# What if the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully?



## Friends

Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.

The South has always been the problem child of the United States. I think what remained of the United States would have been better off without the South. If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better.

In the South slavery impeded the development of industry, and of labor saving agricultural machinery. The vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North. 

Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did.

An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The standard and style of living in the North for the middle and laboring classes would have been much higher than the South.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Friends said:


> Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.
> 
> The South has always been the problem child of the United States. I think what remained of the United States would have been better off without the South. If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better.
> 
> In the South slavery impeded the development of industry, and of labor saving agricultural machinery. The vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North.
> 
> Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did.
> 
> An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.



Aaaaahhhhhh nooooooo!!!  I can't unsee it!!!!!!!  It's too stupid!!!!!!


----------



## Mr Natural

It would be one more in a long list of countries we send foreign aid to.


----------



## Impenitent

If you think negotiating with China over reasonable economic, environmental, and human rights policies is difficult, think about the Confederacy!


----------



## bendog

I'd be a lot happier if y'all hadn't waged your war of northern aggression.  (-:

Personally, I think the southern econ was doomed.  Not because southern subsitance farmers worked less than those in the midwest, or immigrants in the east, but because Southern capital was tied to slaves and "agra biz" like rice and cotton.  But, when europe saw those supplies shut down, new markets emerged.  The US emerged as the preeminent economy because of manufacturing.  The South sought political positions, like low tarrifs, that didn't support manfacuture but agriculture.  A losing game.

The fact that the Southern elite was tied to a social structure of slavery that was viewed by the ciivilized world as, at best, as an anachronism pretty much said it all.  The war was about slavery, don't misunderstand.  But it wasn't about freeing the slaves.


----------



## Toro

It would have been poorer because it would have remained more agrarian whose products would have been subject higher tariffs.  It also probably would have turned into an international pariah state like South Africa, shunned and boycotted by the rest of the world.


----------



## JakeStarkey

> I'd be a lot happier if y'all hadn't waged your war of northern aggression.  (-:.



The proper title is "The War of Southern Aggression".


----------



## gipper

JakeStarkey said:


> I'd be a lot happier if y'all hadn't waged your war of northern aggression.  (-:.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proper title is "The War of Southern Aggression".
Click to expand...


Yeah...the South attacked the North and destoryed it...but only in your deluded mind.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Friends said:


> Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.
> 
> The South has always been the problem child of the United States. I think what remained of the United States would have been better off without the South. If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better.
> 
> In the South slavery impeded the development of industry, and of labor saving agricultural machinery. The vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North.
> 
> Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did.
> 
> An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.



Everything you stated is nothing but speculation.


----------



## Sunni Man

JakeStarkey said:


> I'd be a lot happier if y'all hadn't waged your war of northern aggression.  (-:.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proper title is "The War of Southern Aggression".
Click to expand...

Incorrect nitwit.......


----------



## Politico

We'd probably be speaking German.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

I imagine unicorns and rainbows would have been the dominant resources of southern Confederacy export.


----------



## bodecea

JakeStarkey said:


> I'd be a lot happier if y'all hadn't waged your war of northern aggression.  (-:.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proper title is "The War of Southern Aggression".
Click to expand...


Exactly.   They fired first.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

bodecea said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be a lot happier if y'all hadn't waged your war of northern aggression.  (-:.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proper title is "The War of Southern Aggression".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.   They fired first.
Click to expand...


Is that really how it happened? I think not.

The federal government refused to surrender southern forts. This included Fort Sumter. The scurmish that began the "civil war" (biggest oxymoron ever). The war was on e of northern aggression on seceding states.


----------



## legaleagle_45

Friends said:


> Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.



IMHO, if the South had been allowed to secede there would have been no Spanish American War.  Japan would have no reason to see the US as a threat and would not have attacked us at Pearl because we would not have Pearl.  Hawaiil would have been a British possession and Japan would have turned its attention upon helping bring the Brits to their knees and providing support for Germany's effort agianst the Soviets.  

Further, the US would not be nearly the industrial giant as the oil and coal wealth was concentrated in Southern states.  This combination would have resulted in the Nazis easily winning WWII and we would now be speaking German.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Mr Clean said:


> It would be one more in a long list of countries we send foreign aid to.



Very likely.  And of course the Southern Accent would have devolved further in pidgin English, making communication between the American People and the confederate tribes more difficult than it is already.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Wry Catcher said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be one more in a long list of countries we send foreign aid to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very likely.  And of course the Southern Accent would have devolved further in pidgin English, making communication between the American People and the confederate tribes more difficult than it is already.
Click to expand...




> If I must be enslaved let it be by a King at least, and not by a parcel of upstart lawless
> Committeemen. If I must be devoured, let me be devoured by the jaws of a lion and not
> gnawed to death by rats and vermin.&#698;


Samuel Seabury


You would have made an excellent and outspoken Loyalist.


----------



## Alfalfa

Another USMB Pulitzer nominee.


"The South has always been the problem child of the United States."

"If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better."

"The vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North." (well, they didn't own plantations...)

"Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did."

"They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums."


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

JakeStarkey said:


> The standard and style of living in the North for the middle and laboring classes would have been much higher than the South.



How do you come to that conclusion?  The south had a higher standard of living overall than the northern states prior to the Civil War.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The standard and style of living in the North for the middle and laboring classes would have been much higher than the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you come to that conclusion?  The south had a higher standard of living overall than the northern states prior to the Civil War.
Click to expand...


Yep. The south was a lot of wealth in those days. Still is, actually. Northern loyalists are always quick to revise history though. As Churchill said, history is the victor's spoils.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Friends said:


> Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.
> 
> The South has always been the problem child of the United States. I think what remained of the United States would have been better off without the South. If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better.
> 
> In the South slavery impeded the development of industry, and of labor saving agricultural machinery. The vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North.
> 
> Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did.
> 
> An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.



The premise of this thread is absurd and factually incorrect.  The standard of living in the south was higher than the north because of the low cost of labor due to the use of slavery.  They had a more bustling economy than the north.  The end of slavery coupled with the destruction of infrastructure caused by the war and racial discrimination are what plummeted the south into poverty for over a century to follow.

While the southern states have had their fair share of causing problems for the union overall, today they are once again outperforming the northern states economically.  The southern states have been growing while the northern states have been decaying.  You only need to follow the migration patterns and the amount of wealth leaving the north for the south to see that.


----------



## Toro

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The standard and style of living in the North for the middle and laboring classes would have been much higher than the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you come to that conclusion?  The south had a higher standard of living overall than the northern states prior to the Civil War.
Click to expand...


Of all people or white people?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Toro said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The standard and style of living in the North for the middle and laboring classes would have been much higher than the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you come to that conclusion?  The south had a higher standard of living overall than the northern states prior to the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of all people or white people?
Click to expand...


As if in those days the north had no slaves...or treated blacks and women as equals... 

More revision from northern loyalists.


----------



## Foxfyre

In my opinion, had the South been allowed to secede peacefully, it would have been a financial blow to all, north and south alike, but both countries, temporarily divided, would have proceded and advanced.  Slavery would have ended anyway as it did in Canada and Mexico and throughout most of the Roman Empire, but it would have happened due to consent of the people rather than government decree and threfore would have happened more slowly and methodically.  The transition from slavery to freeman would have been less traumatic for the black man, and the horrendous bloodshed of the Civil War would have been avoided.

And I believe the countries would have reunited by mutual consent within a decade or two.


----------



## Two Thumbs

The South has always been the problem child of the United States.Well that's not true, it generated loads of income and vast amounts of trade I think what remained of the United States would have been better off without the South. until progs demanded that you go to war in other countries, again.If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better. good lord, that is painfully ignorant.

In the South slavery impeded the development of industry, and of labor saving agricultural machinery. more ignoranceThe vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North. link that please, b/c this is the first I heard of it.

Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did. wow!!! didn't you just say they did the same work as northern folk for less?

An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums. so po' white folk don' go committin no crimes?


----------



## Two Thumbs

*OMG*

I just got pimp smacked by some irony.

'Freinds' (irony) avi is that of a black furred monkey cuddling a white furred tiger.


----------



## Toro

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.
> 
> The South has always been the problem child of the United States. I think what remained of the United States would have been better off without the South. If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better.
> 
> In the South slavery impeded the development of industry, and of labor saving agricultural machinery. The vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North.
> 
> Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did.
> 
> An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The premise of this thread is absurd and factually incorrect.  The standard of living in the south was higher than the north because of the low cost of labor due to the use of slavery.  They had a more bustling economy than the north.  The end of slavery coupled with the destruction of infrastructure caused by the war and racial discrimination are what plummeted the south into poverty for over a century to follow.
> 
> While the southern states have had their fair share of causing problems for the union overall, today they are once again outperforming the northern states economically.  The southern states have been growing while the northern states have been decaying.  You only need to follow the migration patterns and the amount of wealth leaving the north for the south to see that.
Click to expand...


It's been a long time since I studied economic history of America, but that doesn't sound right, at least on the standards of living. Again, maybe I am wrong, I don't know. But generally, manufacturing paid higher wages by the end of the 19th century, and manufacturing was a big reason why slavery in the North ended in the first place. Manufacturing required higher education because it was more productive (and hence, higher wages), and wasn't conducive to an uneducated society. 

The Civil War was not the reason for the stagnation of the South for the next century. Social organization, including slavery, was the reason.  The economy was based on agriculture, which inhibited the growth of cities and the critical mass necessary to develop manufacturing. In the South, the primary center was the county seat, not the city, and fewer cities developed in the South because there was little need for large cities in an agrarian society. Though certainly not the only reason, It's no coincidence that the industrialization of the South really began to take off after it shed its racist segregation laws.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Toro said:


> It would have been poorer because it would have remained more agrarian whose products would have been subject higher tariffs.  It also probably would have turned into an international pariah state like South Africa, shunned and boycotted by the rest of the world.



In what?

100 or closer to 150 years?


----------



## Two Thumbs

Politico said:


> We'd probably be speaking German.



Unlikely, just due to the size of both countries.

however all of europe would


----------



## Toro

TakeAStepBack said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you come to that conclusion?  The south had a higher standard of living overall than the northern states prior to the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of all people or white people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As if in those days the north had no slaves...or treated blacks and women as equals...
> 
> More revision from northern loyalists.
Click to expand...


Can you answer the question?

In the North, people were generally paid. In the South, much of labour was not. So if we looked at GDP per capita, which is a measure of living standards, was it higher in the South or the North?  And what was the median?


----------



## Two Thumbs

legaleagle_45 said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO, if the South had been allowed to secede there would have been no Spanish American War.  Japan would have no reason to see the US as a threat and would not have attacked us at Pearl because we would not have Pearl.  Hawaiil would have been a British possession and Japan would have turned its attention upon helping bring the Brits to their knees and providing support for Germany's effort agianst the Soviets.
> 
> Further, the US would not be nearly the industrial giant as the oil and coal wealth was concentrated in Southern states.  This combination would have resulted in the Nazis easily winning WWII and we would now be speaking German.
Click to expand...


WW1 probably wouldn't have had any Americans in it, so WW2 probably would not have occurred


----------



## Toro

Two Thumbs said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would have been poorer because it would have remained more agrarian whose products would have been subject higher tariffs.  It also probably would have turned into an international pariah state like South Africa, shunned and boycotted by the rest of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what?
> 
> 100 or closer to 150 years?
Click to expand...


The Confederacy probably would have been our South Africa.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Toro said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would have been poorer because it would have remained more agrarian whose products would have been subject higher tariffs.  It also probably would have turned into an international pariah state like South Africa, shunned and boycotted by the rest of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what?
> 
> 100 or closer to 150 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Confederacy probably would have been our South Africa.
Click to expand...


doubtful

I think Foxfire was much closer.

Slavery was nearly at an end, but then the cotton gin came along, so whatever came after would have replaced the gin and the need for slaves.

And just the vast numbers of blacks would have prevented an SA


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Toro said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of all people or white people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As if in those days the north had no slaves...or treated blacks and women as equals...
> 
> More revision from northern loyalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you answer the question?
> 
> In the North, people were generally paid. In the South, much of labour was not. So if we looked at GDP per capita, which is a measure of living standards, was it higher in the South or the North?  And what was the median?
Click to expand...


No, because it's a false premise. The insinuation being that the north did not have slaves post 1861. Law was written, sure. But they were gradual measures. Furthermore, northern states certinaly did not extend the franchise to blacks post abolition. 

So to ask for all people or white people from a standard of living context of the south is moot. As Bro said, the south had a very wealthy culture following the cotton boom. The north, being more industrialized, (contrary to other assertions) saw standards of living in shambles. Textiles being the obvious go-to as a point of reference...or shall we say, sweat shops.


----------



## Wry Catcher

TakeAStepBack said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be one more in a long list of countries we send foreign aid to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very likely.  And of course the Southern Accent would have devolved further in pidgin English, making communication between the American People and the confederate tribes more difficult than it is already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I must be enslaved let it be by a King at least, and not by a parcel of upstart lawless
> Committeemen. If I must be devoured, let me be devoured by the jaws of a lion and not
> gnawed to death by rats and vermin.&#698;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Samuel Seabury
> 
> 
> You would have made an excellent and outspoken Loyalist.
Click to expand...


Not likely, I tend to question authority.  Sometimes those in power act agreeably, sometimes like fools and mostly in their own self interest.  I prefer the pen over Brinkmanship or the fist - but both have their moments.

Only an idiot cares who enslaves them; only an idiot or a monk believes s/he is an island unto themselves.


----------



## thanatos144

Friends said:


> Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.
> 
> The South has always been the problem child of the United States. I think what remained of the United States would have been better off without the South. If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better.
> 
> In the South slavery impeded the development of industry, and of labor saving agricultural machinery. The vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North.
> 
> Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did.
> 
> An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.



I guess it sucks that evil fucks  who think people should own other people started the war in first place huh? I have a better question why the fuck are idiots like you still worshiping democrat fucks like that?


----------



## Wry Catcher

thanatos144 said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.
> 
> The South has always been the problem child of the United States. I think what remained of the United States would have been better off without the South. If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better.
> 
> In the South slavery impeded the development of industry, and of labor saving agricultural machinery. The vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North.
> 
> Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did.
> 
> An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it sucks that evil fucks  who think people should own other people started the war in first place huh? I have a better question why the fuck are idiots like you still worshiping democrat fucks like that?
Click to expand...


Question:  Are you a liar or as ignorant of American History and how political parties have evolved as your post claims.?


----------



## thanatos144

Wry Catcher said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.
> 
> The South has always been the problem child of the United States. I think what remained of the United States would have been better off without the South. If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better.
> 
> In the South slavery impeded the development of industry, and of labor saving agricultural machinery. The vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North.
> 
> Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did.
> 
> An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it sucks that evil fucks  who think people should own other people started the war in first place huh? I have a better question why the fuck are idiots like you still worshiping democrat fucks like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Question:  Are you a liar or as ignorant of American History and how political parties have evolved as your post claims.?
Click to expand...

Aww is the democrat sad because the truth was let out?


----------



## legaleagle_45

Two Thumbs said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was nearly at an end, but then the cotton gin came along, so whatever came after would have replaced the gin and the need for slaves.
> 
> And just the vast numbers of blacks would have prevented an SA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery would have come to an end, probably not latter than 1900, not because it was profitable, but because of the engrained cultural tradition.  But for that cultural tradition, it would have ended at least 20 years earlier.  Segregation is another matter entirely.  Segregation would have continued well into the 1960's and 1970's, if not longer and would have been quite similar to SA.
Click to expand...


----------



## Foxfyre

legaleagle_45 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was nearly at an end, but then the cotton gin came along, so whatever came after would have replaced the gin and the need for slaves.
> 
> And just the vast numbers of blacks would have prevented an SA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery would have come to an end, probably not latter than 1900, not because it was profitable, but because of the engrained cultural tradition.  But for that cultural tradition, it would have ended at least 20 years earlier.  Segregation is another matter entirely.  Segregation would have continued well into the 1960's and 1970's, if not longer and would have been quite similar to SA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mildly disagree.  I believe if slavery had been allowed to die a natural death as it did in Canada and Mexico, segregation would not have been a natural consequence as it did not occur in Canada and Mexico.  When social change comes via the conscience and more noble intentions of the people, the results is almost always more edifying and satisfying than it is when it is via government edict and most especially when it is without a bloody war that created many long lasting problems apart from the issue of slavery.
Click to expand...


----------



## Wry Catcher

thanatos144 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it sucks that evil fucks  who think people should own other people started the war in first place huh? I have a better question why the fuck are idiots like you still worshiping democrat fucks like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question:  Are you a liar or as ignorant of American History and how political parties have evolved as your post claims.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aww is the democrat sad because the truth was let out?
Click to expand...


Truth?  Only if posted by Winston Smith in his job at the Ministry of Truth.


----------



## Toro

TakeAStepBack said:


> No, because it's a false premise.



Why?  The Soviet Union industrialized in part because of slave labour used to build the industrial capacity of the nation.  Do we not discount this when we measure the economic performance of the USSR or do we whitewash it and say it doesn't matter?



> The insinuation being that the north did not have slaves post 1861. Law was written, sure. But they were gradual measures. Furthermore, northern states certinaly did not extend the franchise to blacks post abolition.



That's true but it misses the point.  This isn't about racism or voting.  It's about the economy.  In 1860, the South's economy was based upon agriculture, which was reliant almost entirely on slave labour.  The north was industrializing, which was dependent upon wage labour.  The vast majority of labour in the North at the time of the Civil War was based on wages.



> So to ask for all people or white people from a standard of living context of the south is moot. As Bro said, the south had a very wealthy culture following the cotton boom. The north, being more industrialized, (contrary to other assertions) saw standards of living in shambles. Textiles being the obvious go-to as a point of reference...or shall we say, sweat shops.



I took a full year honours course in economic history of North America in college 20+ years ago, and I recall that the standard of living in the South as not being anywhere near the standards of living as the North.  However, I cannot find my old textbook so I can't confirm that.  So I might be wrong.  However, I did find this from Gavin Wright entitled _Slavery and American Economic Development_ 



> "Contrary to depictions off the slave South as a propserous economy devastated by war and abolition, these essays locate the root of postebellum regional backwardness firmly in the antebellum era. That era was indeed propserous for the slaveowners. But if we evaluate regional performance using a consistent measuring rod appropriate for a free society, such as the value of nonslave wealth per capita, we find levels in the South just over half those of in the free states."



Also, the idea that an agrarian society was generally wealthier than an industrialized society contradicts economic history to this day.  The progress of economic history throughout the world has followed a similar pattern:  

agriculture --> manufacturing --> knowledge base.​
Agriculture generally is subsumed by manufacturing because manufacturing is higher value-added, which requires higher productivity, which means higher wages.  Historically, workers flock from the farm to the city to work in manufacturing because they can earn a better living.  This happened in Europe and the UK, it happened in America, it happened in the Asian Tigers, and is happening in China today.  That the South was somehow immune from this pattern and different smacks more of historical revisionism designed to reinforce confirmation bias of those in the South.

It also reinforces the Marxist argument that American capitalism was built on slave labour.  In fact, our understanding of economic progress and the critical importance of productivity in the development of capitalism contradicts the argument that the South was a richer society, or at least would remain so.  Economic wealth is driven primarily by productivity growth, not by slave labour as the Marxists claim.  We empirically know that productivity is the driver of higher wages and returns on capital, and thus drives economic growth.  Slavery reinforces the discredited Marxist theory of The Surplus Value of Labour.  It's odd that self-proclaimed libertarians cling to this notion of the Confederacy being richer than an industrializing society.  

But again, maybe I'm wrong.  Feel free to show that I am.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Toro said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The standard and style of living in the North for the middle and laboring classes would have been much higher than the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you come to that conclusion?  The south had a higher standard of living overall than the northern states prior to the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of all people or white people?
Click to expand...


Southern whites had a lower standard of living than northern and western whites, for sure.


----------



## JakeStarkey

TakeAStepBack said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> As if in those days the north had no slaves...or treated blacks and women as equals...
> 
> More revision from northern loyalists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you answer the question?
> 
> In the North, people were generally paid. In the South, much of labour was not. So if we looked at GDP per capita, which is a measure of living standards, was it higher in the South or the North?  And what was the median?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because it's a false premise. The insinuation being that the north did not have slaves post 1861. Law was written, sure. But they were gradual measures. Furthermore, northern states certinaly did not extend the franchise to blacks post abolition.
> 
> So to ask for all people or white people from a standard of living context of the south is moot. As Bro said, the south had a very wealthy culture following the cotton boom. The north, being more industrialized, (contrary to other assertions) saw standards of living in shambles. Textiles being the obvious go-to as a point of reference...or shall we say, sweat shops.
Click to expand...


All nonsense.  Only 1 of 4 white families in the South had slaves, and most whites worked in the fields with their blacks.  They were, in the cotton fields, a malaria and mosquito stricken population.  If you look up the censuses for 1840 and 1850, I bet you will find the average white family mortality in the South was less than in the North and the West.


----------



## Toro

legaleagle_45 said:


> Slavery would have come to an end, probably not latter than 1900, not because it was profitable, but because of the engrained cultural tradition.  But for that cultural tradition, it would have ended at least 20 years earlier.  Segregation is another matter entirely.  Segregation would have continued well into the 1960's and 1970's, if not longer and would have been quite similar to SA.



Precisely.

I have no idea when slavery would have ended, but it ended in South Africa in 1834-38 as it did throughout the British Empire.  However, South Africa remained a racist state into the 1990s.  No doubt the Confederacy would have remained a racist state at least into the 1960s and probably beyond.  And there's no reason to think that the Confederacy would have been perceived and treated much differently than South Africa.


----------



## regent

Some of the Confederate states may have been allowed to rejoin the union. Those areas in some southern states, that were more prosperous, may have left the confederacy and gone on as independent countries, it would be legal to secede. I wonder if any would have coupled up with a foreign country, for example Cuba or one in Africa. The slaves would have eventually rebelled and maybe ended up with their own country, say Mississippi. I think Lincoln made the right decision, maybe most of the South does to?


----------



## thanatos144

We would all be speaking Russian because we wouldn't be a United States because democrats think people are property


----------



## editec

The CSA's economic system was largely slave based agriculture and export dependent.

Had the Rpublic allowed the CSA to go its own way the war between the USA and CSA would likely have happened shortly after it happened, anyway.

the CSA had its eyes on the American West, Mexica and central America and the Caribean.

Sooner or later the USA and the CSA would have gone to war over some expansionist policy or the other.


----------



## Two Thumbs

editec said:


> The CSA's economic system was largely slave based agriculture and export dependent.
> 
> Had the Rpublic allowed the CSA to go its own way the war between the USA and CSA would likely have happened shortly after it happened, anyway.
> 
> the CSA had its eyes on the American West, Mexica and central America and the Caribean.
> 
> Sooner or later the USA and the CSA would have gone to war over some expansionist policy or the other.



Excellent.

I wonder if CSA would have tried to take Mexico.


----------



## Foxfyre

Two Thumbs said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CSA's economic system was largely slave based agriculture and export dependent.
> 
> Had the Rpublic allowed the CSA to go its own way the war between the USA and CSA would likely have happened shortly after it happened, anyway.
> 
> the CSA had its eyes on the American West, Mexica and central America and the Caribean.
> 
> Sooner or later the USA and the CSA would have gone to war over some expansionist policy or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> I wonder if CSA would have tried to take Mexico.
Click to expand...


When we were still operating our business, Mr. Foxfyre and I used to travel the entire state of New Mexico.  And he found a barber he liked in Las Cruces NM and timed his haircuts for when we were working in that little city.  Well Guillermo was a naturalized citizen from Mexico and he would expound on politics and such while cutting hair.  And he was firmly convinced that the best thing that could happen to Mexico is for the USA to annex it.  And then folks would be flooding into Mexico instead of Mexicans trying to sneak in here.

So that is an interesting concept.  If the few states that made up the Confederacy were doing their own thing and needed to expand and had invaded and made Mexico part of them, how would that have changed the dynamics for Mexico and all of us?   Of course it is now moot, but it is interesting to think about.


----------



## Toro

Foxfyre said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CSA's economic system was largely slave based agriculture and export dependent.
> 
> Had the Rpublic allowed the CSA to go its own way the war between the USA and CSA would likely have happened shortly after it happened, anyway.
> 
> the CSA had its eyes on the American West, Mexica and central America and the Caribean.
> 
> Sooner or later the USA and the CSA would have gone to war over some expansionist policy or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> I wonder if CSA would have tried to take Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we were still operating our business, Mr. Foxfyre and I used to travel the entire state of New Mexico.  And he found a barber he liked in Las Cruces NM and timed his haircuts for when we were working in that little city.  Well Guillermo was a naturalized citizen from Mexico and he would expound on politics and such while cutting hair.  And he was firmly convinced that the best thing that could happen to Mexico is for the USA to annex it.  And then folks would be flooding into Mexico instead of Mexicans trying to sneak in here.
> 
> So that is an interesting concept.  If the few states that made up the Confederacy were doing their own thing and needed to expand and had invaded and made Mexico part of them, how would that have changed the dynamics for Mexico and all of us?   Of course it is now moot, but it is interesting to think about.
Click to expand...


I had listened to an author on NPR talk about this.  Apparently, there were some in the Confederacy who advocated not only an invasion of Mexico but dreamed of a nation that went into South America and encircled the Caribbean.


----------



## thanatos144

Toro said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> I wonder if CSA would have tried to take Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When we were still operating our business, Mr. Foxfyre and I used to travel the entire state of New Mexico.  And he found a barber he liked in Las Cruces NM and timed his haircuts for when we were working in that little city.  Well Guillermo was a naturalized citizen from Mexico and he would expound on politics and such while cutting hair.  And he was firmly convinced that the best thing that could happen to Mexico is for the USA to annex it.  And then folks would be flooding into Mexico instead of Mexicans trying to sneak in here.
> 
> So that is an interesting concept.  If the few states that made up the Confederacy were doing their own thing and needed to expand and had invaded and made Mexico part of them, how would that have changed the dynamics for Mexico and all of us?   Of course it is now moot, but it is interesting to think about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had listened to an author on NPR talk about this.  Apparently, there were some in the Confederacy who advocated not only an invasion of Mexico but dreamed of a nation that went into South America and encircled the Caribbean.
Click to expand...


But but but that can't be Confederates are only peace loving people. .... They would never be so evil to  want to invade another country. Its not like they were slave owners or anything.


----------



## Foxfyre

thanatos144 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we were still operating our business, Mr. Foxfyre and I used to travel the entire state of New Mexico.  And he found a barber he liked in Las Cruces NM and timed his haircuts for when we were working in that little city.  Well Guillermo was a naturalized citizen from Mexico and he would expound on politics and such while cutting hair.  And he was firmly convinced that the best thing that could happen to Mexico is for the USA to annex it.  And then folks would be flooding into Mexico instead of Mexicans trying to sneak in here.
> 
> So that is an interesting concept.  If the few states that made up the Confederacy were doing their own thing and needed to expand and had invaded and made Mexico part of them, how would that have changed the dynamics for Mexico and all of us?   Of course it is now moot, but it is interesting to think about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had listened to an author on NPR talk about this.  Apparently, there were some in the Confederacy who advocated not only an invasion of Mexico but dreamed of a nation that went into South America and encircled the Caribbean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But but but that can't be Confederates are only peace loving people. .... They would never be so evil to  want to invade another country. Its not like they were slave owners or anything.
Click to expand...


Oh give me a break.  It was the 'peaceful' north that declared war on the south remember?   And while there is absolutely nothing to commend slavery, the 'noble' north was more than happy to benefit from the products and produce they depended on the south to provide.

So stow the righteous indignation please and let's focus on the OP and how things might be very different if the north had not declared that war but had let the southern states go.  It is an interesting topic and everything doesn't have to be politicized or pushed into the political correctness models.


----------



## Hoffstra

Friends said:


> ...An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.



so you hate human freedom, huh?


----------



## Hoffstra

The South was a society and economy totally dependent upon human tyranny and slavery to survive.


----------



## bendog

Hoffstra said:


> The South was a society and economy totally dependent upon human tyranny and slavery to survive.



That's simply untrue.  The vast maj of southern whites didn't own slaves, but rather were subsistence farmers or small merchants.  The wealth in the south was tied to land and slaves, and held by an elite.

While the poor whites fought and made up the manpower of the armies, it wasn't to support the white master on the hill.  Ideologically, they opposed the North's power to outvote them in Washington to favor northern manufacturing, and they truly believed in states rights.  In 1861, there was nothing radical in the notion that states could leave the union.  The constitution didn't prohibit it, and there was (-: that amendment about powers not enumerated were reserved to the states.

The worst you can say about most white southerners was they didn't import all these slaves, and they didn't want millions of them (I think the figure is two slaves for three poor whites though it's been awhile since I looked, and I'm not inclined) running free in the countryside competing with them for land and food.

And that's how we got the Klan.  Later, it turned into a tool of the elite.  Before WWII they were dependent upon cheap, terrorized labor.  After WWII it simply came down to a rich man hides by giving poor men poor enemies.


----------



## thanatos144

Foxfyre said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had listened to an author on NPR talk about this.  Apparently, there were some in the Confederacy who advocated not only an invasion of Mexico but dreamed of a nation that went into South America and encircled the Caribbean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But but but that can't be Confederates are only peace loving people. .... They would never be so evil to  want to invade another country. Its not like they were slave owners or anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh give me a break.  It was the 'peaceful' north that declared war on the south remember?   And while there is absolutely nothing to commend slavery, the 'noble' north was more than happy to benefit from the products and produce they depended on the south to provide.
> 
> So stow the righteous indignation please and let's focus on the OP and how things might be very different if the north had not declared that war but had let the southern states go.  It is an interesting topic and everything doesn't have to be politicized or pushed into the political correctness models.
Click to expand...


Again truth shall set you free.  It was the slavers in the south that attacked first


----------



## thanatos144

bendog said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South was a society and economy totally dependent upon human tyranny and slavery to survive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's simply untrue.  The vast maj of southern whites didn't own slaves, but rather were subsistence farmers or small merchants.  The wealth in the south was tied to land and slaves, and held by an elite.
> 
> While the poor whites fought and made up the manpower of the armies, it wasn't to support the white master on the hill.  Ideologically, they opposed the North's power to outvote them in Washington to favor northern manufacturing, and they truly believed in states rights.  In 1861, there was nothing radical in the notion that states could leave the union.  The constitution didn't prohibit it, and there was (-: that amendment about powers not enumerated were reserved to the states.
> 
> The worst you can say about most white southerners was they didn't import all these slaves, and they didn't want millions of them (I think the figure is two slaves for three poor whites though it's been awhile since I looked, and I'm not inclined) running free in the countryside competing with them for land and food.
> 
> And that's how we got the Klan.  Later, it turned into a tool of the elite.  Before WWII they were dependent upon cheap, terrorized labor.  After WWII it simply came down to a rich man hides by giving poor men poor enemies.
Click to expand...


Many people didn't own factories in the industrial revolution does that mean factories didn't have s major effect on the economy?  When Di you fool's stop trying to make scumbags look heroic?


----------



## regent

I often wondered why those poor whites in the south fought for the confederacy and my answer was: the confederacy had a strict social system and the poor whites were not at the bottom of the pile. The whites had status there was a group below them. A poor white could be expected to be treated as a Donald Trump.


----------



## Foxfyre

But you guys are totally missing the point here.  Slavery was an unconscionable abomination but it was not all that the South was.  Slavery has absoluely nothing to commend it, but there are millions of black people living free, happy, productive lives in the USA because somebody dragged their ancesters over here on slave ships.  Had that not happened those same American black people might not even be alive or the odds are strong that they would be living in abject poverty and constant oppression under some brutal African warlord.

So let's regain some perspective here okay?   Slavery no longer exists.  It would have ended without the Civil War just as it ended in Canada and Mexico, naturally and out of conscience instead of via government mandate.  Slavery is not all that the South was, not all that southerners, black or white, were or are.

The OP provides a very interesting concept of what course two separate nations might have taken had the South been allowed to secede peacefully.  Can ya'll step outside your racist and political correctness suits for just a few moments and consider that?


----------



## Hoffstra

My state abolished slavery in the 1820s.

The South would have likely kept it going through the 20th century.


----------



## R.C. Christian

I knew this thread would devolve into a slavery debate. Fail.


----------



## Foxfyre

R.C. Christian said:


> I knew this thread would devolve into a slavery debate. Fail.



Well I tried.  It's frustrating though.


----------



## Toro

Foxfyre said:


> But you guys are totally missing the point here.  Slavery was an unconscionable abomination but it was not all that the South was.  Slavery has absoluely nothing to commend it, but there are millions of black people living free, happy, productive lives in the USA because somebody dragged their ancesters over here on slave ships.  Had that not happened those same American black people might not even be alive or the odds are strong that they would be living in abject poverty and constant oppression under some brutal African warlord.
> 
> So let's regain some perspective here okay?   Slavery no longer exists.  It would have ended without the Civil War just as it ended in Canada and Mexico, naturally and out of conscience instead of via government mandate.  Slavery is not all that the South was, not all that southerners, black or white, were or are.
> 
> The OP provides a very interesting concept of what course two separate nations might have taken had the South been allowed to secede peacefully.  Can ya'll step outside your racist and political correctness suits for just a few moments and consider that?



I think it's a fascinating intellectual exercise.  

The South is more than slavery.  But slavery played a big part in the South's society.  You can't ignore it.  At some point, it would have faded away.  But given that legal barriers existed for 100 years after Emancipation, it's not unreasonable to assume that the CSA would have remained a racist state well into the latter half of the 20th century like South Africa.  

