Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1exp 11/4/83; site ihuxw.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!ihnp4!ihuxw!pector
From: pector@ihuxw.UUCP (Scott W. Pector)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Civil War: Wheeler's Version
Message-ID: <600@ihuxw.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Nov-83 20:00:50 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxw.600
Posted: Wed Nov 23 20:00:50 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Nov-83 04:57:49 EST
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, Il
Lines: 48

T. C. Wheeler:

I'm sorry. I couldn't resist answering your challenge.  In your past few
letters, you were bringing out some good points.  Even in this last one
you were doing so; however, you left the facts and traipsed into inaccuracy.

I agree that economic considerations had their impact on the Civil War
and Britain's role; however, these considerations were not (I repeat, NOT)
the major cause.  Cynicism is not a reason to change history.

The anti-slavery movement was strong beginning in the 1830s and continued
to gather strength through the 1840s and 1850s.  The slave-holding states
of the South were concerned that they maintain an equal balance with the
North in Congress; otherwise, the North could enact legislation affecting
the status of slavery in the South.  Look back at the conflict over
whether Texas should be admitted to the Union (the Northerners generally
had misgivings about it since Texas would become a slave-holding state).
This debate occurred in the 1840s, particularly around the time of the
Mexican-American War.  At this time, Texas had declared itself independent
of Mexico and had set up its own government which was favorable to joining
the U.S.  Look back at the Compromise of 1850.  Look back at the Kansas-
Nebraska troubles in the 1850s.  Look at the various abolitionist or
anti-slavery political parties and coalitions that were formed in the
1840s and 1850s.  These affected the stability of the Whig and Democratic
parties.  There are many more things I could cite.

Economic and political considerations in an important sense derived from
the fact that the South had a slavery-based economy and the North didn't.
Many things that the North wanted, such as better roads, railroads, canals,
etc., would not help the South at all; yet the South would have to help
pay for these things and see the North benefit by them.  This was true in
the 1830s, 1840s, and the 1850s.

By the end of the 1850s, I believe (and I suspect that many others do, too)
that economic considerations had become secondary to the anti-slavery
movement; that is, by that time, economic considerations were an additional
reason (but not the major reason) for the North wanting to outlaw slavery
throughout the U.S.  Slavery was considered wrong.  As long as the North
had this attitude, the South would always be fighting a losing battle
to stay in the Union, trying to maintain a balance in Congress.

Once again, bear in mind that I agree that economic considerations were
important (as usual).  But this time, they became entangled with morality.
It was morality that stirred the fervor of the Northern public.  Secession
and the attack on Fort Sumter increased that fervor.  Economic considerations
were not thought about by the average person.

							Scott Pector