Talk:American Civil War

Refusal to allow comment regarding keloid formation in picture of whipped slave

This picture shows the result of a brutal and unforgivable act. Noting that the poor man in the photo likely suffers from keloid does not detract from that. I don't understand why the same picture has carried the 'keloid notation' on the slavery page and elsewhere on Wiki for ages without any controversy yet here objections are raised. In fact, the same picture is used to illustrate the condition on the Wiki keloid page itself.

Again, allowing a medically correct addition to the article and picture does not detract from or, God forbid, condone, the barbarism of whipping. But, to censor it is contrary to everything that people fighting for freedom have strived for. Please do not censor it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaussgauss (talk • contribs) 14:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, and only to attest to the fact that I am informed about keloid and its appearance, and not to strut about, I will note that I am a Board Certified, and Royal College certified, internist. This is not medical esoterica,

Sorry,I forgot to sign before: Gaussgauss (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The editors who reverted the edition that included the keloid description alleged "original research". The book given as source indeed says that it was keloid (although that might have been simply the author's opinion). Reverting under the claim of original research is incorrect. However, I believe there is no reason at all to add the keloid description since it does not improve or help in anything the article. In fact, it might even lead a reader to believe that "well, the poor slave wasn't beaten so hard at all" which would be an absurd. In fact, this an opinion that an editor tried to place, that "The pattern of scarring seen here is highly suggestive of keloid formation and not necessarily due to a particularly brutal flogging". Well, keloid or not, the photo has a reason of being: to portray how cruel slavery was and still is. Any attempt to diminish the reality of slavery should be removed. --Lecen (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No one is attempting "to diminish the reality of slavery". That is an insulting allegation. Adding that he almost certainly suffers from keloid informs the reader that his particular flogging is NOT atypical. Don't you see? It adds to the opprobrium for whipping by showing he is not unique. Gaussgauss (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

But there is still no citation to what appeared to be random speculation about keloid. If there is a cite from a reliable source, provide the citation! That's all we asked. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is a page cite (from Google Books) where the man is described as having keloid scars: http://books.google.com/books?id=qtu2dXgubjMC&pg=PA216&dq&hl=en#v=onepage&q=&f=false. Here it is again but showing it being cited in a website: http://www.historybroker.com/slavery/slave.html (3rd picture down). And, explicitly (for those preferring not to click on the links): Kathleen Collins, "The Scourged Back," History of Photography 9 (January 1985): 43-45. I hope this is sufficient. Thank you for being patient. Gaussgauss (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This is trivia in the context of this article about the civil war, although it may find relevance in an article about the picture, or photographer, or person in the photograph. I propose it be removed. 65.79.14.40 (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

An explaination, fully half of the caption, that the scars may be keloid is off topic here. Sure, explain that theory in Keloid. Here, at most, we might caption the article "Keloid scars of whipped slave. This famous 1863 photo was distributed by abolitionists to illustrate what they saw as the barbarism of Southern society." - SummerPhD (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, slavery and whipping are horrible, but slaves were very expensive, and damaging them seems counter-intuitive. Under what exceptional circumstance would a slave be whipped? I've never found any criteria. It seems to be based on whim. But whipping a slave would be like hitting your car with a sledgehammer. Does anyone know of the various forms and gradations of punishment to slaves, I assume whipping would be one of the worst, along with dismemberment and hanging. There seems to be a lot of sado-masochism involved--were these slave owners psychotics and S&M freaks? Ignorant overseers obviously whipped slaves in order to get them to work. And slaveowners having a fear of slaves rebelling would be another incitement to whip, perhaps whipping them and beating them was thought to keep them subdued, to keep them from rebelling and killing whites. It all seems sick. But remember, sailors in the British Navy were flogged and hung. So in light of the times, did whipping seem as barbaric back then as it does now? Anybody an expert on slave punishment back then to put this all in perspective? Remember, we're dealing with history from long ago. Perhaps if slaveowners had treated their slaves with kindness there would have been no Civil War. Thanks. 69.104.54.79 (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a good question, but probably one that belongs more in an article about Slavery in general. I'm sure it wasn't seen at the same level of barbaric behavior as it is now. Some people consider spanking a child to be barbaric these days, which would not be a view shared by our ancestors; I'm pretty sure that sums it up.