South Africa is a better analogy than Canada or Mexico.  Slavery existed but was never a big part of the Mexican or Canadian economies as it was in the South, nor were the populations of blacks as large as they were in the Confederacy.  Slavery ended in the British Empire by decree from London and was implemented around the world with little resistance, unlike in the US which fought a bloody civil war over it.  The populations of the British Empire accepted the end of slavery, if begrudgingly.  The South tried to leave and hundreds of thousands were killed.  In South Africa, where whites were a minority, emancipation was accepted but whites created a legal structure which stripped blacks of their rights.  It's very reasonable to assume that the South would have evolved in a manner similar to South Africa.

It's also an interesting to exercise to wonder if the South would have remained a poorer, more agrarian society had it been allowed to leave.  The South benefited from the flight of manufacturing from the North to the South in the 1960s and 1970s.  Would that have occurred had the South been a separate country?  Probably not, at least not initially, and certainly not in size as the South would have been subject to tariffs and trade barriers from the North.  It can also be argued, however, that with the advent of GATT and the WTO, the living standards would have been closed between the North and the South given the South's more business-friendly culture, assuming the CSA would have been allowed to join.  (South Africa was not.)  But it's reasonable to assume Segregation would have been in place well into the 1960s or perhaps longer.  Would large multinational companies have shifted production into a pariah state boycotted and shunned around the world, as South Africa was?  Probably not.


----------



## Hoffstra

Trying to talk about The South being allowed to secede without also discussing slavery, is like talking about the Holocaust without talking about the Nazis.


----------



## Foxfyre

Toro said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you guys are totally missing the point here.  Slavery was an unconscionable abomination but it was not all that the South was.  Slavery has absoluely nothing to commend it, but there are millions of black people living free, happy, productive lives in the USA because somebody dragged their ancesters over here on slave ships.  Had that not happened those same American black people might not even be alive or the odds are strong that they would be living in abject poverty and constant oppression under some brutal African warlord.
> 
> So let's regain some perspective here okay?   Slavery no longer exists.  It would have ended without the Civil War just as it ended in Canada and Mexico, naturally and out of conscience instead of via government mandate.  Slavery is not all that the South was, not all that southerners, black or white, were or are.
> 
> The OP provides a very interesting concept of what course two separate nations might have taken had the South been allowed to secede peacefully.  Can ya'll step outside your racist and political correctness suits for just a few moments and consider that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's a fascinating intellectual exercise.
> 
> The South is more than slavery.  But slavery played a big part in the South's society.  You can't ignore it.  At some point, it would have faded away.  But given that legal barriers existed for 100 years after Emancipation, it's not unreasonable to assume that the CSA would have remained a racist state well into the latter half of the 20th century like South Africa.
> 
> South Africa is a better analogy than Canada or Mexico.  Slavery existed but was never a big part of the Mexican or Canadian economies as it was in the South, nor were the populations of blacks as large as they were in the Confederacy.  Slavery ended in the British Empire by decree from London and was implemented around the world with little resistance, unlike in the US which fought a bloody civil war over it.  The populations of the British Empire accepted the end of slavery, if begrudgingly.  The South tried to leave and hundreds of thousands were killed.  In South Africa, where whites were a minority, emancipation was accepted but whites created a legal structure which stripped blacks of their rights.  It's very reasonable to assume that the South would have evolved in a manner similar to South Africa.
> 
> It's also an interesting to exercise to wonder if the South would have remained a poorer, more agrarian society had it been allowed to leave.  The South benefited from the flight of manufacturing from the North to the South in the 1960s and 1970s.  Would that have occurred had the South been a separate country?  Probably not, at least not initially, and certainly not in size as the South would have been subject to tariffs and trade barriers from the North.  It can also be argued, however, that with the advent of GATT and the WTO, the living standards would have been closed between the North and the South given the South's more business-friendly culture, assuming the CSA would have been allowed to join.  (South Africa was not.)  But it's reasonable to assume Segregation would have been in place well into the 1960s or perhaps longer.  Would large multinational companies have shifted production into a pariah state boycotted and shunned around the world, as South Africa was?  Probably not.
Click to expand...


It is important to remember that the Civil War was not fought to end slavery.  It was fought to prevent the South from seceding from the Union.  So let's keep slavery in its proper context in the discussion.

But it is precisely because I believe world opinion would have put pressure on the new "Southland" re slavery that those of conscience would have ended it fairly shortly after emancipation of the country.  The slave owners simply would not have had sufficient clout to overrule the other 3/4ths of the country and, with no war to polarize Southland and create deep resentments, even hatred, of the North, I doubt there would have been long lived tensions between the two country.

The northern textile manufacturers would so covet Southern cotton and other other products that don't grow well north of the Mason Dixon line, and the South would so covet manufactured goods from the North, that would have taken care of any punative tariffs.  The two countries would need each other as much as the various states need each other now.

And because the issue of slavery would no longer exist, and the North would have incentive to want the South with its warm water ports long growing season and rich oil fields, I'm pretty sure the two countries would have worked out any other states rights issues and would have agreed to remerge within a few decades of secession or sooner. 

It is if there was no reunification that is the fascinating concept to speculate on though.  And I'm pretty sure if that had happened, Mexico would have become much more heavily involved.


----------



## R.C. Christian

I blame Eli Whitney.


----------



## Hoffstra

Foxfyre said:


> It is important to remember that the Civil War was not fought to end slavery.  It was fought to prevent the South from seceding from the Union.  So let's keep slavery in its proper context in the discussion....



The South seceded because they were afraid the USA would eventually make slavery illegal.

And they didn't want their "property" taken away from them.


----------



## R.C. Christian

But anyway, this entire thought process dedicated to wondering "what if", is not nearly as entertaining to me as the real deal.


----------



## Foxfyre

R.C. Christian said:


> But anyway, this entire thought process dedicated to wondering "what if", is not nearly as entertaining to me as the real deal.



Whatever floats your boat.  I love 'what if' exercises based on thngs that could have happened.  I think people learn from them and expand their horizons of knowledge a bit in the process.


----------



## Foxfyre

Hoffstra said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is important to remember that the Civil War was not fought to end slavery.  It was fought to prevent the South from seceding from the Union.  So let's keep slavery in its proper context in the discussion....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The South seceded because they were afraid the USA would eventually make slavery illegal.
> 
> And they didn't want their "property" taken away from them.
Click to expand...


Try to focus Hoffstra.  The South seceded because of the infringement on their state's rights, not just because of slavery.  They didn't believe they needed the North.  But it doesn't really matter WHY the South seceded.  The Civil War was fought because it did.  Lincoln had no intention of freeing the slaves had the rebel states not attempted to secede.  In fact the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the rebel states and not in five slave states that did not secede.   Emancipation in those remaining five states would not happen until 1865 when the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified.

Now we all acknowledge that slavery existed.  There isn't a soul anywhere around that thought slavery to be a good thing or that it should have been legal.  Not one of us sees it as anything other than an unconscionable, unjustifiable, horrible thing. That is settled.  Agreement on that is a done deal.

So please, let's focus on what would have happened if the South HAD been allowed to secede and be its own country.  The new country would have consisted of eleven states with the possibility that the other five slave states could have chosen to join them at some point.


----------



## oldfart

Foxfyre said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew this thread would devolve into a slavery debate. Fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I tried.  It's frustrating though.
Click to expand...


You missed a few nuances.  The usual scenario has Lincoln winning the election of 1860, the lower South succeeding, the Crittenden Amendment going nowhere, just as actually happened.  The historical sequence then was the firing on Fort Sumter,  the call for volunteers, and the succession ordinances in the upper South.  If you want a plausible alternative to the Civil War, you have to avoid the call for volunteers, and I don't see how that happens unless the CSA decides to wait out Sumter.  This is unlikely but possible.  

An alternative scenario (which I think would have been more probable) would be if Buchanan had evacuated federal installations as states passed succession ordinances, leaving no opportunities for armed conflict on federal properties in the South.  

Both scenarios leave a strange situation with two sets of negotiations taking place.  The first would be the Southern peace delegates which were sent by the South to Washington to settle issues such as postal services and intersectional trade.  Note that by this time the upper South had rejected succession in a series of votes.  The second set of negotiations would have been between the Republicans representing the North and the Breckenridge Democrats representing the border states and upper South (a total of eight states that remain in the Union and a bit larger than the Confederacy would have been).  

The issue of slavery in the territories would be moot, as the Union would clearly abolish it.  The issue so many say was the cause of the Civil War disappears without a whimper from the South.  I expect that emancipation would be a hard sell, just as it was in the border states in 1862.   But it clearly would be on the road to extinction in the upper South.   Since the CSA would then be a foreign nation, the importation of slaves from the lower South to the upper South would be forbidden.  The Fugitive Slave Law would be repealed (remember that when a state exits the Union, the Union no longer has to honor any of its legislative or judicial acts), probably to be replaced by a vigorous federal effort to stop the illegal importation of slaves.  This would have been ruinous economically to South Carolina and parts of Georgia, which were dependent on exporting slaves to other states.  If this seems farfetched, just read Lincoln's First Inaugural where he makes these very arguments!  

I think its reasonable to assume that the Confederacy would have been at least as attracted to foreign filibusters as they were in the actual timeline.  But there would have probably been British and international support for a Union policy forbidding the spread of slavery by armed annexation.  The CSA would have been a pariah nation, a rump of what we think of as the Confederacy without Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Maryland, Kentucky, or Missouri (and no Delaware!);  economically crippled by the loss of markets and a tariff regime, deprived of any hope of expansion, and no alternative but to turn itself into a garrison state.  This would not have been South Africa, it would have approached Rhodesia.


----------



## Foxfyre

oldfart said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew this thread would devolve into a slavery debate. Fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I tried.  It's frustrating though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You missed a few nuances.  The usual scenario has Lincoln winning the election of 1860, the lower South succeeding, the Crittenden Amendment going nowhere, just as actually happened.  The historical sequence then was the firing on Fort Sumter,  the call for volunteers, and the succession ordinances in the upper South.  If you want a plausible alternative to the Civil War, you have to avoid the call for volunteers, and I don't see how that happens unless the CSA decides to wait out Sumter.  This is unlikely but possible.
> 
> An alternative scenario (which I think would have been more probable) would be if Buchanan had evacuated federal installations as states passed succession ordinances, leaving no opportunities for armed conflict on federal properties in the South.
> 
> Both scenarios leave a strange situation with two sets of negotiations taking place.  The first would be the Southern peace delegates which were sent by the South to Washington to settle issues such as postal services and intersectional trade.  Note that by this time the upper South had rejected succession in a series of votes.  The second set of negotiations would have been between the Republicans representing the North and the Breckenridge Democrats representing the border states and upper South (a total of eight states that remain in the Union and a bit larger than the Confederacy would have been).
> 
> The issue of slavery in the territories would be moot, as the Union would clearly abolish it.  The issue so many say was the cause of the Civil War disappears without a whimper from the South.  I expect that emancipation would be a hard sell, just as it was in the border states in 1862.   But it clearly would be on the road to extinction in the upper South.   Since the CSA would then be a foreign nation, the importation of slaves from the lower South to the upper South would be forbidden.  The Fugitive Slave Law would be repealed (remember that when a state exits the Union, the Union no longer has to honor any of its legislative or judicial acts), probably to be replaced by a vigorous federal effort to stop the illegal importation of slaves.  This would have been ruinous economically to South Carolina and parts of Georgia, which were dependent on exporting slaves to other states.  If this seems farfetched, just read Lincoln's First Inaugural where he makes these very arguments!
> 
> I think its reasonable to assume that the Confederacy would have been at least as attracted to foreign filibusters as they were in the actual timeline.  But there would have probably been British and international support for a Union policy forbidding the spread of slavery by armed annexation.  The CSA would have been a pariah nation, a rump of what we think of as the Confederacy without Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Maryland, Kentucky, or Missouri (and no Delaware!);  economically crippled by the loss of markets and a tariff regime, deprived of any hope of expansion, and no alternative but to turn itself into a garrison state.  This would not have been South Africa, it would have approached Rhodesia.
Click to expand...


An interesting scenario and I'll think about it, but at face value I just don't see it that way.  I see it as Israel and Judah dividing into two countries with philosophical disagreements, but still one people not at war with one another.   And because the two countries needed each other, I see much more cooperation than you do in your scenario.  I think slavery would have been abolished naturally as the strong Christian influence in the South would have demanded it.

But ultimately the victor of the war gets to write the history to its own advantage, so we probably will never know all of the nuances and underlying dynamics that were in play.


----------



## thanatos144

Foxfyre said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you guys are totally missing the point here.  Slavery was an unconscionable abomination but it was not all that the South was.  Slavery has absoluely nothing to commend it, but there are millions of black people living free, happy, productive lives in the USA because somebody dragged their ancesters over here on slave ships.  Had that not happened those same American black people might not even be alive or the odds are strong that they would be living in abject poverty and constant oppression under some brutal African warlord.
> 
> So let's regain some perspective here okay?   Slavery no longer exists.  It would have ended without the Civil War just as it ended in Canada and Mexico, naturally and out of conscience instead of via government mandate.  Slavery is not all that the South was, not all that southerners, black or white, were or are.
> 
> The OP provides a very interesting concept of what course two separate nations might have taken had the South been allowed to secede peacefully.  Can ya'll step outside your racist and political correctness suits for just a few moments and consider that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's a fascinating intellectual exercise.
> 
> The South is more than slavery.  But slavery played a big part in the South's society.  You can't ignore it.  At some point, it would have faded away.  But given that legal barriers existed for 100 years after Emancipation, it's not unreasonable to assume that the CSA would have remained a racist state well into the latter half of the 20th century like South Africa.
> 
> South Africa is a better analogy than Canada or Mexico.  Slavery existed but was never a big part of the Mexican or Canadian economies as it was in the South, nor were the populations of blacks as large as they were in the Confederacy.  Slavery ended in the British Empire by decree from London and was implemented around the world with little resistance, unlike in the US which fought a bloody civil war over it.  The populations of the British Empire accepted the end of slavery, if begrudgingly.  The South tried to leave and hundreds of thousands were killed.  In South Africa, where whites were a minority, emancipation was accepted but whites created a legal structure which stripped blacks of their rights.  It's very reasonable to assume that the South would have evolved in a manner similar to South Africa.
> 
> It's also an interesting to exercise to wonder if the South would have remained a poorer, more agrarian society had it been allowed to leave.  The South benefited from the flight of manufacturing from the North to the South in the 1960s and 1970s.  Would that have occurred had the South been a separate country?  Probably not, at least not initially, and certainly not in size as the South would have been subject to tariffs and trade barriers from the North.  It can also be argued, however, that with the advent of GATT and the WTO, the living standards would have been closed between the North and the South given the South's more business-friendly culture, assuming the CSA would have been allowed to join.  (South Africa was not.)  But it's reasonable to assume Segregation would have been in place well into the 1960s or perhaps longer.  Would large multinational companies have shifted production into a pariah state boycotted and shunned around the world, as South Africa was?  Probably not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is important to remember that the Civil War was not fought to end slavery.  It was fought to prevent the South from seceding from the Union.  So let's keep slavery in its proper context in the discussion.
> 
> But it is precisely because I believe world opinion would have put pressure on the new "Southland" re slavery that those of conscience would have ended it fairly shortly after emancipation of the country.  The slave owners simply would not have had sufficient clout to overrule the other 3/4ths of the country and, with no war to polarize Southland and create deep resentments, even hatred, of the North, I doubt there would have been long lived tensions between the two country.
> 
> The northern textile manufacturers would so covet Southern cotton and other other products that don't grow well north of the Mason Dixon line, and the South would so covet manufactured goods from the North, that would have taken care of any punative tariffs.  The two countries would need each other as much as the various states need each other now.
> 
> And because the issue of slavery would no longer exist, and the North would have incentive to want the South with its warm water ports long growing season and rich oil fields, I'm pretty sure the two countries would have worked out any other states rights issues and would have agreed to remerge within a few decades of secession or sooner.
> 
> It is if there was no reunification that is the fascinating concept to speculate on though.  And I'm pretty sure if that had happened, Mexico would have become much more heavily involved.
Click to expand...


It was about slavery.  The separated because Lincoln a known abolitionist was nominated.


----------



## thanatos144

This subject shows the absolute failure of our education system. Only a fool thinks slavery had very little to do the Civil War. Yes it was about economics a economy built on slavery . There was no War of Northern Aggression it was a war of Southern petulance. In order for there to have been no war the Confederates have to not have attacked Fort Sumter. If there was no war there would have been no United States of America most likely be some Baltic state of some socialist or communist dictator much worse than the one we have now.


----------



## TNHarley

our COTUS probably wouldnt be trampled on like it is.


----------



## TNHarley

innocent people wouldnt have gotten slaughtered just for speaking against a tyrannical gov't


----------



## editec

Toro said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because it's a false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  The Soviet Union industrialized in part because of slave labour used to build the industrial capacity of the nation.  Do we not discount this when we measure the economic performance of the USSR or do we whitewash it and say it doesn't matter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The insinuation being that the north did not have slaves post 1861. Law was written, sure. But they were gradual measures. Furthermore, northern states certinaly did not extend the franchise to blacks post abolition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's true but it misses the point.  This isn't about racism or voting.  It's about the economy.  In 1860, the South's economy was based upon agriculture, which was reliant almost entirely on slave labour.  The north was industrializing, which was dependent upon wage labour.  The vast majority of labour in the North at the time of the Civil War was based on wages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So to ask for all people or white people from a standard of living context of the south is moot. As Bro said, the south had a very wealthy culture following the cotton boom. The north, being more industrialized, (contrary to other assertions) saw standards of living in shambles. Textiles being the obvious go-to as a point of reference...or shall we say, sweat shops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I took a full year honours course in economic history of North America in college 20+ years ago, and I recall that the standard of living in the South as not being anywhere near the standards of living as the North.  However, I cannot find my old textbook so I can't confirm that.  So I might be wrong.  However, I did find this from Gavin Wright entitled _Slavery and American Economic Development_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Contrary to depictions off the slave South as a propserous economy devastated by war and abolition, these essays locate the root of postebellum regional backwardness firmly in the antebellum era. That era was indeed propserous for the slaveowners. But if we evaluate regional performance using a consistent measuring rod appropriate for a free society, such as the value of nonslave wealth per capita, we find levels in the South just over half those of in the free states."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, the idea that an agrarian society was generally wealthier than an industrialized society contradicts economic history to this day.  The progress of economic history throughout the world has followed a similar pattern:
> 
> agriculture --> manufacturing --> knowledge base.​
> Agriculture generally is subsumed by manufacturing because manufacturing is higher value-added, which requires higher productivity, which means higher wages.  Historically, workers flock from the farm to the city to work in manufacturing because they can earn a better living.  This happened in Europe and the UK, it happened in America, it happened in the Asian Tigers, and is happening in China today.  That the South was somehow immune from this pattern and different smacks more of historical revisionism designed to reinforce confirmation bias of those in the South.
> 
> It also reinforces the Marxist argument that American capitalism was built on slave labour.  In fact, our understanding of economic progress and the critical importance of productivity in the development of capitalism contradicts the argument that the South was a richer society, or at least would remain so.  Economic wealth is driven primarily by productivity growth, not by slave labour as the Marxists claim.  We empirically know that productivity is the driver of higher wages and returns on capital, and thus drives economic growth.  Slavery reinforces the discredited Marxist theory of The Surplus Value of Labour.  It's odd that self-proclaimed libertarians cling to this notion of the Confederacy being richer than an industrializing society.
> 
> But again, maybe I'm wrong.  Feel free to show that I am.
Click to expand...


I think we're getting hung on on the phrase "richer than".


It is my understanding that _yes the plantation owning economy (in aggregate) was very very wealthy._

The fact that the South paid the lions share (I have read it was about 80%) of all tariffs is a pretty good indicator of the enormous wealth (but NOT the distribution of same) in the anti-bellum South.

But* the South's wealth as it regards CAPITALIZATION* (wealth invested in means of production) *was vested in HUMAN FLESH.*

So, if the south's CAPITALIZATON was in human flesh, and the value of that *AS CAPITALIZABLE wealth *was  threatened when slavery itself was threatened?

Then the wealth of the South depended entirely on SLAVERY being legal and EXPORTABLE, too.

By exportable, I mean migrating and taking your propetry (your capitalization, i.e., _your slaves)_ our of the current slave states.

THIS is what was threatened by Abolition...about 75 % of the economy of the South 

THIS is why the SOUTH went to war against the Republic.  That is why had the Republic let them go, they're have stiull be war sooner rather than later.

They know perfectly well their continued wealth depended on slavery_ and its expansion, too._

Thge CSA planned on expanding from sea to shioning sea no less than the Republic did.

The CSA had to be crushed.

Ending slavery was the most effective way to do that.


----------



## Foxfyre

thanatos144 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's a fascinating intellectual exercise.
> 
> The South is more than slavery.  But slavery played a big part in the South's society.  You can't ignore it.  At some point, it would have faded away.  But given that legal barriers existed for 100 years after Emancipation, it's not unreasonable to assume that the CSA would have remained a racist state well into the latter half of the 20th century like South Africa.
> 
> South Africa is a better analogy than Canada or Mexico.  Slavery existed but was never a big part of the Mexican or Canadian economies as it was in the South, nor were the populations of blacks as large as they were in the Confederacy.  Slavery ended in the British Empire by decree from London and was implemented around the world with little resistance, unlike in the US which fought a bloody civil war over it.  The populations of the British Empire accepted the end of slavery, if begrudgingly.  The South tried to leave and hundreds of thousands were killed.  In South Africa, where whites were a minority, emancipation was accepted but whites created a legal structure which stripped blacks of their rights.  It's very reasonable to assume that the South would have evolved in a manner similar to South Africa.
> 
> It's also an interesting to exercise to wonder if the South would have remained a poorer, more agrarian society had it been allowed to leave.  The South benefited from the flight of manufacturing from the North to the South in the 1960s and 1970s.  Would that have occurred had the South been a separate country?  Probably not, at least not initially, and certainly not in size as the South would have been subject to tariffs and trade barriers from the North.  It can also be argued, however, that with the advent of GATT and the WTO, the living standards would have been closed between the North and the South given the South's more business-friendly culture, assuming the CSA would have been allowed to join.  (South Africa was not.)  But it's reasonable to assume Segregation would have been in place well into the 1960s or perhaps longer.  Would large multinational companies have shifted production into a pariah state boycotted and shunned around the world, as South Africa was?  Probably not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is important to remember that the Civil War was not fought to end slavery.  It was fought to prevent the South from seceding from the Union.  So let's keep slavery in its proper context in the discussion.
> 
> But it is precisely because I believe world opinion would have put pressure on the new "Southland" re slavery that those of conscience would have ended it fairly shortly after emancipation of the country.  The slave owners simply would not have had sufficient clout to overrule the other 3/4ths of the country and, with no war to polarize Southland and create deep resentments, even hatred, of the North, I doubt there would have been long lived tensions between the two country.
> 
> The northern textile manufacturers would so covet Southern cotton and other other products that don't grow well north of the Mason Dixon line, and the South would so covet manufactured goods from the North, that would have taken care of any punative tariffs.  The two countries would need each other as much as the various states need each other now.
> 
> And because the issue of slavery would no longer exist, and the North would have incentive to want the South with its warm water ports long growing season and rich oil fields, I'm pretty sure the two countries would have worked out any other states rights issues and would have agreed to remerge within a few decades of secession or sooner.
> 
> It is if there was no reunification that is the fascinating concept to speculate on though.  And I'm pretty sure if that had happened, Mexico would have become much more heavily involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was about slavery.  The separated because Lincoln a known abolitionist was nominated.
Click to expand...


Lincoln did believe slavery was morally wrong, but he was not an abolitionist.  He made it clear in his campaign speeches that his goal was not to abolish slavery.  He respected the Constitution that supported the concept of slavery.

Lincoln thought slavery should end and black people should be be free, but he didn&#8217;t believe blacks should have the same rights as whites as he made clear in the Lincoln/Douglas debates.   In their fourth debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln said:   &#8220;I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,. . . .&#8221;   In the same debate he opposed blacks having the right to vote, serve on juries, hold elected office, or marry whites.  But he did believe black people should have he same right as white people to be free, to be happy, and to improve their condition in life.  He was definitely a product of his culture.

Lincoln supported the notion of colonization or returning the majority of black people to Africa or send them to Central America.  Like Jefferson and Henry Clay, he saw colonization for black people as the solution to the slave problem and a way for black people to have a new start. 

Freeing the slaves in the rebel states was mostly a military strategy: 



> As much as he hated the institution of slavery, Lincoln didn&#8217;t see the Civil War as a struggle to free the nation&#8217;s 4 million slaves from bondage. Emancipation, when it came, would have to be gradual, and the important thing to do was to prevent the Southern rebellion from severing the Union permanently in two. But as the Civil War entered its second summer in 1862, thousands of slaves had fled Southern plantations to Union lines, and the federal government didn&#8217;t have a clear policy on how to deal with them. Emancipation, Lincoln saw, would further undermine the Confederacy while providing the Union with a new source of manpower to crush the rebellion.



But the Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves in the five slave states that did not rebel against the Union.

5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation ? History in the Headlines


----------



## bendog

editec said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because it's a false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  The Soviet Union industrialized in part because of slave labour used to build the industrial capacity of the nation.  Do we not discount this when we measure the economic performance of the USSR or do we whitewash it and say it doesn't matter?
> 
> 
> 
> That's true but it misses the point.  This isn't about racism or voting.  It's about the economy.  In 1860, the South's economy was based upon agriculture, which was reliant almost entirely on slave labour.  The north was industrializing, which was dependent upon wage labour.  The vast majority of labour in the North at the time of the Civil War was based on wages.
> 
> 
> 
> I took a full year honours course in economic history of North America in college 20+ years ago, and I recall that the standard of living in the South as not being anywhere near the standards of living as the North.  However, I cannot find my old textbook so I can't confirm that.  So I might be wrong.  However, I did find this from Gavin Wright entitled _Slavery and American Economic Development_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Contrary to depictions off the slave South as a propserous economy devastated by war and abolition, these essays locate the root of postebellum regional backwardness firmly in the antebellum era. That era was indeed propserous for the slaveowners. But if we evaluate regional performance using a consistent measuring rod appropriate for a free society, such as the value of nonslave wealth per capita, we find levels in the South just over half those of in the free states."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, the idea that an agrarian society was generally wealthier than an industrialized society contradicts economic history to this day.  The progress of economic history throughout the world has followed a similar pattern:
> 
> agriculture --> manufacturing --> knowledge base.​
> Agriculture generally is subsumed by manufacturing because manufacturing is higher value-added, which requires higher productivity, which means higher wages.  Historically, workers flock from the farm to the city to work in manufacturing because they can earn a better living.  This happened in Europe and the UK, it happened in America, it happened in the Asian Tigers, and is happening in China today.  That the South was somehow immune from this pattern and different smacks more of historical revisionism designed to reinforce confirmation bias of those in the South.
> 
> It also reinforces the Marxist argument that American capitalism was built on slave labour.  In fact, our understanding of economic progress and the critical importance of productivity in the development of capitalism contradicts the argument that the South was a richer society, or at least would remain so.  Economic wealth is driven primarily by productivity growth, not by slave labour as the Marxists claim.  We empirically know that productivity is the driver of higher wages and returns on capital, and thus drives economic growth.  Slavery reinforces the discredited Marxist theory of The Surplus Value of Labour.  It's odd that self-proclaimed libertarians cling to this notion of the Confederacy being richer than an industrializing society.
> 
> But again, maybe I'm wrong.  Feel free to show that I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we're getting hung on on the phrase "richer than".
> 
> 
> It is my understanding that _yes the plantation owning economy (in aggregate) was very very wealthy._
> 
> The fact that the South paid the lions share (I have read it was about 80%) of all tariffs is a pretty good indicator of the enormous wealth (but NOT the distribution of same) in the anti-bellum South.
> 
> But* the South's wealth as it regards CAPITALIZATION* (wealth invested in means of production) *was vested in HUMAN FLESH.*
> 
> So, if the south's CAPITALIZATON was in human flesh, and the value of that *AS CAPITALIZABLE wealth *was  threatened when slavery itself was threatened?
> 
> Then the wealth of the South depended entirely on SLAVERY being legal and EXPORTABLE, too.
> 
> By exportable, I mean migrating and taking your propetry (your capitalization, i.e., _your slaves)_ our of the current slave states.
> 
> THIS is what was threatened by Abolition...about 75 % of the economy of the South
> 
> THIS is why the SOUTH went to war against the Republic.  That is why had the Republic let them go, they're have stiull be war sooner rather than later.
> 
> They know perfectly well their continued wealth depended on slavery_ and its expansion, too._
> 
> Thge CSA planned on expanding from sea to shioning sea no less than the Republic did.
> 
> The CSA had to be crushed.
> 
> Ending slavery was the most effective way to do that.
Click to expand...


Your post seems to imply that as a matter of labor economics slavery was exportable.  Most likely some in the South believed so, but I don't see geography or agriculture supporting the hypothesis.

Rather, slavery was an economic anachronism.  The war may have been unavoidable, but the South's economic model was already history in 1861


----------



## Toro

editec said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because it's a false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  The Soviet Union industrialized in part because of slave labour used to build the industrial capacity of the nation.  Do we not discount this when we measure the economic performance of the USSR or do we whitewash it and say it doesn't matter?
> 
> 
> 
> That's true but it misses the point.  This isn't about racism or voting.  It's about the economy.  In 1860, the South's economy was based upon agriculture, which was reliant almost entirely on slave labour.  The north was industrializing, which was dependent upon wage labour.  The vast majority of labour in the North at the time of the Civil War was based on wages.
> 
> 
> 
> I took a full year honours course in economic history of North America in college 20+ years ago, and I recall that the standard of living in the South as not being anywhere near the standards of living as the North.  However, I cannot find my old textbook so I can't confirm that.  So I might be wrong.  However, I did find this from Gavin Wright entitled _Slavery and American Economic Development_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Contrary to depictions off the slave South as a propserous economy devastated by war and abolition, these essays locate the root of postebellum regional backwardness firmly in the antebellum era. That era was indeed propserous for the slaveowners. But if we evaluate regional performance using a consistent measuring rod appropriate for a free society, such as the value of nonslave wealth per capita, we find levels in the South just over half those of in the free states."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, the idea that an agrarian society was generally wealthier than an industrialized society contradicts economic history to this day.  The progress of economic history throughout the world has followed a similar pattern:
> 
> agriculture --> manufacturing --> knowledge base.​
> Agriculture generally is subsumed by manufacturing because manufacturing is higher value-added, which requires higher productivity, which means higher wages.  Historically, workers flock from the farm to the city to work in manufacturing because they can earn a better living.  This happened in Europe and the UK, it happened in America, it happened in the Asian Tigers, and is happening in China today.  That the South was somehow immune from this pattern and different smacks more of historical revisionism designed to reinforce confirmation bias of those in the South.
> 
> It also reinforces the Marxist argument that American capitalism was built on slave labour.  In fact, our understanding of economic progress and the critical importance of productivity in the development of capitalism contradicts the argument that the South was a richer society, or at least would remain so.  Economic wealth is driven primarily by productivity growth, not by slave labour as the Marxists claim.  We empirically know that productivity is the driver of higher wages and returns on capital, and thus drives economic growth.  Slavery reinforces the discredited Marxist theory of The Surplus Value of Labour.  It's odd that self-proclaimed libertarians cling to this notion of the Confederacy being richer than an industrializing society.
> 
> But again, maybe I'm wrong.  Feel free to show that I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we're getting hung on on the phrase "richer than".
> 
> 
> It is my understanding that _yes the plantation owning economy (in aggregate) was very very wealthy._
> 
> The fact that the South paid the lions share (I have read it was about 80%) of all tariffs is a pretty good indicator of the enormous wealth (but NOT the distribution of same) in the anti-bellum South.
> 
> But* the South's wealth as it regards CAPITALIZATION* (wealth invested in means of production) *was vested in HUMAN FLESH.*
> 
> So, if the south's CAPITALIZATON was in human flesh, and the value of that *AS CAPITALIZABLE wealth *was  threatened when slavery itself was threatened?
> 
> Then the wealth of the South depended entirely on SLAVERY being legal and EXPORTABLE, too.
> 
> By exportable, I mean migrating and taking your propetry (your capitalization, i.e., _your slaves)_ our of the current slave states.
> 
> THIS is what was threatened by Abolition...about 75 % of the economy of the South
> 
> THIS is why the SOUTH went to war against the Republic.  That is why had the Republic let them go, they're have stiull be war sooner rather than later.
> 
> They know perfectly well their continued wealth depended on slavery_ and its expansion, too._
> 
> Thge CSA planned on expanding from sea to shioning sea no less than the Republic did.
> 
> The CSA had to be crushed.
> 
> Ending slavery was the most effective way to do that.
Click to expand...


A minor point, the South was against tariffs because they wanted to import their manufactured goods without paying higher priced products from the North.  IIRC my professor in the class mentioned above stated that this was one of the reasons why the South wanted to go their own way.  I don't think they were paying more in tariffs than the North in aggregate, but they were paying a higher proportional amount.


----------



## Toro

I would like to know what [MENTION=20155]paperview[/MENTION] thinks.


----------



## rightwinger

The South would have maintained slavery into the 20th century and Jim Crow indefinitely. 

