Could rampant land speculation have caused the Civil War?

originally posted by: Opossum19
I believe it wasn't about slavery but Lincoln made it about slavery look into it Lincoln was a known dbag lol

I am not an American but I find this thread interesting.Do you have any links to back this statement up. Assming it wasn't sarcasm

a reply to: Opossum19

Your problem being that the issue of slavery was a longstanding point of contention even before the American Civil War had begun never mind the fact slavery played a significant role in the conflict from beginning to end.

Its true that there were other economic, social, and political factors contributing to the tensions between North and South but the issue of slavery was indeed a key dividing line.

The role of slavery regarding the conflict in question simply cannot be overlooked or dismissed.

The abolition of slavery became a central goal of the Union, hence the reason it was ultimately enshrined in your 13th amendment.

There was a LOT that led up to the Civil War. In a nutshell in the end it came down to taxation and representation the South did not receive as well as threats from the north.

The Civil War was in part about losing land and the taxes that could cause it. The Union said if it was not paid they could come and take their land. The South fought back. I would have done the same.

Look up what a sharecropper is....slavery was not abolished. Many in the South 'paid' to keep their 'helpers'. It was never about slavery.

What if 1848 was a year of upheaval in Europe because so many trafficking networks came undone?


What if some of the people in charge had been profiting by exporting troublemakers to the natives?

originally posted by: matafuchs
There was a LOT that led up to the Civil War.

There's always a lot. But what was the catalyst?

a reply to: Solvedit

Again as far as i can determine the main catalyst for the Civil War was the issue of slavery and its expansion into your newly acquired territories in the West.

Maybe some European land speculators hadn't realized the United States had banned the importation of slaves in 1807.

A clearer statement of the ideas in the OP:

In the 1830s, the government started efforts to remove the large native tribes from the Southeast. The plantation owners and probably many others probably started saving money to buy the land before that even started. Including Europe. Investors could have sent money with purchasing agents to the US in the hope of buying a piece of a plantation which would make their money back quickly.

Is it possible some of them actually bought land at inflated prices? Is it even possible a bubble was created due to so many people bidding on a limited resource?

Is it possible some of them did not realize the US and other countries were enforcing the US’ 1807 ban on the importation of new slaves and the 1807 Conference of Vienna with significant naval forces? Maybe they didn’t realize infrastructure like slave forts had been destroyed? Perhaps plans to smuggle new slaves in proved inadequate because too few got through?

Maybe they didn’t think existing slave holders in the US would withhold slave sales to newcomers in order to prevent competition? Maybe the existing slave holders had been disingenuous about their intentions, so people would buy the formerly Native American land and go bust and lower the price?

If any of that is true, perhaps they went bust but could not sell the land back and give their investors back their money because the price bubble had collapsed?

Can it be some of the newcomers kept the land they had bought with investors’ money and farmed it, even though without slaves it was hard to generate cash?

Can it be the lost money led to malcontentment in Europe which made 1848 a year of upheaval? Perhaps barons and counts lost the money with which they had funded their secret police?

The crew of the CSS Hunley had two Germans, a Dane, and a Brit, but it is possible most of the broke European investors had to move to the northern USA rather than the southern. They did not have any more money with which to buy a farm, so they needed jobs in manufacturing.
Can it be the immigrants got citizenship and voted as soon as they could, and the rest agitated until they could vote? Can it be the hope of the Southern ones was to eventually sneak enough slave smuggling ships like the Clotilda through to eventually staff their farms to make money? Can it be the hope of the Northern ones was to leave the tenements and buy some former plantation land and be gentleman farmers once slavery got banned?
Can it be the agitation strongly contributed to the Civil War?

This is all a little embarrassing to discuss but I have heard people state the opinion that the US committed a genocide against its own people. Some of them even seem to insinuate they have to seize more power than the Constitution allows in order to protect themselves.

But suppose the land buyers and their broke investors from Europe wanted to give each other a thrashing?

a reply to: Solvedit

The government preparing to steal land from homeowners in the South. They were trying to use slavery and taxation. Lincoln used monies from foreign governments and the first 'taxes' were starting to be imposed. Take the time to read some older history books if you an find them or something scanned online.

The Civil War was not about slavery but it gave it is nice context for the public.