Besides this article is in full control of the current and past editors, and if they don't like what you have to say it will be deemed original research or in contempt of some other rule that allows them to dictate what appears in this article.YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining why the article is mostly hogwash. I could tell that the "fix was in", until now I didn't understand the mechanics. Revisionism about the reasons for the War began shortly after the War ended, and it is this revisionism which modern commentators cite to validate their own un-history. I call it "Revisionism Cubed." The truth about the reasons for the War have always been there. One just needs to ignore the ideas of "historians" born a half-century AFTER the War.

Mnpd (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh neo-confederates, your racism and inhumanity never cease to be amusing. I'd have lost all faith in Wikipedia if they Klansmen write articles. Thankfully this is not the case. Your views would be more welcome on Metapedia. -- LightSpectra (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Recognition of the Confederacy

It states in the article "No country in the world recognized the Confederacy." This isn't true considering the Vatican had corespondence with the Confederacy. Also, the United Kingdom was inclined to recognize the Confederacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.70.58 (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The article says no one "recognized" the Confederacy, not no one "had correspondence with" or "was inclined to recognize" the Confederacy. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

^True. Confederates also sought recognition from France. Seeking official recognition is not the same as winning it.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth note that was not the Conferate nation granted adgitant status? This not being a legal recognition allowed certain rights to the southern delegation. But I will have to double check when I get home. I also am not a british legal scholar so the exact tenants fo this status are beyond me Sumthingwitty (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Did the South Start the War? FAQ

I see in the FAQ it says "The South bombarded and seized Fort Sumter, a federal fort in South Carolina. Historians regard this as the incident in which the actual fighting began." under the question where it says "Did the South start the War? : Yes". I also see in the FAQ it even admits minority views on this article are stifled, non-existant, or plain disallowed from being edited in; even though the rule is to allow all relevant and cited minority and majority views on an article. But I suppose that's besides the point, and I understand that the folks in control of this article won't allow any changes to established "facts".

My quibble is that many wars start long before any fighting. Wars start long before any shots are fired. In some wars, there are no shots fired at all! So I find it quite hilarious that this article believes that a complex war such as the American Civil War -- also known by some as The War Between the States among other names-- only started when "The South bombarded and seized Fort Sumter, a federal fort in South Carolina". It's just quite ignorant if you ask me. I think it would be much more intelligent, accurate, and certainly more verifiable if it said the South attacked first, or fired the first shots rather than a "But the South started it and it's all their fault!!" type of attitude that seems to be expressed by the FAQ. I just had to express my point of view.YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

For every period, you've got to pick some event to mark the beginning. For a war, the first shots fired is a reasonable choice. We've got a whole 'nother article on the Origins of the American Civil War.

—WWoods (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You could include secession, although the South not only fired "the first shot", but also seceded.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits by Quarkgluonsoup

Extensive rewrites are unwise in a mature article thagt has been edited thousands of times by hundreds of editors. Reliance on a brand-new dubious source like Goldfield--to the neglect of mainstream ideas--violated the NPOV rules. (Goldfield emphasizes religious conflicts in the North, which no other scholar emphasizes one-third as much). The treatment of Europe needs to be based on the modern scholarship on Europe & the war which is massive. Otherwise mistakes are easy: Russia for example did not support the Union (it's an old myth) and Germany and Italy did not play roles. Britain was not sffering from Crimean war fatigue. etc etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs)

Goldfield isn't a dubious source. Here is his bio [1]. If you object to any of the changes, flag or alter them specifically. Most of the changes I made were not citing him. There are plenty of other sources I could cite that say the same thing, notably McPherson. It is from McPherson that my point on Europe/Russia come from. Shelby Foote makes similar points.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The main significance of immigration is that it made Southerners feel more outnumbered. How much weight should this be given?Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Goldfield is new to the civil wear field and his ideas have not been accepted by other scholars. The European section is not based on McPherson (who has three words on Russia and does not deal with the Crimean war, Italy or Germany in the ways Quarkgluonsoup claims.) Shelby Foote is a battle historian who is not an expert on diplomacy or the causes. The long treatment on inter-ethnic fights in the North has little to do with the South. Rjensen (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Goldfield isn't the only one who makes these points. His book is a high level summary of events over a half century, and doesn't make controversial or dubious points. McPherson does mention Russia's support for the union, as do most other books on the matter. Herring, not McPherson, does go into the Crimean/Italy/Germany points. In particular, he discusses the role unrest in Italy and Germany had in distracting Britain and making British (and by extension French) intervention less likely. Herring in particular goes into quite a lot of depth on this, along with the other points on the international section of the article. The inter-ethnic fights certainly are relevant, as they get to the unstable cultural situation at the time.03:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|Quarkgluonsoup]] (talk • contribs)

