Could rampant land speculation have caused the Civil War?

Suppose when the last large, dangerous native tribe remaining in the Southeast (except for the swamps of Florida) was induced to leave the Southeast, Europeans tried to buy their way in.

Suppose they created a real estate price bubble which burst which then put them in dire financial straits.

Suppose they came anyway because they were starving. I've heard legends in the South that "land pirates" took everything and so the victims deserved to own the land, and they could have afforded it had these land pirates not robbed them. Never mind that they were bidding against wealthy large planters.

The Wide Awakes of the early Republican party said their purpose was to prevent election interference and interference with the political system in general. Perhaps newcomers who were armed with a sense of entitlement were committing the intimidation?

Suppose they continued to move in and arm up until a rebellion started. Suppose the wealthy large planters didn't try too hard to stop them because the planters wanted the Cherokee land as bad as the Europeans. Suppose the planters hadn't realized England would simply switch cotton production to Egypt, India, and China.

a reply to: Solvedit

You've started and ended with "suppose". "Suppose" you're wrong, because we here know...that you are. Start there....

I'd also argue, potential control of the then still uncolonized lands of the mid-West.

After all, the biggest massacre of the US Civil War was actually the slaughter of the Cheyenne at Sand Creek (1864), which really had nothing to do with slavery or established North/South politics.

Apologies, double post.

originally posted by: CaptainHalf
I'd also argue, potential control of the then still uncolonized lands of the mid-West.

After all, the biggest massacre of the US Civil War was actually the slaughter of the Cheyenne at Sand Creek (1864), which really had nothing to do with slavery or established North/South politics.

The battle had fewer than 200 dead on both sides and was about the fallout of a gold rush which happened in 1858. It probably was not a key point of the war.

a reply to: Solvedit

Is the easy answer not something along the lines of the war being fought over the moral issue of slavery and state rights.

a reply to: andy06shake

States' rights! The War of Northern Aggression was about states' rights.

Period. Slavery was the "moral" justification, claimed to be the casus belli, but ultimately it was about the federal government's usurpation of the right of each state to its due sovereignty.

:

originally posted by: andy06shake
Is the easy answer not something along the lines of the war being fought over the moral issue of slavery and state rights.

Thanks for the outside opinion. I would have thought you considered yourself more free rather than less free to consider an opinion which did not placate the other side.

The timing of the 1862 Homestead Act suggests land for all those people was a pertinent issue in 1862.

a reply to: Solvedit

No problem.

I would have thought you knew freedom, just like security, are illusory notions at best.

Nonetheless, illusory notions people require to get by in life and find it rather hard to live without.

And that's the same to similar kettle of fish both sides of the pond really.

Who's the other side?

As far as i can determine "the Homestead Act of 1862" was a significant piece of legislation in the United States

That went on to have a profound impact on your nation's westward expansion.

originally posted by: AwakeNotWoke
States' rights! The War of Northern Aggression was about states' rights.

Period. Slavery was the "moral" justification, claimed to be the casus belli, but ultimately it was about the federal government's usurpation of the right of each state to its due sovereignty.
:

The foundation of the Wide Awakes sounds a little more like they were being denied their right to voting and political speech, not behaving aggressively toward the South, (although the claim was surely raised then as now calling them the aggressor.)

From forum member Misoir's thread "Absolutely shocking facts about the GOP:"

In 1860 a paramilitary group of the Republican Party was formed called the Wide Awake Republicans, identifying themselves as ‘Wide Awakes’. One reported incident was on October 3, 1860 in Chicago when 10,000 Wide Awakes marched in a three – mile precession. By the end of 1860 the New York Tribune had estimated there to be over 400,000 drilled and uniformed Wide Awakes nationwide. [The New York Herald (Sept. 19, 1860)] The adopted unofficial mission statement of Wide Awake chapters was:

1st. To act as a political police.
2nd. To do escort duty to all prominent Republican speakers who visit our place to address our citizens.
3rd. To attend all public meetings in a body and see that order is kept and that the speaker and meeting is not disturbed.
4th. To attend the polls and see that justice is done to every legal voter.
5th. To conduct themselves in such a manner as to induce all Republicans to join them.
6th. To be a body joined together in large numbers to work for the good of the Republican Ticket.

Who was doing all this intimidating? Could the plantation owners have coordinated and paid for it all? I suppose it's not out of the question, but for mobs to be intimidating voters in states where armed Republicans could march in public implies there were a lot of people committing the political interference, and that's a lot of people to pay off.

Plus, the planters knew slavery had been being outlawed throughout Europe and the Americas all throughout the 19th century and the main risk was people would start turning away slave-made goods. Did it make sense to expect the British navy to keep buying slave-made cotton indefinitely even as they bombarded slave forts due to pressure from the British public, for example? If they began behaving belligerently, it would hasten public displeasure.

originally posted by: andy06shake
As far as i can determine "the Homestead Act of 1862" was a significant piece of legislation in the United States

That went on to have a profound impact on your nation's westward expansion.

