I think that it is clear that the US Civil War was a war between two economic systems (the feudal-like south and the industrialized north). I believe that it may be described as a struggle for power between the landed agricultural aristocrats (who traditionally held the power in the US) and the new bourgeois class (the capital & factory owners who were just taking center stage in the US economy). The outcome would determine if the US socio-economic regime would be agricultural racial slavery or industrial wage-slavery, along with who held the power: the aristocrats or the capital owners.

What do you think… can the US Civil War be described as a war between the bourgeoisie of the North and the landed aristocrat classes of the South?

Yes, with slavery being the key issue.

Originally posted by ArbitraryGuy

What do you think… can the US Civil War be described as a war between the bourgeoisie of the North and the landed aristocrat classes of the South?

No. It's true that economics had a key role in starting the war,
and slavery was probably the thing that made a peaceful solution
impossible, but saying the CW was a class struggle is IMO a
gross oversimplification.

such a biased and leading question... its a gross oversimplification which feeds into a personal agenda.

Yes. It is an oversimplification, but touches on the basic points. The war really was between a more aristrocratic, conservative South, and a more populist, liberal North, created mostly because of their different economies.

So, not the bourgeoisie, but the common people.

Originally posted by joycem10
such a biased and leading question... its a gross oversimplification which feeds into a personal agenda.

It's not so much a biased, leading question as an honest call for your humble (or not-so-humble) opinion.

Originally posted by pomsa
Yes. It is an oversimplification, but touches on the basic points. The war really was between a more aristrocratic, conservative South, and a more populist, liberal North, created mostly because of their different economies.

So, not the bourgeoisie, but the common people.

Who controlled the North? What shows that the North was populist and liberal? I think the draft riots, anti-war protests, and the fact the north had to conscript armies in order to fight (yes, the south did too), may show that the "common people" of the North not disapproved of the war, but had no part in making the policy decision to fight against the South. Yes, there was a popular anti-slavery movement, but that movement had just as many enemies as supporters in the North. The Anti-slavery movement was run by the wealthy class and, at times, alienated from the "common man" (not to say that many in the movement did not morally object to slavery, just that the movement was pretty exclusive and non-populist).

Originally posted by ArbitraryGuy
The Anti-slavery movement was run by the wealthy class and, at times, alienated from the "common man" (not to say that many in the movement did not morally object to slavery, just that the movement was pretty exclusive and non-populist).

Well the common man had more to fear if slavery was abolished. In the North The freed slaves could start to take jobs in factories etc from the white man, in the South the existence of slaves was the one factor that stopped the poor whites from being the lowest rung on the social scale.
IMO pride was the real driving force behind such a bloody war.

@ArbitraryGuy

and the fact the north had to conscript armies in order to fight

Conscripted soldiers made up a very small percentage of the Union Army. The draft riots were more about the fact that the rich could buy their way out. Also many of the rioters were recent immigrants and didn't want to flee starvation in their home country only to die in a war that they knew nothing about.

As far as your original question I'd say that differing economic systems certainly played a part in the Civil War but it was just one of the differences between the North and the South. The main issue was State's Rights versus Centralized Federal Government.

An interesting aside is that prior to the Civil War people would say "the United States ARE" (plural) and after the Civil War they would say "the United States IS" (singular). It was in many ways just a continuation of the Revolution and the battle over how the country would be governed.

I agree with BoBo and Serutan :goodjob: by both of you. I feel the State
Rights issue was the biggest factor. ;)

I agree with BoBo and Serutan :goodjob: by both of you. I feel the State
Rights issue was the biggest factor. ;)

Yeah, it was. And, if a state had the right to give the franchise to only certain peole, the rich could remain in power.