Their agrarian economy would have folded from competition from India and they would be like Mexico today trying to sneak into he north


----------



## thanatos144

Foxfyre said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is important to remember that the Civil War was not fought to end slavery.  It was fought to prevent the South from seceding from the Union.  So let's keep slavery in its proper context in the discussion.
> 
> But it is precisely because I believe world opinion would have put pressure on the new "Southland" re slavery that those of conscience would have ended it fairly shortly after emancipation of the country.  The slave owners simply would not have had sufficient clout to overrule the other 3/4ths of the country and, with no war to polarize Southland and create deep resentments, even hatred, of the North, I doubt there would have been long lived tensions between the two country.
> 
> The northern textile manufacturers would so covet Southern cotton and other other products that don't grow well north of the Mason Dixon line, and the South would so covet manufactured goods from the North, that would have taken care of any punative tariffs.  The two countries would need each other as much as the various states need each other now.
> 
> And because the issue of slavery would no longer exist, and the North would have incentive to want the South with its warm water ports long growing season and rich oil fields, I'm pretty sure the two countries would have worked out any other states rights issues and would have agreed to remerge within a few decades of secession or sooner.
> 
> It is if there was no reunification that is the fascinating concept to speculate on though.  And I'm pretty sure if that had happened, Mexico would have become much more heavily involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was about slavery.  The separated because Lincoln a known abolitionist was nominated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln did believe slavery was morally wrong, but he was not an abolitionist.  He made it clear in his campaign speeches that his goal was not to abolish slavery.  He respected the Constitution that supported the concept of slavery.
> 
> Lincoln thought slavery should end and black people should be be free, but he didnt believe blacks should have the same rights as whites as he made clear in the Lincoln/Douglas debates.   In their fourth debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln said:   I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,. . . .   In the same debate he opposed blacks having the right to vote, serve on juries, hold elected office, or marry whites.  But he did believe black people should have he same right as white people to be free, to be happy, and to improve their condition in life.  He was definitely a product of his culture.
> 
> Lincoln supported the notion of colonization or returning the majority of black people to Africa or send them to Central America.  Like Jefferson and Henry Clay, he saw colonization for black people as the solution to the slave problem and a way for black people to have a new start.
> 
> Freeing the slaves in the rebel states was mostly a military strategy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As much as he hated the institution of slavery, Lincoln didnt see the Civil War as a struggle to free the nations 4 million slaves from bondage. Emancipation, when it came, would have to be gradual, and the important thing to do was to prevent the Southern rebellion from severing the Union permanently in two. But as the Civil War entered its second summer in 1862, thousands of slaves had fled Southern plantations to Union lines, and the federal government didnt have a clear policy on how to deal with them. Emancipation, Lincoln saw, would further undermine the Confederacy while providing the Union with a new source of manpower to crush the rebellion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves in the five slave states that did not rebel against the Union.
> 
> 5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation ? History in the Headlines
Click to expand...


If you're going to discuss these  things you need to read up on history to know what the hell you're talking about. As for fighting against a tyrannical government? It was so tyrannical a government that it freed a entire race of people that was held in bondage by the very people you are holding up as honorable freedom fighters. If they didn't want war then they shouldn't have attacked hey Union base


----------



## Toro

rightwinger said:


> The South would have maintained slavery into the 20th century and Jim Crow indefinitely.
> 
> Their agrarian economy would have folded from competition from India and they would be like Mexico today trying to sneak into he north



I don't know if they would have maintained slavery into the 20th century.

However, there is no reason to think they wouldn't have maintained Segregation well into the second half of the 20th century.  Being a part of the US, they could get away with it.  As a separate country?  I think they would have been viewed as South Africa was viewed.


----------



## Foxfyre

thanatos144 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was about slavery.  The separated because Lincoln a known abolitionist was nominated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln did believe slavery was morally wrong, but he was not an abolitionist.  He made it clear in his campaign speeches that his goal was not to abolish slavery.  He respected the Constitution that supported the concept of slavery.
> 
> Lincoln thought slavery should end and black people should be be free, but he didnt believe blacks should have the same rights as whites as he made clear in the Lincoln/Douglas debates.   In their fourth debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln said:   I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,. . . .   In the same debate he opposed blacks having the right to vote, serve on juries, hold elected office, or marry whites.  But he did believe black people should have he same right as white people to be free, to be happy, and to improve their condition in life.  He was definitely a product of his culture.
> 
> Lincoln supported the notion of colonization or returning the majority of black people to Africa or send them to Central America.  Like Jefferson and Henry Clay, he saw colonization for black people as the solution to the slave problem and a way for black people to have a new start.
> 
> Freeing the slaves in the rebel states was mostly a military strategy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As much as he hated the institution of slavery, Lincoln didnt see the Civil War as a struggle to free the nations 4 million slaves from bondage. Emancipation, when it came, would have to be gradual, and the important thing to do was to prevent the Southern rebellion from severing the Union permanently in two. But as the Civil War entered its second summer in 1862, thousands of slaves had fled Southern plantations to Union lines, and the federal government didnt have a clear policy on how to deal with them. Emancipation, Lincoln saw, would further undermine the Confederacy while providing the Union with a new source of manpower to crush the rebellion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves in the five slave states that did not rebel against the Union.
> 
> 5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation ? History in the Headlines
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're going to discuss these  things you need to read up on history to know what the hell you're talking about. As for fighting against a tyrannical government? It was so tyrannical a government that it freed a entire race of people that was held in bondage by the very people you are holding up as honorable freedom fighters. If they didn't want war then they shouldn't have attacked hey Union base
Click to expand...


Dear, I have a college minor in American History and I summarized and quoted you some reliable history from a very highly respected history website here.  Now you can continue with your racist and judgmental focus, or you can discuss the topic.  It is up to you.


----------



## Toro

thanatos144 said:


> If you're going to discuss these  things you need to read up on history to know what the hell you're talking about. As for fighting against a tyrannical government? It was so tyrannical a government that it freed a entire race of people that was held in bondage by the very people you are holding up as honorable freedom fighters. If they didn't want war then they shouldn't have attacked hey Union base



In fairness, Fox isn't saying that they were honorable freedom fighters.


----------



## Toro

Toro said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to discuss these  things you need to read up on history to know what the hell you're talking about. As for fighting against a tyrannical government? It was so tyrannical a government that it freed a entire race of people that was held in bondage by the very people you are holding up as honorable freedom fighters. If they didn't want war then they shouldn't have attacked hey Union base
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness, Fox isn't saying that they were honorable freedom fighters.
Click to expand...


However, I've always been puzzled by self-proclaimed libertarians who defend the Confederacy.


----------



## Foxfyre

Toro said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to discuss these  things you need to read up on history to know what the hell you're talking about. As for fighting against a tyrannical government? It was so tyrannical a government that it freed a entire race of people that was held in bondage by the very people you are holding up as honorable freedom fighters. If they didn't want war then they shouldn't have attacked hey Union base
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness, Fox isn't saying that they were honorable freedom fighters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, I've always been puzzled by self-proclaimed libertarians who defend the Confederacy.
Click to expand...


I am not defending the Confederacy at all.  I just sort of insist that honest history be used instead of the PC version of history.  Not everybody who supported the South/Confederacy supported slavery; in fact those who supported slavery were in a pretty small minority.  But believing slavery to be morally wrong and being an abolitionist are two separate things and too many here are trying to merge the two.   And as I previously posted, had there been no Civil War and no secession by the Confederate states, Lincoln would not have issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

That takes nothing away from Lincoln who was a good man and a good President but he strongly believed in keeping the races separate.  It's just the honest truth.  And he was a defender of the Constitution and therefore was not an abolitionist.   It isn't the PC and comfortable history that most of us have been taught--like I said, the victors get to write the history and our culture is sometimes very selective in what we teach.  But it is the truth just the same.

Just as it is the truth that there were good, honest, caring, and commendable people in the South.  Most southerners didn't have evil and selfish motives or character.

And I do believe that the strong Christian influence in the South would have brought an end to slavery if there had been no Civil War and I think that would have happened if the South had been allowed to secede.


----------



## Hoffstra

If The South had been allowed to secede, millions of blacks would have stayed slaves for decades.


----------



## Toro

Foxfyre said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness, Fox isn't saying that they were honorable freedom fighters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, I've always been puzzled by self-proclaimed libertarians who defend the Confederacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not defending the Confederacy at all.  I just sort of insist that honest history be used instead of the PC version of history.  Not everybody who supported the South/Confederacy supported slavery; in fact those who supported slavery were in a pretty small minority.  But believing slavery to be morally wrong and being an abolitionist are two separate things and too many here are trying to merge the two.   And as I previously posted, had there been no Civil War and no secession by the Confederate states, Lincoln would not have issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
> 
> That takes nothing away from Lincoln who was a good man and a good President but he strongly believed in keeping the races separate.  It's just the honest truth.  And he was a defender of the Constitution and therefore was not an abolitionist.   It isn't the PC and comfortable history that most of us have been taught--like I said, the victors get to write the history and our culture is sometimes very selective in what we teach.  But it is the truth just the same.
> 
> Just as it is the truth that there were good, honest, caring, and commendable people in the South.  Most southerners didn't have evil and selfish motives or character.
> 
> And I do believe that the strong Christian influence in the South would have brought an end to slavery if there had been no Civil War and I think that would have happened if the South had been allowed to secede.
Click to expand...


FYI My libertarian comment wasn't directed at you, Fox.  There are others here to whom that applies, though.

I agree with your characterization that all Southerners aren't evil.  It's many shades of gray and not black and white.  And I also respect you for being impartial and objective.

However, it is a very deep human need to want to believe that we are good.  So when we do something bad, we try to whitewash and rationalize it away.  Everyone does it.  All nations do it.  When nations commit horrendous crimes or engage in actions that we deem morally reprehensible today, there is a very strong tendency to erase it from our collective memory.  We think clearer when those crimes are committed by others outside our group.  But when our group does it, there is an inherent reaction against judging ourselves in the same manner.

That goes on in the South with slavery IMHO.  That doesn't mean that Southerners are 100% wrong and Northerners 100% right.  Far from it.  Southerners had legitimate beefs.  But many Southerners and supporters of the Confederacy today attempt to minimize slavery and it's horrors, or downplay its significance in society.


----------



## Foxfyre

Toro said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, I've always been puzzled by self-proclaimed libertarians who defend the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not defending the Confederacy at all.  I just sort of insist that honest history be used instead of the PC version of history.  Not everybody who supported the South/Confederacy supported slavery; in fact those who supported slavery were in a pretty small minority.  But believing slavery to be morally wrong and being an abolitionist are two separate things and too many here are trying to merge the two.   And as I previously posted, had there been no Civil War and no secession by the Confederate states, Lincoln would not have issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
> 
> That takes nothing away from Lincoln who was a good man and a good President but he strongly believed in keeping the races separate.  It's just the honest truth.  And he was a defender of the Constitution and therefore was not an abolitionist.   It isn't the PC and comfortable history that most of us have been taught--like I said, the victors get to write the history and our culture is sometimes very selective in what we teach.  But it is the truth just the same.
> 
> Just as it is the truth that there were good, honest, caring, and commendable people in the South.  Most southerners didn't have evil and selfish motives or character.
> 
> And I do believe that the strong Christian influence in the South would have brought an end to slavery if there had been no Civil War and I think that would have happened if the South had been allowed to secede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FYI My libertarian comment wasn't directed at you, Fox.  There are others here to whom that applies, though.
> 
> I agree with your characterization that all Southerners aren't evil.  It's many shades of gray and not black and white.  And I also respect you for being impartial and objective.
> 
> However, it is a very deep human need to want to believe that we are good.  So when we do something bad, we try to whitewash and rationalize it away.  Everyone does it.  All nations do it.  When nations commit horrendous crimes or engage in actions that we deem morally reprehensible today, there is a very strong tendency to erase it from our collective memory.  We think clearer when those crimes are committed by others outside our group.  But when our group does it, there is an inherent reaction against judging ourselves in the same manner.
> 
> That goes on in the South with slavery IMHO.  That doesn't mean that Southerners are 100% wrong and Northerners 100% right.  Far from it.  Southerners had legitimate beefs.  But many Southerners and supporters of the Confederacy today attempt to minimize slavery and it's horrors, or downplay its significance in society.
Click to expand...


Again I don't think a soul here--at least I HOPE not a soul here--is condoning slavery or sees it as anything other than an abominable evil.  It is because the people of former generations, without the hindsight of history that we have, came to that same conclusion and slavery was ended or was never allowed to be law in their respective states or societies.

But once you wrench the subject away from the political correctness crowd and see the legacy for what it is, there are some interesting dynamics and perspectives.

There are at least hundreds if not many thousands of thoughtful black people living today that are actually grateful that somebody dragged their ancesters over here on slave ships.  That horrendous and unjustifiable unfortunate situation for their ancesters has not been unfortunate for them.  They were born as free citizens into a country that has given them infinite liberty, opportunity, and prosperity that likely would never have been available to them had their ancesters not been American slaves.

There are many others with the intellect and intellectual honesty to be grateful for the white men who risked or gave all his blood and treasure to fight a war resulting in liberation of the slaves rather than harboring resentment toward white men because some owned slaves.   There are those who appreciate the political risk many took to make the worst of racism illegal rather than harbor grudges because it once existed.

There is also the truth that Lincoln freed the slaves in an effort to keep more black people from fleeing to the North as many in the North didn't want the black people or the problem of dealing with them.  Remember that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves in the states that did not secede.

And finally, there is simply no reason to think that the same ethic that rejected slavery in the North would not have eventually prevailed in the South.   Certainly the black people would have then left their cruel masters, and their numbers were legion.  But history also informs us that voluntarily freed slaves often stayed with kind 'masters' but as paid employees instead of slaves.

There are all kinds of prisms through which to see history, even the hypothetical history as suggested in the OP.


----------



## Sallow

Friends said:


> Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.
> 
> The South has always been the problem child of the United States. I think what remained of the United States would have been better off without the South. If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better.
> 
> In the South slavery impeded the development of industry, and of labor saving agricultural machinery. The vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North.
> 
> Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did.
> 
> An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.



Stormfront misses you.


----------



## Sallow

Toro said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, I've always been puzzled by self-proclaimed libertarians who defend the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not defending the Confederacy at all.  I just sort of insist that honest history be used instead of the PC version of history.  Not everybody who supported the South/Confederacy supported slavery; in fact those who supported slavery were in a pretty small minority.  But believing slavery to be morally wrong and being an abolitionist are two separate things and too many here are trying to merge the two.   And as I previously posted, had there been no Civil War and no secession by the Confederate states, Lincoln would not have issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
> 
> That takes nothing away from Lincoln who was a good man and a good President but he strongly believed in keeping the races separate.  It's just the honest truth.  And he was a defender of the Constitution and therefore was not an abolitionist.   It isn't the PC and comfortable history that most of us have been taught--like I said, the victors get to write the history and our culture is sometimes very selective in what we teach.  But it is the truth just the same.
> 
> Just as it is the truth that there were good, honest, caring, and commendable people in the South.  Most southerners didn't have evil and selfish motives or character.
> 
> And I do believe that the strong Christian influence in the South would have brought an end to slavery if there had been no Civil War and I think that would have happened if the South had been allowed to secede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FYI My libertarian comment wasn't directed at you, Fox.  There are others here to whom that applies, though.
> 
> I agree with your characterization that all Southerners aren't evil.  It's many shades of gray and not black and white.  And I also respect you for being impartial and objective.
> 
> However, it is a very deep human need to want to believe that we are good.  So when we do something bad, we try to whitewash and rationalize it away.  Everyone does it.  All nations do it.  When nations commit horrendous crimes or engage in actions that we deem morally reprehensible today, there is a very strong tendency to erase it from our collective memory.  We think clearer when those crimes are committed by others outside our group.  But when our group does it, there is an inherent reaction against judging ourselves in the same manner.
> 
> That goes on in the South with slavery IMHO.  That doesn't mean that Southerners are 100% wrong and Northerners 100% right.  Far from it.  Southerners had legitimate beefs.  But many Southerners and supporters of the Confederacy today attempt to minimize slavery and it's horrors, or downplay its significance in society.
Click to expand...


Naw..the southerners were evil.

They got off very lightly.


----------



## Sallow

Foxfyre said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not defending the Confederacy at all.  I just sort of insist that honest history be used instead of the PC version of history.  Not everybody who supported the South/Confederacy supported slavery; in fact those who supported slavery were in a pretty small minority.  But believing slavery to be morally wrong and being an abolitionist are two separate things and too many here are trying to merge the two.   And as I previously posted, had there been no Civil War and no secession by the Confederate states, Lincoln would not have issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
> 
> That takes nothing away from Lincoln who was a good man and a good President but he strongly believed in keeping the races separate.  It's just the honest truth.  And he was a defender of the Constitution and therefore was not an abolitionist.   It isn't the PC and comfortable history that most of us have been taught--like I said, the victors get to write the history and our culture is sometimes very selective in what we teach.  But it is the truth just the same.
> 
> Just as it is the truth that there were good, honest, caring, and commendable people in the South.  Most southerners didn't have evil and selfish motives or character.
> 
> And I do believe that the strong Christian influence in the South would have brought an end to slavery if there had been no Civil War and I think that would have happened if the South had been allowed to secede.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI My libertarian comment wasn't directed at you, Fox.  There are others here to whom that applies, though.
> 
> I agree with your characterization that all Southerners aren't evil.  It's many shades of gray and not black and white.  And I also respect you for being impartial and objective.
> 
> However, it is a very deep human need to want to believe that we are good.  So when we do something bad, we try to whitewash and rationalize it away.  Everyone does it.  All nations do it.  When nations commit horrendous crimes or engage in actions that we deem morally reprehensible today, there is a very strong tendency to erase it from our collective memory.  We think clearer when those crimes are committed by others outside our group.  But when our group does it, there is an inherent reaction against judging ourselves in the same manner.
> 
> That goes on in the South with slavery IMHO.  That doesn't mean that Southerners are 100% wrong and Northerners 100% right.  Far from it.  Southerners had legitimate beefs.  But many Southerners and supporters of the Confederacy today attempt to minimize slavery and it's horrors, or downplay its significance in society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again I don't think a soul here--at least I HOPE not a soul here--is condoning slavery or sees it as anything other than an abominable evil.  It is because the people of former generations, without the hindsight of history that we have, came to that same conclusion and slavery was ended or was never allowed to be law in their respective states or societies.
> 
> But once you wrench the subject away from the political correctness crowd and see the legacy for what it is, there are some interesting dynamics and perspectives.
> 
> There are at least hundreds if not many thousands of thoughtful black people living today that are actually grateful that somebody dragged their ancesters over here on slave ships.  That horrendous and unjustifiable unfortunate situation for their ancesters has not been unfortunate for them.  They were born as free citizens into a country that has given them infinite liberty, opportunity, and prosperity that likely would never have been available to them had their ancesters not been American slaves.
> 
> There are many others with the intellect and intellectual honesty to be grateful for the white men who risked or gave all his blood and treasure to fight a war resulting in liberation of the slaves rather than harboring resentment toward white men because some owned slaves.   There are those who appreciate the political risk many took to make the worst of racism illegal rather than harbor grudges because it once existed.
> 
> There is also the truth that Lincoln freed the slaves in an effort to keep more black people from fleeing to the North as many in the North didn't want the black people or the problem of dealing with them.  Remember that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves in the states that did not secede.
> 
> And finally, there is simply no reason to think that the same ethic that rejected slavery in the North would not have eventually prevailed in the South.   Certainly the black people would have then left their cruel masters, and their numbers were legion.  But history also informs us that voluntarily freed slaves often stayed with kind 'masters' but as paid employees instead of slaves.
> 
> There are all kinds of prisms through which to see history, even the hypothetical history as suggested in the OP.
Click to expand...


Amazing..this was an easy catch for you.

Yet still..you drop the ball.


----------



## bendog

Foxfyre said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not defending the Confederacy at all.  I just sort of insist that honest history be used instead of the PC version of history.  Not everybody who supported the South/Confederacy supported slavery; in fact those who supported slavery were in a pretty small minority.  But believing slavery to be morally wrong and being an abolitionist are two separate things and too many here are trying to merge the two.   And as I previously posted, had there been no Civil War and no secession by the Confederate states, Lincoln would not have issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
> 
> That takes nothing away from Lincoln who was a good man and a good President but he strongly believed in keeping the races separate.  It's just the honest truth.  And he was a defender of the Constitution and therefore was not an abolitionist.   It isn't the PC and comfortable history that most of us have been taught--like I said, the victors get to write the history and our culture is sometimes very selective in what we teach.  But it is the truth just the same.
> 
> Just as it is the truth that there were good, honest, caring, and commendable people in the South.  Most southerners didn't have evil and selfish motives or character.
> 
> And I do believe that the strong Christian influence in the South would have brought an end to slavery if there had been no Civil War and I think that would have happened if the South had been allowed to secede.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI My libertarian comment wasn't directed at you, Fox.  There are others here to whom that applies, though.
> 
> I agree with your characterization that all Southerners aren't evil.  It's many shades of gray and not black and white.  And I also respect you for being impartial and objective.
> 
> However, it is a very deep human need to want to believe that we are good.  So when we do something bad, we try to whitewash and rationalize it away.  Everyone does it.  All nations do it.  When nations commit horrendous crimes or engage in actions that we deem morally reprehensible today, there is a very strong tendency to erase it from our collective memory.  We think clearer when those crimes are committed by others outside our group.  But when our group does it, there is an inherent reaction against judging ourselves in the same manner.
> 
> That goes on in the South with slavery IMHO.  That doesn't mean that Southerners are 100% wrong and Northerners 100% right.  Far from it.  Southerners had legitimate beefs.  But many Southerners and supporters of the Confederacy today attempt to minimize slavery and it's horrors, or downplay its significance in society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again I don't think a soul here--at least I HOPE not a soul here--is condoning slavery or sees it as anything other than an abominable evil.  It is because the people of former generations, without the hindsight of history that we have, came to that same conclusion and slavery was ended or was never allowed to be law in their respective states or societies.
> 
> But once you wrench the subject away from the political correctness crowd and see the legacy for what it is, there are some interesting dynamics and perspectives.
> 
> There are at least hundreds if not many thousands of thoughtful black people living today that are actually grateful that somebody dragged their ancesters over here on slave ships.  That horrendous and unjustifiable unfortunate situation for their ancesters has not been unfortunate for them.  They were born as free citizens into a country that has given them infinite liberty, opportunity, and prosperity that likely would never have been available to them had their ancesters not been American slaves.
> 
> There are many others with the intellect and intellectual honesty to be grateful for the white men who risked or gave all his blood and treasure to fight a war resulting in liberation of the slaves rather than harboring resentment toward white men because some owned slaves.   There are those who appreciate the political risk many took to make the worst of racism illegal rather than harbor grudges because it once existed.
> 
> There is also the truth that Lincoln freed the slaves in an effort to keep more black people from fleeing to the North as many in the North didn't want the black people or the problem of dealing with them.  Remember that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves in the states that did not secede.
> 
> And finally, there is simply no reason to think that the same ethic that rejected slavery in the North would not have eventually prevailed in the South.   Certainly the black people would have then left their cruel masters, and their numbers were legion.  But history also informs us that voluntarily freed slaves often stayed with kind 'masters' but as paid employees instead of slaves.
> 
> There are all kinds of prisms through which to see history, even the hypothetical history as suggested in the OP.
Click to expand...


There was a practical problem.  The South had around 9 million whites, 6% of whom actually owned slaves, but there were around 3.5 million slaves, or around 40% of the total population.

Confederate States of America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Foxfyre

bendog said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI My libertarian comment wasn't directed at you, Fox.  There are others here to whom that applies, though.
> 
> I agree with your characterization that all Southerners aren't evil.  It's many shades of gray and not black and white.  And I also respect you for being impartial and objective.
> 
> However, it is a very deep human need to want to believe that we are good.  So when we do something bad, we try to whitewash and rationalize it away.  Everyone does it.  All nations do it.  When nations commit horrendous crimes or engage in actions that we deem morally reprehensible today, there is a very strong tendency to erase it from our collective memory.  We think clearer when those crimes are committed by others outside our group.  But when our group does it, there is an inherent reaction against judging ourselves in the same manner.
> 
> That goes on in the South with slavery IMHO.  That doesn't mean that Southerners are 100% wrong and Northerners 100% right.  Far from it.  Southerners had legitimate beefs.  But many Southerners and supporters of the Confederacy today attempt to minimize slavery and it's horrors, or downplay its significance in society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again I don't think a soul here--at least I HOPE not a soul here--is condoning slavery or sees it as anything other than an abominable evil.  It is because the people of former generations, without the hindsight of history that we have, came to that same conclusion and slavery was ended or was never allowed to be law in their respective states or societies.
> 
> But once you wrench the subject away from the political correctness crowd and see the legacy for what it is, there are some interesting dynamics and perspectives.
> 
> There are at least hundreds if not many thousands of thoughtful black people living today that are actually grateful that somebody dragged their ancesters over here on slave ships.  That horrendous and unjustifiable unfortunate situation for their ancesters has not been unfortunate for them.  They were born as free citizens into a country that has given them infinite liberty, opportunity, and prosperity that likely would never have been available to them had their ancesters not been American slaves.
> 
> There are many others with the intellect and intellectual honesty to be grateful for the white men who risked or gave all his blood and treasure to fight a war resulting in liberation of the slaves rather than harboring resentment toward white men because some owned slaves.   There are those who appreciate the political risk many took to make the worst of racism illegal rather than harbor grudges because it once existed.
> 
> There is also the truth that Lincoln freed the slaves in an effort to keep more black people from fleeing to the North as many in the North didn't want the black people or the problem of dealing with them.  Remember that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves in the states that did not secede.
> 
> And finally, there is simply no reason to think that the same ethic that rejected slavery in the North would not have eventually prevailed in the South.   Certainly the black people would have then left their cruel masters, and their numbers were legion.  But history also informs us that voluntarily freed slaves often stayed with kind 'masters' but as paid employees instead of slaves.
> 
> There are all kinds of prisms through which to see history, even the hypothetical history as suggested in the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a practical problem.  The South had around 9 million whites, 6% of whom actually owned slaves, but there were around 3.5 million slaves, or around 40% of the total population.
> 
> Confederate States of America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


And that was one of Lincoln's problems.  As the war increasingly devastated the South, the slaves were fleeing north.  And the north didn't want them.  The Emancipation Proclamation, far more than a noble civil rights issues, was a military decision in an attempt to 1) stop the flight north and 2) encourage the black people to join the Union Army in fighting the Confederacy.


----------



## bendog

And Lincoln initially considered sending them to Liberia, but that was impractical, and though perhaps not at the time, it was a barbaric thought.

Still, what to do when 40% of the population is illieterate and unskilled?  How to you assimilate that?  The seeds of a problem.


----------



## Foxfyre

bendog said:


> And Lincoln initially considered sending them to Liberia, but that was impractical, and though perhaps not at the time, it was a barbaric thought.
> 
> Still, what to do when 40% of the population is illieterate and unskilled?  How to you assimilate that?  The seeds of a problem.



Yes.  Liberia or South America.  Lincoln had a great deal of compassion for the black man--he had a good heart--but he was a firm believer that the races should not mix culturally, socially, politically, fiscally, and certainly there should not be mixed marriages.  He thought it best that a large part of the black population would benefit by being relocated or colonized somewhere outside of the USA.


----------



## Toro

Foxfyre said:


> There are at least hundreds if not many thousands of thoughtful black people living today that are actually grateful that somebody dragged their ancesters over here on slave ships.  That horrendous and unjustifiable unfortunate situation for their ancesters has not been unfortunate for them.  They were born as free citizens into a country that has given them infinite liberty, opportunity, and prosperity that likely would never have been available to them had their ancesters not been American slaves.



I would suggest there are many millions of black Americans who are grateful that their ancestors were dragged over here and are Americans today.


----------



## Foxfyre

Toro said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are at least hundreds if not many thousands of thoughtful black people living today that are actually grateful that somebody dragged their ancesters over here on slave ships.  That horrendous and unjustifiable unfortunate situation for their ancesters has not been unfortunate for them.  They were born as free citizens into a country that has given them infinite liberty, opportunity, and prosperity that likely would never have been available to them had their ancesters not been American slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest there are many millions of black Americans who are grateful that their ancestors were dragged over here and are Americans today.
Click to expand...


Well yes.  Probably.  I actually meant those who are willing to publicly admit that.  It isn't politically correct you know.  

But probably you're closer to the actual number than I am.  I would like to think there are millions of intellectually honest black people with the courage to speak the truth about that.


----------



## editec

bendog said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South was a society and economy totally dependent upon human tyranny and slavery to survive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's simply untrue.  The vast maj of southern whites didn't own slaves, but rather were subsistence farmers or small merchants.  The wealth in the south was tied to land and slaves, and held by an elite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *1/4 of all families in the CSA states owned slaves, mate.*
> 
> Those who did not but who supported the CSA were not only traitors to the Republic, but also incredibly stupid people.
> 
> They liberally supported a system (slavery) that made their labor worth less on the open market.
> 
> then like damned lemmings they rushed off the cliff of states' rights by fighting and dying for the very system that thought of them as WHITE TRASH.
> 
> And many of their great grandchildren are still cheering them on as heroic!?
Click to expand...


----------



## thanatos144

The Confederates United States was an evil empire


----------



## bendog

editec said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South was a society and economy totally dependent upon human tyranny and slavery to survive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's simply untrue.  The vast maj of southern whites didn't own slaves, but rather were subsistence farmers or small merchants.  The wealth in the south was tied to land and slaves, and held by an elite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *1/4 of all families in the CSA states owned slaves, mate.*
> 
> Those who did not but who supported the CSA were not only traitors to the Republic, but also incredibly stupid people.
> 
> They liberally supported a system (slavery) that made their labor worth less on the open market.
> 
> then like damned lemmings they rushed off the cliff of states' rights by fighting and dying for the very system that thought of them as WHITE TRASH.
> 
> And many of their great grandchildren are still cheering them on as heroic!?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please link a citation for the assertion that 25% of white households held slaves.  I think the only way the math works for that is to divide the slave pop by no. of households, which would distort the figures/fact of very large slaveholdings by very rich households.
> 
> Nevertheless, asserting 3/4 of southerners had no slaves is hardly support for whatever you assert.
Click to expand...


----------



## gipper

bendog said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1/4 of all families in the CSA states owned slaves, mate.*
> 
> Those who did not but who supported the CSA were not only traitors to the Republic, but also incredibly stupid people.
> 
> They liberally supported a system (slavery) that made their labor worth less on the open market.
> 
> then like damned lemmings they rushed off the cliff of states' rights by fighting and dying for the very system that thought of them as WHITE TRASH.
> 
> And many of their great grandchildren are still cheering them on as heroic!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please link a citation for the assertion that 25% of white households held slaves.  I think the only way the math works for that is to divide the slave pop by no. of households, which would distort the figures/fact of very large slaveholdings by very rich households.
> 
> Nevertheless, asserting 3/4 of southerners had no slaves is hardly support for whatever you assert.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The number was 6% as DiLorenzo points out.  What is never discussed are the number of wealthy Northerns who owned slaves including Grant...Who?s Responsible for the 1861-65 Bloodbath? ? LewRockwell.com
Click to expand...


----------



## thanatos144

The romantic idealism that libertarians have about the Confederates is the reason I believe they are really just Democrats acting out a part


----------



## Foxfyre

gipper said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please link a citation for the assertion that 25% of white households held slaves.  I think the only way the math works for that is to divide the slave pop by no. of households, which would distort the figures/fact of very large slaveholdings by very rich households.
> 
> Nevertheless, asserting 3/4 of southerners had no slaves is hardly support for whatever you assert.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The number was 6% as DiLorenzo points out.  What is never discussed are the number of wealthy Northerns who owned slaves including Grant...Who?s Responsible for the 1861-65 Bloodbath? ? LewRockwell.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But if we are intellectually honest, that 6% was the percentage of the general population that was mostly made up of families consisting of mom, dad, a number of kiddos, and often other relatives living with them.  The kids didn't own any slaves, but if daddy did, the kids would inherit them.  So the more accurate figure is that roughly 25 to 30% of southern households did have one or more slaves.   It is also a fact that once slavery was illegal, some former slaves stayed with their former 'masters' but as paid employees and that happened prior to the Civil War as well.  Those with moral objections to slavery would free their slaves, but allowed them to continue to live on the property and work for wages as it could have been dangerous for them to be in the general population.  Those numbers also distort the actual percentages of slave owners somewhat.
Click to expand...


----------



## bendog

Foxfyre said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The number was 6% as DiLorenzo points out.  What is never discussed are the number of wealthy Northerns who owned slaves including Grant...Who?s Responsible for the 1861-65 Bloodbath? ? LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But if we are intellectually honest, that 6% was the percentage of the general population that was mostly made up of families consisting of mom, dad, a number of kiddos, and often other relatives living with them.  The kids didn't own any slaves, but if daddy did, the kids would inherit them.  So the more accurate figure is that roughly 25 to 30% of southern households did have one or more slaves.   It is also a fact that once slavery was illegal, some former slaves stayed with their former 'masters' but as paid employees and that happened prior to the Civil War as well.  Those with moral objections to slavery would free their slaves, but allowed them to continue to live on the property and work for wages as it could have been dangerous for them to be in the general population.  Those numbers also distort the actual percentages of slave owners somewhat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, not to be argumentative, quite the opposite, but I just don't see how it matters.  My original point was simply that the vast majority of Southerners siimply didn't have a stake in owning slaves.  The overwhelming majority didn't own any.  And even some who did were largely substance farmers who fed them not much differenlty than hired hands, which is why after the Civil War a good number just stayed on.  They got food and lodging and had nowhere to go, and didn't see leaving as improving their lot.
> 
> So, you have a society where:  The Supreme Court has held holding slaves as personal property is LEGAL.   Amongst the whites, you didn't have much of a middle class beyond merchants.  Some 40% of the population in the South were slaves.  If they were free to leave "their masters" and come out and try and eake out a field out of the scrub oak, and set up farming, THEY WERE IN COMPETION with the non-elite whites.
> 
> Meanwhile, you certainly didn't see the NE clamoring to take the freed slaves.  On the contrary, the draft riots were barbaric.
> 
> And, I'm certainly not "romanticizing" the "glorious cause."  It wasn't glorious.  Rather, my pt to those who argue the South was a pit of Satanic Depravity, I challange you to find something those folks could have done differetly.
> 
> Now Jim Crowe, the post WWII South, and the doofuses with confederate flags tattooed on themselves .... differently story, imo.  And while the reinactiors may have noble motiviations, I don't see so much with sons and daughters of the confederacy; if they want to revel in their heritage, look at the whole story, including the rape and torture of people with no power who were thought to be less human.
Click to expand...