Goldfield's book came out in April and that's too new. The publisher emphasizes it's "provocative" and indeed it is, blaming the Protestants for the war. Quarkgluonsoup is very new here and has not learned the ways of Wikipedia or of historical scholarship. He needs to read the major histories before he jumps in with radical new ideas that have not been accepted. And misreadings--he makes strange claims about the Crimean war that no historians supports, not Herring or McPherson. No historian apart from Goldfield finds there was an "unstable cultural situation" or that it helped cause the war in some unexplained way. Rjensen (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you read his book? He doesn't blame protestants for the war, and McPherson also makes the point that the cultural instability of prior decades contributed to the outbreak of the civil war. That immigration leads to social instability, and that the 1840s and 1850s were a period of mass immigration and social upheaval isn't disputed. Certainly that point is commonly made in civil war histories. This tradition isn't confined to the civil war either, as historians like Gordon Wood build much of their careers around the cultural and sociological dimensions to important events (read his book "The Idea of America"). Herring makes the point on the Crimean War, as he would given the fact that his book is about foreign policy and diplomacy. Herring discusses the situation in Europe, and their reasons for doing what they did, in quite a bit of depth.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

yes I have read the book. He says evangelical protestants transformed America so as to make compromise impossible. He explicitly recalls the historiography of Avery Craven circa 1940, which has been a small minority -- even fringe--position for over 40 years. Herring does not discuss the Crimean war (he mentions it in passing on non-civil-war issues). Herring has a sophisticated treatment of France and Mexico which is dropped in favor of his half-sentence on Italy. Wood is a red Herring :) Rjensen (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

As you can see from this book [2] by no less an authority on the civil war than Eric Foner, the approach of looking at the socio-cultural aspects of the civil war, rather than just the political or economic aspects, it not new nor is it fringe. While it is certainly true that we can only say so much on issues such as the exact role played by groups like northern evangelicals, it is certainly also true that they played a role, and that the civil war was caused by more than just political/economic issues like slavery or states rights, and that this is not a new nor fringe view. The true "causes" are an inseparable mix of the political/economic and socio-cultural issues, among other things. Historians in the early 20th century too aggressively focused on the political/economic issues (like slavery and states rights) whereas historians in the mid 20th century (like Craven) swung too strongly in the opposite direction (socio-cultural causes). Over the last few decades, mainstream scholarship had reached a middle point, emphasizing both.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Foner is concerned with intellectual history, That is a very difdferent matter. Craven was not much interested in social history, His goal was to show it was a needless war and that a compromise over slavery should have been possible. (He never told us what that compromise would be like, nor does Goldfield). The compromise line of thought died out with Munich/appeasement of Hitler and WW2. Historians then realized that some wars were necessary, Goldfield was Craven's very last student and explicitly credits Craven for his thesis. Craven's is now a fringe thesis. As for ethnocultural politics, I've been collecting notes to write the Wiki article and I guess I should get started. Goldfield is not an ethnocultural specialist. All his writing and teaching until now has been on post-1865. Rjensen (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way to make the stuff on immigration more focused on causes? For example, while anti-Catholicism and nativism were big and important issues, they didn't have much to do with conflict between North and South. However, the fact that immigration added to the Northern, anti-slavery part of the country is relevant to causes.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the large paragraph that Jimmuldrow is (I think)referring to:

