At this point, you are making some sense. In fact, at points I thought you actually had it, and we were just bantering over wording.

If your contention is that the Civil war was not a moral conflict, but an economic one— I would agree with you. But slavery was a large part of that economic conflict. Heavy importation duties on foreign goods often compelled Southern states to buy American (and often inferior) goods. Northern States benefitted from monopolizing the importation of slaves. Southern states paid high taxes and received little return in terms of government spending. I could be wrong, but that’s my understanding of what some of the core issues were.

In fact, I wish you’d given up right there. You have it almost precisely. Except for the fact that the north used slaves in the factories, but found that in many cases it was just as economically feasible to use “paid” labor. Slaves were not exactly cheap, and they had to be fed and housed. Where children could be hired: no initial investment, no housing, no feeding, just a small stipend or even piecemeal. So then I was thinking, we’re agreeing the causes were primarily economic. I thought that’s what I was saying. I grouped it all under state’s rights, but I don’t really see the difference. But then you had to go and spoil it all:

But the Southern plantation system was rooted in slavery, not industrial manufacture, and when the North became increasingly hostile to Slavery, unfair import duties and other issues that had been tolerated (begrudgingly) by the South, became intolerable, as the root of their economy was being attacked. Slavery had been made illegal in England, and there was a great deal of social debate about the moral issues surrounding slavery.

I think it might be nearer the truth to say industrial manufacture was denied to the south. It’s true that morality of slavery was being debated. Think you that that sentiment was occurring only in the North? (does his best Yoda). Only about 20% of Southern citizens owned slaves, that means that the other 80% must have been fighting for something else . The CSFoA began in 1861, one’s got to figure they were planing it a bit before then. The slaves were freed in 1865. Remember, there is no TV or radio, certainly no web. Mass communication’s best entries were the telegraph and the newspaper. Now the tariffs and other economic Federal abuses had already transpired. In 1861 a Union General (Butler) took slaves as contraband and PUT THEM TO WORK!  Lincoln overturned an order in 1862 by a General (Hunter) that had freed the slaves in SC and FL. The only way that in 1861 the south could have been fighting to keep their slaves is if they were of the 20% that owned them AND they were clairvoyant prophets! So yes, I suppose it’s possible that you could be correct. I guess my basic presumption that there hasn’t been any prophecy since the original time of Pentecost is hindering my ability to believe in your point.

IF your objection is to the idea that slavery was a moral issue that spurred Northern involvement in the war, I’m not contending that that is true. It’s often represented that way by people who wish to portray the South as inherently bigoted and evil, and the North as great liberators. On the other hand, the South has made a habit of claiming that slavery had nothing to do with the conflict, when it absolutely did. The South was highly aware of the fact that their economic system was rooted in slavery, and slave owners were not insensible to the potential problems created by the abolition movement.

Here again you begin on the right foot. But how could those owners know that 6 years from now it would happen? If I told you that 6 years from now, analog cell phones would be illegal, would you start forming an army to oppose me? Somehow, I doubt it.

I am glad to read that you trust Lewis’s observations. Perhaps we are closer in thought than either of us might think. But then, he loved Beowulf, and you howl at the idea of reading it (or are you complaining of being too dog tired? Maybe you should just Grendel and bear it). But even though I think we are very close to agreement at this point, there are 2 things I need to set straight: 1) My wife was a grad student when we married. It’s not that I do not feel for the long hours and low pay you receive. It’s that we saw it as an honor, and the opportunity to go forth and use the skills she learned was the whole point of the education, an adventure. Your complaints sound as if producing something useful was not the end goal of learning. We had a word for folks that were permanent students when I was in school: leech. Your dramatics over your loss is of no consequence to me. In fact, if anything, I’d call it growing pains, and say it was good for you, and you should be grateful for what you’ve had. 2) I’m often amazed that folks wear necklaces or other adornments labeling themselves “bitch”. Knowing that you’re a bitch, or that you are bitching, is hardly an excuse to continue. To the contrary, knowing that you’re behavior is less than ideal should inspire improvement. Clouding the issue by attempting to rationalize it doesn’t speak well for your personality. It’s part of that learning to get along with others thing that I thought was taught in Kindergarten. So, if this is helping you to be humble, then I say good. I’d hate to think I was just wasting my time discussing the civil war.

So go teach your students about Celtic culture, lecture till your blue in the face, I Daire ya. Woad be unto those who do not pay attention in class...and that’s no bull...help...I can’t stop!!!

I think it might be nearer the truth to say industrial manufacture was denied to the south. It’s true that the morality of slavery was being debated. Think you that that sentiment was occurring only in the North?

An assertion I never would have made, as abolitionist movements were prevalent in the South, and there were people in the North who were thoroughly offended by the implication that they might share a common humanity with the “dark” races.  The North’s moral perspective toward slavery, to my understanding, was not distinctly different from the South’s.  The North’s refusal to honor the agreements to return fleeing slaves clearly benefited Northern manufacturers who were perfectly willing to use them as cheap labor.  Again, an economic issue re: slavery, rather than the moral portrait that is frequently drawn.

