History questions

[Afizzle]

was wondering if anyone would be able to throw a couple of answers towards me about the following questions.....

1. In what ways were cotton production and slavery more a burden to the south than a benefit?

2. Assume a role of a southern slave. Compare and contrast life on a small plantation with life on a large plantation as well as slave life in a city with slave life in a rural area. Point out how the crop being worked impacted life.

3. What was responsible for the violence in “Bleeding Kansas”? Why might the violence be viewed as a “prelude to Civil War”?

4. When confronted with the Southern secession in 1861, why did not Lincoln simply allow the South to separate in peace?



thx in advance,
B.

[Sponsored Links]

[John Bridge]

Hi Fizzle, :) How about a first name?

That's a pretty tall order. Maybe you ought to break it down a little. It's not really my area, but who says the institution of slavery was more of a burden on the South than a boon?

[Steven Hauser]

:D

I like this time period. yet, I question why I should answer these questions.

I want to make sure you are not a student who should be doing their own research.

Why don't you start by telling us your perspective first.

TIA

[Afizzle]

well, to answer the questions presented to me:

my prespective in this matter is that of a student, however, i am not really looking for someone to do my work for me, just kinda looking for a lead way into my research. these 4 question i selected from a list of possible topics for a research paper of 8-10 pages in length. i guess to clear up the question about doing my research, i was looking for brief answer of a couple of sentences or more to basically get me started in the right direction.

thx again,

Ben

[flatfloor]

1. In what ways were cotton production and slavery more a burden to the south than a benefit?

My guess it stilted development in other areas such as manufacturing.

2. Assume a role of a southern slave. Compare and contrast life on a small plantation with life on a large plantation as well as slave life in a city with slave life in a rural area. Point out how the crop being worked impacted life.

With all respect, who the hell could answer that except a slave.

3. What was responsible for the violence in “Bleeding Kansas”? Why might the violence be viewed as a “prelude to Civil War”?

No clue

4. When confronted with the Southern secession in 1861, why did not Lincoln simply allow the South to separate in peace?

Because we are the United States

[jjwq8]

What Jim said.

Monoculture, which is effectively what the cotton industry represented serviced by a cheap workforce. Why would the plantation owners, who had been in the business for generations want to diversify?

The employment of Plantation Overseers is a clear admission that the workforce were constantly restive, meaning that resources, both fiscal and intellectual, were devoted to surpression instead of development.

However, the notion that cotton was a hindrance ignores that fact that many of the secessionist states had economies that did not rely upon cotton.

Frankly, the question is way too narrow to be a meaningful exercise in historical research.

[John Bridge]

Kansas -- Nebraska.

The wars in the frontier terretories resulted from the question as to whether the new states would be "slave" or "free." The Southern states had an interest in keeping the status quo, whereas Northern states were looking to an end to slavery. Everything came to a head in Kansas and Nebraska, as those two terretories were next in line for statehood.

[Unregistered]

In regard to the reason for Lincoln's war on the South, I would suggest you read Jefferson Davis' memoirs for the Southern perspective. As far as the Northern perspective, just pick up any run of the mill textbook on the Civil War. The Civil War was looked upon differently by Europe, the whole concept of a union of soveriegn states that was to be kept intact by war struck many as a very curious thing.

[bigsmooth41]

For a look at Lincoln's reasons for not allowing a peaceful Southern secession, I would suggest you read "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo.

It is truely a different look at Lincoln and his motovations.

[John Bridge]

Well, that's what it's all about, isn't it? Viewpoint?

What strikes me about arguments over the cause of the Civil War is that modern day protagonists are pretty much located in the former slave or free states. I was born and raised on the West Coast, neither Yankee nor Rebel. Yet I know it was, when you get right down to it, a battle over slavery. Many people in the South say it was not, that is was simply a states rights affair. Bullshit.

Lincoln did what he had to do.

[Airborne]

I hated history in school and can't believe I'm about to post a second time to a history forum, but here goes...

