Causes of the War

coby wrote:

hay, you're one of those slackers oppie, so I wouldn't be talking, even though you are a mod now.

Coby, you are off topic.

You know, you're wasting time, space and energy by repeatedly telling people that they're off topic. Just try to swing the conversation back into the topic subject, with a question, comment, etc.

First, Oppie. You have no power here
Second, Stuart. He's right. You need to get back on topic.

The lady said it. ANd, I had better not have to deleat 5 pages again. I did my best to clean the chrap up that you guys left. The least you guys could do is try to keep on topic.

Ok then, we haven't mentioned this before, but it goes without saying that westward expansion pressed the slaverly issue to the front again. But what part did the Gold Rush have to do with starting the war (though over a decade later)? Can it be said that Chinese laborors that flooded the West Coast took away the need of slavery, because the overabundance of labor lowered the, "minimum wage" if you will, of the day?

Yes. Except, for the fact, that SOutherners didn't want Chinese. They wanted blacks.

Plus many Chinese were not slave workers. Most owned there own land and livestock.

Oppie, none of the Chinese were slave laborors. There were just so many of them, that the great amount of available manpower lowered the price of labor tremendously. And IBG, why would Southerners want blacks, as you stated? The vast majority of Southerners were too poor to even own slaves, and the ones that were well-off enough to own slaves wouldn't have gotten caught up in the Gold Rush to begin with. So, I don't see the reasoning behind your statement....

Those that did own slaves would. The other would work themselves.

And, Chinese were our first cheap labor from other countries we had.

IBG, Stuarts right. 80% of the southern population didn't own slaves. 15% owned less than 100 and 5% were plantations.

Once again, sorry IBG, but the Chinese weren't the first source of cheap foreign labor we had, that would be the Irish, escaping the famine in their home country and imigrating to the East Coast, especially during the 1840s. Of these, the majority settled in New York. A little known fact is that these Irish immigrants brought with them the first organized crime in America, the first American 'mafia' if you will.

Yup yup.

Yeo, Yep, Yep.

Oppie brought up Sen. Preston Brooks earlier, before the topic temporarily died. Preston Brooks didn't play a large part in starting the war, but the Sumner caning did show in graphic detail how the pure hatred between North and South had grown. I have found an excellent account, written by Preston Brooks himself, defending his position on the Sumner caning. It is well written, to say the least, and gives a point of view that no one cares to look from anymore. After all, Brooks' actions were provoked by constant speeches of the most insulting nature by Massachussetts Sen. Charles Sumner, aimed at the South. Remember, this was a time when harsh words were followed by harsh consiquences, either for the one who uttered them or the one who sought satisfaction. A gentlemens' honor stood legitimately in a court of law. The Dan Sickles trial, which would occur three years later in 1859, would set an official precedent in courts across the nation, that a gentleman's honor, and his responsibility to retain that honor, at all costs, stood higher than the law, and that gentleman could not be held responsible for his actions.
After awhile, we all begin to get sick of all this talk about 'gentlemen' and 'honor.' But if we really want to get a clear picture of the true standings of events, we have to take into consideration the accepted moral standards of the day.

True, but physical and verbal agression had grown apart in how offensive they were compared to each other by then.

Oppie, that's not quite true at all; in 1856, if you insulted a gentleman on the street, there is no doubt at all that you would be challenged to a duel. In fact, that was the only possible recource; if the insulted gentleman swallowed the insult and walked on, he would be abandoning his honor. This was an accepted "fact" of moral standards. You would know this, and you would expect the challenge, and any consiquences resulting from it, after knowingly insulted the gentleman. That is how honorable society functioned at the time.

General Stuart wrote:

Oppie, that's not quite true at all; in 1856, if you insulted a gentleman on the street, there is no doubt at all that you would be challenged to a duel. In fact, that was the only possible recource; if the insulted gentleman swallowed the insult and walked on, he would be abandoning his honor. This was an accepted "fact" of moral standards. You would know this, and you would expect the challenge, and any consiquences resulting from it, after knowingly insulted the gentleman. That is how honorable society functioned at the time.

I remember now. Strange way of dealing with insulta eh? Good thing we dont do that...................anymore.

Do your homework Oppie.

General Stuart wrote:

Do your homework Oppie.

I second that!

Motion passed! Just remember Oppie: different time, different standards.

General Stuart wrote:

Motion passed! Just remember Oppie: different time, different standards.

More like differnet perceptions Stuart.

??? You claimed that you "forgot" about the standards of the time.... Whatever. The question isn't with perceptions, Oppie. Again: Do your homework.

I meant that the perceptions that people change over time, Stuart.

I think you're pertaining to my useful quote: Different times, different standards.

Actually I'm pretaining to mine, " The perceptions that people ahve change over time."