Jerry Eichenberger wrote on 06/25/15 at 13:18:59:A part of the real tragedy of The War Between the States was that if it could have been avoided for another 20 years, slavery would have likely died out anyhow.
As agriculture began to be mechanized in the period right after 1865, and particularly with Whitney's invention of the cotton gin, slaves would have just become too expensive and bothersome to keep.
Slave owners always had to fear revolt, and more than one Southern family was killed by their own slaves.
Then keeping a couple of dozen female slaves picking cotton seeds out of the cotton balls when that could be done by the cotton gin in a few minutes made no economic sense. Unfortunately, the timing was off by about 20 years.
And I use the term War Between the States because to a historian, a civil war is a war between two or more factions all vying to control a country. Not was not the case in TWBTS - the South had no desire to control the entire country - they simply wanted to secede and be done with it.
Jerry thank you sooo much for posting this!!! I would have said a similar thing but being FROM Mississippi, it seems my words would be too suspect.
It is my understanding that (TWBTS) did start as economic strife, basically an industrial North versus an agricultural ( but still rich) South. When a legislative fix could not be found, affected states decided to secede. It then became a states right issue. The rally cry as a slavery issue became prominent because a quick victory by the North just was not happening. Lincoln needed something to maintain the will of the North to continue the war... because he valued the survival of the Union (all states) above anything else.
Other odd tidbits I recall ( may not be factual)
The State of MS abolished slavery PRIOR the the end of the war, yet the war waged on WHY.. can't be about slavery???
Owing to the statement above... that MS had already free slaves, prior to the thirteenth amendment.. they did not sign the 13th until ... 1995! (Why sign it when you already free them??)
As to the right to secede. While the North decided to fight the South to prevent it, they in truth had no law to stand on. It was only AFTER the war was over that the courts made a ruling.
Here is the issue: the american colonies left the rule of England, but then fought to prevent the same type action, within its own. Two-faced much? So the courts put it this way: if the PEOPLE had revolted and said they were leaving the Union then they would have been within their right. However, a State government does NOT have that ability. ( or something to that effect as I understand it).
Let's be clear owning other people, considering them as property is horrible to me. I will not agree that slaves had it good, or any other such notion. I will say, as JOG pointed out, black slavery was but one form and one area. Chinese railroad "workers" were in most manners slaves, and died en masse (and suspect had a much worse time than slaves in the South). Many people who came to the US did so as "indentured servants" .. and yes these were WHITE people. So the idea that somehow the SOUTH had a lock on slavery, is BS. The idea that people controlling to the enth degree the life another was common, for any race (debt bondage) for the day, and in fact continues on to this day in
some most parts of the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondagehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_slavery
Pages: 
