It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by HamrHeed
I'm not up to speed on all of the details but slavery was definately not the only reason for the civil war.
To any americans who know: Didn't the north hike taxes on the southern states as well?
Economic Causes of the War
No one seriously doubts that the enormous economic stake the South had in its slave labor force was a major factor in the sectional disputes that erupted in the middle of the nineteenth century. Figure 1 plots the total value of all slaves in the United States from 1805 to 1860. In 1805 there were just over one million slaves worth about $300 million; fifty-five years later there were four million slaves worth close to $3 billion. In the 11 states that eventually formed the Confederacy, four out of ten people were slaves in 1860, and these people accounted for more than half the agricultural labor in those states. In the cotton regions the importance of slave labor was even greater. The value of capital invested in slaves roughly equaled the total value of all farmland and farm buildings in the South. Though the value of slaves fluctuated from year to year, there was no prolonged period during which the value of the slaves owned in the United States did not increase markedly. Looking at Figure 1, it is hardly surprising that Southern slaveowners in 1860 were optimistic about the economic future of their region. They were, after all, in the midst of an unparalleled rise in the value of their slave assets.
In the seven states where most of the cotton was grown, almost one-half the population were slaves, and they accounted for 31 percent of white people's income; for all 11 Confederate States, slaves represented 38 percent of the population and contributed 23 percent of whites' income. Small wonder that Southerners -- even those who did not own slaves -- viewed any attempt by the federal government to limit the rights of slaveowners over their property as a potentially catastrophic threat to their entire economic system. By itself, the South's economic investment in slavery could easily explain the willingness of Southerners to risk war when faced with what they viewed as a serious threat to their "peculiar institution" after the electoral victories of the Republican Party and President Abraham Lincoln the fall of 1860.
3. The Tariff. Southerners, with their emphasis on staple agriculture and need to buy goods produced outside the South, strongly objected to the imposition of duties on imported goods. Manufacturers in the Northeast, on the other hand, supported a high tariff as protection against cheap British imports. People in the West were caught in the middle of this controversy. Like the agricultural South they disliked the idea of a high "protective" tariff that raised the cost of imports. However the tariff was also the main source of federal revenue at this time, and Westerners needed government funds for the transportation improvements they supported in Congress. As a result, a compromise reached by western and eastern interests during in the tariff debates of 1857 was to support a "moderate" tariff; with duties set high enough to generate revenue and offer some protection to Northern manufacturers while not putting too much of a burden on Western and Eastern consumers. Southerners complained that even this level of protection was excessive and that it was one more example of the willingness of the West and the North to make economic bargains at the expense of the South (Ransom and Sutch 2001; Egnal 2001:50-52).
Originally posted by ConspiracyBuff
The Civil War was fought for states rights. Thinking it was fought over slavery is false. So yes comparing it to a Nazi flag is wrong.
Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
Slavery was horrible. There's no denying that.
But, I mean, it's Nazis. These people did more than just exterminate Jews. They did it to pretty much every ethnic minority in Europe, to disabled people, to gays. They slowly starved people to death, slaughtered the parents of small children in front of them, ran ungodly monstrous experiments.
It's not even close. Not. even. close.
Originally posted by Paulioetc15
Originally posted by ConspiracyBuff
The Civil War was fought for states rights. Thinking it was fought over slavery is false. So yes comparing it to a Nazi flag is wrong.
Ya but the thing is Slavery was the main issue of the States Rights. Slavery then got jettisoned into States rights. But many historians agree had there been no slavery then the Civil War would have not happened. There is a well fact that the CSA was planning on expanding slavery in Latin America and elsewhere months before the Civil War started which bolsters the argument that the war was about slavery. I have proof of documents if you want to know.
Originally posted by Paulioetc15
Me and my classmates were debating whether it's fair to compare them or not. The reason i said this because both flag had it's ugly history behind it. I know a lot of people say it's pale comparison because Confederate states did not kill millions of blacks just like the Nazis did with the Jews. However that doesn't change the fact the flags meaning behind it. The purpose of the rebel flag was to protect slavery. This is historic fact and and its documented in the Declaration of Immediate Causes by Confederates States as well as Declaration of Independence from Alabama, Georgia, and Texas. Even Alexander Stephens, Confederate VP from Georgia, said that the government. In it, he declared that slavery was the natural condition of blacks and the foundation of the Confederacy.