As far as you bothered to determine despite sitting in front of the most powerful research machine ever created?

Why must you comment if you don't care?

Lincoln promised in the 1861 election and followed through in 1862, to provide land, which he did, and I speculate it is why several more states didn't secede and the draft riots in the North weren't a lot larger than they were.

Because scads of newcomers were disgruntled, because they had speculated the price of land through the roof and not wound up with enough to live on, then the bubble collapsed and when they sold they got nothing and suspected a ripoff or a conspiracy against them, as they do to this day.

a reply to: Solvedit

yeah it was a land grab... they took everything the whole way to california
and taught their children to keep going... in every direction

a reply to: Solvedit

As far as you bothered to determine despite sitting in front of the most powerful research machine ever created?

Which part of me outlining the Homestead Act of 1862 being pertinent to your nation's westward expansion do you have a problem with?

Why must you comment if you don't care?

Where exactly have i suggested i don't care, and please be specific?

As to why i choose to comment, do you really need to be pointed toward the TnC?

I'm on topic I'm not quite sure where your dilemma lies with my participation to be honest.

Or would you simply be happier if only people singing from the same hymn sheet as yourself and wholeheartedly agreeing with you chose to respond?

Lincoln promised in the 1861 election and followed through in 1862, to provide land, which he did, and I speculate it is why several more states didn't secede and the draft riots in the North weren't a lot larger than they were.

As far as im aware, and can establish with the "most powerful research machine ever created" Lincoln did not promise to provide land as a way to prevent secession or address the draft riots.

The promise of land was about providing land to settlers and was hoped to increase the population in the west making the place more economically viable and strengthening your Union.

Because scads of newcomers were disgruntled, because they had speculated the price of land through the roof and not wound up with enough to live on, then the bubble collapsed and when they sold they got nothing and suspected a ripoff or a conspiracy against them, as they do to this day.

Economic bubbles tend to do that if in doubt see the likes of Amsterdam and the Tulip Bubble.

originally posted by: andy06shake

Where exactly have i suggested i don't care, and please be specific?

You didn't bother to read up on the homestead act or the clear statement of why I put it in.
"The timing of the 1862 Homestead Act suggests land for all those people was a pertinent issue in 1862."

a reply to: Solvedit

You didn't bother to read up on the homestead act or the clear statement of why I put it in.

And that equates to me somehow not caring?

What does the puzzled emoji look like?

I stated that the 1862 Homestead Act was pertinent to your nation's westward expansion, i don't really know what more you wish me to say on the matter.

"The timing of the 1862 Homestead Act suggests land for all those people was a pertinent issue in 1862."

So now we are playing about with font point size in what appears to be an attempt to emphasize your claim? LoL

Again, and using in your own words "the most powerful research machine ever created".

The Homestead Act did indeed play a crucial role in shaping the demographics and economic landscape of your nation.

Helping facilitate the development and establishment of farms, and entire communities of settlers seeking a new life and opportunities and contributed to the ever-westward expansion of the United States.

And given the fact that the legislation appears to have remained in effect right up until 1976 it's apt to leave a lasting impact on the development of your nation.

Historically speaking i don't think there is really much doubt about that fact.

originally posted by: andy06shake
As far as i can determine "the Homestead Act of 1862" was a significant piece of legislation in the United States
That went on to have a profound impact on your nation's westward expansion.

From Wikipedia (the very first paragraph on the Homestead Acts

"The Homestead Acts were several laws in the United States by which an applicant could acquire ownership of government land or the public domain, typically called a homestead. In all, more than 160 million acres (650 thousand km2; 250 thousand sq mi) of public land, or nearly 10 percent of the total area of the United States, was given away free to 1.6 million homesteaders; most of the homesteads were west of the Mississippi River.

The act of 1862 may have been promised in the election of 1861 in order to placate disgruntled land seekers and pull them away from supporting the Confederacy.

a reply to: Solvedit

The act of 1862 may have been promised in the election of 1861 in order to placate disgruntled land seekers and pull them away from supporting the Confederacy.

And would that be an opinion or a fact?

I imagine the support, or lack of support, where the Confederacy is concerned amongst the landowners was influenced by a combination of different factors both of the economic, political, social, and personal sorts.

After all even back then individual perspectives and personal opinions varied widely from person to person and state to state.

Also worth consideration that as the civil war progressed some of your landowners would have quite possibly shifted opinions and reconsidered their support and allegiances for the Confederacy, based on the military situation.

At that stage less land occupation than what they thought the land contained.

Gold - The tears of the sun!

I believe it wasn't about slavery but Lincoln made it about slavery look into it Lincoln was a known dbag lol