Replies

OKaay. Name some wars which had nothing to do with economics. Beter yet, (easier) name some whose primary cause was not economics. Remember, political and/or religious domination of any area, especially by force makes the resources of that area available to the victor.

Why did the South depend on slave labor? Because they couldn't get a decent price for their goods without shelling out to the North (who depended on slave labor, too!)? Because profit margins were so low that they had to have huge operations or run at subsistance levels? Like farming today, large operations have grown of the need to make money on volume, rather than just profit margin. The more efficient operations end up absorbing the remnants of the less efficient ones. You end up with 10,000 acre wheat farms that way, only now, you would buy mechanical devices to do the work. Ultimately, this is cheaper to operate, you only have to feed them when they are working.

Manumission was gaining ground in the South, it is far cheaper to hire someone and let them fend for themselves than to be the owner and have to provide housing, clothing, food, medical care, etc.

Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote a NOVEL! Just because it has been made into a Yankee Mein Kampf by historical revisionists seeking to banish the culture that, by and large wrote the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and The Declaration of Independance, does not make it true, or a balanced assesment of the issues of the day.

the culture that, by and large wrote the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and The Declaration of Independance,

Hmm, and what culture would that be Joe? The tidewater arisotcrats who owned all the slaves perhaps?

Taking a look at who actually signed the Declaration of Independence, you don't find a lot of southern back country yeomen do you?

Name some wars which had nothing to do with economics.

First and Second World Wars. Korean War. Russian Civil War. Viet Nam War. Cambodian Civil War. First, Second, and Third Indian-Pakistani Wars. War of the Roses. Shall I continue?

Because they couldn't get a decent price for their goods without shelling out to the North (who depended on slave labor, too!)? Because profit margins were so low that they had to have huge operations or run at subsistance levels?

No and no. Plantation agriculture was very profitable for the southern aristocracy. Their profit margins in the 10 years leading up to the war had never been higher.

Manumission was gaining ground in the South, it is far cheaper to hire someone and let them fend for themselves than to be the owner and have to provide housing, clothing, food, medical care, etc.

I would be interested in seeing what evidence you have to support this. Something from the leaders of the times would be nice.