stuckincincy Posted September 23, 2009 Posted September 23, 2009 Yes, it was. Crop rotation was known and practiced since the High Middle Ages. Completely incorrect. First of all, some of the most bitter fights in Congress in the early 19th-century were over maintaing a "correct" balance of slave vs. free states - the "resistance" to westward expansion wasn't "resistance" to slavery, it was an interest in keeping a balance between "slave" and "free" state representation. Second...the Union Army almost dissolved over the Emancipation Proclamation itself. The prevalent view in the North was that, while they'd fight for the Union, they wouldn't fight for blacks. Conversely, nearly half the southern states seceded not over slavery, but over the federal government's presumed right to enforce the union by military action. The fundamental reality of the Civil War is: no one gave a **** about the blacks...as evidenced by none other than the Emancipation Proclamation itself; dumping millions of indigent and unskilled people with no conceviable means of support onto a war-ravaged economy and letting them fend for themselves. Crop rotation was known - but cotton was a hot commodity and letting fields lie fallow or planting alternative crops wan't smiled upon (my understanding is that cotton plants are notorious depleters - correct me if I'm wrong - that makes your day, I know ). As to your second assertion - I'm aware of the "balance" thing. I merely stated that there was Northern sensibilities against slavery. I need not type in an exhaustive tome covering all possible bases for every post I make, at risk of course, of suffering captious responses.
Recommended Posts