----------



## Foxfyre

Foxfyre wrote



> But if we are intellectually honest, that 6% was the percentage of the general population that was mostly made up of families consisting of mom, dad, a number of kiddos, and often other relatives living with them.  The kids didn't own any slaves, but if daddy did, the kids would inherit them.  So the more accurate figure is that roughly 25 to 30% of southern households did have one or more slaves.   It is also a fact that once slavery was illegal, some former slaves stayed with their former 'masters' but as paid employees and that happened prior to the Civil War as well.  Those with moral objections to slavery would free their slaves, but allowed them to continue to live on the property and work for wages as it could have been dangerous for them to be in the general population.  Those numbers also distort the actual percentages of slave owners somewhat.



To which you, Bendog, responded:



> Well, not to be argumentative, quite the opposite, but I just don't see how it matters.  My original point was simply that the vast majority of Southerners siimply didn't have a stake in owning slaves.  The overwhelming majority didn't own any.  And even some who did were largely substance farmers who fed them not much differenlty than hired hands, which is why after the Civil War a good number just stayed on.  They got food and lodging and had nowhere to go, and didn't see leaving as improving their lot.
> 
> So, you have a society where:  The Supreme Court has held holding slaves as personal property is LEGAL.   Amongst the whites, you didn't have much of a middle class beyond merchants.  Some 40% of the population in the South were slaves.  If they were free to leave "their masters" and come out and try and eake out a field out of the scrub oak, and set up farming, THEY WERE IN COMPETION with the non-elite whites.
> 
> Meanwhile, you certainly didn't see the NE clamoring to take the freed slaves.  On the contrary, the draft riots were barbaric.
> 
> And, I'm certainly not "romanticizing" the "glorious cause."  It wasn't glorious.  Rather, my pt to those who argue the South was a pit of Satanic Depravity, I challange you to find something those folks could have done differetly.
> 
> Now Jim Crowe, the post WWII South, and the doofuses with confederate flags tattooed on themselves .... differently story, imo.  And while the reinactiors may have noble motiviations, I don't see so much with sons and daughters of the confederacy; if they want to revel in their heritage, look at the whole story, including the rape and torture of people with no power who were thought to be less human.



Argumentative?  LOL.  How is what you say here that much different than what I said?  

(Had to break up the quotes as I did because the quotation function is malfunctioning today, at least for me.)


----------



## JoeB131

If the South had seceded, it would have probably quickly regressed into a third world country like most of Latin America while the balance of the  United States would have continued to industrialize and expand. 

Then World War I would have rolled around, and probably the US would have joined the Central Powers (with the high proportion of German and Irish Immigrants not being swayed by the Southern Klan types) while the CSA would have sided with the Allies.  

With a Central Powers victory in WWI, Germany would have dominated Europe, the US would have dominated the Americas, and Japan would dominate Asia.


----------



## rdean

We would have had to put up fences and border guards to keep "southern immigrants" from sneaking in and working for less than minimum wage.  

But the Blue States subsidize poor Red States now.  Only, it would have been "foreign aid".  And we wouldn't have all those inbreds fucking up our country.


----------



## oldfart

Foxfyre said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, I've always been puzzled by self-proclaimed libertarians who defend the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not defending the Confederacy at all.  I just sort of insist that honest history be used instead of the PC version of history.
Click to expand...


I'm all for "honest" history, but I'm not sure what PC has to do with it.  There is a Lincoln myth (the Sandberg biography was its apex) which has its own historiography  separate from Lincoln himself.  The last fifteen years have been the best for Lincoln scholarship since the Nineteenth Century because of the publication of "Herndon's Informants" and the books that followed it.  

I must confess that I never took any American history course in college, although history was my second major, I have published in the field of American economic history (Mississippi land tenure 1870--1970), and have an extensive Lincoln collection.   I try to keep up.  



Foxfyre said:


> Not everybody who supported the South/Confederacy supported slavery; in fact those who supported slavery were in a pretty small minority.



You are are close to making a distinction without a difference.  The Antebellum South did not tolerate dissent on the slavery issue.  The post offices refused to accept northern papers that did not support or ignore slavery, churches replaced wavering clergy, slave codes were enforced in opposition to the will of individual slave masters, and Lincoln was not on the ballot in any states south of Virginia and Kentucky.  Slavery was supported or tolerated by virtually every southern citizen.   



Foxfyre said:


> But believing slavery to be morally wrong and being an abolitionist are two separate things and too many here are trying to merge the two.   And as I previously posted, had there been no Civil War and no secession by the Confederate states, Lincoln would not have issued the Emancipation Proclamation.



I agree.  



Foxfyre said:


> That takes nothing away from Lincoln who was a good man and a good President but he strongly believed in keeping the races separate.  It's just the honest truth.  And he was a defender of the Constitution and therefore was not an abolitionist.   It isn't the PC and comfortable history that most of us have been taught--like I said, the victors get to write the history and our culture is sometimes very selective in what we teach.  But it is the truth just the same.



Perhaps the most striking attribute of Lincoln's mind was the rapidity and intellectual ruthlessness with which he adapted his thought to new conditions.  Lincoln's position o the race question evolved rapidly and the Lincoln of 1858 is not the Lincoln of 1862 who began the year exploring compensated emancipation in the border states an ended the year with emancipation.  Nor was either of those Lincoln's  the Lincoln of 1865.  

Lincoln was the most formidable constitutional scholar in American history with the possible exception of James Madison (just read the Coopers Union speech or the First Inaugural Address).  He was not a great admirer of the Constitution, making the point that the Union pre-existed  the Constitution and created the states ("Four score and seven years ago..."; do the math).  He held the Founding Fathers in greater esteem (just read his very first speech, the Springfield Lyceum address).  



Foxfyre said:


> Just as it is the truth that there were good, honest, caring, and commendable people in the South.  Most southerners didn't have evil and selfish motives or character.



That's a matter of controversy. Some parts of the South rebelled against the Confederacy and were loyal to the Union.   In fact the Union Amy contained white volunteer regiments from every slave state except South Carolina.  If you add the number of white Southerners in the Union army to the number of black troops (3/4's of which came from slave states) they equaled the entire manpower utilized by the Confederacy.  In my book, the good Southerners fought for the Union.  If you want to talk about distorted history, run those numbers by white Southerners today.  



Foxfyre said:


> And I do believe that the strong Christian influence in the South would have brought an end to slavery if there had been no Civil War and I think that would have happened if the South had been allowed to secede.



We disagree.  Slavery would have continued in the Confederacy at least a hundred years if the Confederacy had lasted that long.  And I believe that is the consensus view among historians.  

Livelong & prosper, Jamie


----------



## gipper

oldfart said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, I've always been puzzled by self-proclaimed libertarians who defend the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not defending the Confederacy at all.  I just sort of insist that honest history be used instead of the PC version of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm all for "honest" history, but I'm not sure what PC has to do with it.  There is a Lincoln myth (the Sandberg biography was its apex) which has its own historiography  separate from Lincoln himself.  The last fifteen years have been the best for Lincoln scholarship since the Nineteenth Century because of the publication of "Herndon's Informants" and the books that followed it.
> 
> I must confess that I never took any American history course in college, although history was my second major, I have published in the field of American economic history (Mississippi land tenure 1870--1970), and have an extensive Lincoln collection.   I try to keep up.
> 
> 
> 
> You are are close to making a distinction without a difference.  The Antebellum South did not tolerate dissent on the slavery issue.  The post offices refused to accept northern papers that did not support or ignore slavery, churches replaced wavering clergy, slave codes were enforced in opposition to the will of individual slave masters, and Lincoln was not on the ballot in any states south of Virginia and Kentucky.  Slavery was supported or tolerated by virtually every southern citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the most striking attribute of Lincoln's mind was the rapidity and intellectual ruthlessness with which he adapted his thought to new conditions.  Lincoln's position o the race question evolved rapidly and the Lincoln of 1858 is not the Lincoln of 1862 who began the year exploring compensated emancipation in the border states an ended the year with emancipation.  Nor was either of those Lincoln's  the Lincoln of 1865.
> 
> Lincoln was the most formidable constitutional scholar in American history with the possible exception of James Madison (just read the Coopers Union speech or the First Inaugural Address).  He was not a great admirer of the Constitution, making the point that the Union pre-existed  the Constitution and created the states ("Four score and seven years ago..."; do the math).  He held the Founding Fathers in greater esteem (just read his very first speech, the Springfield Lyceum address).
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as it is the truth that there were good, honest, caring, and commendable people in the South.  Most southerners didn't have evil and selfish motives or character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a matter of controversy. Some parts of the South rebelled against the Confederacy and were loyal to the Union.   In fact the Union Amy contained white volunteer regiments from every slave state except South Carolina.  If you add the number of white Southerners in the Union army to the number of black troops (3/4's of which came from slave states) they equaled the entire manpower utilized by the Confederacy.  In my book, the good Southerners fought for the Union.  If you want to talk about distorted history, run those numbers by white Southerners today.
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I do believe that the strong Christian influence in the South would have brought an end to slavery if there had been no Civil War and I think that would have happened if the South had been allowed to secede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We disagree.  Slavery would have continued in the Confederacy at least a hundred years if the Confederacy had lasted that long.  An I beliee that is the consensus view among historians.
> 
> Livelong & prosper, Jamie
Click to expand...


I see the Lincoln Myth persists and the hatred of the southern man does too.  Is it any wonder America continues to allow flawed leaders to prosecute wars over and over again...

If Lincoln were the great statesman some still believe he was, why did he not avert a war that destroyed half the nation causing terrible death and suffering?  War is ALWAYS a failure of leadership.  Lincoln failed spectacularly, by any reasonable analysis.  He made it clear to the Southern states, in his inaugural speech, that the Federal government would war on them if they did not abide by federal laws.  Then purposely set up events at Ft Sumter to get it all started...Not much statesmanship here. 

War is ALWAYS the health of the STATE.  It is a tactic used by all tyrants to expand the power of the central state, at the expense of everyone else.  One would think Americans would understand this, after all the disastrous wars it has allowed corrupt leaders to prosecute.

As President Buchanan supposedly famously stated...."there is a disease in the public mind"...as he left the looming disaster for his successor.  Once the public has a diseased mind, corrupt leaders can easily influence it leading to war.  The Civil War was the consequence of diseased minds, both in the North and South. 

Thomas Fleming's book, A Disease in the Public Mind, clearly lays this out.  That disease allows corrupt leaders to use it for their nefarious intentions...and Lincoln was no different.  

Our Founders were brilliant and enlightened men.  But, they made two huge mistakes.  They allowed slavery to continue and believed a piece of paper would prevent evil men from doing evil things.


----------



## thanatos144

gipper said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not defending the Confederacy at all.  I just sort of insist that honest history be used instead of the PC version of history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for "honest" history, but I'm not sure what PC has to do with it.  There is a Lincoln myth (the Sandberg biography was its apex) which has its own historiography  separate from Lincoln himself.  The last fifteen years have been the best for Lincoln scholarship since the Nineteenth Century because of the publication of "Herndon's Informants" and the books that followed it.
> 
> I must confess that I never took any American history course in college, although history was my second major, I have published in the field of American economic history (Mississippi land tenure 1870--1970), and have an extensive Lincoln collection.   I try to keep up.
> 
> 
> 
> You are are close to making a distinction without a difference.  The Antebellum South did not tolerate dissent on the slavery issue.  The post offices refused to accept northern papers that did not support or ignore slavery, churches replaced wavering clergy, slave codes were enforced in opposition to the will of individual slave masters, and Lincoln was not on the ballot in any states south of Virginia and Kentucky.  Slavery was supported or tolerated by virtually every southern citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the most striking attribute of Lincoln's mind was the rapidity and intellectual ruthlessness with which he adapted his thought to new conditions.  Lincoln's position o the race question evolved rapidly and the Lincoln of 1858 is not the Lincoln of 1862 who began the year exploring compensated emancipation in the border states an ended the year with emancipation.  Nor was either of those Lincoln's  the Lincoln of 1865.
> 
> Lincoln was the most formidable constitutional scholar in American history with the possible exception of James Madison (just read the Coopers Union speech or the First Inaugural Address).  He was not a great admirer of the Constitution, making the point that the Union pre-existed  the Constitution and created the states ("Four score and seven years ago..."; do the math).  He held the Founding Fathers in greater esteem (just read his very first speech, the Springfield Lyceum address).
> 
> 
> 
> That's a matter of controversy. Some parts of the South rebelled against the Confederacy and were loyal to the Union.   In fact the Union Amy contained white volunteer regiments from every slave state except South Carolina.  If you add the number of white Southerners in the Union army to the number of black troops (3/4's of which came from slave states) they equaled the entire manpower utilized by the Confederacy.  In my book, the good Southerners fought for the Union.  If you want to talk about distorted history, run those numbers by white Southerners today.
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I do believe that the strong Christian influence in the South would have brought an end to slavery if there had been no Civil War and I think that would have happened if the South had been allowed to secede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We disagree.  Slavery would have continued in the Confederacy at least a hundred years if the Confederacy had lasted that long.  An I beliee that is the consensus view among historians.
> 
> Livelong & prosper, Jamie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see the Lincoln Myth persists and the hatred of the southern man does too.  Is it any wonder America continues to allow flawed leaders to prosecute wars over and over again...
> 
> If Lincoln were the great statesmen some still believe he was, why did he not avert a war that destroyed half the nation causing terrible death and suffering?  War is ALWAYS a failure of leadership.  Lincoln failed spectacularly, by any reasonable analysis.  He made it clear to the Southern states, in his inaugural speech, that the Federal government would war on them if they did not abide by federal laws.  Then purposely set up events at Ft Sumter to get it all started...Not much statesmanship here.
> 
> War is ALWAYS the health of the STATE.  It is a tactic used by all tyrants to expand the power of the central state, at the expense of everyone else.  One would think Americans would understand this, after all the disastrous wars it has allowed corrupt leaders to prosecute.
> 
> As President Buchanan supposedly famously stated...."there is a disease in the public mind"...as he left the looming disaster for his successor.  Once the public has a diseased mind, corrupt leaders can easily influence it leading to war.  The Civil War was the consequence of diseased minds, both in the North and South.
> 
> Thomas Fleming's book, A Disease in the Public Mind, clearly lays this out.  That disease allows corrupt leaders to use it for their nefarious intentions...and Lincoln was no different.
> 
> Our Founders were brilliant and enlightened men.  But, they made two huge mistakes.  They allowed slavery to continue and believed a piece of paper would prevent evil men from doing evil things.
Click to expand...

So you think Lincoln should have just bent over and taken it up the ass for a slave nation? Sorry but real American presidents dont bow to evil empires.


----------



## gipper

thanatos144 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for "honest" history, but I'm not sure what PC has to do with it.  There is a Lincoln myth (the Sandberg biography was its apex) which has its own historiography  separate from Lincoln himself.  The last fifteen years have been the best for Lincoln scholarship since the Nineteenth Century because of the publication of "Herndon's Informants" and the books that followed it.
> 
> I must confess that I never took any American history course in college, although history was my second major, I have published in the field of American economic history (Mississippi land tenure 1870--1970), and have an extensive Lincoln collection.   I try to keep up.
> 
> 
> 
> You are are close to making a distinction without a difference.  The Antebellum South did not tolerate dissent on the slavery issue.  The post offices refused to accept northern papers that did not support or ignore slavery, churches replaced wavering clergy, slave codes were enforced in opposition to the will of individual slave masters, and Lincoln was not on the ballot in any states south of Virginia and Kentucky.  Slavery was supported or tolerated by virtually every southern citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the most striking attribute of Lincoln's mind was the rapidity and intellectual ruthlessness with which he adapted his thought to new conditions.  Lincoln's position o the race question evolved rapidly and the Lincoln of 1858 is not the Lincoln of 1862 who began the year exploring compensated emancipation in the border states an ended the year with emancipation.  Nor was either of those Lincoln's  the Lincoln of 1865.
> 
> Lincoln was the most formidable constitutional scholar in American history with the possible exception of James Madison (just read the Coopers Union speech or the First Inaugural Address).  He was not a great admirer of the Constitution, making the point that the Union pre-existed  the Constitution and created the states ("Four score and seven years ago..."; do the math).  He held the Founding Fathers in greater esteem (just read his very first speech, the Springfield Lyceum address).
> 
> 
> 
> That's a matter of controversy. Some parts of the South rebelled against the Confederacy and were loyal to the Union.   In fact the Union Amy contained white volunteer regiments from every slave state except South Carolina.  If you add the number of white Southerners in the Union army to the number of black troops (3/4's of which came from slave states) they equaled the entire manpower utilized by the Confederacy.  In my book, the good Southerners fought for the Union.  If you want to talk about distorted history, run those numbers by white Southerners today.
> 
> 
> 
> We disagree.  Slavery would have continued in the Confederacy at least a hundred years if the Confederacy had lasted that long.  An I beliee that is the consensus view among historians.
> 
> Livelong & prosper, Jamie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see the Lincoln Myth persists and the hatred of the southern man does too.  Is it any wonder America continues to allow flawed leaders to prosecute wars over and over again...
> 
> If Lincoln were the great statesmen some still believe he was, why did he not avert a war that destroyed half the nation causing terrible death and suffering?  War is ALWAYS a failure of leadership.  Lincoln failed spectacularly, by any reasonable analysis.  He made it clear to the Southern states, in his inaugural speech, that the Federal government would war on them if they did not abide by federal laws.  Then purposely set up events at Ft Sumter to get it all started...Not much statesmanship here.
> 
> War is ALWAYS the health of the STATE.  It is a tactic used by all tyrants to expand the power of the central state, at the expense of everyone else.  One would think Americans would understand this, after all the disastrous wars it has allowed corrupt leaders to prosecute.
> 
> As President Buchanan supposedly famously stated...."there is a disease in the public mind"...as he left the looming disaster for his successor.  Once the public has a diseased mind, corrupt leaders can easily influence it leading to war.  The Civil War was the consequence of diseased minds, both in the North and South.
> 
> Thomas Fleming's book, A Disease in the Public Mind, clearly lays this out.  That disease allows corrupt leaders to use it for their nefarious intentions...and Lincoln was no different.
> 
> Our Founders were brilliant and enlightened men.  But, they made two huge mistakes.  They allowed slavery to continue and believed a piece of paper would prevent evil men from doing evil things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think Lincoln should have just bent over and taken it up the ass for a slave nation? Sorry but real American presidents dont bow to evil empires.
Click to expand...


Your comprehension skills are weak.  

A great leader or statesman does not resort to war and the American people should avoid war at all costs, thus preventing evil men from manipulating it into war.  A great leader finds a solution short of war...thus averting a catastrophe.  There is no greater catastrophe in American history than the Civil War.  And Lincoln holds much of the responsibility for it.


----------



## thanatos144

gipper said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see the Lincoln Myth persists and the hatred of the southern man does too.  Is it any wonder America continues to allow flawed leaders to prosecute wars over and over again...
> 
> If Lincoln were the great statesmen some still believe he was, why did he not avert a war that destroyed half the nation causing terrible death and suffering?  War is ALWAYS a failure of leadership.  Lincoln failed spectacularly, by any reasonable analysis.  He made it clear to the Southern states, in his inaugural speech, that the Federal government would war on them if they did not abide by federal laws.  Then purposely set up events at Ft Sumter to get it all started...Not much statesmanship here.
> 
> War is ALWAYS the health of the STATE.  It is a tactic used by all tyrants to expand the power of the central state, at the expense of everyone else.  One would think Americans would understand this, after all the disastrous wars it has allowed corrupt leaders to prosecute.
> 
> As President Buchanan supposedly famously stated...."there is a disease in the public mind"...as he left the looming disaster for his successor.  Once the public has a diseased mind, corrupt leaders can easily influence it leading to war.  The Civil War was the consequence of diseased minds, both in the North and South.
> 
> Thomas Fleming's book, A Disease in the Public Mind, clearly lays this out.  That disease allows corrupt leaders to use it for their nefarious intentions...and Lincoln was no different.
> 
> Our Founders were brilliant and enlightened men.  But, they made two huge mistakes.  They allowed slavery to continue and believed a piece of paper would prevent evil men from doing evil things.
> 
> 
> 
> So you think Lincoln should have just bent over and taken it up the ass for a slave nation? Sorry but real American presidents dont bow to evil empires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comprehension skills are weak.
> 
> A great leader or statesman does not resort to war and the American people should avoid war at all costs, thus preventing evil men from manipulating it into war.  A great leader finds a solution short of war...thus averting a catastrophe.  There is no greater catastrophe in American history than the Civil War.  And Lincoln holds much of the responsibility for it.
Click to expand...


The Confederates ATTACKED THE UNION .... That's the facts of it. Why? Because they hated the idea of the new territories being  SLAVE FREE STATES. That as well is historical fact. The CSA was a evil Democrat empire. They started the war. They lost and America is FAR better for it. Lincoln FREED and entire race of people that your HEROES held in slavery. That is historical fact.


----------



## Foxfyre

Fort Sumter garrisoned Union soldiers who were guarding Charleston Harbor that the North had blockaded to punish the seceding states.  Charleston Harbon was a critical supply point for the South.

On April 10, 1861, Brig. Gen. Beauregard, commander of Confederate forces at Charleston,  demanded the surrender of Fort Sumter.  When the garrison commander Anderson refused, Confederates opened fire on April 12.  On April 13, Anderson surrendered the fort and, over the following 24 hours, the Confederates allowed the union soldiers to evacuate and retreat without interference.  It was the opening volley of the Civil War, but there were no casualties, not even anybody wounded in that initial skirmish.  However, one Union soldier was killed and three were wounded when the evacuating army, sympathetic to the South, intended to fire a parting salute and the cannon exploded.

So one can draw various conclusions about who initially initiated hostilities.  The Southern States who believed they had every right to secede or the North who did not?   The North who blockaded the South's own harbor?  Or the Southerners who protested that with military force?  For sure it was sympathy with the Southern states and the military aggression from the North that drove the remaining slave owning states into the Confederacy.  They might have otherwise remained neutral.

One can speculate how it might have turned out if the South had continued to whip butt in the early going.  The South fully expected England and France to come to its aid--to preserve their trade with king cotton et al--but the North had sufficient victories to give the Europeans pause.   And ultimately they chose not to risk war with the Northern states and  the South was on its own.

But to assume that the Southern states could never have been successful at all if the division had been allowed to occur peacefully just doesn't quite stack up against the hard cold realities.

I still believe had the division been allowed to occur peacefully, that the South would have yielded to its own conscience reinforced by world opinion and would have ended slavery, and subsequent generations would have worked out compromises allowing the nation to reunite.  But its all speculative as we will now never know for sure.


----------



## thanatos144

Why dont you Neo confederates with your revised history go back to the democrat party? I am proud us Republicans saved the country and FREED the slaves.


----------



## Foxfyre

Does anybody have some bug spray to deal with annoying little gnats?

One does have to wonder why some feel so threatened by the honest history of past events.  But we see the same phenomenon on the religion thread.  Once some folks have stuff in their heads, no matter how indefensible, you couldn't dislodge it with a nuclear blast.


----------



## thanatos144

Foxfyre said:


> Does anybody have some bug spray to deal with annoying little gnats?
> 
> One does have to wonder why some feel so threatened by the honest history of past events.  But we see the same phenomenon on the religion thread.  Once some folks have stuff in their heads, no matter how indefensible, you couldn't dislodge it with a nuclear blast.



I am not threatened by honest history. I am pissed that you keep lying about  history.


----------



## Moonglow

Friends said:


> Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.
> 
> The South has always been the problem child of the United States. I think what remained of the United States would have been better off without the South. If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better.
> 
> In the South slavery impeded the development of industry, and of labor saving agricultural machinery. The vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North.
> 
> Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did.
> 
> An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.



They probably could have, but the south fired the first shots and the rest is history.


----------



## thanatos144

Moonglow said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.
> 
> The South has always been the problem child of the United States. I think what remained of the United States would have been better off without the South. If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better.
> 
> In the South slavery impeded the development of industry, and of labor saving agricultural machinery. The vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North.
> 
> Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did.
> 
> An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They probably could have, but the south fired the first shots and the rest is history.
Click to expand...

They will say that the union invaded them LOL The slowest invasion ever! Since the union had that base long before the CSA ever existed.


----------



## Foxfyre

Moonglow said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.
> 
> The South has always been the problem child of the United States. I think what remained of the United States would have been better off without the South. If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better.
> 
> In the South slavery impeded the development of industry, and of labor saving agricultural machinery. The vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North.
> 
> Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did.
> 
> An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They probably could have, but the south fired the first shots and the rest is history.
Click to expand...


Did they?  If say Canada or Mexico blockaded one of our harbors, would THAT have been firing the first shot?  Or would the first shots have been our defending ourselves against what we would clearly see as an act of war?  However there are historians who believe there was no actual blockade but that the Confederates knew one was in the planning and they took the first move.  In which case the sympathy for that could shift to the North.   And in the interest of intellectual honesty, a few months earlier, some Confederate rebels took some unauthorized shots at a Union ship that was coming into the harbor to supply Fort Sumter.  There is plenty of blame to go around, but in my opinion, it was a war that did not have to happen.


----------



## thanatos144

Foxfyre said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.
> 
> The South has always been the problem child of the United States. I think what remained of the United States would have been better off without the South. If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better.
> 
> In the South slavery impeded the development of industry, and of labor saving agricultural machinery. The vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North.
> 
> Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did.
> 
> An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They probably could have, but the south fired the first shots and the rest is history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they?  If say Canada or Mexico blockaded one of our harbors, would THAT have been firing the first shot?  Or would the first shots have been our defending ourselves against what we would clearly see as an act of war?
Click to expand...


Did the Union fire the fist shots??????? Lets see how honest you are


----------



## Moonglow

gipper said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see the Lincoln Myth persists and the hatred of the southern man does too.  Is it any wonder America continues to allow flawed leaders to prosecute wars over and over again...
> 
> If Lincoln were the great statesmen some still believe he was, why did he not avert a war that destroyed half the nation causing terrible death and suffering?  War is ALWAYS a failure of leadership.  Lincoln failed spectacularly, by any reasonable analysis.  He made it clear to the Southern states, in his inaugural speech, that the Federal government would war on them if they did not abide by federal laws.  Then purposely set up events at Ft Sumter to get it all started...Not much statesmanship here.
> 
> War is ALWAYS the health of the STATE.  It is a tactic used by all tyrants to expand the power of the central state, at the expense of everyone else.  One would think Americans would understand this, after all the disastrous wars it has allowed corrupt leaders to prosecute.
> 
> As President Buchanan supposedly famously stated...."there is a disease in the public mind"...as he left the looming disaster for his successor.  Once the public has a diseased mind, corrupt leaders can easily influence it leading to war.  The Civil War was the consequence of diseased minds, both in the North and South.
> 
> Thomas Fleming's book, A Disease in the Public Mind, clearly lays this out.  That disease allows corrupt leaders to use it for their nefarious intentions...and Lincoln was no different.
> 
> Our Founders were brilliant and enlightened men.  But, they made two huge mistakes.  They allowed slavery to continue and believed a piece of paper would prevent evil men from doing evil things.
> 
> 
> 
> So you think Lincoln should have just bent over and taken it up the ass for a slave nation? Sorry but real American presidents dont bow to evil empires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comprehension skills are weak.
> 
> A great leader or statesman does not resort to war and the American people should avoid war at all costs, thus preventing evil men from manipulating it into war.  A great leader finds a solution short of war...thus averting a catastrophe.  There is no greater catastrophe in American history than the Civil War.  And Lincoln holds much of the responsibility for it.
Click to expand...


Lincoln had a plan to pay southern slave holders for their slaves to be freed, but the south started the war and the rest is history.


----------



## Moonglow

Foxfyre said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.
> 
> The South has always been the problem child of the United States. I think what remained of the United States would have been better off without the South. If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better.
> 
> In the South slavery impeded the development of industry, and of labor saving agricultural machinery. The vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North.
> 
> Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did.
> 
> An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They probably could have, but the south fired the first shots and the rest is history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they?  If say Canada or Mexico blockaded one of our harbors, would THAT have been firing the first shot?  Or would the first shots have been our defending ourselves against what we would clearly see as an act of war?
Click to expand...


What act of war? the south fired and took Ft. Sumter, that was the beginning of the war. the south was not about to live under Lincoln no matter what it took to break away from the union and keep the institution of slavery alive.


----------



## Foxfyre

thanatos144 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anybody have some bug spray to deal with annoying little gnats?
> 
> One does have to wonder why some feel so threatened by the honest history of past events.  But we see the same phenomenon on the religion thread.  Once some folks have stuff in their heads, no matter how indefensible, you couldn't dislodge it with a nuclear blast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not threatened by honest history. I am pissed that you keep lying about  history.
Click to expand...


Well by all means post your history that rebuts mine.   If I'm wrong I'm happy to admit it.  But I won't rewrite history to fit the politically correct notions that some insist that we adopt.


----------



## thanatos144

Foxfyre said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anybody have some bug spray to deal with annoying little gnats?
> 
> One does have to wonder why some feel so threatened by the honest history of past events.  But we see the same phenomenon on the religion thread.  Once some folks have stuff in their heads, no matter how indefensible, you couldn't dislodge it with a nuclear blast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not threatened by honest history. I am pissed that you keep lying about  history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well by all means post your history that rebuts mine.   If I'm wrong I'm happy to admit it.  But I won't rewrite history to fit the politically correct notions that some insist that we adopt.
Click to expand...

 I have consistently done so.


----------



## Foxfyre

Moonglow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> They probably could have, but the south fired the first shots and the rest is history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did they?  If say Canada or Mexico blockaded one of our harbors, would THAT have been firing the first shot?  Or would the first shots have been our defending ourselves against what we would clearly see as an act of war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What act of war? the south fired and took Ft. Sumter, that was the beginning of the war. the south was not about to live under Lincoln no matter what it took to break away from the union and keep the institution of slavery alive.
Click to expand...


South Carolina had already seceded and the Confederacy already controlled all other military installations in the seceded territories.  Fort Sumter was the last Union garrison standing and the Confederates were aware that Lincoln was intending to reinforce it with more men and more supplies.  That could not be interpreted as anything other than the North intended to retain control over Charleston Harbor.  So whether the North actually blockaded Charleston Harbor to cut off Southern suppliers or that was its ultimate goal, the South did take matters into their own hands.


----------



## oldfart

gipper said:


> I see the Lincoln Myth persists and the hatred of the southern man does too.  Is it any wonder America continues to allow flawed leaders to prosecute wars over and over again...



Yawn.  Normally I consider intellectual combat with so obviously unarmed an opponent as unsporting, but you are obnoxious and uneducated enough to make an exception.  I have no doubt you learn absolutely nothing from this discussion, but some others are not so limited in cognitive capacity.  



gipper said:


> If Lincoln were the great statesman some still believe he was, why did he not avert a war that destroyed half the nation causing terrible death and suffering?  War is ALWAYS a failure of leadership.  Lincoln failed spectacularly, by any reasonable analysis.  He made it clear to the Southern states, in his inaugural speech, that the Federal government would war on them if they did not abide by federal laws.  Then purposely set up events at Ft Sumter to get it all started...Not much statesmanship here.



You clearly are delusional.  This analysis of yours makes every war leader a failure.  Run that one by your military friends (assuming you have any) that all wars a failures.  

As to the First Inaugural Address, it is obvious you have never read it.  Unless of course you simply read it but lacked the mental capacity to understand it.  Which on second thought is probable.  



gipper said:


> War is ALWAYS the health of the STATE.  It is a tactic used by all tyrants to expand the power of the central state, at the expense of everyone else.  One would think Americans would understand this, after all the disastrous wars it has allowed corrupt leaders to prosecute.



Yawn.  Anything else you want to pontificate?  



gipper said:


> As President Buchanan supposedly famously stated...."there is a disease in the public mind"...as he left the looming disaster for his successor.  Once the public has a diseased mind, corrupt leaders can easily influence it leading to war.  The Civil War was the consequence of diseased minds, both in the North and South.



Of course that famous expert on the how to avoid war through surrender, President Buchanan, probably the worst president in American history; always listed in the bottom five for his sterling performance in leading up to the Civil War.  Neville Chamberlain admired him for his capacity for appeasement.  



gipper said:


> Thomas Fleming's book, A Disease in the Public Mind, clearly lays this out.  That disease allows corrupt leaders to use it for their nefarious intentions...and Lincoln was no different.



Fleming is a well regarded historian who has clearly lost it in this book.  It's sad that a man known for such good work previously produced a book rife with factual errors (like confusing the Constitution with the Articles of Confederation) and based on an absurd premise that the Civil War only occurred because abolitionists didn't talk nicely enough to slaveholders.  Aw, gee!  But I can see why a guy like you who admires and looks up to Neville Chamberlain and James Buchanan would be attracted to the idea that total surrender is the way to avoid conflict.  You don't happen to work as a flak for the House Republicans, do you?  



gipper said:


> Our Founders were brilliant and enlightened men.  But, they made two huge mistakes.  They allowed slavery to continue and believed a piece of paper would prevent evil men from doing evil things.



I prefer to think they simply kicked the can down the road.  A number of them expressed the opinion that the Constitution would need to be rewritten for each succeeding generation.  I hesitate to blame them for having too much faith in posterity. Let those whose own work will last unmodified for centuries pass that judgment.  

OK, I've had my fun.  I wish you well.  You have the makings of doing good history.  What would move you there in this topic is to read the literature.  Nearly all of Lincoln's papers are easily available on line in Roy Basler's definitive collection Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln

Start with the Second Inaugural Address and the Coopers Union speech.  

