[MENTION=1543]Core[/MENTION] and [MENTION=3035]Dienekes[/MENTION]: I want to point out that Dienekes is off to a good start but I also want us to keep in mind that the origin of the Civil War was very deeply layered. States rights, human rights, anti-Lincoln parties, money, all of it played a role in the Civil War.
The north was becoming more and more industrialized and with the creation of the cotton gin, the demand for slaves dropped dramatically. It was said that one cotton gin could do the work of 200 slaves. Slaves were expensive. You had to pay for them, feed them, clothe them, and if a slave got sick the master had to pay for a doctor. Now we've all seen special and read books about masters letting slaves die but that is, in part, a way dramatizing an already ugly part of world history (yes world history). Truth is it would cost a slaveowner more money to get a new slave than it would to "fix" an existing one, so slaveowners had nothing to gain by foregoing medical help for a fieldhand. But in any case owning slaves was expensive, the south knew that and it was their primary export. The southern economy was supported by both cotton and slaves who picked that cotton.
Once the cotton gin came out however, the north didn't need to buy slaves from the south and the south was rapidly losing their profits. The history books tell us that Lincoln freed the slaves but the fact is the economy freed the slaves. As the south increased the cost of slaves, the north was looking for more economical alternatives and so came the cotton gin. With the cotton gin in play many slave owners had no need for fieldhands. Even without the Civil War, the slaves would have been freed within a 50 year period because as Dennis Leary has taught us, "Money determines everything, everywhere, at all times."
Just thought I'd mention that. Carry on. :smart: