How about the fact that Congress demanded that the south only sell its cotton and other raw materials to the North at under inflated prices?
How about that Congress taxed the south heavily on those sales?
Sure sounds a lot like why we broke away from Great Britain.

In the end, the South should have listened to Lincoln and not been so hasty to make war. By the outbreak, southern preachers were preaching pro war sermons, pointing out that Abraham, Jacob and others in the Bible all owned slaves. I believe that Lincoln did have a plan to slowly wean southern slave owners away from slavery and allow them to sell their goods at fair market prices. However, Congress had no interest in listening to the south or trying to help the south.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by KiwiHead

Auckland, NZ

Member since Jul 2014

28051 posts

Posted on 5/22/17 at 5:49 pm to geauxbrown

The North had a lot to answer for when it came to stoking Southern passions. Northern textile mills certainly liked the cheap price of Southern cotton at below market prices, but the big landowners were definitely not suffering in any way due to it.

What the North ended up objecting to ....the straw that broke the camel's back was the Fugitive Slave Law that basically gave Southern bounty hunters free range all over the country to retrieve runaway slaves. On its face it would seem not that big a deal...helping someone retrieve stolen or missing "property". The thing was, that it forced Northerners to actually be complicit in turning over slaves or face prison time. It forced the non slave states to enforce the bondage that they objected to. It led to nullification in places like Wisconsin .

Sometimes little things make big splashes and this was one of them

1 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board