The best work on the subject would be Russell McClintock's "Lincoln and the Decision for War" (2008).  I'd also recommend  "Lincoln at Cooper Union: The Speech That Made Abraham Lincoln President" by Harold Holzer (2006).  

The best work on Lincoln historiography is still David Donald's "Lincoln Reconsidered" (1947 & subsequent).
Happy hunting.


----------



## gipper

oldfart said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see the Lincoln Myth persists and the hatred of the southern man does too.  Is it any wonder America continues to allow flawed leaders to prosecute wars over and over again...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.  Normally I consider intellectual combat with so obviously unarmed an opponent as unsporting, but you are obnoxious and uneducated enough to make an exception.  I have no doubt you learn absolutely nothing from this discussion, but some others are not so limited in cognitive capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Lincoln were the great statesman some still believe he was, why did he not avert a war that destroyed half the nation causing terrible death and suffering?  War is ALWAYS a failure of leadership.  Lincoln failed spectacularly, by any reasonable analysis.  He made it clear to the Southern states, in his inaugural speech, that the Federal government would war on them if they did not abide by federal laws.  Then purposely set up events at Ft Sumter to get it all started...Not much statesmanship here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly are delusional.  This analysis of yours makes every war leader a failure.  Run that one by your military friends (assuming you have any) that all wars a failures.
> 
> As to the First Inaugural Address, it is obvious you have never read it.  Unless of course you simply read it but lacked the mental capacity to understand it.  Which on second thought is probable.
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.  Anything else you want to pontificate?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that famous expert on the how to avoid war through surrender, President Buchanan, probably the worst president in American history; always listed in the bottom five for his sterling performance in leading up to the Civil War.  Neville Chamberlain admired him for his capacity for appeasement.
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Fleming's book, A Disease in the Public Mind, clearly lays this out.  That disease allows corrupt leaders to use it for their nefarious intentions...and Lincoln was no different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fleming is a well regarded historian who has clearly lost it in this book.  It's sad that a man known for such good work previously produced a book rife with factual errors (like confusing the Constitution with the Articles of Confederation) and based on an absurd premise that the Civil War only occurred because abolitionists didn't talk nicely enough to slaveholders.  Aw, gee!  But I can see why a guy like you who admires and looks up to Neville Chamberlain and James Buchanan would be attracted to the idea that total surrender is the way to avoid conflict.  You don't happen to work as a flak for the House Republicans, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Founders were brilliant and enlightened men.  But, they made two huge mistakes.  They allowed slavery to continue and believed a piece of paper would prevent evil men from doing evil things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I prefer to think they simply kicked the can down the road.  A number of them expressed the opinion that the Constitution would need to be rewritten for each succeeding generation.  I hesitate to blame them for having too much faith in posterity. Let those whose own work will last unmodified for centuries pass that judgment.
> 
> OK, I've had my fun.  I wish you well.  You have the makings of doing good history.  What would move you there in this topic is to read the literature.  Nearly all of Lincoln's papers
> are easily available on line in Roy Basler's definitive collection Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln
> 
> Start with the Second Inaugural Address and the Coopers Union speech.
> 
> The best work on the subject would be Russell McClintock's "Lincoln and the Decision for War" (2008).  I'd also recommend  "Lincoln at Cooper Union: The Speech That Made Abraham Lincoln President by Harold Holzer (2006).
> 
> The best work on Lincoln historiography is still David Donald's "Lincoln Reconsidered" (1947 & subsequent).
> Happy hunting.
Click to expand...


You claim to know history, yet nearly everything you post about it is wrong.  

All one needs to do is research ALL of America's major wars and one will find a lack of leadership and/or outright deceit in all of them, which allowed the elites to push America to war.  The Civil War was no different.  

But you have failed to learn from history, so you will no doubt make the same mistakes repeatedly expecting a different result.  What is the medical term for this mental condition?


----------



## Moonglow

Hoffstra said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is important to remember that the Civil War was not fought to end slavery.  It was fought to prevent the South from seceding from the Union.  So let's keep slavery in its proper context in the discussion....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The South seceded because they were afraid the USA would eventually make slavery illegal.
> 
> And they didn't want their "property" taken away from them.
Click to expand...


Not true, laws were passed and bonds were sold to allow Lincoln to buy the slaves their freedom.


----------



## Foxfyre

thanatos144 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not threatened by honest history. I am pissed that you keep lying about  history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well by all means post your history that rebuts mine.   If I'm wrong I'm happy to admit it.  But I won't rewrite history to fit the politically correct notions that some insist that we adopt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have consistently done so.
Click to expand...


All I have seen you do is spout a bunch of prejudicial and/or insulting one liners while making little or no effort to contribute to the discussion.  But if you have posted any rebuttal to my understanding of history that I have posted, I'm sure you can give me a link to it.  Otherwise, do have a nice day.

P.S.  Calling me a liar is NOT rebuttal.


----------



## RKMBrown

Friends said:


> Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.
> 
> The South has always been the problem child of the United States. I think what remained of the United States would have been better off without the South. If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better.
> 
> In the South slavery impeded the development of industry, and of labor saving agricultural machinery. The vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North.
> 
> Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did.
> 
> An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.



Wow, talk about blatant racism.

The south would have freed the slaves along the same time frame as was happening anyway.  Yes there would have been two America's North and South.  We likely would have remained trading partners, and fought side by side in WWI & II.  The absence of a murderous civil war and additional competition would have advanced the economy of both America's at a much faster pace.  The split up of the north and south would have meant that instead of there being one super power today, there we would be two allied super powers, separate but somewhat equal in strength.

IMO we and the entire world would be much better off today had the North not attacked the South and then used European conscripts to murder a large % of the population of America.


----------



## Toro

Foxfyre said:


> P.S.  Calling me a liar is NOT rebuttal.



You'll have to inform half the board membership of that.


----------



## Foxfyre

Toro said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> P.S.  Calling me a liar is NOT rebuttal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to inform half the board membership of that.
Click to expand...


LOL.  Probably so.  But I guess it's something to type if you don't know anything.  

I would like to say that even though we have disagreed here and there, I have appreciated YOUR contributions to the thread as well as those of some others.  It really is a fascinating concept to think about.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.
> 
> The South has always been the problem child of the United States. I think what remained of the United States would have been better off without the South. If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better.
> 
> In the South slavery impeded the development of industry, and of labor saving agricultural machinery. The vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North.
> 
> Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did.
> 
> An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They probably could have, but the south fired the first shots and the rest is history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they?  If say Canada or Mexico blockaded one of our harbors, would THAT have been firing the first shot?  Or would the first shots have been our defending ourselves against what we would clearly see as an act of war?  However there are historians who believe there was no actual blockade but that the Confederates knew one was in the planning and they took the first move.  In which case the sympathy for that could shift to the North.   And in the interest of intellectual honesty, a few months earlier, some Confederate rebels took some unauthorized shots at a Union ship that was coming into the harbor to supply Fort Sumter.  There is plenty of blame to go around, but in my opinion, it was a war that did not have to happen.
Click to expand...


First shots?  Who cares who fired the first shots?  The important thing was that no one was shot.  It was more an angry disagreement with some folks firing in the air than a battle, I don't believe a single person was injured and they should not have been there in the first place.  The northern occupiers were not wanted on confederate soil, and were somewhat peacefully evicted.  They were asked to leave nicely and refused.  So there was a minor disagreement and the northern forces then left of their own free will.

However, what Lincoln did in response.. yeah that was declaring war.  The jerk sent an Army of 70k men down onto confederate soil to take back the southern territory no matter what the cost.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> P.S.  Calling me a liar is NOT rebuttal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to inform half the board membership of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  Probably so.  But I guess it's something to type if you don't know anything.
> 
> I would like to say that even though we have disagreed here and there, I have appreciated YOUR contributions to the thread as well as those of some others.  It really is a fascinating concept to think about.
Click to expand...


When people call you a liar it's usually because everything you said from beginning to end was a complete lie.  Tearing your lies down piece by piece is believed to be a waste of time as you won't listen or care that your beliefs are mostly based on lies. Well that is how you should read the accusation, but then I'm just assuming you were not lying about your statement that you think if they call you a liar it's because they don't know anything.  More likely likely they know a lot more than you.  Just sayin, the odds are good you are wrong.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> They probably could have, but the south fired the first shots and the rest is history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did they?  If say Canada or Mexico blockaded one of our harbors, would THAT have been firing the first shot?  Or would the first shots have been our defending ourselves against what we would clearly see as an act of war?  However there are historians who believe there was no actual blockade but that the Confederates knew one was in the planning and they took the first move.  In which case the sympathy for that could shift to the North.   And in the interest of intellectual honesty, a few months earlier, some Confederate rebels took some unauthorized shots at a Union ship that was coming into the harbor to supply Fort Sumter.  There is plenty of blame to go around, but in my opinion, it was a war that did not have to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First shots?  Who cares who fired the first shots?  The important thing was that no one was shot.  It was more an angry disagreement with some folks firing in the air than a battle, I don't believe a single person was injured and they should not have been there in the first place.  The northern occupiers were not wanted on confederate soil, and were somewhat peacefully evicted.  They were asked to leave nicely and refused.  So there was a minor disagreement and the northern forces then left of their own free will.
> 
> However, what Lincoln did in response.. yeah that was declaring war.  The jerk sent an Army of 70k men down onto confederate soil to take back the southern territory no matter what the cost.
Click to expand...


While I won't sugar coat the Lincoln of our childhood history books, I won't call him a jerk either.  If you are President of the United States and a number of our states decide to split off from the union, along with a lot of stuff that ALL the people have paid for, what do you do?

Did he handle it in the most productive way?  In the 20-20 prism of hind sight, no he didn't.  But at the time did he do the best he could as he saw it?  I believe he did.

You can equate the same kind of thing, with far lesser consequences of course, of the current stalemate in Washington.  Did the Republicans have their priorities straight?  Yes, I believe they did.  Did they handle the situation in the most productive way possible?  No way.  They blew it.

But blowing something does not necessarily make somebody evil or even a jerk.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.
> 
> The South has always been the problem child of the United States. I think what remained of the United States would have been better off without the South. If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better.
> 
> In the South slavery impeded the development of industry, and of labor saving agricultural machinery. The vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North.
> 
> Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did.
> 
> An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They probably could have, but the south fired the first shots and the rest is history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they?  If say Canada or Mexico blockaded one of our harbors, would THAT have been firing the first shot?  Or would the first shots have been our defending ourselves against what we would clearly see as an act of war?  However there are historians who believe there was no actual blockade but that the Confederates knew one was in the planning and they took the first move.  In which case the sympathy for that could shift to the North.   And in the interest of intellectual honesty, a few months earlier, some Confederate rebels took some unauthorized shots at a Union ship that was coming into the harbor to supply Fort Sumter.  There is plenty of blame to go around, but in my opinion, it was a war that did not have to happen.
Click to expand...


The north should have abandoned the fort, it wasn't on their land and the south had paid taxes for it at any rate.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> They probably could have, but the south fired the first shots and the rest is history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did they?  If say Canada or Mexico blockaded one of our harbors, would THAT have been firing the first shot?  Or would the first shots have been our defending ourselves against what we would clearly see as an act of war?  However there are historians who believe there was no actual blockade but that the Confederates knew one was in the planning and they took the first move.  In which case the sympathy for that could shift to the North.   And in the interest of intellectual honesty, a few months earlier, some Confederate rebels took some unauthorized shots at a Union ship that was coming into the harbor to supply Fort Sumter.  There is plenty of blame to go around, but in my opinion, it was a war that did not have to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The north should have abandoned the fort and sent the south a bill for it.  It wasn't on their land and the south had paid taxes for it at any rate.
Click to expand...


In hindsight yes, that would have been a far less provocative way to have handled it.  But that is hind sight that makes 20 20 vision a lot easier.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did they?  If say Canada or Mexico blockaded one of our harbors, would THAT have been firing the first shot?  Or would the first shots have been our defending ourselves against what we would clearly see as an act of war?  However there are historians who believe there was no actual blockade but that the Confederates knew one was in the planning and they took the first move.  In which case the sympathy for that could shift to the North.   And in the interest of intellectual honesty, a few months earlier, some Confederate rebels took some unauthorized shots at a Union ship that was coming into the harbor to supply Fort Sumter.  There is plenty of blame to go around, but in my opinion, it was a war that did not have to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First shots?  Who cares who fired the first shots?  The important thing was that no one was shot.  It was more an angry disagreement with some folks firing in the air than a battle, I don't believe a single person was injured and they should not have been there in the first place.  The northern occupiers were not wanted on confederate soil, and were somewhat peacefully evicted.  They were asked to leave nicely and refused.  So there was a minor disagreement and the northern forces then left of their own free will.
> 
> However, what Lincoln did in response.. yeah that was declaring war.  The jerk sent an Army of 70k men down onto confederate soil to take back the southern territory no matter what the cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I won't sugar coat the Lincoln of our childhood history books, I won't call him a jerk either.  If you are President of the United States and a number of our states decide to split off from the union, along with a lot of stuff that ALL the people have paid for, what do you do?
> 
> Did he handle it in the most productive way?  In the 20-20 prism of hind sight, no he didn't.  But at the time did he do the best he could as he saw it?  I believe he did.
> 
> You can equate the same kind of thing, with far lesser consequences of course, of the current stalemate in Washington.  Did the Republicans have their priorities straight?  Yes, I believe they did.  Did they handle the situation in the most productive way possible?  No way.  They blew it.
> 
> But blowing something does not necessarily make somebody evil or even a jerk.
Click to expand...


Uhmmm he started a war that killed over 750k Americans, and he did it using over 500k European conscripts.  Calling him a jerk was me being nice.  Mass murderer is more apt.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did they?  If say Canada or Mexico blockaded one of our harbors, would THAT have been firing the first shot?  Or would the first shots have been our defending ourselves against what we would clearly see as an act of war?  However there are historians who believe there was no actual blockade but that the Confederates knew one was in the planning and they took the first move.  In which case the sympathy for that could shift to the North.   And in the interest of intellectual honesty, a few months earlier, some Confederate rebels took some unauthorized shots at a Union ship that was coming into the harbor to supply Fort Sumter.  There is plenty of blame to go around, but in my opinion, it was a war that did not have to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The north should have abandoned the fort and sent the south a bill for it.  It wasn't on their land and the south had paid taxes for it at any rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In hindsight yes, that would have been a far less provocative way to have handled it.  But that is hind sight that makes 20 20 vision a lot easier.
Click to expand...


It does not take hindsight to know that sending an Army of 75k men to take a Fort on someone else's land is going to start a War.


----------



## Foxfyre

Okay RKM.  Let's just paint it in stark black and white - all evil or all virtue - instead of the varied shades of gray with a variety of understandable motives in the mix.  How is that any different than the nonsense Thanatos has been spouting?


----------



## hangover

> What if the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully?



Well 750,000 wouldn't have died for one thing. Imagine how many more people would have been born. About 8 generations x three kids x 750,000. eh, only 18 million more unemployed.

But the Civil war really wasn't about ending slavery, it was about the republicans trying to protect the profits of the corporations in the north. Lincoln wanted to deport the blacks to Panama after the war. Lincoln was a bigot, as are most other republicans today.

Abraham Lincoln 'wanted to deport slaves' to new colonies - Telegraph

Abraham Lincoln Quote

&#8220;I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races &#8211; that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.&#8221;
Racist Quote by Abe Lincoln (Happy Black History Month!) | darwinian remiix


----------



## bendog

I disagree that Lincoln failed spectacularly.  I did not post on the OP, and began posting when the issue of morality arose.  I posted on the social realities of majority of people living in the South, and their reactions to events that impacted them, and the reasonableness of their reactions.  

The OP was "what if the North just let us go."  The North couldn't; Buchanan foretold that.  There were legal arguments pro and con, but there was a practical reality.  Basically, Buchanan warned that once the political/economic interest of a minority justified the minority leaving the union, there was nothing to prevent it happening again, so there would be no union.   But once slavery was bottled up in the old South, and the South lacked the equal political power in the Senate, the attempt to succeed was inevitable.  Society simply ran out of compromises on that issue.

Lincoln responded to events.  First whether congress could regulate slavery in the territories.  Then to succession.  Then to total war (the social and economic destruction of a foe) and the emancipation proclamation.  But, it seems to me, that saying he failed is akin to saying either of the world wars was avoidable.  I like Alan Furst&#8217;s spy novels, which explore the beginning of WWII.  Nobel protagonists trying in the face of what inevitably will be Chamberlin&#8217;s appeasement, and the loss of the only chance .... which of course is to say there was no chance.  Chamberlin did what his electorate wanted.  If he didn&#8217;t, somebody else would have.

And yes, the South mounted expeditions to cuba, nicaragua and mexico ... and all failed.  They sure weren&#8217;t gonna grow rice or cotton in west Texas or the Southwest.  While even today, African Americans are concentrated in the South, the first migration was from 1910-30.  In the Great Flood of 1927, Mississippi planters effectively jailed black labor on islands, so they couldn&#8217;t escape to Chicago.  The second migration was from 1940-70, and it was larger.  The South no longer needed the cheap agricultural labor.  

I don&#8217;t know if slavery would have existed in the South until 1940 or so.  As I said, imo, the war was inevitable.  And, it was inevitable the North would win.  It shouldn&#8217;t have taken five Aprils.  But a byproduct was the South was a defeated nation in the classic sense, and have no doubt Sherman  used the threat of rape, if not the act itself, as he marched through the South in total war.  There wasn&#8217;t much interest in industrializing the South, and the capital left with the emancipation and reconstruction.  So the question of whether it would have lasted seems to me to be irrelevant.  But the war&#8217;s effect was to leave the South&#8217;s economy dependent upon cheap agricultural labor, and the laborers&#8217; lots weren&#8217;t greatly improved.

Of course slavery is evil.  But not all slaveholders treated slaves inhumanely, especially in light to the mores of the day.  Abraham is revered as a kind man ... yet, there was that thing with Hager.  Did Sally Hemmings have any choice to refuse Jefferson&#8217;s advances?  People live within the society they have within the legal mores.  I'm sure some of the clothes I'm wearing were made by indentured child labor.  

These men were most likely all sociopaths.

American slave owners

A subsistence farmer with a slave laborer who eats what the farmer eats was a man living in a society.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> Okay RKM.  Let's just paint it in stark black and white - all evil or all virtue - instead of the varied shades of gray with a variety of understandable motives in the mix.  How is that any different than the nonsense Thanatos has been spouting?



What did I say that was nonsense? I don't see a reason to hide behind some imagination of romantic history writers that the killing of 750k people was for a good cause.  One could find some good out of all the mass killings in history if you squint hard enough.  But the truth is, yeah I hate it when people say that too, that our Civil War was an unnecessary blood war started by Lincoln that pitted brother against brother and was settled by starving European conscripts. 

To compare, Thantos said "Why dont you Neo confederates with your revised history go back to the democrat party? I am proud us Republicans saved the country and FREED the slaves."  

So how is it different?  Thantos is proud of the killings and I rebuke them.

If you don't see the difference between waiving the flag proudly over the dead bodies of of many hundreds of thousands of people and rebuking the mass killings, then I really don't know how to help you find it.


----------



## Political Junky

Mr Clean said:


> It would be one more in a long list of countries we send foreign aid to.


True, they already take more federal money than they contribute in taxes.


----------



## thanatos144

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay RKM.  Let's just paint it in stark black and white - all evil or all virtue - instead of the varied shades of gray with a variety of understandable motives in the mix.  How is that any different than the nonsense Thanatos has been spouting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did I say that was nonsense? I don't see a reason to hide behind some imagination of romantic history writers that the killing of 750k people was for a good cause.  One could find some good out of all the mass killings in history if you squint hard enough.  But the truth is, yeah I hate it when people say that too, that our Civil War was an unnecessary blood war started by Lincoln that pitted brother against brother and was settled by starving European conscripts.
> 
> To compare, Thantos said "Why dont you Neo confederates with your revised history go back to the democrat party? I am proud us Republicans saved the country and FREED the slaves."
> 
> So how is it different?  Thantos is proud of the killings and I rebuke them.
> 
> If you don't see the difference between waiving the flag proudly over the dead bodies of of many hundreds of thousands of people and rebuking the mass killings, then I really don't know how to help you find it.
Click to expand...

Proud of the killings? Suck my dick! Republicans didnt start the fucking war ! They just won it.


----------



## RKMBrown

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay RKM.  Let's just paint it in stark black and white - all evil or all virtue - instead of the varied shades of gray with a variety of understandable motives in the mix.  How is that any different than the nonsense Thanatos has been spouting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did I say that was nonsense? I don't see a reason to hide behind some imagination of romantic history writers that the killing of 750k people was for a good cause.  One could find some good out of all the mass killings in history if you squint hard enough.  But the truth is, yeah I hate it when people say that too, that our Civil War was an unnecessary blood war started by Lincoln that pitted brother against brother and was settled by starving European conscripts.
> 
> To compare, Thantos said "Why dont you Neo confederates with your revised history go back to the democrat party? I am proud us Republicans saved the country and FREED the slaves."
> 
> So how is it different?  Thantos is proud of the killings and I rebuke them.
> 
> If you don't see the difference between waiving the flag proudly over the dead bodies of of many hundreds of thousands of people and rebuking the mass killings, then I really don't know how to help you find it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proud of the killings? Suck my dick! Republicans didnt start the fucking war ! They just won it.
Click to expand...


Won it with European conscripts, are Europeans republicans now? If you are not proud of the killings why did you say you were "proud" and then continue on with your bragging?


----------



## thanatos144

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did I say that was nonsense? I don't see a reason to hide behind some imagination of romantic history writers that the killing of 750k people was for a good cause.  One could find some good out of all the mass killings in history if you squint hard enough.  But the truth is, yeah I hate it when people say that too, that our Civil War was an unnecessary blood war started by Lincoln that pitted brother against brother and was settled by starving European conscripts.
> 
> To compare, Thantos said "Why dont you Neo confederates with your revised history go back to the democrat party? I am proud us Republicans saved the country and FREED the slaves."
> 
> So how is it different?  Thantos is proud of the killings and I rebuke them.
> 
> If you don't see the difference between waiving the flag proudly over the dead bodies of of many hundreds of thousands of people and rebuking the mass killings, then I really don't know how to help you find it.
> 
> 
> 
> Proud of the killings? Suck my dick! Republicans didnt start the fucking war ! They just won it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Won it with European conscripts, are Europeans republicans now? If you are not proud of the killings why did you say you were "proud" and then continue on with your bragging?
Click to expand...


Go cry me a river you cock sucker. You will now be on ignore because I refuse to debate a ignorant fuck who accuses me of being proud people died. Go to hell and burn asshole.


----------



## RKMBrown

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proud of the killings? Suck my dick! Republicans didnt start the fucking war ! They just won it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Won it with European conscripts, are Europeans republicans now? If you are not proud of the killings why did you say you were "proud" and then continue on with your bragging?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go cry me a river you cock sucker. You will now be on ignore because I refuse to debate a ignorant fuck who accuses me of being proud people died. Go to hell and burn asshole.
Click to expand...


You said you were "proud" I quoted it.  Hundreds of thousands of people were killed.  Apparently you think they all deserved to die for the cause.  Otherwise why would you be proud of one of the results.  Means justify the ends.   You said it.  Not me.


----------



## oldfart

First, it's great to have someone who is familiar with the history and the historiography as obviously are participate.  



bendog said:


> I disagree that Lincoln failed spectacularly.  I did not post on the OP, and began posting when the issue of morality arose.  I posted on the social realities of majority of people living in the South, and their reactions to events that impacted them, and the reasonableness of their reactions.
> 
> The OP was "what if the North just let us go."  The North couldn't; Buchanan foretold that.  There were legal arguments pro and con, but there was a practical reality.  Basically, Buchanan warned that once the political/economic interest of a minority justified the minority leaving the union, there was nothing to prevent it happening again, so there would be no union.   But once slavery was bottled up in the old South, and the South lacked the equal political power in the Senate, the attempt to succeed was inevitable.  Society simply ran out of compromises on that issue.



The rules for a counterfactual history are to take what actually happened, change something, and then see what logically entails.  This is not entirely an exercise in fiction because it reveals motives and alternatives available to the historical participants and breaks down the "inevitability" arguments.  I do not view the Civil War as inevitable, but I do not see how it could have been avoided without massive disruption.  So I argued that the only was to approach the OP would be to posit a condition where the call for volunteers was never made.  The most likely such condition IMHO would be the Buchanan administration turning over all property to states as they succeeded.  Perhaps the North could not have "just let them go", but all federal property were in the hands of the states when Lincoln was inaugurated, the Sumter sequence would not have happened and Lincoln's political problem would have been daunting.  

I found your comments on Buchanan intriguing and ask if you have a good source for the subject.  I am particularly interested in two issues; to compare those comments to Lincoln's analysis of the drawbacks of succession in the First Inaugural (enforcement of fugitive slave laws, etc), and to see how much Lincoln new about what was going on in the Buchanan administration (he was receiving reports of private conversations in the Buchanan cabinet at the time).  



bendog said:


> Lincoln responded to events.  First whether congress could regulate slavery in the territories.  Then to succession.  Then to total war (the social and economic destruction of a foe) and the emancipation proclamation.  But, it seems to me, that saying he failed is akin to saying either of the world wars was avoidable.



Lincoln's mental processes included an extremely rare combination of two attributes; he was habitually prone to allow the facts to develop and the situation to ripen before taking action, and he was stunning rapid in processing the changing information, re-examining his basic analytical framework, and coming up with a new approach.  He went from the First Inaugural to holding the border states to compensated emancipation in the border states to drafting the Emancipation Proclamation in a little more than fifteen months.  I can think of no similarly rapid evolution of thought on so complex a set of issues.  He transitioned from being all-in to avoid a war to all-in to win a war faster than any contemporary.  



bendog said:


> And yes, the South mounted expeditions to cuba, nicaragua and mexico ... and all failed.  They sure werent gonna grow rice or cotton in west Texas or the Southwest.  While even today, African Americans are concentrated in the South, the first migration was from 1910-30.  In the Great Flood of 1927, Mississippi planters effectively jailed black labor on islands, so they couldnt escape to Chicago.  The second migration was from 1940-70, and it was larger.  The South no longer needed the cheap agricultural labor.



Filibusters and floods, oh my!  Did you take (or teach) a course in either Southern history or black history?  Mention of black migration patterns and the '27 Flood are a giveaway.  



bendog said:


> I dont know if slavery would have existed in the South until 1940 or so.  As I said, imo, the war was inevitable.  And, it was inevitable the North would win.  It shouldnt have taken five Aprils.  But a byproduct was the South was a defeated nation in the classic sense, and have no doubt Sherman  used the threat of rape, if not the act itself, as he marched through the South in total war.  There wasnt much interest in industrializing the South, and the capital left with the emancipation and reconstruction.  So the question of whether it would have lasted seems to me to be irrelevant.  But the wars effect was to leave the Souths economy dependent upon cheap agricultural labor, and the laborers lots werent greatly improved.



I think the experience of South Africa and Rhodesia demonstrates that a system very close to slavery could persist into the late twentieth century.  Social stability would have required "black codes" even if the economic basis for slavery were ended.  



bendog said:


> Of course slavery is evil.  But not all slaveholders treated slaves inhumanely, especially in light to the mores of the day.  Abraham is revered as a kind man ... yet, there was that thing with Hager.  Did Sally Hemmings have any choice to refuse Jeffersons advances?  People live within the society they have within the legal mores.  I'm sure some of the clothes I'm wearing were made by indentured child labor.
> 
> These men were most likely all sociopaths.
> 
> American slave owners
> 
> A subsistence farmer with a slave laborer who eats what the farmer eats was a man living in a society.



Some very good points.  Philosophers still are at work on the question of what a good person should do in an evil institution or society.  The antebellum South makes an excellent case study; as does the South of 1920-1965.  Good topic for another day!


----------



## bendog

I didn&#8217;t mean any diss on historical hypotheticals.  Most of the stuff down here is like &#8220;The South was Right&#8221; or &#8220;What if the South Won.&#8221;  Well, slavery was wrong, and the South wasn&#8217;t gonna win.  On Buchanan and secession, this was from a state of the union address.  I admit I read something else, but can&#8217;t find it, and this is a primary source anyway..

In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.

State of the Union Address | Teaching American History

So, as I understand it, he felt secession illegal, but he also felt the federal govt lacked the power to militarily prevent it.  That may be evidence of why his dithering has him rated as one, if not the, worst ever.  But, I&#8217;m not competent to offer a historical opinion on this.  I&#8217;ll shoot LegalEagle a PM, and he may offer something.  (-:

As you suggested, from Lincoln&#8217;s First Inaugural:

 If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it&#8212;break it, so to speak&#8212;but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

Once Slavery was locked into a minority of States, and the South lost it&#8217;s political and economic power, it&#8217;s hard for me to see any other outcome.  Perhaps a more activist potus than Buchanan could have formed a compromise, but wouldn&#8217;t it have had to involve almost a nullification effect so the South could opt out of tariffs?

For the North, I dunno.  This isn&#8217;t something I&#8217;ve studied.  But, to let Texas go?  They fought a war over that.  And Lousiana?  They bought it.  Even today, the Mississippi River, and how its joined by others like the Ohio and Tennessee.  (They got a 3 billion dollar lock project (-

 In 1860, War actually became a goal of itself, at least to the South&#8217;s elite (slaveholders) no matter how clearly Lincoln said &#8220;keep your slaves.&#8221; 

So, to me it seems that the powers that were in both the North and South were only concerned with their own perceived interests, some being greed and even a perverse enjoyment of torture, and some being hubris and a religious mania.  The abolitionists ended slavery, but very few of them had any interest in educating the former slaves.  The South was in poverty.  And that has a very bad effect for society even today.  The elite always endures by pitting one set of have nots against another.  Mississippi&#8217;s a great place to watch that dance.  LOL.

But overall, yes on an alternative history.  Aside from the elitist planters and abolitionists, the War was certainly contrary to the interests of common farmers and laborers.  And, it&#8217;s absolutely fascinating to see how visiously the common men prosecuted it.  The war became very unpopular with citizens suffering at home on both sides.  But the Eastern Armies were amazing.  In 1862 and 63 the Confederates invaded the North partially to steal food!  The AOP turned on McClellan and saved Lincoln&#8217;s bacon in 1864 after losing every major battle except Antetim (draw) and Gettysburg.  They&#8217;d seen so much hell, they were gonna finish the thing by winning.  They voted their own death sentences.  The WWII troops in the Western Theatre came close to mutiny over being told they got to help invade Japan.  But, peace was in all the civil war combantants&#8217; interests, and there was close to universal literacy, so why was there such a war?  That&#8217;s a question I&#8217;ve never answered.

The Flood of 1927.  There is a really great book on that, Lanterns on the Levee by William Alexander Percy, who wanted to evacuate the blacks to safety only to be overruled by  the planters, including his father.  William Alexander Percy was a poet, and I believe gay.  He stopped writing poetry after that, and went to Japan.  He returned to take over the plantation, and adopted a deceased brother&#8217;s three children, one of whom was Walker Percy, author of the Moviegoer, sort of tale of an existentialist watching lives march by. 

As for apartheid, it was before I moved here, but I understand that into the 1970s some Mississippi cities had laws prohibiting African-Americans from being in town after dark.  But then, I&#8217;ve seen a dowager queen taken care of by black servants who treated her in a proprietary way.  I don&#8217;t pretend to understand it.

I&#8217;m no Lincoln scholar.


----------



## gipper

He then goes on to say the Union is perpetual and began before the Constitution and even before the American Revolution.  So since the Union is perpetual, how can the Union ever be broken?  What government in the history of the world is perpetual?

Lincoln's speeches were not unlike BO's. Full of distortions, misrepresentations and strawmen.  Most were very lengthy and nonsensical.

He also said...


> I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments.



So, no matter what ALL national governments do, they can never be dissolved...it must last forever.  I wonder what he would have thought of the Founding Fathers rebelling from Merry Old England.  

Two days before Lincoln's first inaugural the Morrill Tariff was signed by Buchanan.  Doubling taxes...and remember the federal government got all its revenue from tariffs, which hit the South much harder than the North...and ironically the Confederate States had already stated that their new nation would not impose tariffs of any kind...in effect creating a trade free zone....uh oh!!!...can't have that!!!

The CSA offered to pay for any federal property on southern soil and for their share of the national debt....but guess what?  Lincoln said, in the parlance of today, FUCK YOU!

He goes on in that First Inaugural to sing the praises of keeping slavery legal.  BUT...guess what???  When it comes to collecting TAXES...well you better pay up or else YOU DIE SUCKER!  This here is so nice...



> In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none *unless* it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.



So...lets see now...slavery is wonderful and you can keep it forever...but if you don't pay me all Hell is coming down on you.  Nice guy Olde Dishonest Abe...not unlike Obama...

...when will we ever learn?


----------



## thanatos144

The CSA was a scurge that started a war that it lost... It caused the deaths of many many many Americans for no other reason them petty greed and the evil of slavery.


----------



## bendog

Imo, the only chance for some political compromise really passed with Buchanan.  The South believed they'd never see a friendly potus and have senate majority again.  

I've really forgotten the connection between the emancipation proclamation and the peace Democrats.  Lincoln really issued two of them, but the second, after Antitem, was the one that set the peace democrats into violent copperheads, and the draft riots with lynching of african-americans.  I've looked online for information on the connection of the second proclamation, and Lincoln's embrace of total war, but haven't found anything.  

Oldfart is definity correct that Lincoln spun from appeasing slavery to radical emancipation in less than two years.  My recollection is that this had a connection with Lincoln's frustration with any hope for negotiations to end the war.  (and yeah, the speilberg movie).  I will have to visit a library.

