Posted on 08/12/2020 2:31:56 PM PDT by Jonty30
I think we can agree that it had nothing to do with caring about the slaves.
I was thinking that 4 million sudden extra bodies in the poor southern economy would have the same effect as high immigration, keeping the wages of the poorest workers suppressed and it would keep the South from developing economically, while the North would benefit from their ownership of Southern industries.
Does that sound about right or am I wrong on this?
Go away, sleazebag.
I’ve read that Britain was considering joining the war in support of the CSA. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation which prevented them from joining because it would look as if Britain were supporting slavery. I’ve also read that Britain was putting troops in Canada just in case they did join the war.
I’m serious on my point. Liberals have always used the Hegelian Dialectic arguments.
That dog don’t hunt.
You don’t know the slightest thing about the Abolitionist Movement do you?
Some cared about slavery, but by and large, the Southerners only cared about slavery because most Southerners were just a notch above slavery themselves. They didn’t want the slaves released to compete with them for jobs.
I read that it was a morality issue with Christians in the north. Splitting mothers from babies, the brutality.
And there were just as many racists in the North as the South.
I suspect England was very much involved in the war from the beginning.
They were afraid of the growing power of the USA and after 2 wars realized that they could never defeat us. So they decided to break us up into more manageable pieces.
That’s what I’m saying. The poor Southerners did not want to compete for jobs with about 4 extra million available workers. However, that would have been a good situation for northern industrialists who would have wanted a never ending supply of workers for their industries they owned in the South.
I think you could be more general and say it was because wage-based economies had proven themselves far more productive than slavery.
I’d say you should put more thought into this, particularly regarding your comment:
“I think we can agree that it had nothing to do with caring about the slaves.”
Sounds like you’ve been brainwashed into oblivion by Howard Zinn.
Some have said that. But, in all the factory towns cross the UK they protested in favor of the northern states.
Some of the MPs did support the south and were promptly rejected at the next elections in the UK.
The Queen was sternly against the south. And the Queen was well loved in the UK at that time.
Trade embargoes.
Yep. There were a few states that were considering secession in New England and wanted to rejoin Britain.
The current battlefield on this topic has to do with democrats trying to hide the fact that they owned slaves and republicans didn’t.
The democrats fought against the republicans to keep slavery.
Republicans won and freed the slaves.
I should have clarified it. For the easily manipulatable, it would have been about slavery. But for those at the top, it would have been about keeping wages as low as possible for as long as possible, so they can buy up southern assets for a song.
I see a lot of the same movements in this as I do with globalism, where those advocating open borders to keep wage earners earning as little as possible for as long as possible.
We agree on nothing. Go away.
The number one reason politically? Three fifths of a person..
Morally? Slavery was and still is a abomination on society.
Which explains this constant harping on the civil war. It was DEMOCRATS who foisted that war upon this nation and moreover, how can anyone claim to be a conservative and continue to argue over the southern causes for the civil war and its issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.