The events that led directly to the civil war began no later than the 1840s. The Irish Potato Famine led to mass migration of poor Irish Catholics, mainly into New England. Anti-Catholicism and nativism had a long history in America, and "popish" conspiracy theories routinely led to anti-Catholic hysteria and disorder, such the belief among New England Federalists in the 1790s that the Democratic-Republican Party was in league with the Bavarian Illuminati to bring the French Revolution to America. Similar views prevailed in the aftermath of the democratic Revolutions of 1848, which further inflamed nativist and anti-Catholic hysteria since many believed that those revolutions failed due to the secret actions of Pope Pius IX and the Jesuits. One consequence of those revolutions was that European immigration increased. Up until this point, immigration had mainly come from protestant northern Europe, though after this point immigration was coming mainly in the form of disaffected Catholics, Italians and Germans, who migrated mostly to states that would later make up the Union; immigration into future Confederate states was quite limited. Following this, unprecedented crime waves and social welfare spending took place in many northern cities. Violent crime in particular skyrocketed, and this was seen as the natural consequence of all the recent immigration. Nativism and anti-Catholicism further skyrocketed, though as the southern states were largely unaffected, to them the northern states started to resemble a different country. This was further exacerbated by the acquisition of Texas and the territories won in the Mexican American War, as these events resulted in new holdings populated by people who weren't even European. As these problems were festering, a series of poor harvests in Europe, and most importantly the Crimean War, further exasperated anti-European hysteria. Economic chaos in the mid 1850s, most importantly the Panic of 1857, added further fuel to the coming fire. In his personal memoirs, Ulysses S. Grant notes that as early as the Election of 1856, the south was threatening to secede en masse if a republican won the presidency.

I fail to see how it relates to the origins of the Civil War. Even if it can be shown to relate, it needs to be cut down and placed in its own subsection in the manner that all the other topics are. As noted above, the material is entirely from one author and his views do not represent a consensus view among historians of the era (nor would he claim that they represent a consensus view) although the placement in the article and the failure to attribute the views in the text to Goldfield suggest otherwise to a reader.

Please discuss the matter here and obtain consensus before adding the material back. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Tom. Beyond Goldfield no RS links these developments to the Civil War, apart from the point that immigration caused more rapid population growth in the North, leaving the South a smaller minority. Goldfield himself does not offer any chain of causality. Rjensen (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

My concern with the section on causes is that it only details the political/economic causes. As I illustrated in my quote above from the book by Eric Foner, mainstream scholars understand the causes to be both political/economic and socio-cultural. Even without Goldfield, plenty of other authors mention the same thing. Even assuming Goldfield focuses too heavily on the socio-cultural aspect, such as religion, plenty of other authors have written on these "silent" causes. The article as it is mentions only the political/economic dimension, mainly slavery, which is a weak and limited summary of scholarship on the matter. Mainstream scholarship recognizes these other factors, as I illustrated with Foner.

I think the "causes" section needs to be condensed, in particular the section on slavery (which should be cut down to about a third its current size), and that the "passions" (ie socio-cultural) that caused the civil war, not just the "rationalizations" (ie political/economic) need to be discussed. I would do it myself but don't really want to spend time on it only my work reverted again.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

In the end, the important decisions that led to the war were political and there is a very clear record of how these political decisions relate to both prior political decisions relating to slavery and the moral and economic aspects of slavery. The documentation and analysis for these connections are not just "rationalizations" as you would apparently have us believe.

The material I removed fails to provide any analysis of how it connects to the decisions that led to war, let alone support the belief that these explanations are somehow superior to the consensus views. What are the connections, for example, between "anti-European hysteria" and the decision by either side to wage war?

The political repercussions of the Mexican War are pretty well established and they relate to how slavery would be treated in the newly acquired territory. Yet you claim that a factor is that "these events resulted in new holdings populated by people who weren't even European." Especially considering that the South was much more supportive of putting these particular foreigners within the borders of the U.S., how did the existence of these non-Europeans (rather than just their territory) lead to the Civil War?

You have not made the connection between the specific language you added and the subject of the article. Rather than vague generalizations about the need for "socio-cultural aspects" to be addressed, you need to show, on this discussion page, what actual influence these factors had on the beginning of the Civil War. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In other words, the article tells the "how" but not the "why" of what caused the civil war. This is why historians don't confine discussion of the causes of the civil war to those political decisions, and look at the broader issue of American society in the decades leading up to it. Without doing this, you cannot answer (beyond some conjecture) questions like, why didn't the civil war happen decades earlier or decades later? The article as it now is reflects the views of 10th grade history teachers, not the "consensus" of historians. My explanations are not claimed to be "superior" to the consensus view as you claim, they are the consensus view. I really don't care if the section you removed is restored or not.