However, I did think of an alternative history possibility.  What if the Union had a better battle outcome in 1862 or 63.  Might that have led the South to reconsider its chances, and perhaps sue for peace.

John Pope was a disaster at Second Bull Run in August of 62, but what if Lincoln summoned Grant from the west instead of Pope.  Further John Fitz Porter was one of the more competent union generals, but his career was sacraficed both at that battle when he refused to carry out Pope's incompetent orders, and by his connection to McClellen.  Two competent defensive commanders might have turned the tables.  A draw at Second Bull Run might have led to the AOP being more active after the Pennisula Campaign, or at least mitigated McClellen's disaster.

Antitem was the North's big chance.  As long as McClellen was in charge, I think the Union was doomed to at best a draw ... when in fact a competent commander would have ended the war right there.

Chancellorsville in the spring of 63 was Lee's masterpiece.  And led him to his second invasion of the North, and his disaster of hubris on the third day.  However, Hooker, the Union general at Chancellorsville was not all that bad.  At the height of the battle, he went hors de combat from a near miss by a cannon ball.  Chancellorsville allowed the Southern politicans to continue their delusion that one confederate was worth seven yankees.


----------



## gipper

bendog said:


> Imo, the only chance for some political compromise really passed with Buchanan.  The South believed they'd never see a friendly potus and have senate majority again.



I do not believe that.  The entire western world eliminated slavery peacefully, except the USA.  Now how the hell does that happen?  In fact, slavery was outlawed in several Northern states a few years before the Civil War and no war resulted.  

The fact is the war WAS NEVER ABOUT SLAVERY.  It was about POWER AND WEALTH...and centralizing it in Washington DC under the total and complete authority of the Republican Party.    

There were terrible extremists on both sides who desired war.  Had Lincoln been a real leader and statesman in the mold of Jefferson, he would have sought a compromise.  Lincoln NEVER sought a compromise.  He wanted war and he got it.

His philosophy can be summed simply as "Pay up or die."


----------



## Foxfyre

gipper said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imo, the only chance for some political compromise really passed with Buchanan.  The South believed they'd never see a friendly potus and have senate majority again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe that.  The entire western world eliminated slavery peacefully, except the USA.  Now how the hell does that happen?  In fact, slavery was outlawed in several Northern states a few years before the Civil War and no war resulted.
> 
> The fact is the war WAS NEVER ABOUT SLAVERY.  It was about POWER AND WEALTH...and centralizing it in Washington DC under the total and complete authority of the Republican Party.
> 
> There were terrible extremists on both sides who desired war.  Had Lincoln been a real leader and statesman in the mold of Jefferson, he would have sought a compromise.  Lincoln NEVER sought a compromise.  He wanted war and he got it.
> 
> His philosophy can be summed simply as "Pay up or die."
Click to expand...


And you see, I don't think Lincoln did want war.  It is precisely because he saw himself as a representative of the people and not a dictator that he refused to do anything about slavery, a constitutional reality, even though opposed it personally.  He saw his role as one to find ways to compromise being opposing factions in the country.

 He was a segregationist, however, and did not want all the southern black people to flee north.  And it was that which prompted the Emancipation Proclamation after the war was already underway.

I know that isn't the romantic version of history, but I do believe it is the accurate one.

But all that is sort of beside the point.  The interesting component of the OP is how the two countries might have gotten along just fine side by side if Lincoln and the Union Congress had chosen to allow the secession rather than try to forcibly reverse it.


----------



## gipper

Foxfyre said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imo, the only chance for some political compromise really passed with Buchanan.  The South believed they'd never see a friendly potus and have senate majority again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe that.  The entire western world eliminated slavery peacefully, except the USA.  Now how the hell does that happen?  In fact, slavery was outlawed in several Northern states a few years before the Civil War and no war resulted.
> 
> The fact is the war WAS NEVER ABOUT SLAVERY.  It was about POWER AND WEALTH...and centralizing it in Washington DC under the total and complete authority of the Republican Party.
> 
> There were terrible extremists on both sides who desired war.  Had Lincoln been a real leader and statesman in the mold of Jefferson, he would have sought a compromise.  Lincoln NEVER sought a compromise.  He wanted war and he got it.
> 
> His philosophy can be summed simply as "Pay up or die."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you see, I don't think Lincoln did want war.  It is precisely because he saw himself as a representative of the people and not a dictator that he refused to do anything about slavery, a constitutional reality, even though opposed it personally.  He saw his role as one to find ways to compromise being opposing factions in the country.
> 
> He was a segregationist, however, and did not want all the southern black people to flee north.  And it was that which prompted the Emancipation Proclamation after the war was already underway.
> 
> I know that isn't the romantic version of history, but I do believe it is the accurate one.
> 
> But all that is sort of beside the point.  The interesting component of the OP is how the two countries might have gotten along just fine side by side if Lincoln and the Union Congress had chosen to allow the secession rather than try to forcibly reverse it.
Click to expand...


Lincoln did not WANT war...agreed, but he was fully prepared to prosecute a war against fellow Americans (and he approved of TOTAL war methods against Americans, killing over 50k civilians and destroying enormous amounts of private property) to impose his will.  Completely in contradiction to Jeffersonian principles, but very much in line with Hamiltonian principles. He was a statist first and foremost....not unlike most of our recent presidents and certainly very much like the current occupant.

He also absolutely refused to compromise or negotiate with the South.  His bastardized view of the Constitution, which he repeatedly breached, while claiming to abide by it, allowed him to wrongly believe the states did not have the right to secede.  

Lincoln, like many in the North and South, thought the war would be over in weeks or a few months.  When it dragged on, he waged total war on fellow Americans.

IMHO he should have been impeached and he should be despised by all Americans today.


----------



## PrometheusBound

As long as they gave up claims to the West and concentrated on annexing northern Mexico and the islands of the Caribbean.   The slaves would probably have been turned into non-unionized working class, just like most of the Whites up North.  Criminals would have been lynched, completely avoiding what has happened in our cities today.


----------



## Foxfyre

gipper said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe that.  The entire western world eliminated slavery peacefully, except the USA.  Now how the hell does that happen?  In fact, slavery was outlawed in several Northern states a few years before the Civil War and no war resulted.
> 
> The fact is the war WAS NEVER ABOUT SLAVERY.  It was about POWER AND WEALTH...and centralizing it in Washington DC under the total and complete authority of the Republican Party.
> 
> There were terrible extremists on both sides who desired war.  Had Lincoln been a real leader and statesman in the mold of Jefferson, he would have sought a compromise.  Lincoln NEVER sought a compromise.  He wanted war and he got it.
> 
> His philosophy can be summed simply as "Pay up or die."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you see, I don't think Lincoln did want war.  It is precisely because he saw himself as a representative of the people and not a dictator that he refused to do anything about slavery, a constitutional reality, even though opposed it personally.  He saw his role as one to find ways to compromise being opposing factions in the country.
> 
> He was a segregationist, however, and did not want all the southern black people to flee north.  And it was that which prompted the Emancipation Proclamation after the war was already underway.
> 
> I know that isn't the romantic version of history, but I do believe it is the accurate one.
> 
> But all that is sort of beside the point.  The interesting component of the OP is how the two countries might have gotten along just fine side by side if Lincoln and the Union Congress had chosen to allow the secession rather than try to forcibly reverse it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln did not WANT war...agreed, but he was fully prepared to prosecute a war against fellow Americans (and he approved of TOTAL war methods against Americans, killing over 50k civilians and destroying enormous amounts of private property) to impose his will.  Completely in contradiction to Jeffersonian principles, but very much in line with Hamiltonian principles. He was a statist first and foremost....not unlike most of our recent presidents and certainly very much like the current occupant.
> 
> He also absolutely refused to compromise or negotiate with the South.  His bastardized view of the Constitution, which he repeatedly breached, while claiming to abide by it, allowed him to wrongly believe the states did not have the right to secede.
> 
> Lincoln, like many in the North and South, thought the war would be over in weeks or a few months.  When it dragged on, he waged total war on fellow Americans.
> 
> IMHO he should have been impeached and he should be despised by all Americans today.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry but I just can't see him as the despicable character that you seem to assign to him.  He opposed slavery but he also opposed inteference in states' rights.  Many close to him argued that he should just allow the southern states to secede without interference, but Lincoln could not bring himself to do that.  He was without any precedent to guide him and he was without the benefit of hindsight that we all have.

But the bottom line is, Lincoln consented to war to preserve the union.  The abolishment of slavery became a methodology and consequence of that, and not the reason for it.

Sojourner Truth, in October 1864, told President Lincoln that he was the first American President to help American Negros.  President Lincoln responded:  "And the only one who ever had such opportunity. Had our friends in the South behaved themselves, I could have done nothing whatever."


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you see, I don't think Lincoln did want war.  It is precisely because he saw himself as a representative of the people and not a dictator that he refused to do anything about slavery, a constitutional reality, even though opposed it personally.  He saw his role as one to find ways to compromise being opposing factions in the country.
> 
> He was a segregationist, however, and did not want all the southern black people to flee north.  And it was that which prompted the Emancipation Proclamation after the war was already underway.
> 
> I know that isn't the romantic version of history, but I do believe it is the accurate one.
> 
> But all that is sort of beside the point.  The interesting component of the OP is how the two countries might have gotten along just fine side by side if Lincoln and the Union Congress had chosen to allow the secession rather than try to forcibly reverse it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln did not WANT war...agreed, but he was fully prepared to prosecute a war against fellow Americans (and he approved of TOTAL war methods against Americans, killing over 50k civilians and destroying enormous amounts of private property) to impose his will.  Completely in contradiction to Jeffersonian principles, but very much in line with Hamiltonian principles. He was a statist first and foremost....not unlike most of our recent presidents and certainly very much like the current occupant.
> 
> He also absolutely refused to compromise or negotiate with the South.  His bastardized view of the Constitution, which he repeatedly breached, while claiming to abide by it, allowed him to wrongly believe the states did not have the right to secede.
> 
> Lincoln, like many in the North and South, thought the war would be over in weeks or a few months.  When it dragged on, he waged total war on fellow Americans.
> 
> IMHO he should have been impeached and he should be despised by all Americans today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but I just can't see him as the despicable character that you seem to assign to him.  He opposed slavery but he also opposed inteference in states' rights.  Many close to him argued that he should just allow the southern states to secede without interference, but Lincoln could not bring himself to do that.  He was without any precedent to guide him and he was without the benefit of hindsight that we all have.
> 
> But the bottom line is, Lincoln consented to war to preserve the union.  The abolishment of slavery became a methodology and consequence of that, and not the reason for it.
> 
> Sojourner Truth, in October 1864, told President Lincoln that he was the first American President to help American Negros.  President Lincoln responded:  "And the only one who ever had such opportunity. Had our friends in the South behaved themselves, I could have done nothing whatever."
Click to expand...

How many people would have had to die in the Civil War before you would see him as despicable?  2million?  Half the population? 

How many war crimes were committed by the North?  The burning of Atlanta? Really?  Not despicable?

What would your president have to do to his "subjects" before you would call it despicable?  Seriously is there anything?  Anything at all that Lincoln could have done to sway your opinion?


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> The entire western world eliminated slavery peacefully, except the USA.




That's not true.


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> IMHO he should have been impeached and he should be despised by all Americans today.





Your opinion is shit. He saved the Union and is rightly lauded by all clear-thinking Americans as perhaps our greatest president.


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> The fact is the war WAS NEVER ABOUT SLAVERY.





Yes, it was. Many factors played a role, but all were grounded in the issue of slavery.


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO he should have been impeached and he should be despised by all Americans today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion is shit. He saved the Union and is rightly lauded by all clear-thinking Americans as perhaps our greatest president.
Click to expand...


That's like patting a husband on the back for shooting one of his kids and threatening to kill the rest if the wife did not come back.  Union?  What Union?  You don't create a union at the point of a gun, more like a conquered people.


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO he should have been impeached and he should be despised by all Americans today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion is shit. He saved the Union and is rightly lauded by all clear-thinking Americans as perhaps our greatest president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Union?  What Union?  You don't create a union at the point of a gun, more like a conquered people.
Click to expand...



The United States of America. He didn't "create" the Union, he saved it from ill-intentioned traitors who drew horrific numbers of their fellow Americans into certain death for the sake, when all is said and done, of an utterly evil institution and the ambitions of fools.


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion is shit. He saved the Union and is rightly lauded by all clear-thinking Americans as perhaps our greatest president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Union?  What Union?  You don't create a union at the point of a gun, more like a conquered people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The United States of America. He didn't "create" the Union, he saved it from ill-intentioned traitors who drew horrific numbers of their fellow Americans into certain death for the sake, when all is said and done, of an utterly evil institution and the ambitions of fools.
Click to expand...


Yeah those fools wanted to be free, now we are all slaves of the all powerful Uncle Sam.  Jack Boots for everyone, we are here we are proud, please ignore the rapes, murders, killings, slave labor tax system, all in the name of the American Empire.  Hail Obama, Hail the North!


----------



## RKMBrown

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srD7PDSY6fc]Realizing Government's Abuse of Power - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Union?  What Union?  You don't create a union at the point of a gun, more like a conquered people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States of America. He didn't "create" the Union, he saved it from ill-intentioned traitors who drew horrific numbers of their fellow Americans into certain death for the sake, when all is said and done, of an utterly evil institution and the ambitions of fools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah those fools wanted to be free ...
Click to expand...



Wanted to be 'what'? What was that word you used?


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Union?  What Union?  You don't create a union at the point of a gun, more like a conquered people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States of America. He didn't "create" the Union, he saved it from ill-intentioned traitors who drew horrific numbers of their fellow Americans into certain death for the sake, when all is said and done, of an utterly evil institution and the ambitions of fools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah those fools wanted to be free, now we are all slaves of the all powerful Uncle Sam.  Jack Boots for everyone, we are here we are proud, please ignore the rapes, murders, killings, slave labor tax system, all in the name of the American Empire.  Hail Obama, Hail the North!
Click to expand...



You're a citizen, aren't you? Did you vote? Did your friends and neighbors? Do you think obama got elected just by voters in Northern states? Do you think that voters made that mistake - twice - because of some imaginary division relative to a war that ended with the crushing of a traitorous, evil rebellion over 150 years ago? The American Civil War is over, let it go. And if you don't think that a whole lot of people in whatever state you live in didn't make the mistake of voting for obama, you're crazy. 

We are one country, whether you personally like it or not. Get used to the idea or get the fuck out and go live in some other country. And no, we're not breaking off a piece of this country for fools sucking on ancient sour grapes to occupy. Tough shit, go look elsewhere.


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States of America. He didn't "create" the Union, he saved it from ill-intentioned traitors who drew horrific numbers of their fellow Americans into certain death for the sake, when all is said and done, of an utterly evil institution and the ambitions of fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah those fools wanted to be free, now we are all slaves of the all powerful Uncle Sam.  Jack Boots for everyone, we are here we are proud, please ignore the rapes, murders, killings, slave labor tax system, all in the name of the American Empire.  Hail Obama, Hail the North!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're a citizen, aren't you? Did you vote? Did your friends and neighbors? Do you think obama got elected just by voters in Northern states? Do you think that voters made that mistake - twice - because of some imaginary division relative to a war that ended with the crushing of a traitorous, evil rebellion over 150 years ago? The American Civil War is over, let it go. And if you don't think that a whole lot of people in whatever state you live in didn't make the mistake of voting for obama, you're crazy.
> 
> We are one country, whether you personally like it or not. Get used to the idea or get the fuck out and go live in some other country. And no, we're not breaking off a piece of this country for fools sucking on ancient sour grapes to occupy. Tough shit, go look elsewhere.
Click to expand...


Nah I'll stay right here in Texas where men are men, women are women, and pussies like you that need government to take care of them from cradle to grave are far between.   What's it like being a  helpless, useless piece of shit that needs re-distribution checks taken by force to make ends meat?


----------



## rdean

Think "South Africa".


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO he should have been impeached and he should be despised by all Americans today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion is shit. He saved the Union and is rightly lauded by all clear-thinking Americans as perhaps our greatest president.
Click to expand...


Yeah...he saved the Union by killing and destroying half of it, for nefarious reasons.  That is a great president in the minds of the Lincoln Cultists.

Is it any wonder many Americans allow their government to take their rights and impose tyrannical rule by elites?


----------



## MuadDib

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States of America. He didn't "create" the Union, he saved it from ill-intentioned traitors who drew horrific numbers of their fellow Americans into certain death for the sake, when all is said and done, of an utterly evil institution and the ambitions of fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah those fools wanted to be free, now we are all slaves of the all powerful Uncle Sam.  Jack Boots for everyone, we are here we are proud, please ignore the rapes, murders, killings, slave labor tax system, all in the name of the American Empire.  Hail Obama, Hail the North!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're a citizen, aren't you? Did you vote? Did your friends and neighbors? Do you think obama got elected just by voters in Northern states? Do you think that voters made that mistake - twice - because of some imaginary division relative to a war that ended with the crushing of a traitorous, evil rebellion over 150 years ago? The American Civil War is over, let it go. And if you don't think that a whole lot of people in whatever state you live in didn't make the mistake of voting for obama, you're crazy.
> 
> We are one country, whether you personally like it or not. Get used to the idea or get the fuck out and go live in some other country. And no, we're not breaking off a piece of this country for fools sucking on ancient sour grapes to occupy. Tough shit, go look elsewhere.
Click to expand...


Not really. Unfortunately, there are Libtards in the South too.

However, Obama's idol, Lincoln, was elected even though he did not appear on the ballots in any of the Southern states because of his support for the Morrill Tariff.


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah those fools wanted to be free, now we are all slaves of the all powerful Uncle Sam.  Jack Boots for everyone, we are here we are proud, please ignore the rapes, murders, killings, slave labor tax system, all in the name of the American Empire.  Hail Obama, Hail the North!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a citizen, aren't you? Did you vote? Did your friends and neighbors? Do you think obama got elected just by voters in Northern states? Do you think that voters made that mistake - twice - because of some imaginary division relative to a war that ended with the crushing of a traitorous, evil rebellion over 150 years ago? The American Civil War is over, let it go. And if you don't think that a whole lot of people in whatever state you live in didn't make the mistake of voting for obama, you're crazy.
> 
> We are one country, whether you personally like it or not. Get used to the idea or get the fuck out and go live in some other country. And no, we're not breaking off a piece of this country for fools sucking on ancient sour grapes to occupy. Tough shit, go look elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah I'll stay right here in Texas
Click to expand...



Oh, you'll stay in the United States? Start acting like an American then. The American Civil War is long over. The rebellious traitors lost. Get over it. Start being a citizen and stop being a little bitch.


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO he should have been impeached and he should be despised by all Americans today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion is shit. He saved the Union and is rightly lauded by all clear-thinking Americans as perhaps our greatest president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...he saved the Union by killing and destroying half of it
Click to expand...



No, he didn't. He could have, but he didn't. You should be grateful, not bitter.


----------



## Unkotare

MuadDib said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah those fools wanted to be free, now we are all slaves of the all powerful Uncle Sam.  Jack Boots for everyone, we are here we are proud, please ignore the rapes, murders, killings, slave labor tax system, all in the name of the American Empire.  Hail Obama, Hail the North!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a citizen, aren't you? Did you vote? Did your friends and neighbors? Do you think obama got elected just by voters in Northern states? Do you think that voters made that mistake - twice - because of some imaginary division relative to a war that ended with the crushing of a traitorous, evil rebellion over 150 years ago? The American Civil War is over, let it go. And if you don't think that a whole lot of people in whatever state you live in didn't make the mistake of voting for obama, you're crazy.
> 
> We are one country, whether you personally like it or not. Get used to the idea or get the fuck out and go live in some other country. And no, we're not breaking off a piece of this country for fools sucking on ancient sour grapes to occupy. Tough shit, go look elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really. Unfortunately, there are Libtards in the South too.
> 
> However, Obama's idol, Lincoln, was elected even though he did not appear on the ballots in any of the Southern states because of his support for the Morrill Tariff.
Click to expand...



obama's "idol" is FDR. He just invokes the name of Lincoln for crass political purposes.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> What if the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully?



It would have returned to the Union shortly thereafter peacefully, having been an unmitigated failure.


----------



## MuadDib

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is the war WAS NEVER ABOUT SLAVERY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it was. Many factors played a role, but all were grounded in the issue of slavery.
Click to expand...


No.

Anyone who thinks that slavery had nothing to do with the war is wrong and anyone who thinks that slavery had everything to do with it is just as wrong. It's role in causing the war should not be underestimated, but it is vastly overestimated by most.

The role of slavery in causing the war had much more to do with the agitations of the radical abolitionists and the concerns over encroachment on the Constitution, and much less to do with the actual freeing of slaves and abolishing the peculiar institution.

The Constitutional question wasn't about simply freeing the slaves. The concern was that had ever had anything to do with people's private property and that if the Constitution could be amended to allow the federal government to free your slaves, what else could the federal government seize or take away.

The vast majority of slaves were owned by the wealthiest 6% of the population and only 14% of the population owned any slaves at all. Do the math and you'll find that 86% of Southerners owned no slaves at all. Some of the largest slaveholders in the South were free blacks. The Southern middle class absolutely hated the institution of slavery because they saw it as an obstacle to their prosperity.

The abolitionists seemed to be more concerned with extremist agitation than they were in actually abolishing slavery. The South is often blamed for being uncompromising about slavery, but in fact is was the abolitionists themselves who were refusing to negotiate any reasonable compromise. Europe and the northern states all abolished slavery by compensated or graduated emancipation, but the abolitionists had shut down any discussion of that by 1849.

The reason that it was illegal to teach slaves to read and write had very little, if anything, to do with keeping them dumb and enslaved. It was because the abolitionists kept publishing pamphlets encouraging the slaves to rise up and kill their masters. If they couldn't read, then they wouldn't be able to read those pamphlets. Still, a lot of slaveowners taught them to read and write anyway. Robert E. Lee's wife and daughter ran an illegal school at Arlington.

John Brown is considered as one of the major triggers of the war, but look at what he was doing. He took over a federal arsennal in Harper's Ferry, VA (now WV) trying to incite a slave rebellion and arm the slaves with weapons from the arsennal. It failed, no slaves showed up or rose up, and Brown was captured, tried, convicted, and hanged.

You can't win hearts and minds to your cause by trying to incite mass murder.

The slavery issue was being fought mainly by the radical abolitionists in Massachusetts and the fire eaters in South Carolina. Most people on both sides didn't give a damn about slavery. They were thinking about and fighting over entirely other things. Revisionist history has made slavery much more of an issue today than it was then.

Taxes and tariffs had been a hot-button issue practically from the founding and led to the Nullification Crises in the 1830's. The tariff issue settle down for a few years, but gradually creeped back in.

During the Crimean War (1853-1856), Southern agriculture was booming. European farmers were feeding the armies and Southern agriculture was feeding the civilian population. When the war ended, the demand for Southern agriculture declined and the nation's economy slumped. In 1857, the economy took further hits when the Dred Scott decision nullified the Missouri Compromise, threw the slvery debate there back into question, and caused the railroads' vast land holdings in the midwest to devalue. Then the New York office of the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Co. closed because of embezzlement and its closure almost caused a run on the banks.

The nation's economy fell into a severe recession. Congress actually did the right thing and passed the Tariff Act of 1857 which lowered the tariff rates and the economy stablized in 2 years. 

Just as the economy stablized and began a recovery, Congressman Justin Morrill of Vermont proposed a massive tariff increase called the Morrill Tariff. Southerners knew they would once again bear the brunt of tariffs on imports and exports. Even though the entire South only had a GDP of about 1/5 of the state of New York alone, the South was funding 87% of the federal government's total revenue through these tariffs.

Lincoln was what we today would call a "tax and spend Liberal". The Whigs nearly bankrupted the state of Illinois in the 1840's through subsidies of private enterprises while Lincoln was serving in the state legislature.

In his 1860 presidential campaign, Lincoln campaigned in favor of the Morrill Tariff. That was why Southerners didn't like him and that was why he did not appear on the ballots in any of the Southern states. It had nothing to do with Lincoln's stance on slavery. Read the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, his campaign speeches, and his First Inaugural Address. Lincoln was saying he was not an abolitionist and had no intention of interfering with slavery where it already existed.

There was a concern about Lincoln being elected as a Republican, however. The Republican Party was founded almost entirely on the abolition issue alone. When the socialist Revolutions of 1848 in Europe failed, many of its participants, known as the Forty-Eighters, were exiled or fled for their lives and emigrated to the US. They entered the Whig Party and split it over the slavery issue. Owning property is contrary to socialist ideals and Marx specifically opposed slavery in his Communist Manifesto. It was these socialist anti-slavery Whigs that formed the Republican Party. When Lincoln won solely on the Northern vote, the South wanted nothing to do with his economic policies and that's what triggered secession.

The Forty-Eighters played a significant role in Lincoln's election and were handsomely rewarded by Lincoln with large tracts of land by the Homestead Act. A lot of them had military experience in the armies back in Europe and from the Revolutions of 1848. Many of these revolutions were attempted military coups, so they had military experience and were appointed by Lincoln as generals in the Union army and offices in the Lincoln administration. There were entire companies and regiments in the Union army from the midwest comprised of these socialist emigrants and they even held their socialist meetings around the campfires.

It's not farfetched to say that the Civil War was the socialist revolution of America and it succeeded where the Revolutions of 1848 in Europe had failed.


----------



## PrometheusBound

thanatos144 said:


> We would all be speaking Russian because we wouldn't be a United States because democrats think people are property



Capitalists think people are property.   If you own a man's work, you own the man.


----------



## PrometheusBound

editec said:


> The CSA's economic system was largely slave based agriculture and export dependent.
> 
> Had the Rpublic allowed the CSA to go its own way the war between the USA and CSA would likely have happened shortly after it happened, anyway.
> 
> the CSA had its eyes on the American West, Mexica and central America and the Caribean.
> 
> Sooner or later the USA and the CSA would have gone to war over some expansionist policy or the other.



Why, when we never had a war with Canada?


----------



## PrometheusBound

Hoffstra said:


> My state abolished slavery in the 1820s.
> 
> The South would have likely kept it going through the 20th century.



It was the only way to get Blacks to work.   Otherwise, they would have taken off after payday and not come back to work until they had blown their paychecks on degenerate partying.


----------



## PrometheusBound

thanatos144 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is if there was no reunification that is the fascinating concept to speculate on though.  And I'm pretty sure if that had happened, Mexico would have become much more heavily involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was about slavery.  The separated because Lincoln a known abolitionist was nominated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was about tariffs.   Lincoln was a typical Republican.   The abolitionists had no social conscience; there function was to provoke the South into seceding, which would have guaranteed permanent and higher tariffs.   The Robber Barons kept all the profits from the higher prices they could charge because of the tariffs on their foreign competition.
> 
> Henry Ward Beecher, a typical Abolitionist whose sister wrote _Uncle Tom's Cabin_, said about the White working class, "If a man can't live on bread and water, he doesn't deserve to live."  97% of the Abolitionists had the same snobbish cruelty about Whites in sweatshops.
> 
> The same false-flag attitude has prevailed since the 1960s.  Proof is that the disparity in wealth between the upper class and the majority has widened since the Civil Rights for the Uncivilized Act in 1964.   Blacks are puppets of the rich.   Notice how they always blame "White People" instead of the 1%.   The strategy of our criminal ruling class of thieves and traitors was to have their brats take over the Democratic Party, neglect the unions, and purposely promote a disgusting Liberal agenda for the sole purpose of provoking White working people to vote Conservatism, which neglects the anti-Liberal agenda and is only interested in economic class supremacy.
Click to expand...


----------



## PrometheusBound

thanatos144 said:


> This subject shows the absolute failure of our education system. Only a fool thinks slavery had very little to do the Civil War. Yes it was about economics a economy built on slavery . There was no War of Northern Aggression it was a war of Southern petulance. In order for there to have been no war the Confederates have to not have attacked Fort Sumter. If there was no war there would have been no United States of America most likely be some Baltic state of some socialist or communist dictator much worse than the one we have now.



As usual, Right Wing attacks on education and the lack of "critical thinking" really mean that if people don't agree with your simple-minded bootlicking dogmas, they are uneducated.


----------



## PrometheusBound

Sallow said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.
> 
> The South has always been the problem child of the United States. I think what remained of the United States would have been better off without the South. If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better.
> 
> In the South slavery impeded the development of industry, and of labor saving agricultural machinery. The vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North.
> 
> Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did.
> 
> An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront misses you.
Click to expand...


If you want to play that game, "Idi Amin misses you."   Or Pol Pot, if I want to unfairly associate you with the ultraLeft.


----------



## Foxfyre

PrometheusBound said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was about slavery.  The separated because Lincoln a known abolitionist was nominated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was about tariffs.   Lincoln was a typical Republican.   The abolitionists had no social conscience; there function was to provoke the South into seceding, which would have guaranteed permanent and higher tariffs.   The Robber Barons kept all the profits from the higher prices they could charge because of the tariffs on their foreign competition.
> 
> Henry Ward Beecher, a typical Abolitionist whose sister wrote _Uncle Tom's Cabin_, said about the White working class, "If a man can't live on bread and water, he doesn't deserve to live."  97% of the Abolitionists had the same snobbish cruelty about Whites in sweatshops.
> 
> The same false-flag attitude has prevailed since the 1960s.  Proof is that the disparity in wealth between the upper class and the majority has widened since the Civil Rights for the Uncivilized Act in 1964.   Blacks are puppets of the rich.   Notice how they always blame "White People" instead of the 1%.   The strategy of our criminal ruling class of thieves and traitors was to have their brats take over the Democratic Party, neglect the unions, and purposely promote a disgusting Liberal agenda for the sole purpose of provoking White working people to vote Conservatism, which neglects the anti-Liberal agenda and is only interested in economic class supremacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be careful with the quotes there--they sometimes malfunction. And it attributes Thanatos' words to me.   He's the one who - rather uncouthly - demands that Lincoln was an abolitionist.   I have consistently argued that Lincoln was not only not an abolitionist, but I have provided ample evidence that had the South not seceded, there would have been no emancipation proclamation from Lincoln and no 13th Amendment would  have even been suggested, much less  passed at that time.
> 
> See?  In the above quote your words appear to be via Thanatos.  His words appear to be mine.
Click to expand...


----------



## MuadDib

thanatos said:
			
		

> It was about slavery.  The separated because Lincoln a known abolitionist was nominated.



Quite incorrect. Lincoln was not an abolitionist. He said so on a number of occasions.

Lincoln supported repatriation and colonization. He was a member of the American Colonization society along with his mentor Henry Clay of Kentucky. His plan was to load all of the blacks, free or slave, on ships and send them to Monrovia in Africa or colonies in South America. He even met with a number of black leaders during the war trying to sell them on the idea of repatriation.


----------



## PrometheusBound

thanatos144 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for "honest" history, but I'm not sure what PC has to do with it.  There is a Lincoln myth (the Sandberg biography was its apex) which has its own historiography  separate from Lincoln himself.  The last fifteen years have been the best for Lincoln scholarship since the Nineteenth Century because of the publication of "Herndon's Informants" and the books that followed it.
> 
> I must confess that I never took any American history course in college, although history was my second major, I have published in the field of American economic history (Mississippi land tenure 1870--1970), and have an extensive Lincoln collection.   I try to keep up.
> 
> 
> 
> You are are close to making a distinction without a difference.  The Antebellum South did not tolerate dissent on the slavery issue.  The post offices refused to accept northern papers that did not support or ignore slavery, churches replaced wavering clergy, slave codes were enforced in opposition to the will of individual slave masters, and Lincoln was not on the ballot in any states south of Virginia and Kentucky.  Slavery was supported or tolerated by virtually every southern citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the most striking attribute of Lincoln's mind was the rapidity and intellectual ruthlessness with which he adapted his thought to new conditions.  Lincoln's position o the race question evolved rapidly and the Lincoln of 1858 is not the Lincoln of 1862 who began the year exploring compensated emancipation in the border states an ended the year with emancipation.  Nor was either of those Lincoln's  the Lincoln of 1865.
> 
> Lincoln was the most formidable constitutional scholar in American history with the possible exception of James Madison (just read the Coopers Union speech or the First Inaugural Address).  He was not a great admirer of the Constitution, making the point that the Union pre-existed  the Constitution and created the states ("Four score and seven years ago..."; do the math).  He held the Founding Fathers in greater esteem (just read his very first speech, the Springfield Lyceum address).
> 
> 
> 
> That's a matter of controversy. Some parts of the South rebelled against the Confederacy and were loyal to the Union.   In fact the Union Amy contained white volunteer regiments from every slave state except South Carolina.  If you add the number of white Southerners in the Union army to the number of black troops (3/4's of which came from slave states) they equaled the entire manpower utilized by the Confederacy.  In my book, the good Southerners fought for the Union.  If you want to talk about distorted history, run those numbers by white Southerners today.
> 
> 
> 
> We disagree.  Slavery would have continued in the Confederacy at least a hundred years if the Confederacy had lasted that long.  An I beliee that is the consensus view among historians.
> 
> Livelong & prosper, Jamie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see the Lincoln Myth persists and the hatred of the southern man does too.  Is it any wonder America continues to allow flawed leaders to prosecute wars over and over again...
> 
> If Lincoln were the great statesmen some still believe he was, why did he not avert a war that destroyed half the nation causing terrible death and suffering?  War is ALWAYS a failure of leadership.  Lincoln failed spectacularly, by any reasonable analysis.  He made it clear to the Southern states, in his inaugural speech, that the Federal government would war on them if they did not abide by federal laws.  Then purposely set up events at Ft Sumter to get it all started...Not much statesmanship here.
> 
> War is ALWAYS the health of the STATE.  It is a tactic used by all tyrants to expand the power of the central state, at the expense of everyone else.  One would think Americans would understand this, after all the disastrous wars it has allowed corrupt leaders to prosecute.
> 
> As President Buchanan supposedly famously stated...."there is a disease in the public mind"...as he left the looming disaster for his successor.  Once the public has a diseased mind, corrupt leaders can easily influence it leading to war.  The Civil War was the consequence of diseased minds, both in the North and South.
> 
> Thomas Fleming's book, A Disease in the Public Mind, clearly lays this out.  That disease allows corrupt leaders to use it for their nefarious intentions...and Lincoln was no different.
> 
> Our Founders were brilliant and enlightened men.  But, they made two huge mistakes.  They allowed slavery to continue and believed a piece of paper would prevent evil men from doing evil things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think Lincoln should have just bent over and taken it up the ass for a slave nation? Sorry but real American presidents dont bow to evil empires.
Click to expand...