So do we actually agree on some of these points?  I think so.  But your assertion that the Civil War “wasn’t about slavery” IS reductive.

As for having to own a slave in order to be fighting to preserve slavery, again, that is reductive.  I benefit from all sorts of systems that I don’t directly partake in, and I have emotional attachments to systems that I probably would fight for, even if I didn’t necessarily benefit from them.  And while I may not be jumping up and down at the prospect of invading Iraq, if Iraqi soldiers were to land on American soil, I would take up arms to resist them.  Not because I believe that America is doing the right thing, but because this is my home, and despite our foreign policy blunders I’m not ready to accept foreign rule in the stead of what little democracy we have.
And while I am generalizing from the particular, I believe that it is apt.  Did the South know that slavery, as an institution was in jeopardy?  You seem to think that would have had to be psychic to know that.  I disagree.  I think the signs were all over the place.  You, yourself, pointed out that Northern manufacture might be willing to use slaves, but urban populations yielded plenty of other sources of cheap labor.  So the North’s investment in preserving slavery, and resisting abolitionist movements, was minimal.  Certainly the South would have understood this.

How could the South NOT see the writing on the wall?

Gay marriage is not yet legal in most states in the US.  It may take another six years for it to become legal.  But even if we only had telegraph, instead of Ricki Lake, people would still be talking about it.  And I think it’s pretty clear that there’s not going to be any Constitutional amendments to stop it.  I don’t need a crystal ball to predict that.  The analogy may be somewhat awkward, but if Gay marriage actually had a potentially substantial impact on the economic income of half the states in the union-- yeah, I could see people starting to shoot each other over it.

So no, I don’t accept your hypothesis that a threat to institutionalized slavery was of minimal import to the seceding states.  I would agree only that the North’s hostility to slavery is often portrayed as a moral hostility, rather than as a desire to minimize the South’s political and economic influence in government.

The problem (for me) is that I see a reversal of this situation, today.  Some of the largest economies in this country receive less representation than their populations would entitle them to under a system of proportional representation.  But they are still bound by social and cultural norms that are advocated by a very influential belt of Conservative states.  (I think it might be a stretch, but there’s an argument to be made that winning the Civil War was not the best possible outcome for the North [and West]).

As for your comments about my worthlessness to society, and your wasted tax dollars, why would you even bother making those statements if you are familiar with the situation of grad students?  I have 60K in debt, I make 10K dollars a year, and I frequently work over forty hours a week.  And clearly I get something out of it, or I wouldn’t do it.  There’s supposed to be a payoff, at the end.  But I am SICK of hearing about how teachers teach “for the joy of it,” and should just be grateful for the opportunity.  Teaching’s a profession, like any other profession.  Does your car mechanic take a certain pride in his skills?  I’m sure he does.  Do I take a certain pride in my teaching skills?  I do.  Does your car mechanic fix your car for less money “for the joy” he takes in his profession?  No one would even suggest such a thing, but it seems to be a new cultural phenomenon to comment on what an “honor” it is for teachers to be allowed to “shape the minds” of future generations.  Gee, thanks, but between being honored and payed, I choose payed.

I’m sure you realize that your tax dollars are being spent, every day, on a lot of things that are far more pointless than my education.  The truth is that you just wanted to slam me because I disagreed with you.  Fine.  Maybe I was a little snippy.  This is my (grudging) apology if I offended you by calling your argument “simple.”

As for “leeches” who are perpetual students, I actually agree with you.  In fact, that’s one of my complaints.  WSU had made all sorts of noise about how it provided every grad student with at least one year of work as an instructor, after the completion of their PhD.  An opportunity for them to beef up their CV, and look for jobs.  But the instructors that they’re keeping, apparently, are going to be determined by “seniority"-- ie: the ones that have been graduated for YEARS now, and haven’t managed to find another job.  So the reason there is no safety net for me is because it’s been filled up by other grad students who couldn’t be bothered to find work outside of Pullman.

Not that it’s that disturbing to me.  I was already looking for work when the hammer dropped.  And I’m not some elitist who’s not willing to teach Comp because it’s “beneath me.” I’ve washed dishes and stacked palettes in warehouses to support myself, and if I have to go back to processing loans until I can find a teaching job, I will.  Reluctantly, but I will.  But it’s the middle of the job hunting season already, and many of my compatriots are going to be left out in the cold, because they weren’t given adequate notice.  And these aren’t “leeches,” these are students who have devoted themselves to teaching and research when they probably should have been looking for “real” teaching jobs.

So you can dismiss my anger as “histrionics” if you will.  I could probably do the same for any difficulties that you might be experiencing, particularly if I had the luxury of not sharing those difficulties.

Whatever.  To some extent I think the pressure I experience may be my own fault.  I mean, at some point you have a right to just tell everyone to piss off, and say, “no, my plate is full, you’ll have to do that yourself.”

And on that note, as entertaining as this debate has been, I have to abandon it.  If I spend all my time talking to you instead of playing Unreal Tournament I just won’t respect myself in the morning.