the 1850s and this is what mattered.