Do you want a halo for your warm and fuzzy illusion of moral superiority?


----------



## PrometheusBound

MuadDib said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is the war WAS NEVER ABOUT SLAVERY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it was. Many factors played a role, but all were grounded in the issue of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> John Brown is considered as one of the major triggers of the war, but look at what he was doing. He took over a federal arsennal in Harper's Ferry, VA (now WV) trying to incite a slave rebellion and arm the slaves with weapons from the arsennal. It failed, no slaves showed up or rose up, and Brown was captured, tried, convicted, and hanged.
> 
> You can't win hearts and minds to your cause by trying to incite mass murder.
> 
> The slavery issue was being fought mainly by the radical abolitionists in Massachusetts and the fire eaters in South Carolina. Most people on both sides didn't give a damn about slavery. They were thinking about and fighting over entirely other things. Revisionist history has made slavery much more of an issue today than it was then.
> 
> Taxes and tariffs had been a hot-button issue practically from the founding and led to the Nullification Crises in the 1830's. The tariff issue settle down for a few years, but gradually creeped back in.
> 
> During the Crimean War (1853-1856), Southern agriculture was booming. European farmers were feeding the armies and Southern agriculture was feeding the civilian population. When the war ended, the demand for Southern agriculture declined and the nation's economy slumped. In 1857, the economy took further hits when the Dred Scott decision nullified the Missouri Compromise, threw the slvery debate there back into question, and caused the railroads' vast land holdings in the midwest to devalue. Then the New York office of the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Co. closed because of embezzlement and its closure almost caused a run on the banks.
> 
> The nation's economy fell into a severe recession. Congress actually did the right thing and passed the Tariff Act of 1857 which lowered the tariff rates and the economy stablized in 2 years.
> 
> Just as the economy stablized and began a recovery, Congressman Justin Morrill of Vermont proposed a massive tariff increase called the Morrill Tariff. Southerners knew they would once again bear the brunt of tariffs on imports and exports.
> 
> There was a concern about Lincoln being elected as a Republican, however. The Republican Party was founded almost entirely on the abolition issue alone. When the socialist Revolutions of 1848 in Europe failed, many of its participants, known as the Forty-Eighters, were exiled or fled for their lives and emigrated to the US. They entered the Whig Party and split it over the slavery issue. Owning property is contrary to socialist ideals and Marx specifically opposed slavery in his Communist Manifesto. It was these socialist anti-slavery Whigs that formed the Republican Party. When Lincoln won solely on the Northern vote, the South wanted nothing to do with his economic policies and that's what triggered secession.
> 
> The Forty-Eighters played a significant role in Lincoln's election and were handsomely rewarded by Lincoln with large tracts of land by the Homestead Act. A lot of them had military experience in the armies back in Europe and from the Revolutions of 1848. Many of these revolutions were attempted military coups, so they had military experience and were appointed by Lincoln as generals in the Union army and offices in the Lincoln administration. There were entire companies and regiments in the Union army from the midwest comprised of these socialist emigrants and they even held their socialist meetings around the campfires.
> 
> It's not farfetched to say that the Civil War was the socialist revolution of America and it succeeded where the Revolutions of 1848 in Europe had failed.
Click to expand...






Just the opposite about 1848.   The plutocrats were afraid it would happen here, so they started a war to kill off the bravest of the working class and also free the slaves to work as  scab labor up North.  

The reason the cheap-labor scam didn't work was that Blacks are incapable of doing industrialized jobs, which is also the reason the South didn't industrialize.


----------



## MuadDib

thanatos144 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for "honest" history, but I'm not sure what PC has to do with it.  There is a Lincoln myth (the Sandberg biography was its apex) which has its own historiography  separate from Lincoln himself.  The last fifteen years have been the best for Lincoln scholarship since the Nineteenth Century because of the publication of "Herndon's Informants" and the books that followed it.
> 
> I must confess that I never took any American history course in college, although history was my second major, I have published in the field of American economic history (Mississippi land tenure 1870--1970), and have an extensive Lincoln collection.   I try to keep up.
> 
> 
> 
> You are are close to making a distinction without a difference.  The Antebellum South did not tolerate dissent on the slavery issue.  The post offices refused to accept northern papers that did not support or ignore slavery, churches replaced wavering clergy, slave codes were enforced in opposition to the will of individual slave masters, and Lincoln was not on the ballot in any states south of Virginia and Kentucky.  Slavery was supported or tolerated by virtually every southern citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the most striking attribute of Lincoln's mind was the rapidity and intellectual ruthlessness with which he adapted his thought to new conditions.  Lincoln's position o the race question evolved rapidly and the Lincoln of 1858 is not the Lincoln of 1862 who began the year exploring compensated emancipation in the border states an ended the year with emancipation.  Nor was either of those Lincoln's  the Lincoln of 1865.
> 
> Lincoln was the most formidable constitutional scholar in American history with the possible exception of James Madison (just read the Coopers Union speech or the First Inaugural Address).  He was not a great admirer of the Constitution, making the point that the Union pre-existed  the Constitution and created the states ("Four score and seven years ago..."; do the math).  He held the Founding Fathers in greater esteem (just read his very first speech, the Springfield Lyceum address).
> 
> 
> 
> That's a matter of controversy. Some parts of the South rebelled against the Confederacy and were loyal to the Union.   In fact the Union Amy contained white volunteer regiments from every slave state except South Carolina.  If you add the number of white Southerners in the Union army to the number of black troops (3/4's of which came from slave states) they equaled the entire manpower utilized by the Confederacy.  In my book, the good Southerners fought for the Union.  If you want to talk about distorted history, run those numbers by white Southerners today.
> 
> 
> 
> We disagree.  Slavery would have continued in the Confederacy at least a hundred years if the Confederacy had lasted that long.  An I beliee that is the consensus view among historians.
> 
> Livelong & prosper, Jamie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see the Lincoln Myth persists and the hatred of the southern man does too.  Is it any wonder America continues to allow flawed leaders to prosecute wars over and over again...
> 
> If Lincoln were the great statesmen some still believe he was, why did he not avert a war that destroyed half the nation causing terrible death and suffering?  War is ALWAYS a failure of leadership.  Lincoln failed spectacularly, by any reasonable analysis.  He made it clear to the Southern states, in his inaugural speech, that the Federal government would war on them if they did not abide by federal laws.  Then purposely set up events at Ft Sumter to get it all started...Not much statesmanship here.
> 
> War is ALWAYS the health of the STATE.  It is a tactic used by all tyrants to expand the power of the central state, at the expense of everyone else.  One would think Americans would understand this, after all the disastrous wars it has allowed corrupt leaders to prosecute.
> 
> As President Buchanan supposedly famously stated...."there is a disease in the public mind"...as he left the looming disaster for his successor.  Once the public has a diseased mind, corrupt leaders can easily influence it leading to war.  The Civil War was the consequence of diseased minds, both in the North and South.
> 
> Thomas Fleming's book, A Disease in the Public Mind, clearly lays this out.  That disease allows corrupt leaders to use it for their nefarious intentions...and Lincoln was no different.
> 
> Our Founders were brilliant and enlightened men.  But, they made two huge mistakes.  They allowed slavery to continue and believed a piece of paper would prevent evil men from doing evil things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think Lincoln should have just bent over and taken it up the ass for a slave nation? Sorry but real American presidents dont bow to evil empires.
Click to expand...


What part of Lincoln not being an abolitionist do you not understand? 

Lincoln didn't give a damn about the slaves. He did give a damn that when the Southern states seceded, they took 87% of the federal government's revenue with them. Lincoln had a huge economic problem on his hands.

As for "evil empires", are you talking about the one that burned people's homes and businesses, stole their personal possessions, raped the women, stole their food, and oiled their fields?


----------



## Foxfyre

MuadDib said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see the Lincoln Myth persists and the hatred of the southern man does too.  Is it any wonder America continues to allow flawed leaders to prosecute wars over and over again...
> 
> If Lincoln were the great statesmen some still believe he was, why did he not avert a war that destroyed half the nation causing terrible death and suffering?  War is ALWAYS a failure of leadership.  Lincoln failed spectacularly, by any reasonable analysis.  He made it clear to the Southern states, in his inaugural speech, that the Federal government would war on them if they did not abide by federal laws.  Then purposely set up events at Ft Sumter to get it all started...Not much statesmanship here.
> 
> War is ALWAYS the health of the STATE.  It is a tactic used by all tyrants to expand the power of the central state, at the expense of everyone else.  One would think Americans would understand this, after all the disastrous wars it has allowed corrupt leaders to prosecute.
> 
> As President Buchanan supposedly famously stated...."there is a disease in the public mind"...as he left the looming disaster for his successor.  Once the public has a diseased mind, corrupt leaders can easily influence it leading to war.  The Civil War was the consequence of diseased minds, both in the North and South.
> 
> Thomas Fleming's book, A Disease in the Public Mind, clearly lays this out.  That disease allows corrupt leaders to use it for their nefarious intentions...and Lincoln was no different.
> 
> Our Founders were brilliant and enlightened men.  But, they made two huge mistakes.  They allowed slavery to continue and believed a piece of paper would prevent evil men from doing evil things.
> 
> 
> 
> So you think Lincoln should have just bent over and taken it up the ass for a slave nation? Sorry but real American presidents dont bow to evil empires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of Lincoln not being an abolitionist do you not understand?
> 
> Lincoln didn't give a damn about the slaves. He did give a damn that when the Southern states seceded, they took 87% of the federal government's revenue with them. Lincoln had a huge economic problem on his hands.
> 
> As for "evil empires", are you talking about the one that burned people's homes and businesses, stole their personal possessions, raped the women, stole their food, and oiled their fields?
Click to expand...


Just one gentle correction.  I don't think I agree that Lincoln didn't care about the slaves.  From what I read of his own words and what othes who knew him say about him, he was 100% anti-slavery.  That would suggest that he did care.  

But what he was not willing to do was to go against the Constitution and states rights in that regard.  He was a segregationist as were almost all people of his generation and culture, both black and white.  He was opposed to extending slavery any further than it already existed, but before the South seceded and the war ensued, he had no intention of ending what did exist.

But once the war did break out, he didn't want the social problem of thousands of uneducated, unemployed slaves coming north, he did not want to intermingle the races, and he was very much afraid that England and France would go to the aid of the South.  The Emancipation Proclamation was a military tactic, and was not out of any desire to free the slaves.  It was intended to stop the flow of black people fleeing north and he hoped, given their freedom, that they would join with the Union Army and defend that freedom where they were - in the South.

Didn't work out too well as he hoped.  But I'm pretty sure that was the intent.


----------



## Toro

PrometheusBound said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CSA's economic system was largely slave based agriculture and export dependent.
> 
> Had the Rpublic allowed the CSA to go its own way the war between the USA and CSA would likely have happened shortly after it happened, anyway.
> 
> the CSA had its eyes on the American West, Mexica and central America and the Caribean.
> 
> Sooner or later the USA and the CSA would have gone to war over some expansionist policy or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why, when we never had a war with Canada?
Click to expand...


You did.

And you lost, big time!

[youtube]Ety2FEHQgwM[/youtube]


----------



## Unkotare

MuadDib said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is the war WAS NEVER ABOUT SLAVERY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it was. Many factors played a role, but all were grounded in the issue of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Yes. Every other issue related to the war originated from and was manifested by the issue of slavery. Many of the finest political minds our country has ever produced labored over and over through the course of decades to craft compromises that would allow the Union to persist in the face of the fundamental contradiction that slavery in the United State represented.


----------



## Hoffstra

gipper said:


> ...The fact is the war WAS NEVER ABOUT SLAVERY....



funny, every declaration of secession by the CSA states said slavery was a major part of it.

if slavery didn't exist in the USA there would have never been a civil war.


----------



## Foxfyre

Hoffstra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The fact is the war WAS NEVER ABOUT SLAVERY....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> funny, every declaration of secession by the CSA states said slavery was a major part of it.
> 
> if slavery didn't exist in the USA there would have never been a civil war.
Click to expand...


That may be, but it did exist, and it was allowed by the Constitution that becomes the governing authority of all states that join the union.  And it was not slavery but the punative measures the North used to impose on the South by do gooders opposing slavery that compelled the Southern states to withdraw.  Would those punative measures have been inflicted if there was no slavery?  Probably not.  But it was not the South's misconduct toward the North that caused the Civil War but rather it was the North's determination to control the South that caused the Civil War.

If thee had been no power struggle in Europe at the time, there would have been no WWI.  If Nazi-ism and Fasism didn't exist, there would have been no WWII.  If communism didn't exist, there would have been no war in Korea and no Vietnam War.  If Muslim fanaticism didn't exist, there would be no war in Afghanistan now.

If Lincoln had  been willing to allow the South to withdraw peacefully and do its own thing, there would have been no Civil War.


----------



## rdean

PrometheusBound said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it was. Many factors played a role, but all were grounded in the issue of slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Brown is considered as one of the major triggers of the war, but look at what he was doing. He took over a federal arsennal in Harper's Ferry, VA (now WV) trying to incite a slave rebellion and arm the slaves with weapons from the arsennal. It failed, no slaves showed up or rose up, and Brown was captured, tried, convicted, and hanged.
> 
> You can't win hearts and minds to your cause by trying to incite mass murder.
> 
> The slavery issue was being fought mainly by the radical abolitionists in Massachusetts and the fire eaters in South Carolina. Most people on both sides didn't give a damn about slavery. They were thinking about and fighting over entirely other things. Revisionist history has made slavery much more of an issue today than it was then.
> 
> Taxes and tariffs had been a hot-button issue practically from the founding and led to the Nullification Crises in the 1830's. The tariff issue settle down for a few years, but gradually creeped back in.
> 
> During the Crimean War (1853-1856), Southern agriculture was booming. European farmers were feeding the armies and Southern agriculture was feeding the civilian population. When the war ended, the demand for Southern agriculture declined and the nation's economy slumped. In 1857, the economy took further hits when the Dred Scott decision nullified the Missouri Compromise, threw the slvery debate there back into question, and caused the railroads' vast land holdings in the midwest to devalue. Then the New York office of the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Co. closed because of embezzlement and its closure almost caused a run on the banks.
> 
> The nation's economy fell into a severe recession. Congress actually did the right thing and passed the Tariff Act of 1857 which lowered the tariff rates and the economy stablized in 2 years.
> 
> Just as the economy stablized and began a recovery, Congressman Justin Morrill of Vermont proposed a massive tariff increase called the Morrill Tariff. Southerners knew they would once again bear the brunt of tariffs on imports and exports.
> 
> There was a concern about Lincoln being elected as a Republican, however. The Republican Party was founded almost entirely on the abolition issue alone. When the socialist Revolutions of 1848 in Europe failed, many of its participants, known as the Forty-Eighters, were exiled or fled for their lives and emigrated to the US. They entered the Whig Party and split it over the slavery issue. Owning property is contrary to socialist ideals and Marx specifically opposed slavery in his Communist Manifesto. It was these socialist anti-slavery Whigs that formed the Republican Party. When Lincoln won solely on the Northern vote, the South wanted nothing to do with his economic policies and that's what triggered secession.
> 
> The Forty-Eighters played a significant role in Lincoln's election and were handsomely rewarded by Lincoln with large tracts of land by the Homestead Act. A lot of them had military experience in the armies back in Europe and from the Revolutions of 1848. Many of these revolutions were attempted military coups, so they had military experience and were appointed by Lincoln as generals in the Union army and offices in the Lincoln administration. There were entire companies and regiments in the Union army from the midwest comprised of these socialist emigrants and they even held their socialist meetings around the campfires.
> 
> It's not farfetched to say that the Civil War was the socialist revolution of America and it succeeded where the Revolutions of 1848 in Europe had failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just the opposite about 1848.   The plutocrats were afraid it would happen here, so they started a war to kill off the bravest of the working class and also free the slaves to work as  scab labor up North.
> 
> The reason the cheap-labor scam didn't work was that Blacks are incapable of doing industrialized jobs, which is also the reason the South didn't industrialize.
Click to expand...


That's ridiculous.  No way white confederate conservatives would put "machinery" into the hands of slaves.  Not when they could exploit them so much better doing menial work.


----------



## rdean

Unkotare said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a citizen, aren't you? Did you vote? Did your friends and neighbors? Do you think obama got elected just by voters in Northern states? Do you think that voters made that mistake - twice - because of some imaginary division relative to a war that ended with the crushing of a traitorous, evil rebellion over 150 years ago? The American Civil War is over, let it go. And if you don't think that a whole lot of people in whatever state you live in didn't make the mistake of voting for obama, you're crazy.
> 
> We are one country, whether you personally like it or not. Get used to the idea or get the fuck out and go live in some other country. And no, we're not breaking off a piece of this country for fools sucking on ancient sour grapes to occupy. Tough shit, go look elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. Unfortunately, there are Libtards in the South too.
> 
> However, Obama's idol, Lincoln, was elected even though he did not appear on the ballots in any of the Southern states because of his support for the Morrill Tariff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> obama's "idol" is FDR. He just invokes the name of Lincoln for crass political purposes.
Click to expand...


I suspect it's more likely, if he has an "idol", it would be Reagan.  Considering how kindly he talks about Reagan.  Clearly he has Reagan on a pedestal.


----------



## rdean

Foxfyre said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The fact is the war WAS NEVER ABOUT SLAVERY....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> funny, every declaration of secession by the CSA states said slavery was a major part of it.
> 
> if slavery didn't exist in the USA there would have never been a civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may be, but it did exist, and it was allowed by the Constitution that becomes the governing authority of all states that join the union.  And it was not slavery but the punative measures the North used to impose on the South by do gooders opposing slavery that compelled the Southern states to withdraw.  Would those punative measures have been inflicted if there was no slavery?  Probably not.  But it was not the South's misconduct toward the North that caused the Civil War but rather it was the North's determination to control the South that caused the Civil War.
> 
> If thee had been no power struggle in Europe at the time, there would have been no WWI.  If Nazi-ism and Fasism didn't exist, there would have been no WWII.  If communism didn't exist, there would have been no war in Korea and no Vietnam War.  If Muslim fanaticism didn't exist, there would be no war in Afghanistan now.
> 
> If Lincoln had  been willing to allow the South to withdraw peacefully and do its own thing, there would have been no Civil War.
Click to expand...


Bull shit.  There would have been a Civil War all right. Just not that one.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The fact is the war WAS NEVER ABOUT SLAVERY....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> funny, every declaration of secession by the CSA states said slavery was a major part of it.
> 
> if slavery didn't exist in the USA there would have never been a civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may be, but it did exist, and it was allowed by the Constitution that becomes the governing authority of all states that join the union.  And it was not slavery but the punative measures the North used to impose on the South by do gooders opposing slavery that compelled the Southern states to withdraw.  .
Click to expand...




No. Sincere politicians from both the North and the South had worked assiduously for decades - arguably since the Constitution was written - to reconcile the institution of slavery and the principles upon which this great nation was founded. Compromise after compromise was hammered out only to sooner or later run up against the fundamentally untenable reality of slavery in our growing nation. Eventually, some faithless fools grew tired of trying to honor our Union and chose treason for themselves and death for well over half a million men. This, when all is said and done, in the name of an evil institution and the personal ambitions of a few hidden behind the gauzy justifications of men ultimately without loyalty, vision, or morality.


----------



## oldfart

Foxfyre said:


> But it was not the South's misconduct toward the North that caused the Civil War but rather it was the North's determination to control the South that caused the Civil War.



I think you have slipped into a grave error.  First you have leaped from a simple counterfactual history exercise to an argument on the causes of the Civil War, and in the process taking a side that at its core is a defense of slavery.  To that I vehemently object.  There was a great deal of Southern misconduct toward the North.  No reasonable interpretation of history can ignore the plain fact that from 1820 to 1860 the South made increasing demands on the North, abrogated agreements such as the Missouri Compromise, threatened succession at every turn from 1854, and yet it was not enough.  

If this is your view of history, you have aligned yourself with the worst aspects of American history and culture and have become another apologist for racism and slavery. 

If you want to discuss a counterfactual history, that is one thing.  But to put forward a false history to justify slavery is another.  You should be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## Foxfyre

oldfart said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it was not the South's misconduct toward the North that caused the Civil War but rather it was the North's determination to control the South that caused the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have slipped into a grave error.  First you have leaped from a simple counterfactual history exercise to an argument on the causes of the Civil War, and in the process taking a side that at its core is a defense of slavery.  To that I vehemently object.  There was a great deal of Southern misconduct toward the North.  No reasonable interpretation of history can ignore the plain fact that from 1820 to 1860 the South made increasing demands on the North, abrogated agreements such as the Missouri Compromise, threatened succession at every turn from 1854, and yet it was not enough.
> 
> If this is your view of history, you have aligned yourself with the worst aspects of American history and culture and have become another apologist for racism and slavery.
> 
> If you want to discuss a counterfactual history, that is one thing.  But to put forward a false history to justify slavery is another.  You should be ashamed of yourself.
Click to expand...


You should be ashamed of yourself for not reading more carefully.  In no place have I said there was no misconduct on the part of the South.  What I said was that Southern misconduct was not the cause of the Civil War.

Further if you can find anything I have ever written in my entire life, let alone at USMB, that even suggests an attempt on my part to justify slavery go for it.  Otherwise you are telling a lie about what I have written.


----------



## gipper

Foxfyre said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it was not the South's misconduct toward the North that caused the Civil War but rather it was the North's determination to control the South that caused the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have slipped into a grave error.  First you have leaped from a simple counterfactual history exercise to an argument on the causes of the Civil War, and in the process taking a side that at its core is a defense of slavery.  To that I vehemently object.  There was a great deal of Southern misconduct toward the North.  No reasonable interpretation of history can ignore the plain fact that from 1820 to 1860 the South made increasing demands on the North, abrogated agreements such as the Missouri Compromise, threatened succession at every turn from 1854, and yet it was not enough.
> 
> If this is your view of history, you have aligned yourself with the worst aspects of American history and culture and have become another apologist for racism and slavery.
> 
> If you want to discuss a counterfactual history, that is one thing.  But to put forward a false history to justify slavery is another.  You should be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should be ashamed of yourself for not reading more carefully.  In no place have I said there was no misconduct on the part of the South.  What I said was that Southern misconduct was not the cause of the Civil War.
> 
> Further if you can find anything I have ever written in my entire life, let alone at USMB, that even suggests an attempt on my part to justify slavery go for it.  Otherwise you are telling a lie about what I have written.
Click to expand...


There is no doubt Olddick should be ashamed of his silly uninformed statements and hateful rhetoric.  Sadly, he is a Lincoln Cultist and the facts will never change him.  He learned lies about Lincoln and the war in second grade...in the government propaganda mills....and never progressed from there.

The war was NEVER about slavery, in Lincoln's mind.  He sang the praises of slavery over and over before he was elected and in his first inaugural.  He had no intention of ending it and was an extreme white supremacist even for his time.  The Lincoln Cult likes to cite his inviting black leaders to the White House, as if this proves he was not an outrageous racist.  When in fact, he invited them there to ask them to deport themselves.

Slavery no doubt played a big role in causing the war, but it was NEVER Lincoln's cause and he was the one responsible for starting it. He clearly told the slave states you can keep slavery FOREVER, but if you don't pay the Federal government it's taxes, we will kill you.



> Cost Of The American Civil War
> 
> The approximately 10,455 military engagements, some devastating to human life and some nearly bloodless, plus naval clashes, accidents, suicides, sicknesses, murders, and executions resulted in total casualties of 1,094,453 during the Civil War.
> In dollars and cents, the U.S. government estimated Jan. 1863 that the war was costing $2.5 million daily. A final official estimate in 1879 totaled $6,190,000,000. The Confederacy spent perhaps $2,099,808,707. By 1906 another $3.3 billion already had been spent by the U.S. government on Northerners' pensions and other veterans' benefits for former Federal soldiers. Southern states and private philanthropy provided benefits to the Confederate veterans. The amount spent on benefits eventually well exceeded the war's original cost.
> The physical devastation, almost all of it in the South, was enormous: burned or plundered homes, pillaged countryside, untold losses in crops and farm animals, ruined buildings and bridges, devastated college campuses, and neglected roads all left the South in ruins.Cost Of The American Civil War



If the war was about ending slavery, all Dishonest Abe had to do was pay off the slave owners.  Would that not have been FAR LESS COSTLY than the war?  Of course it would, but the Lincoln Cultists will never tire of their ignorant and foolish beliefs.

The war, in Lincoln's mind, was about increasing federal government power and wealth.  Very much like every major war other POTUS's forced on America. Most disgusting!!!


----------



## BDBoop

There's some fascinating thinking going on in here.

Has Harry Turtledove or a comparable writer written a book or series on the subject?


----------



## BDBoop

Foxfyre said:


> Does anybody have some bug spray to deal with annoying little gnats?
> 
> One does have to wonder why some feel so threatened by the honest history of past events.  But we see the same phenomenon on the religion thread.  Once some folks have stuff in their heads, no matter how indefensible, you couldn't dislodge it with a nuclear blast.



Step around the dropped turds, I find this thread fascinating.


----------



## BDBoop

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Won it with European conscripts, are Europeans republicans now? If you are not proud of the killings why did you say you were "proud" and then continue on with your bragging?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go cry me a river you cock sucker. You will now be on ignore because I refuse to debate a ignorant fuck who accuses me of being proud people died. Go to hell and burn asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said you were "proud" I quoted it.  Hundreds of thousands of people were killed.  Apparently you think they all deserved to die for the cause.  Otherwise why would you be proud of one of the results.  Means justify the ends.   You said it.  Not me.
Click to expand...


Did 144 just whine that his ass was burning? No wonder he's being such a dick! He's in pain, ffs. Somebody get him some butthurt paste.


----------



## MuadDib

Hoffstra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The fact is the war WAS NEVER ABOUT SLAVERY....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> funny, every declaration of secession by the CSA states said slavery was a major part of it.
> 
> if slavery didn't exist in the USA there would have never been a civil war.
Click to expand...


The ordinances of secession did list slavery. However, that had more to do with the Constitutional questions of the federal government seizing private property, not the actual freeing of slaves. 

While slavery did have more to do with the secession of the deep south, it was Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers to raise an army to invade the south that triggered the secession of the border states.

You're also wrong on your last sentence. Even if the slave states had abolished slavery by 1860, there would still have been a Civil War because of the taxation and the political differences between the 2 sections. That's why the slavery-centric view of the war just doesn't hold up in the face of *all* the facts.


----------



## Peterf

Hoffstra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The fact is the war WAS NEVER ABOUT SLAVERY....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> funny, every declaration of secession by the CSA states said slavery was a major part of it.
> 
> if slavery didn't exist in the USA there would have never been a civil war.
Click to expand...


I find your point persuasive.    As I understand it the South wanted to extend slavery into new Western territories and the federal government would not allow this to happen.


----------



## MuadDib

Peterf said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The fact is the war WAS NEVER ABOUT SLAVERY....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> funny, every declaration of secession by the CSA states said slavery was a major part of it.
> 
> if slavery didn't exist in the USA there would have never been a civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find your point persuasive.    As I understand it the South wanted to extend slavery into new Western territories and the federal government would not allow this to happen.
Click to expand...


Slavery was dying a natural death and would have been gone easily by 1870. It could have been ended much sooner if it hadn't been for the radical abolitionists.


----------



## Hoffstra

MuadDib said:


> Slavery was dying a natural death and would have been gone easily by 1870. It could have been ended much sooner if it hadn't been for the radical abolitionists.



bullshit.

the South depended on slave labor.

that's why they were furious that slavery wasn't extending West.

that's why they seceded.


----------



## thanatos144

MuadDib said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> 
> funny, every declaration of secession by the CSA states said slavery was a major part of it.
> 
> if slavery didn't exist in the USA there would have never been a civil war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find your point persuasive.    As I understand it the South wanted to extend slavery into new Western territories and the federal government would not allow this to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was dying a natural death and would have been gone easily by 1870. It could have been ended much sooner if it hadn't been for the radical abolitionists.
Click to expand...


I am sure slavery going away was great news to the thousands left in bondage for decades by your heroes


----------



## Unkotare

Peterf said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The fact is the war WAS NEVER ABOUT SLAVERY....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> funny, every declaration of secession by the CSA states said slavery was a major part of it.
> 
> if slavery didn't exist in the USA there would have never been a civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find your point persuasive.    As I understand it the South wanted to extend slavery into new Western territories and the federal government would not allow this to happen.
Click to expand...



It wasn't so much the federal government not "allowing" it to happen. There were efforts at compromise over this as well, but the nation as a whole was growing more and more anti-slavery, leaving a relatively small number of large-scale slave owners feeling increasingly isolated. These people were in a position to influence local power and politics and to demagogue the issue into something monstrous by, among other things, trying to tie the "tradition" of slavery to states rights and a fabricated outrage over the perceived centralization of power in the federal government. Instead of acting like statesmen, some key figures in the South then turned traitor and led over half a million men to their deaths.


----------



## Foxfyre

gipper said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have slipped into a grave error.  First you have leaped from a simple counterfactual history exercise to an argument on the causes of the Civil War, and in the process taking a side that at its core is a defense of slavery.  To that I vehemently object.  There was a great deal of Southern misconduct toward the North.  No reasonable interpretation of history can ignore the plain fact that from 1820 to 1860 the South made increasing demands on the North, abrogated agreements such as the Missouri Compromise, threatened succession at every turn from 1854, and yet it was not enough.
> 
> If this is your view of history, you have aligned yourself with the worst aspects of American history and culture and have become another apologist for racism and slavery.
> 
> If you want to discuss a counterfactual history, that is one thing.  But to put forward a false history to justify slavery is another.  You should be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should be ashamed of yourself for not reading more carefully.  In no place have I said there was no misconduct on the part of the South.  What I said was that Southern misconduct was not the cause of the Civil War.
> 
> Further if you can find anything I have ever written in my entire life, let alone at USMB, that even suggests an attempt on my part to justify slavery go for it.  Otherwise you are telling a lie about what I have written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no doubt Olddick should be ashamed of his silly uninformed statements and hateful rhetoric.  Sadly, he is a Lincoln Cultist and the facts will never change him.  He learned lies about Lincoln and the war in second grade...in the government propaganda mills....and never progressed from there.
> 
> The war was NEVER about slavery, in Lincoln's mind.  He sang the praises of slavery over and over before he was elected and in his first inaugural.  He had no intention of ending it and was an extreme white supremacist even for his time.  The Lincoln Cult likes to cite his inviting black leaders to the White House, as if this proves he was not an outrageous racist.  When in fact, he invited them there to ask them to deport themselves.
> 
> Slavery no doubt played a big role in causing the war, but it was NEVER Lincoln's cause and he was the one responsible for starting it. He clearly told the slave states you can keep slavery FOREVER, but if you don't pay the Federal government it's taxes, we will kill you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cost Of The American Civil War
> 
> The approximately 10,455 military engagements, some devastating to human life and some nearly bloodless, plus naval clashes, accidents, suicides, sicknesses, murders, and executions resulted in total casualties of 1,094,453 during the Civil War.
> In dollars and cents, the U.S. government estimated Jan. 1863 that the war was costing $2.5 million daily. A final official estimate in 1879 totaled $6,190,000,000. The Confederacy spent perhaps $2,099,808,707. By 1906 another $3.3 billion already had been spent by the U.S. government on Northerners' pensions and other veterans' benefits for former Federal soldiers. Southern states and private philanthropy provided benefits to the Confederate veterans. The amount spent on benefits eventually well exceeded the war's original cost.
> The physical devastation, almost all of it in the South, was enormous: burned or plundered homes, pillaged countryside, untold losses in crops and farm animals, ruined buildings and bridges, devastated college campuses, and neglected roads all left the South in ruins.Cost Of The American Civil War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the war was about ending slavery, all Dishonest Abe had to do was pay off the slave owners.  Would that not have been FAR LESS COSTLY than the war?  Of course it would, but the Lincoln Cultists will never tire of their ignorant and foolish beliefs.
> 
> The war, in Lincoln's mind, was about increasing federal government power and wealth.  Very much like every major war other POTUS's forced on America. Most disgusting!!!
Click to expand...


Well, while I agree with you that the war was never about slavery in Lincoln's mind, I, as I have with some others, have to gently disagree on a few other of your observations and opinions.

I think a careful and thoughtful reading of the whole history shows Lincoln not to be one to seek to increase federal powers, but he did interpret the Constitution as intending that the union be preserved.  Perhaps at a selfish level, he did not want a division of the country as his legacy, but I do believe he held a heartfelt conviction that preseving the union was the right thing to do.

Also, I can find nothing in Lincoln's writings, speech transcriptions, or in testimony of those who knew him that suggests he was in any way a white supremacist.  He was a strong segregationist yes, as he, like almost every other person of his generation and culture, both black and white, was.  That is a very different thing.

Lincoln was from Illinois, the most staunchly segregationist and anti-black state of any in the union, so he was definitely working outside the box and outside the prevailing politically correct stance when he said in Peoria in 1854:

When the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs himself and also governs another man, that is more than self-government  that is despotism. If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that all men are created equal, and that there can be no moral right in connection with one mans making a slave of another.​
In other words his view was equal but separate.  The white supremacist sees his race as the superior one.  I cannot find any evidence that Lincoln took that view.