What is the connection between hysteria and civil war? That is an easy one, and you only need to look to similar examples (such as the revolutionary war or the English Civil War) to see this illustrated. Civil war is the ultimate example of social unrest, and all civil wars in history have been caused partly by some intangible destabilization of the social order. The simple fact here is that events like war are not simply caused by people making rational decisions like some sort of city council. Decisions are reflective of underlying passions, which have many causes (social disorder is certainly one cause of such passions). It is well known that large scale immigration can lead to social disorder (this you saw with the Irish immigrants in the 1840s and a similar phenomena with the Mexican citizens living on acquired territories). The point on all of this is that these events caused wide spread social disorder, which had several other consequences than just the civil war, such as the fracturing of the Whig Party and the growing incidence of nativist conspiracy theories and nativist parties like the Know Nothings. You can just mention, for example, the Free Soil party as a cause of the civil war by increasing the level of abolitionist agitation. This is easy to understand but historically dubious, as the Free Soil party was not a cause but an effect of increasing abolitionism and increasing social disorder (since it was assembled from the pieces of the fractured Whig party). It can be understood within the larger web of American society at the time, though you miss this completely if you ignore the true complexity of a society and boil everything down into neat political decisions. Historical events are a complex web of circumstance, not a nice and orderly chain of causes and effects with a definite beginning and a definite end.

You are right, there should be an explanation of causes and effects, though such an explanation in the current state of the article is impossible, as the section is so sloppy and disorganized. The section should be broken into chronological sections, not issues sections. This way you can integrate the various issues, both political and social. This way you could better address events such as the increase in abolitionism, which was partly triggered by the increased immigration.

Even if you were going to leave all of this out, the causes section is still a complete mess. It is extremely long, has a lot of detail that really isn't necessary for this page, and most of the sections, like "slave power and free soil" are extensions of the slavery section, not a separate issue entirely. Thus there is no order at all to the causes section, and a lot of unnecessary detail.04:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quarkgluonsoup (talk • contribs)

there is a VERY large scholarly literature on the civil war that covers all these issues. the editor's job is to summarize it. Goldfield's book doesn't do the job--he spends too much time on some issues (like 15 pages on Uncle Tom's Cabin and most of that on Mrs Stowe), and not enough on political parties. Goldfield's basic problem is that he buys into an Avery Craven theme that was popular about 1940 (needless war, bumbling politicians) but has found very little acceptance by the hundreds of scholars who have worked on the matrial in the last 40+ years. Concepts like "hysteria" don't take us too far and historians don't much use them. (was someone hysterical in Chicago/New York/New Orleans/Baltimore? who? so what?) Rjensen (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That is my point. The article doesn't summarize the mainstream literature, only part of it. You can keep Goldfield off, that isn't really my point.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In section "slavery" of "causes of the war," historian Chandra Manning is referred to as a he. Miss Manning is a female. Please change the gender? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.133.108 (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

QuarkGluonSoup Edits

As of this date (9/27/11) very specifically, I think QuarkGluonSoup has made some thoughtful edits to this site. Just my own two cents, for what they're worth.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)--70.161.226.200 (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Reasons for the Civil War between the states of the United States of America