Could the Civil War be viewed as a turning point with regard to the balance of power between States' control of the majority of regulation (commercial, social, etc) and centralized Federal control of regulation? It seems curious to me that the individual State governments are in a power class not significantly different from county and local jurisdictions when compared to the power/reach of the Federal government. I'm not a political scientist by any stretch of imagination, but it seems to me that the role of central government envisioned by the federal leaders or politicians prior to the Civil War is radically different from the role the Federal government has taken on/filled in the last 50 to 80 years.

Do scholars see the Civil War as a defining moment in the consolidation of Federal powers or am I just jumping to wild conclusions?

[jjwq8]

John,
Thus spake Dubya.

[John Bridge]

Art,

There is no question that what you say is true. Post-war "Reconstruction" was actually the states' rights killer. For one thing, it was the addition of the Reconstruction era amendments to the Constitution that was later judged by the Supreme Court to convey the Bill of Rights to the States. Prior to the war the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. This has effectively brought state governments under the direct scrutiny of the Court. Prior to the war, the Court concerned itself with federal matters and interstate commerce.

Also, a new constitutional dilema was caused by Lincoln's suspension of the habeas corpus. There was no constitutional provision allowing him to do so.

Still, the bulk of current argument always goes back to slavery. There would have been no civil war had the institution been addressed during the writing and ratification of the Constitution. But had that happened, the Constitution would not have been ratified, and it's very possible the Civil War might have been fought in the 18th Century instead of in the 19th. :)

[Steven Hauser]

Wow Art!!

Thou art quite the observationist.

John is correct that the reconstruction era amendments and possibly necessary reduction of states rights following the Civil War are what has lead to the promulgation of the federal powers during the late 19th and steadily during the 20th century.

What is quite possibly the most ovverlooked aspect of the Civil War is what Jeremy posted a while ago in the mudbox.

For this country to succeed and prosper, it was known across Europe and specifically in the UK that the USA needed to be federally controlled.

Else, relations between countries dealing with specific states could lead to deals being made that would harm a unified country.

Now, the relations between the southern states and Europe was quite good, better than any where else in the Union.

Though, slavery was the chief problem, it was economic disparity that was brewing trouble.

Typical reasons for war. Economy, Control, and Power.

:D

[John Bridge]

But the question of federal control over foreign relations and trade had been settled with ratification of the Constitution, and the Constitution, although it was cobbled together from several plans and various perspectives, was largely the result of the "Virginia Plan." So the South had plenty of input in the process.

I don't see how relations with other powers comes into the mix until AFTER the war began. And I think the evidence that slavery was the chief causal factor is overwhelming in regards to events leading up to the war, i.e., the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act and other legislative events designed to protect the fragile status quo.

The Dred Scott Decision didn't help matters.

[Steven Hauser]

Hmm.. perhaps I misspoke, I don't contest the fact that slavery was the key issue.

I think that economic disparity played quite a role.

From the time around 1850 or so when the Republican party was brought into existence the Southern states were concerned with the fact that slavery was not to be taken into the new territories. This fact and the real population density shift from the South to the North where industrial opportunites were available created a conundrum about representation in the House of Representatives.

Over the first 70 years of the country the Southerners had wrestled with the ideal of humanity and property that gave us weird compromises like the 3/5 for each 5 slaves count toward representation in the House. They were mostly

You know that the founders thought that slavery would just pass away and did largely in the Northern states by 1787. They just handled the shipping of the slaves until 1808. ;)

The invention of the cotton gin made the cultivation of cotton on large plantations using slave labor a profitable enterprise in the deep South.

Obviously the slaves became quite important to the southern ecnomy. Thus, from the southern perspective the debate about slavery became an economically based argument of money and power.It was no longer a thesis to discuss. It became an institution the southerners needed to protect.

