Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Ditto
No as you and others on this thread seem to constantly avoid, it was the issue of the north becoming a strong manufacturing area and the South and West sticking mainly to agriculture and the ill gotten gains that the north proceded to take from the South in the form of taxes both tariffs and duties
355 posted on 12/20/2001 7:23:30 PM PST by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies ]


To: billbears
No as you and others on this thread seem to constantly avoid, it was the issue of the north becoming a strong manufacturing area and the South and West sticking mainly to agriculture...

Make that Slave Based Agriculture, and I'll agree with you. The Midwest was agricultural too, but it was solidly on the side of the Union, even though many of its economic interests coincided with the South. The people in the midwest were willing to farm their own land, 40 acres at a time. The South was controlled totally by wealthy aristocrats who used slaves to work thousands of acres at a time. The aristrocrats never walked behind a plow.

That war was about economics only in the sense of protecting the slave industry. It was about a small group of wealthy and corrupt slavers attempting to protect and expand their evil institution. They were willing to break the Union and send hundreds of thousands of mostly poor white farmers to their deaths all for the purpose of protecting and expanding their wealth.

390 posted on 12/21/2001 5:57:10 AM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson