"A Lack of Ability to Compromise Led to the Civil War"

I didn’t know that, but it makes political sense. Offer them a bit of recompense for what you took to buy peace. Same shit we did at Guadalupe Hidalgo after we took Mexican territory at gunpoint. Doubt whatever Lincoln gave them was anywhere close to the value of the slaves though. At any rate, that war was inevitable. A long term plan to use Northern money to build up capital assets in the South such that slaveholding was only a minor part of their wealth might’ve worked. It would’ve taken multiple generations to implement though and the state didn’t really have that kind of power at the time. Nor the North enough money.

 

You may be off on your numbers although in the end, the war was about money. There was almost as much slavery in the Northern states as there was in the South. So the slavery issue by itself wasn't the driver of the North/South problems. Factually, General Kelly was accurate in his assessment on compromise. States rights dealing with taxation was the biggest issue and the war resulted from the failure to compromise on that for the most part. In fact, from what I've read over the last few years, slavery was starting to lose favor in the US, even in the South. Some history/political researchers have even suggested that slavery would have been ended by natural selection within a few years had the war not occurred first. Personally, I don't think there would be as much North/South friction today if that slavery issue had solved itself.

 

What definition are you guys using? Uh, it's been called the "US Civil War" for all of our whole lives. So, what was it, a successionist war? Two separate countries? What's the point being made?

 

That's a load of shit right there. Cite please...

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

..

 

There never was nearly as much. It did exist in NJ even until the end of the civil War. The low numbers made it much easier to end in the north because the funding for compensation was relatively small. The northern states ending slavery enacted policies that discouraged resettlement of freed blacks to locations within their borders and free absolutely did not mean equal.

 

You are right. That's the shit they sell in Government school. There was a mechanism for STATES to withdraw from their membership in the union of the states. Some states did, and banded together into a confederation. How could it be misconstrued that there were not two countries at war? Borders, governments, constitutions, local support, what's missing? Or was it anarchy, a war between two or more groups of people?

 

Not completely a load of shit. Just the timeline wasn't established in the post.

 

Before about 1800 the North had many areas that supported slavery. If I remember correctly, sometime around the founding of the country slavery was discouraged but gained in popularity again in the very early 1800s. In the North it had slowly began to die out and by the time of Ely Whitney's invention of the cotton gin slavery had pretty well solidified itself mostly in the South. That was because of the fact that cotton, being in heavy world demand, required a hell of a lot of labor. Obviously, up until the early 1700s, before the population really started spreading South and West, slavery of the African people was mostly in the North since that's where most of the people were. I guess that basically what happened is that the practice of slavery migrated South over the mid 1700s until the civil war. It ended in the North and solidified itself in the South.
(I am admitting that my choice of wording in my previous post was inaccurate.)

http://slavenorth.com/

http://www.historynet.com/slavery-in-america

 

I know it seems like it was a long time ago for most of us, but we all need to remember that the Civil War was within Orvis’ lifetime...

 

For all intents and purposes, slavery was confined to south of the Mason Dixon line. True, it was not outlawed in most northern states...Southerners could bring their slaves north with them when visiting, for example. Slavery was all about agricultural manpower. Slave holding states also got a kicker for representation on the federal level at 3/5 person per slave.....The macabre issue is slaves were not granted rights as citizens BUT their owners wanted them treated as such for political purposes. This coupled with the vast "wealth" that slaves represented as "property" was a key factor in the south's secession. The writing was on the wall. Significant fights erupted when new states were admitted to the union...slave vs free. Would slavery be outlawed with violence? Possibly in 50 years with the invention of labor saving machinery but certainly not in a few years.

 

You're right. I was too old to fight in that war so I stayed home and went fishing every day.

 

We were all wondering where you were.

 

LOL, I, and Moses, (our slave) were down on the creek every day. We ate well.