As far as I know, Gautam's and Dan's discussions of the US Civil War
are correct:
* The Fugitive Slave Act was an imposition on states' rights. It
meant a change from the previous, more or less `live and let live'
tolerance policy to a Federally imposed `you will help us kidnap
your residents' policy.
* Poor Southern whites -- most of the Confederacy's soldiers -- were
fighting to maintain their respect, which meant fighting to
maintain slavery. The South was more a shame/honor society than
the North, which as more an actions/guilt society.
Southerners maintained their social position by comparing
themselves to other people, such as slaves, and felt a loss of
honor and shame when the people previously below them socially
gained honor. Northerners, on the other hand, felt guilty when
they did not succeed. Success might only mean becoming an
independent farmer, but that was often enough.
As Robert Seeberger pointed out, these statements are just
generalities. Not all Southerners fitted them, just as not all
Northerners fitted theirs. But as a first approximation, as far as I
know, they are correct. It goes without saying that to avoid being
misled it is necessary to go further.
Gautam Mukunda wrote
How could the South have won? How about no major
offensive operations, force the North into a grinding
war of attrition and denying it any major victories
while either getting European intervention (which
almost happened) or a Democratic victory in 1864
(which _also_ almost happened, ....
The South should have followed George Washington. In the colonies'
war for independence from Great Britain, he adopted a strategy to
`wait them out' and to gain European allies. Washington's strategy
succeeded.
As far as I can see, the guerilla war against the US in Iraq is based
on the same strategy.
Gautam Mukunda wrote
Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin made slavery profitable
once again .... In a sense, you could say that the American Civil
War was a product of technological change ...
This is definitely true. Without the cotton gin, slavery would have
vanished.
I have often wished that automated flax weaving had been developed
earlier. Then slavery would not have been profitable.
Unfortunately for linen, I have read that automated linen weaving
requires metal looms, which were first developed in the 1820s, rather
than wood looms, which were developed a half century earlier. Is this
true?
The cotton gin became well known 1790s, shortly after the US
Constitution was negotiated. It enabled factories that used existing
weaving technology to produce inexpensive cotton goods.
Also, I have heard it said that cotton clothing is more comfortable
than linen clothing, presuming the proper fineness for both. But the
use of `linens' for underwear contradicts this claim. Does someone
know? Is this the kind of knowledge that crafts people and members of
the SCA maintain? Does any one know off hand the prices, by decade,
for equivalent cotton and linen clothes through out the 19th century?
My vague memory is that cotton clothes became and stayed cheaper than
linen clothes, which was the reverse of previous centuries.
As for the point that the Northern government did too little to help
the former slaves after the Civil War: I think that is true.
The famous phrase is that the Northern government was going to give
former slaves `40 acres and a mule'.
On the one hand, it may have been impossible for the North to provide
mules, on account there not being enough of them (I don't know). Does
any one know how many mules there were and what the demand might have
been, both for mules and for whatever else former slave settlers would
have needed?
On the other hand, however, the Union government could have given each
work group or family 120 acres round about the 100th line of longitude
(i.e., at the approximate western end of the range in which
non-irrigated agriculture is possible using 1860s technology). I fear
that white northern farmers prevented this action, because they feared
that former slaves would out compete them.
Side query: I remember that Aristotle wrote that he favored slavery,
"until the shuttle" could "weave by itself'. However, I have not been
able to find the reference, although I have searched through a good
number of (English-language) books. Does anyone know the reference?
(As for the technological change question: Aristotle never thought of
the cotton gin. I suspect he was thinking of wool and flax. Also,
quite possibly, he did not ever expect automated textile machinery;
that machinery was not invented for two millenia after Aristotle's
death.)
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