Jefferson Davis while a Senator from Mississippi summed up the sectionalist argument with:

Speaking, in effect, to the people of the North concerning slavery, “It is not humanity that influences you… it is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the Government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement… you want by an unjust system of legislation to promote the industry of the United States at the expense of the people of the South.”
That is the long and short of the sectionalist position.

How about that?
:)

[flatfloor]

The real death knell occurred when states began accepting federal monies and the regulations that were attached to the funds.

[John Bridge]

Steven,

I can understand the concern with representation in the House, but is takes the Senate, too, to pass any legislation, and it was the balance in the Senate that the whole shooting match was about. The Missouri Compromise was about that. It stated (in loose terms) that for every state admitted as a "free" state, a "slave" state would be admitted also. And the Kansas-Nebraska Act I spoke of followed that edict. It was the repeal of the Missouri Compromise that led to serious consideration of secession on the part of southern states. In other words, it became clear that the South would ultimately lose the battle in the Senate over slavery. With the legislative avenue closed, secession seemed the only alternative. And I have to agree, had I been a southern planter at that time, I probably would have fought it tooth and nail.

But we still agree, it boils down to the issue of slavery, whether for economic concerns or because of ideology. Slavery; not states' rights per se. :)

[Airborne]

The real death knell occurred when states began accepting federal monies and the regulations that were attached to the funds.

The money talks doesn't it....

I think there is a college in Michigan that goes way back (before the Civil War) that will not accept any federal monies. They have a scholarship endowment that matches what a student would get in a Pell grant or otherwise. I think it is called Hillsville or Hillsdale College. They have a long proud history of independant thinking. Not many institutions can resist the urge to accept "free" money and the not-so-free strings which are always attached to the money.

So does this all boil down to a statement that the power resides in the ability to tax and then exert control through the distribution of the proceeds? Therefore "States Rights" vs. Federalsism is not so much about who writes laws, but rather who taxes and spends?

[Steven Hauser]

Uhh.. Art,

I don't want to dissuade you from your opinion but....

I think that there is more to this than that.

I know you don't like history but let's first understand that federalism is probably known as the the cornerstone of the Constitution.

Many times people confuse federalism with state autonomy popularly addressed as "states rights".


The reality is somewhat complex. I will not do it full justice because I would bore you to death.

First back to the constitutional aspect of federalism.

The constitutional foundation of federalism is to assign powers to both the state and federal government officials for the benefit of the people of the nation. These powers are not intended for their (the officials) own personal benefit.

The chief benefit of the distribution of power is the "satisfaction of diverse preference and competition both among the states and between the states and federal government to satisfy those preferences".

In other words state autonomy is important to federalism and the federal government is supposed to restrict state autonomy. It is done primarily to benefit trade avenues and movement among the states.

Again though, the power is to benefit the people.

Problems start in maintaining the constitutional federalism when elected officials interests are different than that of the citizens.

The truly salient problem is this. The political process does not protect the constitutional ideal of federalism because federal and state officials are primarily motivated by personal political interest.

I'll stop there for now.

;)

[Airborne]

So are you saying that to prevent either the states or the federal government from becoming overly powerful, our founding fathers set up an antagonistic situation to form some sort of natural check and balance? Seems like genius to me: keep the government / politicians feuding amongst themselves so they are too busy to meddle in our lives....too bad they've become so efficient at feuding that they still find time to meddle. :D

[lazybumranch]

This is an unbelievable thread- is it because tile guys spend so much time grouting that they can make $ while still anylizing the world so well? I don't think you could get this great diversity and thinking at the best of skools!

Quick additional point on why slavery was bad for the southern economy, and helped the South defeat itself: In addition to the reasons above mentioned, slavery prevented the natural economical development of the "citizenery" of the slave states-Slave plantations did not provide jobs to the "working class", thereby encouraging poverty with the commen ruck. This in turn motivated the migration North to the Factory Economy up North, which off set the balance of the House of Reps, etc., etc.

Just my 2 cents

PS- Art- Great points made- I for one feel most secure when Congress is doing anything besides being in session.