> The 1800s „recessions“ were minuscule at worst compared to today‘s global meltdowns happening every decade.
One of those recessions (the panic of 1857) was one of the main contributing factors to the American Civil War breaking out, which hardly seems ‘minuscule’.
Are you thinking that the South would have willingly given up slavery or that the North wouldn't have pushed the issue if this recession hadn't happened? Would we still have slavery in the South today, or would the war just happen some years later?
The North was willing to leave slavery in the hands of the States. Maybe without the pressure of a reccession the South would have accepted that compromise, and we had seen a quite different story of the USA until today.
Wasn't slavery already outlawed in the Northern states? I thought one of the main points of tension was the refusal of Northern states to recognize slaves that fled to the North as "property" and "return them to their owners".
> The North was willing to leave slavery in the hands of the States.
The South was unwilling to accept that the North didn't recognise slavery in its territory.
Southerners wanted slavery to be recognised and enforced throughout the US.
> I thought one of the main points of tension was the refusal of Northern states to recognize slaves that fled to the North as "property" and "return them to their owners".
That was the official line — and rather obviously against the concept of states' rights.
But for my money the main issue for the "gentlefolks" was that they couldn't bear not being waited on hand and foot by their slave retinues while enjoying the trapping of the north: they had to pick between those trappings and having an enslaved retinue, as any slave they brought up north was a jump and skip away from freedom.
And they really couldn't handle the "inconvenience" and "degradation".
I don't know that part of history, but I know it would be much more fun to read this discussion and learn from you guys if there wasn't a moving of goal posts. Also, I'd like to actually see your counter argument, and not just a statement that OP is wrong without anything else. Preferably against the point OP actually made.
> By the end of the Panic, in 1859, tensions between the North and South regarding the issue of slavery in the United States were increasing.
But it does not say that this was a direct result of the panic.
> The Panic of 1857 encouraged those in the South who believed the North needed the South to keep a stabilized economy, and southern threats of secession were temporarily quelled. Southerners believed that the Panic of 1857 made the North "more amenable to southern demands" and would help to keep slavery alive in the United States.
Sounds inconclusive to me, in the context of evaluating OPs argument. So I still don't know who is more or less right...
One of those recessions (the panic of 1857) was one of the main contributing factors to the American Civil War breaking out, which hardly seems ‘minuscule’.