Kevin_Kennedy
Defend Liberty
- Aug 27, 2008
- 18,553
- 1,923
- 245
- Thread starter
- #61
Not at all: I'm just explaining the Union's motivation for going to war to keep the southern states from seceding.What everyone's ignoring is that slavery, which was considered repugnant even 150 years ago, was not nearly as big an issue as COTTON.
New England's economy at the time was very heavily dependent on its textile mills, along with cheap cotton from the south. An independent confederacy would have been devastating to them economically: they would have to bid against the English mills for higher-priced material.
They didn't call it "King Cotton" for nothing.
Are you saying that since the New England states needed cheap cotton the southern states had no right to secede?Nothing obvious about it at all. If English mills bid higher, the confederacy would simply have sold to the highest bidder. That's the free market we all love so much...There's no reason why the Confederate States and United States couldn't have had free trade with each other, however. It obviously would have been beneficial to both.
I see. Well you're right, that's likely a reason why they wanted to force the south to remain in the Union.
If English mills were willing to pay more than of course that's where the cotton would have gone. It's the right of a free people to be able to decide where they sell their goods and for what price.