As I see it:

United States were basically two conglomerates of countries, one industrial, one agricultural. The agricultural one was at the same time "globalist" in that it was benefitting from the overseas trade the most and was pushing that way. The industrial wanted to have the southern resources for its industry, but you can't compete against export profits quite well when cotton and tobacco are selling so well in Europe.

There you have the number one reason for the conflict - distribution of resources. Now distribution of resources is definitely a good reason for a war, and hundreds of wars were started that way.


Then you have the economic expansion issue. Both economic systems inherently to capitalism sought to expand into the ex-Mexico and other territories. Each sought to bar the other side from expanding. I'd argue that financially (due to export profits) the South had an upper hand, but administratively North was more powerful. Therefore you get the "no slavery in new lands" idea by Republicans. Notice how they didn't go with "abolish slavery", but went with "no new slavery states" instead (the earlier would be a direct declaration of war). They didn't give a fuck about slavery, they wanted to limit the expansion of their economic rivals. With slavery being the only politically viable option of working force for the South (other option being mechanization with the help of the industrial North that would result in decrease in profits short-mid-term), banning slavery in new lands was basically a ban on their economic expansion using the current model (no slaves => mechanization), which would result in greater distribution of wealth to the industrial North.

There you have the number two reason for the conflict - distribution of wealth. Now distribution of wealth is definitely a good reason for a war, and hundreds of wars were started that way.


Bearing that in mind, it is obvious that slavery abolishment was a move that shifted the power balance greatly to the North, resulting in North economic model being spread throughout the country and the industrial and financial groups of the North getting all of the power in United States with Southern financial groups shrinking and losing their political influence.

There you have the number three reason for the conflict - distribution of power. Now distribution of power is definitely a good reason for a war, and hundreds of wars were started that way.


One may argue that these three reasons are effectively one and the same reason. I can agree with that, effectively they are. But they have nothing to do with slavery, human rights and shit. Lincoln was genius in that he turned a pure economic issue into the human rights issue, but thinking that abolishing slavery came first is ridiculous.

Like it was noted, "noone else fought a war over slavery", because human rights don't matter shit when it comes to reasons for war. Wars are much more pragmatic.

It is important to note though that obviously a "war to abolish slavery" became part of the national American myth, which is totally fine. And if you're dipshit lowlife (like Sam) for whom national myths are created, you take the thing with religious fervor. It's also funny that if you look even at Wikipedia, U.S. and other countries state different causes for the war. Maybe because other countries don't give a shit about U.S. national myths.


I don't really give a f- about Trump, but when he says that it could've been done w/o a war, he is right. The only way to end it w/o war was for the South to accept industrial revolution and protectionism pushed by Republicans. But the Democratic Southern financial groups were way too greedy with the global financial agenda and having all those international money flowing in.

Funnily reminds you of the current situation, don't you think? Like someone needs to accept the reality of the historical processes or I say we have chances to see the 2nd round of the debates.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2017 07:31AM by Kstatida.