Sir,

Let me first begin by pointing out that slavery started in the "colonies" at the behest of King George of England. A paradox perhaps as the English like to sing "we shall never never never never b e slaves". The golden triangle, a formed cooperation between the king and international bankers, introduced slavery to the colonies for financial gain. Those English colonial subjects growing crops and cotton were force, by royal decree to plant at specific times and utilize slaves. Though it was morally repugnant that slavery should have continued after our war of independence, financially the newly formed union could not have, at first, continued to exist had all economic concerns been disrupted. That slavery was the cause of the Civil War is false. Nearly half of the southern states had or were in the process of abolishing slavery before the war had begun. Abraham Lincoln was very much concerned that hostilities might not begin before slavery had been eliminated and thus he would be unable to enlist the support of England. Again, a paradox that those who created slave states should oppose those existing in them. The common southern people and numerous public officials in the southern states were responsible for forming the "underground railroad", something you hear nothing of today. If the civil war had not come about and the southern people did not abolish slavery, slavery would still have been eliminated due to industrialization. Steam tractors and the cotton gin would have made slavery economically impractical. Still, slavery is immoral. The English people, those zealous abolishers of slavery, can look to their precious royalty and their connections to international banking for a villain and perhaps the black power advocates should campaign against certain banking cartels and British royalty. The true cause of the civil war was states rights. The northern states opposed the importation of industrial equipment to the southern states for the economic advantage it gave the northern states to have a captive marked. The south rebelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.153.221 (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. I had no idea that King George I possessed a time machine with which to import slaves to Virginia 95 years before he acceded to the throne. -Ben (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting and dangerous theories proposed. The Civil War was caused by slavery since the Southerners wanted to expand slavery. The Industrial Revolution was well under way at the time of the American Civil War, and not one Southern state abolished slavery. The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 made it virtually legal for the South to invade the North, looking for "runaway slaves". Slavery was the main cause of the American Civil War. The British allowed ships to be made for the Confederate Navy in British ports that did tremendous damage to U.S. shipping known as the Alabama Claims. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Slavery in North America was older than the constitution. On your theory the civil war should have happened in the 17th, not the 19th century. The industrial revolution is indeed what caused the civil war, and I can cite multiple sources to that effect. It was the North that changed. The south's refusal to adopt to those changes is what lead to the divergence between the political leadership in the north and the south, and hence to the civil war. Carinae986 (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Notes from Virginia ... The colonial Assembly of Virginia tried to stop importation of slaves, but the Hanover Kings (Georges I, II, III) perpetrated it until independence. Hence Jefferson’s condemning phrase in his draft Declaration, though it was struck out in Congress.

Jefferson is not to be taken at face value when he speaks on the subject of slavery.... for reasons which I suppose are obvious.Carinae986 (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Over half the 1860 southern states were against importation of slaves from Africa, but that's not the “process of abolishing slavery”. Colonization legislation followed ideas of Va George Wythe, James Monroe and Henry Clay. They made little progress, although spearheaded by Va Joseph Jenkins Roberts in Liberia. These efforts bore little fruit. Free black land ownership was nigh impossible, even for a planter’s own son, see Va first black U.S. Representative, John Mercer Langston.

Before faceless bureaucracy, corporations were chartered one at a time by Act of Assembly for those with political pull. Va Cyrus McCormick invented a mechanical reaper but production could not obtain a charter in Va. He moved to Illinois, where the Va Edward Coles had transported his freed slaves. As the second governor, he achieved laws prohibiting slavery. Illinois was friendly to business start-ups such as McCormick’s.

The way west in Va lay up the James. The Va Assembly hired Napoleon’s brilliant civil engineer Claudius Crozet to supervise the construction of the James River and Kanawha Canal. With railway improvement, he argued to stop canals and switch. He lost. Va law required local purchase of a majority slave population before investors funded each county west. NY did not do the same for the Erie Canal, construction per mile was less expensive.

Va choices for slavery caused population to plummet as a percent and absolute numbers. Its percent of the U.S. went from about 15% in 1800 to 10% in 1820 to 4% in 1860. NY respective percents were 12%, 16%, 13%. At secession Va was the largest in the Confederacy, got a three rep bonus, and went from 4% in the old to 15% in the new. I’m not sure if that helps. But it’s not all about northern economic imperialism, however much that was also true. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Cmguy777 got this one right: "The Civil War was caused by slavery since the Southerners wanted to expand slavery." I submit my section on Territories and the Constitution, based on the famous analysis by historian Arthur Bestor. 36hourblock (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the reason that people constantly pose queries as to what actually caused the Civil War is that it's ridiculous to assume that all the white guys in the North (aside from rabid Abolitionists) would put their lives on the line just to free some black slaves in the South that they could care less about. There had to be other contributing factors of a considerable nature. They still have slavery in Mauretania but I don't see a bunch of white guys from New England going over there to have a war over it. 64.169.155.134 (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)