 |
|
I answered your asinine questions. Why and How you say?
Posted on: January 18, 2020 at 21:55:57 CT
jonesin
Posts:
19591
Member For:
24.60 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
Because they wanted shyte on the cheap. Almost free in fact. And they trumped up imaginary outrage (most of them had African servants) and they FUNDED the war effort.
You look it up.
The southern ruling class had an interest in upholding the institution of slavery, since it provided them with an extremely cheap labor force.
The northern ruling class wanted its capitalist system of banks and factories to take over the southern economy; remember that one of the few ways for a capitalist economy to avoid recession is to open new markets and appropriate new resources. They also felt that capitalism would more quickly and efficiently generate wealth for themselves, both because capitalist wage-labor can be exploited more efficiently than can chattel slave labor, and also because a union victory would drive the southern planting class out of power.
In the end, things became more complicated. But one dynamic is clear: plantation land was parceled out to poor black and white farmers after the war. The farms were too small to be productive, farmers took out loans and mortgages from northern banks and then defaulted on these loans, and despite the best efforts of the populist movement, the farms were eaten up by northern "carpet-baggers". The Civil War, therefore, had the intended economic effect of transferring southern wealth from southern planter aristocrats to northern bourgeois.
Note that the civil war also saw the birth of American corporations and the 14th Amendment granted corporations constitutional rights equal to an individual citizen's. Some northern capitalists may have had this end in mind too, as well as the inevitable wartime boost in production.
The website to which this is a link may not have the same analysis that I have, but it does include southern secession statements that quite frankly (especially in SC's case) state the southern aristocracy's assertion of its right to own slaves. The northern justifications, wrapped up as they are in arguments for federal primacy and abolitionism, are less obvious.
-1
0
1
Edited by jonesin at 22:05:38 on 01/18/20
You look it up.
The southern ruling class had an interest in upholding the institution of slavery, since it provided them with an extremely cheap labor force.
The northern ruling class wanted its capitalist system of banks and factories to take over the southern economy; remember that one of the few ways for a capitalist economy to avoid recession is to open new markets and appropriate new resources. They also felt that capitalism would more quickly and efficiently generate wealth for themselves, both because capitalist wage-labor can be exploited more efficiently than can chattel slave labor, and also because a union victory would drive the southern planting class out of power.
In the end, things became more complicated. But one dynamic is clear: plantation land was parceled out to poor black and white farmers after the war. The farms were too small to be productive, farmers took out loans and mortgages from northern banks and then defaulted on these loans, and despite the best efforts of the populist movement, the farms were eaten up by northern "carpet-baggers". The Civil War, therefore, had the intended economic effect of transferring southern wealth from southern planter aristocrats to northern bourgeois.
Note that the civil war also saw the birth of American corporations and the 14th Amendment granted corporations constitutional rights equal to an individual citizen's. Some northern capitalists may have had this end in mind too, as well as the inevitable wartime boost in production.
The website to which this is a link may not have the same analysis that I have, but it does include southern secession statements that quite frankly (especially in SC's case) state the southern aristocracy's assertion of its right to own slaves. The northern justifications, wrapped up as they are in arguments for federal primacy and abolitionism, are less obvious.
-1
0
1
Edited by jonesin at 22:05:38 on 01/18/20
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
I answered your asinine questions. Why and How you say? - jonesin - 1/18 21:55:57