heirtothewind
VIP Member
Why?
It is a good question someone else raised on another thread. Lincoln is revered for saving the Union -- at the cost of 650,000 lives and destruction of the South where most farmers owned no slaves nor understood the arcane arguments of John Calhoun for nullification or states' rights.
The North had textile mills dependent on cotton and, despite the abolitionist movement, was probably more racist than the few in the South who owned slaves. The ''copperheads,'' therefore, sympathized with the South for economic reasons. A flood of freed slaves to the North willing to work in factories for lower pay was not welcome.
The North had industry and trade; the South, as Rhett Butler said, had nothing but cotton and arrogance. The South needed the North more than the North needed the South. Our Civil War may well have been unnecessary.
I invite thoughts and opinions on this topic.
It is a good question someone else raised on another thread. Lincoln is revered for saving the Union -- at the cost of 650,000 lives and destruction of the South where most farmers owned no slaves nor understood the arcane arguments of John Calhoun for nullification or states' rights.
The North had textile mills dependent on cotton and, despite the abolitionist movement, was probably more racist than the few in the South who owned slaves. The ''copperheads,'' therefore, sympathized with the South for economic reasons. A flood of freed slaves to the North willing to work in factories for lower pay was not welcome.
The North had industry and trade; the South, as Rhett Butler said, had nothing but cotton and arrogance. The South needed the North more than the North needed the South. Our Civil War may well have been unnecessary.
I invite thoughts and opinions on this topic.