----------



## MuadDib

Hoffstra said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was dying a natural death and would have been gone easily by 1870. It could have been ended much sooner if it hadn't been for the radical abolitionists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit.
> 
> the South depended on slave labor.
> 
> that's why they were furious that slavery wasn't extending West.
> 
> that's why they seceded.
Click to expand...


You're ignoring historical facts in favor of propaganda and hyperbole. You seem to do that a lot.

Only 14% of the population owned any slaves at all and the majority were owned by the wealthiest 6%. 86% owned no slaves and had no vested interest in it. The southern middle class saw slavery as an obstacle to their prosperity.

So ask yourself why the majority of the population were willing to go to war over an institution that the vast majority, almost 9 out of 10, had no part of.

It wasn't called the Age of Enlightenment for nothing. Slavery was dying a natural death. Industrial slavery had already proven itself untenable and agricultural slavery was doing likewise. There were 5 times as many abolitionist societies in the south than there were in the north.

If you owned a slave, you had to house him, feed him, provide him with essentials for daily life, and provide medical care. It's cheaper and simpler to hire an employee, pay him a wage, and let him sort those things our for himself.


----------



## RKMBrown

rdean said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. Unfortunately, there are Libtards in the South too.
> 
> However, Obama's idol, Lincoln, was elected even though he did not appear on the ballots in any of the Southern states because of his support for the Morrill Tariff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> obama's "idol" is FDR. He just invokes the name of Lincoln for crass political purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect it's more likely, if he has an "idol", it would be Reagan.  Considering how kindly he talks about Reagan.  Clearly he has Reagan on a pedestal.
Click to expand...


His idols were his alcoholic communist Father and his porn star mom.  After they died his Idol became himself.  He may wish he had the power to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans like Lincoln did with European conscripts, and he may lust after the admiration Reagan has. But his idols have always been communists, domestic terrorists, and scum.


----------



## MuadDib

thanatos144 said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find your point persuasive.    As I understand it the South wanted to extend slavery into new Western territories and the federal government would not allow this to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was dying a natural death and would have been gone easily by 1870. It could have been ended much sooner if it hadn't been for the radical abolitionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure slavery going away was great news to the thousands left in bondage for decades by your heroes
Click to expand...


Slavery existed in America for 246 years. It only existed in the Confederate states for 4 years. No slave ship ever sailed under a Confederate flag and the south consitutionally banned foreign slave trade from the beginning. Importation was done by Yankee slave traders.

You might also bear in mind that slavery was still legal in 5 loyal Union states: Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, and was legal in the Federal capital when the war began. U.S. Grant didn't free his slaves until the ratification of the 13th Amendment 8 months after the war forced him to do so.

The Underground Railroad took escaped slaves up north...all the way to Canada because the northern states amended their state constitutions to prevent them from moving within their borders.

Southerners aditted their sins a long time ago. Northerners never have.

So you might want to be careful about who you accuse of keeping people in bondage.


----------



## thanatos144

MuadDib said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was dying a natural death and would have been gone easily by 1870. It could have been ended much sooner if it hadn't been for the radical abolitionists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure slavery going away was great news to the thousands left in bondage for decades by your heroes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery existed in America for 246 years. It only existed in the Confederate states for 4 years. No slave ship ever sailed under a Confederate flag and the south consitutionally banned foreign slave trade from the beginning. Importation was done by Yankee slave traders.
> 
> You might also bear in mind that slavery was still legal in 5 loyal Union states: Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, and was legal in the Federal capital when the war began. U.S. Grant didn't free his slaves until the ratification of the 13th Amendment 8 months after the war forced him to do so.
> 
> The Underground Railroad took escaped slaves up north...all the way to Canada because the northern states amended their state constitutions to prevent them from moving within their borders.
> 
> Southerners aditted their sins a long time ago. Northerners never have.
> 
> So you might want to be careful about who you accuse of keeping people in bondage.
Click to expand...


So because slavery was around for a long time it is fine that they would have remained so for decades if the emancipation proclamation was never written? Please do all of us republican conservatives a favour and stay a democrat libertarian


----------



## gipper

Foxfyre said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should be ashamed of yourself for not reading more carefully.  In no place have I said there was no misconduct on the part of the South.  What I said was that Southern misconduct was not the cause of the Civil War.
> 
> Further if you can find anything I have ever written in my entire life, let alone at USMB, that even suggests an attempt on my part to justify slavery go for it.  Otherwise you are telling a lie about what I have written.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no doubt Olddick should be ashamed of his silly uninformed statements and hateful rhetoric.  Sadly, he is a Lincoln Cultist and the facts will never change him.  He learned lies about Lincoln and the war in second grade...in the government propaganda mills....and never progressed from there.
> 
> The war was NEVER about slavery, in Lincoln's mind.  He sang the praises of slavery over and over before he was elected and in his first inaugural.  He had no intention of ending it and was an extreme white supremacist even for his time.  The Lincoln Cult likes to cite his inviting black leaders to the White House, as if this proves he was not an outrageous racist.  When in fact, he invited them there to ask them to deport themselves.
> 
> Slavery no doubt played a big role in causing the war, but it was NEVER Lincoln's cause and he was the one responsible for starting it. He clearly told the slave states you can keep slavery FOREVER, but if you don't pay the Federal government it's taxes, we will kill you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cost Of The American Civil War
> 
> The approximately 10,455 military engagements, some devastating to human life and some nearly bloodless, plus naval clashes, accidents, suicides, sicknesses, murders, and executions resulted in total casualties of 1,094,453 during the Civil War.
> In dollars and cents, the U.S. government estimated Jan. 1863 that the war was costing $2.5 million daily. A final official estimate in 1879 totaled $6,190,000,000. The Confederacy spent perhaps $2,099,808,707. By 1906 another $3.3 billion already had been spent by the U.S. government on Northerners' pensions and other veterans' benefits for former Federal soldiers. Southern states and private philanthropy provided benefits to the Confederate veterans. The amount spent on benefits eventually well exceeded the war's original cost.
> The physical devastation, almost all of it in the South, was enormous: burned or plundered homes, pillaged countryside, untold losses in crops and farm animals, ruined buildings and bridges, devastated college campuses, and neglected roads all left the South in ruins.Cost Of The American Civil War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the war was about ending slavery, all Dishonest Abe had to do was pay off the slave owners.  Would that not have been FAR LESS COSTLY than the war?  Of course it would, but the Lincoln Cultists will never tire of their ignorant and foolish beliefs.
> 
> The war, in Lincoln's mind, was about increasing federal government power and wealth.  Very much like every major war other POTUS's forced on America. Most disgusting!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, while I agree with you that the war was never about slavery in Lincoln's mind, I, as I have with some others, have to gently disagree on a few other of your observations and opinions.
> 
> I think a careful and thoughtful reading of the whole history shows Lincoln not to be one to seek to increase federal powers, but he did interpret the Constitution as intending that the union be preserved.  Perhaps at a selfish level, he did not want a division of the country as his legacy, but I do believe he held a heartfelt conviction that preseving the union was the right thing to do.
> 
> Also, I can find nothing in Lincoln's writings, speech transcriptions, or in testimony of those who knew him that suggests he was in any way a white supremacist.  He was a strong segregationist yes, as he, like almost every other person of his generation and culture, both black and white, was.  That is a very different thing.
> 
> Lincoln was from Illinois, the most staunchly segregationist and anti-black state of any in the union, so he was definitely working outside the box and outside the prevailing politically correct stance when he said in Peoria in 1854:
> 
> &#8220;When the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs himself and also governs another man, that is more than self-government &#8212; that is despotism. If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that &#8220;all men are created equal,&#8221; and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man&#8217;s making a slave of another.&#8221;​
> In other words his view was equal but separate.  The white supremacist sees his race as the superior one.  I cannot find any evidence that Lincoln took that view.
Click to expand...




> &#8220;I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races&#8212;that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.&#8221; Dishonest Abe 1858
> Fourth Debate: Charleston, Illinois - Lincoln Home National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service)



Of course he believed the white race superior to blacks.  And he sought to deport all blacks from America to his dying day.  

On August 14, 1862, Lincoln met with five free black ministers and uttered these words...


> You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.
> 
> ... Even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race ... The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent, not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours. Go where you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you.
> 
> ... We look to our condition, owing to the existence of the two races on this continent. I need not recount to you the effects upon white men growing out of the institution of slavery. I believe in its general evil effects on the white race.



He told General Butler in April 1865...


> "But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free? I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes ... I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves."



And regarding Lincoln and the Constitution...he like most presidents since his tenure, thought it meant whatever suited him.  He shut down numerous Northern newspapers who disagreed with him, he ignored habeas corpus and arrested thousands...he arrested, imprisoned, and deported a Congressman who disagreed with him.  So....Lincoln and the Constitution had little in common....very similar to Wilson in WWI with his Sedition Act and FDR imprisoning Japanese Americans in WWII.


----------



## PrometheusBound

Toro said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CSA's economic system was largely slave based agriculture and export dependent.
> 
> Had the Rpublic allowed the CSA to go its own way the war between the USA and CSA would likely have happened shortly after it happened, anyway.
> 
> the CSA had its eyes on the American West, Mexica and central America and the Caribean.
> 
> Sooner or later the USA and the CSA would have gone to war over some expansionist policy or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why, when we never had a war with Canada?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did.
> 
> And you lost, big time!
> 
> [youtube]Ety2FEHQgwM[/youtube]
Click to expand...


1812 was a war against the British army and navy stationed in Canada.   You might as well say we had two wars against France, even though those were against the Germans stationed there.


----------



## Foxfyre

gipper said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no doubt Olddick should be ashamed of his silly uninformed statements and hateful rhetoric.  Sadly, he is a Lincoln Cultist and the facts will never change him.  He learned lies about Lincoln and the war in second grade...in the government propaganda mills....and never progressed from there.
> 
> The war was NEVER about slavery, in Lincoln's mind.  He sang the praises of slavery over and over before he was elected and in his first inaugural.  He had no intention of ending it and was an extreme white supremacist even for his time.  The Lincoln Cult likes to cite his inviting black leaders to the White House, as if this proves he was not an outrageous racist.  When in fact, he invited them there to ask them to deport themselves.
> 
> Slavery no doubt played a big role in causing the war, but it was NEVER Lincoln's cause and he was the one responsible for starting it. He clearly told the slave states you can keep slavery FOREVER, but if you don't pay the Federal government it's taxes, we will kill you.
> 
> 
> 
> If the war was about ending slavery, all Dishonest Abe had to do was pay off the slave owners.  Would that not have been FAR LESS COSTLY than the war?  Of course it would, but the Lincoln Cultists will never tire of their ignorant and foolish beliefs.
> 
> The war, in Lincoln's mind, was about increasing federal government power and wealth.  Very much like every major war other POTUS's forced on America. Most disgusting!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, while I agree with you that the war was never about slavery in Lincoln's mind, I, as I have with some others, have to gently disagree on a few other of your observations and opinions.
> 
> I think a careful and thoughtful reading of the whole history shows Lincoln not to be one to seek to increase federal powers, but he did interpret the Constitution as intending that the union be preserved.  Perhaps at a selfish level, he did not want a division of the country as his legacy, but I do believe he held a heartfelt conviction that preseving the union was the right thing to do.
> 
> Also, I can find nothing in Lincoln's writings, speech transcriptions, or in testimony of those who knew him that suggests he was in any way a white supremacist.  He was a strong segregationist yes, as he, like almost every other person of his generation and culture, both black and white, was.  That is a very different thing.
> 
> Lincoln was from Illinois, the most staunchly segregationist and anti-black state of any in the union, so he was definitely working outside the box and outside the prevailing politically correct stance when he said in Peoria in 1854:
> 
> When the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs himself and also governs another man, that is more than self-government  that is despotism. If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that all men are created equal, and that there can be no moral right in connection with one mans making a slave of another.​
> In other words his view was equal but separate.  The white supremacist sees his race as the superior one.  I cannot find any evidence that Lincoln took that view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he believed the white race superior to blacks.  And he sought to deport all blacks from America to his dying day.
> 
> On August 14, 1862, Lincoln met with five free black ministers and uttered these words...
> 
> 
> 
> You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.
> 
> ... Even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race ... The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent, not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours. Go where you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you.
> 
> ... We look to our condition, owing to the existence of the two races on this continent. I need not recount to you the effects upon white men growing out of the institution of slavery. I believe in its general evil effects on the white race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He told General Butler in April 1865...
> 
> 
> 
> "But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free? I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes ... I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I still won't go with your PC version of History and I will rather insist that you put your quotations into their full context for the true version of the history.  

Yes, Lincoln thought the black people should go to Liberia or South America where they would be on equal footing and have the best chance to live their lives as they chose.  He did not believe they would get a fair shake in the USA either in the North or the South.   He did not consider the white race superior to the black race.  He did oppose intermingling of the races as did most people of his generation and culture, both black people and white people.

You can despise Abraham Lincoln to your hearts content, but when you distort history to do it you will be called on it by people like me.  I will neither exalt him to the pedestal where some wish to put him nor demonize him as you attempt to do here.

Both are distortions of history.


----------



## PrometheusBound

rdean said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Brown is considered as one of the major triggers of the war, but look at what he was doing. He took over a federal arsennal in Harper's Ferry, VA (now WV) trying to incite a slave rebellion and arm the slaves with weapons from the arsennal. It failed, no slaves showed up or rose up, and Brown was captured, tried, convicted, and hanged.
> 
> You can't win hearts and minds to your cause by trying to incite mass murder.
> 
> The slavery issue was being fought mainly by the radical abolitionists in Massachusetts and the fire eaters in South Carolina. Most people on both sides didn't give a damn about slavery. They were thinking about and fighting over entirely other things. Revisionist history has made slavery much more of an issue today than it was then.
> 
> Taxes and tariffs had been a hot-button issue practically from the founding and led to the Nullification Crises in the 1830's. The tariff issue settle down for a few years, but gradually creeped back in.
> 
> During the Crimean War (1853-1856), Southern agriculture was booming. European farmers were feeding the armies and Southern agriculture was feeding the civilian population. When the war ended, the demand for Southern agriculture declined and the nation's economy slumped. In 1857, the economy took further hits when the Dred Scott decision nullified the Missouri Compromise, threw the slvery debate there back into question, and caused the railroads' vast land holdings in the midwest to devalue. Then the New York office of the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Co. closed because of embezzlement and its closure almost caused a run on the banks.
> 
> The nation's economy fell into a severe recession. Congress actually did the right thing and passed the Tariff Act of 1857 which lowered the tariff rates and the economy stablized in 2 years.
> 
> Just as the economy stablized and began a recovery, Congressman Justin Morrill of Vermont proposed a massive tariff increase called the Morrill Tariff. Southerners knew they would once again bear the brunt of tariffs on imports and exports.
> 
> There was a concern about Lincoln being elected as a Republican, however. The Republican Party was founded almost entirely on the abolition issue alone. When the socialist Revolutions of 1848 in Europe failed, many of its participants, known as the Forty-Eighters, were exiled or fled for their lives and emigrated to the US. They entered the Whig Party and split it over the slavery issue. Owning property is contrary to socialist ideals and Marx specifically opposed slavery in his Communist Manifesto. It was these socialist anti-slavery Whigs that formed the Republican Party. When Lincoln won solely on the Northern vote, the South wanted nothing to do with his economic policies and that's what triggered secession.
> 
> The Forty-Eighters played a significant role in Lincoln's election and were handsomely rewarded by Lincoln with large tracts of land by the Homestead Act. A lot of them had military experience in the armies back in Europe and from the Revolutions of 1848. Many of these revolutions were attempted military coups, so they had military experience and were appointed by Lincoln as generals in the Union army and offices in the Lincoln administration. There were entire companies and regiments in the Union army from the midwest comprised of these socialist emigrants and they even held their socialist meetings around the campfires.
> 
> It's not farfetched to say that the Civil War was the socialist revolution of America and it succeeded where the Revolutions of 1848 in Europe had failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just the opposite about 1848.   The plutocrats were afraid it would happen here, so they started a war to kill off the bravest of the working class and also free the slaves to work as  scab labor up North.
> 
> The reason the cheap-labor scam didn't work was that Blacks are incapable of doing industrialized jobs, which is also the reason the South didn't industrialize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous.  No way white confederate conservatives would put "machinery" into the hands of slaves.  Not when they could exploit them so much better doing menial work.
Click to expand...


No, they would have made more money and benefited from the tariffs as much as the Northern wage-slavers if the Black slaves had been able to do anything more complicated than picking cotton.   The Northern working class was exploited more, because what they produced was more valuable, though they got very little out of it themselves.   Deny your slavishness to the ruling class all you can, you always give yourselves away by swallowing their evasion of guilt in starting this hypocritical war, which led to all our social problems today.


----------



## PrometheusBound

oldfart said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it was not the South's misconduct toward the North that caused the Civil War but rather it was the North's determination to control the South that caused the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have slipped into a grave error.  First you have leaped from a simple counterfactual history exercise to an argument on the causes of the Civil War, and in the process taking a side that at its core is a defense of slavery.  To that I vehemently object.  There was a great deal of Southern misconduct toward the North.  No reasonable interpretation of history can ignore the plain fact that from 1820 to 1860 the South made increasing demands on the North, abrogated agreements such as the Missouri Compromise, threatened succession at every turn from 1854, and yet it was not enough.
> 
> If this is your view of history, you have aligned yourself with the worst aspects of American history and culture and have become another apologist for racism and slavery.
> 
> If you want to discuss a counterfactual history, that is one thing.  But to put forward a false history to justify slavery is another.  You should be ashamed of yourself.
Click to expand...


You mean he doesn't get a Kumbaya halo of New Age moral superiority?  

OLD SCHOOL:  Drive
NEW AGE:   Drift


----------



## MuadDib

thanatos144 said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure slavery going away was great news to the thousands left in bondage for decades by your heroes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery existed in America for 246 years. It only existed in the Confederate states for 4 years. No slave ship ever sailed under a Confederate flag and the south consitutionally banned foreign slave trade from the beginning. Importation was done by Yankee slave traders.
> 
> You might also bear in mind that slavery was still legal in 5 loyal Union states: Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, and was legal in the Federal capital when the war began. U.S. Grant didn't free his slaves until the ratification of the 13th Amendment 8 months after the war forced him to do so.
> 
> The Underground Railroad took escaped slaves up north...all the way to Canada because the northern states amended their state constitutions to prevent them from moving within their borders.
> 
> Southerners aditted their sins a long time ago. Northerners never have.
> 
> So you might want to be careful about who you accuse of keeping people in bondage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So because slavery was around for a long time it is fine that they would have remained so for decades if the emancipation proclamation was never written? Please do all of us republican conservatives a favour and stay a democrat libertarian
Click to expand...


You do know that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave, don't you?


----------



## thanatos144

Idiot


----------



## Peterf

PrometheusBound said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why, when we never had a war with Canada?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did.
> 
> And you lost, big time!
> 
> [youtube]Ety2FEHQgwM[/youtube]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1812 was a war against the British army and navy stationed in Canada.   You might as well say we had two wars against France, even though those were against the Germans stationed there.
Click to expand...


That's one way of looking at it.    Another way is that the USA tried to grab Canada while the British had their hands full fighting the tyrant Napoleon.    Having read quite a lot about it I go for the second view.

The US invaded Canada and burnt the then capital, Toronto.   Had British forces not been there Canada would have been annexed and incorporated into the USA.


----------



## PrometheusBound

Peterf said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did.
> 
> And you lost, big time!
> 
> [youtube]Ety2FEHQgwM[/youtube]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1812 was a war against the British army and navy stationed in Canada.   You might as well say we had two wars against France, even though those were against the Germans stationed there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's one way of looking at it.    Another way is that the USA tried to grab Canada while the British had their hands full fighting the tyrant Napoleon.    Having read quite a lot about it I go for the second view.
> 
> The US invaded Canada and burnt the then capital, Toronto.   Had British forces not been there Canada would have been annexed and incorporated into the USA.
Click to expand...


It's easy to defeat Canucks.   Just throw a hockey puck among them and they'll start fighting themselves over it.


----------



## bendog

The bastard canadians are 2-0 against us and sent Ted Cruz our way.


----------



## bendog

GOP Senate Candidate Addressed Conference Hosted by Neo-Confederate Group That Promotes Secessionism | Mother Jones


----------



## MuadDib

bendog said:


> GOP Senate Candidate Addressed Conference Hosted by Neo-Confederate Group That Promotes Secessionism | Mother Jones



Mother Jones... 

The Sons of Confederate Veterans is a historical and genealogical organization for the descendents of Confederate soldiers. They are not "neo-Confederates" nor do they advocate secession. There is also an organization for descendents of Union veterans called the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War.


----------



## Boss

The South held the #1, #2, and #3 leading export of the United States. Cotton, tobacco and sugar cane. The #4 leading export was held by the North, textiles, but textiled relied on Southern cotton. So we have to assume, barring some sort of trade alliance, the South would have been markedly better off from a revenue standpoint. This would have more than funded industrialization in the South. 

Human slavery was on the way out long before the Civil War. We had not had open slave trade markets for more than a generation, and the advent of the cotton gin and other technologies were on the horizon. It would have simply been economically stupid to have continued using slaves past 1900 or so. 

The hypothetical question is almost impossible to consider because we have no way of knowing how history would have handled things like western expansion. Would California have been a Southern state? Would we have fought a war between the US and Confederacy anyway at some point over western lands? With the amounts of gold and silver discovered there, it's hard to imagine some hostility wouldn't have happened. What about the other wars fought with enemies to the South, like the Spanish-American war? Would the Confederacy fought that war by themselves? Would they have defeated the Spanish? Would the Confederates have obtained Florida? 

Then there is the issue of the Native Americans. Could the US have cleared out the huge areas of the midwest without the help of people like the Texas Rangers? Highly doubtful. So the United States would have quickly been solidified as what we currently know to be the Northeast. Much of the Northwest would have probably been ceded to Native American tribes. Our entire continent would have looked completely different. 

Vibrant agriculture trade in the South would have paved the way for technology and industrialization in the 19th century, and the CSA would have likely been the first to put a man on the moon. The South would have retained more timber, oil and coal as well. The Mississippi River would have been a huge lucrative asset for the South, as that would have been the only navigational course for export commerce from midwestern Northern industrial states. 

The more you think about this, the more you can see why Lincoln felt it was absolutely vital to keep the nation intact. Smug and condescending Yankees can second guess and speculate all they like, we'll never know what might have been. I'm guessing it wouldn't have been as rosey a scenario as you may think for the US.


----------



## gipper

Boss said:


> The South held the #1, #2, and #3 leading export of the United States. Cotton, tobacco and sugar cane. The #4 leading export was held by the North, textiles, but textiled relied on Southern cotton. So we have to assume, barring some sort of trade alliance, the South would have been markedly better off from a revenue standpoint. This would have more than funded industrialization in the South.
> 
> Human slavery was on the way out long before the Civil War. We had not had open slave trade markets for more than a generation, and the advent of the cotton gin and other technologies were on the horizon. It would have simply been economically stupid to have continued using slaves past 1900 or so.
> 
> The hypothetical question is almost impossible to consider because we have no way of knowing how history would have handled things like western expansion. Would California have been a Southern state? Would we have fought a war between the US and Confederacy anyway at some point over western lands? With the amounts of gold and silver discovered there, it's hard to imagine some hostility wouldn't have happened. What about the other wars fought with enemies to the South, like the Spanish-American war? Would the Confederacy fought that war by themselves? Would they have defeated the Spanish? Would the Confederates have obtained Florida?
> 
> Then there is the issue of the Native Americans. Could the US have cleared out the huge areas of the midwest without the help of people like the Texas Rangers? Highly doubtful. So the United States would have quickly been solidified as what we currently know to be the Northeast. Much of the Northwest would have probably been ceded to Native American tribes. Our entire continent would have looked completely different.
> 
> Vibrant agriculture trade in the South would have paved the way for technology and industrialization in the 19th century, and the CSA would have likely been the first to put a man on the moon. The South would have retained more timber, oil and coal as well. The Mississippi River would have been a huge lucrative asset for the South, as that would have been the only navigational course for export commerce from midwestern Northern industrial states.
> 
> The more you think about this, the more you can see why Lincoln felt it was absolutely vital to keep the nation intact. Smug and condescending Yankees can second guess and speculate all they like, we'll never know what might have been. I'm guessing it wouldn't have been as rosey a scenario as you may think for the US.



Lots of speculation there...it is difficult to know what would have occurred had the South been allowed to peacefully secede.

However the War of Northern Aggression was hardly rosy for most in the North and South.  My point is Lincoln's aggression resulted in terrible consequences including 100 years of horrendous racism throughout the South, suffering and poverty for most African Americans, the shredding of the Constitution, the expansion of the state, to say nothing of the huge number of dead and near total destruction of half the nation.  I think allowing the South to secede, would have been a much better choice.


----------



## Moonglow

gipper said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South held the #1, #2, and #3 leading export of the United States. Cotton, tobacco and sugar cane. The #4 leading export was held by the North, textiles, but textiled relied on Southern cotton. So we have to assume, barring some sort of trade alliance, the South would have been markedly better off from a revenue standpoint. This would have more than funded industrialization in the South.
> 
> Human slavery was on the way out long before the Civil War. We had not had open slave trade markets for more than a generation, and the advent of the cotton gin and other technologies were on the horizon. It would have simply been economically stupid to have continued using slaves past 1900 or so.
> 
> The hypothetical question is almost impossible to consider because we have no way of knowing how history would have handled things like western expansion. Would California have been a Southern state? Would we have fought a war between the US and Confederacy anyway at some point over western lands? With the amounts of gold and silver discovered there, it's hard to imagine some hostility wouldn't have happened. What about the other wars fought with enemies to the South, like the Spanish-American war? Would the Confederacy fought that war by themselves? Would they have defeated the Spanish? Would the Confederates have obtained Florida?
> 
> Then there is the issue of the Native Americans. Could the US have cleared out the huge areas of the midwest without the help of people like the Texas Rangers? Highly doubtful. So the United States would have quickly been solidified as what we currently know to be the Northeast. Much of the Northwest would have probably been ceded to Native American tribes. Our entire continent would have looked completely different.
> 
> Vibrant agriculture trade in the South would have paved the way for technology and industrialization in the 19th century, and the CSA would have likely been the first to put a man on the moon. The South would have retained more timber, oil and coal as well. The Mississippi River would have been a huge lucrative asset for the South, as that would have been the only navigational course for export commerce from midwestern Northern industrial states.
> 
> The more you think about this, the more you can see why Lincoln felt it was absolutely vital to keep the nation intact. Smug and condescending Yankees can second guess and speculate all they like, we'll never know what might have been. I'm guessing it wouldn't have been as rosey a scenario as you may think for the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of speculation there...it is difficult to know what would have occurred had the South been allowed to peacefully secede.
> 
> However the War of Northern Aggression was hardly rosy for most in the North and South.  My point is Lincoln's aggression resulted in terrible consequences including 100 years of horrendous racism throughout the South, suffering and poverty for most African Americans, the shredding of the Constitution, the expansion of the state, to say nothing of the huge number of dead and near total destruction of half the nation.  I think allowing the South to secede, would have been a much better choice.
Click to expand...


Not with the forced human denigration by southern human misery owners..Their inhuman treatment and social stigmas were a travesty and blight upon the so called Christians that feel that being utter bastards was normal..


----------



## rightwinger

Boss said:


> Human slavery was on the way out long before the Civil War. We had not had open slave trade markets for more than a generation, and the advent of the cotton gin and other technologies were on the horizon. It would have simply been economically stupid to have continued using slaves past 1900 or so.
> 
> .


 
The cotton gin was widely available in the early 1800s. It is what created the cotton boom and revigorated the need for slaves. The slave population was increasing not decreasing.Cotton was "white gold" and the South was the worlds leading producer. Untold cotton wealth was flowing into the south and they refused to share that wealth with those who were actually doing the work. Free labor meant more profits.
Cotton was picked by hand until the 1930s. There would have been no incentive to break away from slavery and when they did, they would have created an official second class citizenship for blacks


----------



## gipper

Moonglow said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South held the #1, #2, and #3 leading export of the United States. Cotton, tobacco and sugar cane. The #4 leading export was held by the North, textiles, but textiled relied on Southern cotton. So we have to assume, barring some sort of trade alliance, the South would have been markedly better off from a revenue standpoint. This would have more than funded industrialization in the South.
> 
> Human slavery was on the way out long before the Civil War. We had not had open slave trade markets for more than a generation, and the advent of the cotton gin and other technologies were on the horizon. It would have simply been economically stupid to have continued using slaves past 1900 or so.
> 
> The hypothetical question is almost impossible to consider because we have no way of knowing how history would have handled things like western expansion. Would California have been a Southern state? Would we have fought a war between the US and Confederacy anyway at some point over western lands? With the amounts of gold and silver discovered there, it's hard to imagine some hostility wouldn't have happened. What about the other wars fought with enemies to the South, like the Spanish-American war? Would the Confederacy fought that war by themselves? Would they have defeated the Spanish? Would the Confederates have obtained Florida?
> 
> Then there is the issue of the Native Americans. Could the US have cleared out the huge areas of the midwest without the help of people like the Texas Rangers? Highly doubtful. So the United States would have quickly been solidified as what we currently know to be the Northeast. Much of the Northwest would have probably been ceded to Native American tribes. Our entire continent would have looked completely different.
> 
> Vibrant agriculture trade in the South would have paved the way for technology and industrialization in the 19th century, and the CSA would have likely been the first to put a man on the moon. The South would have retained more timber, oil and coal as well. The Mississippi River would have been a huge lucrative asset for the South, as that would have been the only navigational course for export commerce from midwestern Northern industrial states.
> 
> The more you think about this, the more you can see why Lincoln felt it was absolutely vital to keep the nation intact. Smug and condescending Yankees can second guess and speculate all they like, we'll never know what might have been. I'm guessing it wouldn't have been as rosey a scenario as you may think for the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of speculation there...it is difficult to know what would have occurred had the South been allowed to peacefully secede.
> 
> However the War of Northern Aggression was hardly rosy for most in the North and South.  My point is Lincoln's aggression resulted in terrible consequences including 100 years of horrendous racism throughout the South, suffering and poverty for most African Americans, the shredding of the Constitution, the expansion of the state, to say nothing of the huge number of dead and near total destruction of half the nation.  I think allowing the South to secede, would have been a much better choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not with the forced human denigration by southern human misery owners..Their inhuman treatment and social stigmas were a travesty and blight upon the so called Christians that feel that being utter bastards was normal..
Click to expand...


So then, kill them!!!  Kill...KILL....KILL!!!!  Now that is what a good Christian should do.

Killing is a terrible thing, but very common in some humans.

Let's see now....the percentage of Southerns who actually owned slaves was very small....yet many inculcated with the Lincoln Myth, believe murdering as many non-slave owning Southerns as possible to stop this misery, is perfectly appropriate.  Merely creating more misery....makes sense to the senseless.


----------



## Moonglow

Lincoln offered to buy the slaves and resettle them in Africa or the Caribbean.So did Thomas Jefferson, yet the lazy southern slave owners couldn't work like a slave to reap his reward..


----------



## Boss

gipper said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South held the #1, #2, and #3 leading export of the United States. Cotton, tobacco and sugar cane. The #4 leading export was held by the North, textiles, but textiled relied on Southern cotton. So we have to assume, barring some sort of trade alliance, the South would have been markedly better off from a revenue standpoint. This would have more than funded industrialization in the South.
> 
> Human slavery was on the way out long before the Civil War. We had not had open slave trade markets for more than a generation, and the advent of the cotton gin and other technologies were on the horizon. It would have simply been economically stupid to have continued using slaves past 1900 or so.
> 
> The hypothetical question is almost impossible to consider because we have no way of knowing how history would have handled things like western expansion. Would California have been a Southern state? Would we have fought a war between the US and Confederacy anyway at some point over western lands? With the amounts of gold and silver discovered there, it's hard to imagine some hostility wouldn't have happened. What about the other wars fought with enemies to the South, like the Spanish-American war? Would the Confederacy fought that war by themselves? Would they have defeated the Spanish? Would the Confederates have obtained Florida?
> 
> Then there is the issue of the Native Americans. Could the US have cleared out the huge areas of the midwest without the help of people like the Texas Rangers? Highly doubtful. So the United States would have quickly been solidified as what we currently know to be the Northeast. Much of the Northwest would have probably been ceded to Native American tribes. Our entire continent would have looked completely different.
> 
> Vibrant agriculture trade in the South would have paved the way for technology and industrialization in the 19th century, and the CSA would have likely been the first to put a man on the moon. The South would have retained more timber, oil and coal as well. The Mississippi River would have been a huge lucrative asset for the South, as that would have been the only navigational course for export commerce from midwestern Northern industrial states.
> 
> The more you think about this, the more you can see why Lincoln felt it was absolutely vital to keep the nation intact. Smug and condescending Yankees can second guess and speculate all they like, we'll never know what might have been. I'm guessing it wouldn't have been as rosey a scenario as you may think for the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of speculation there...it is difficult to know what would have occurred had the South been allowed to peacefully secede.
> 
> However the War of Northern Aggression was hardly rosy for most in the North and South.  My point is Lincoln's aggression resulted in terrible consequences including 100 years of horrendous racism throughout the South, suffering and poverty for most African Americans, the shredding of the Constitution, the expansion of the state, to say nothing of the huge number of dead and near total destruction of half the nation.  I think allowing the South to secede, would have been a much better choice.
Click to expand...


I think it is a mistake to say it would have been a "better" choice. It would have changed the course of history in ways we can't even imagine. The horendous racism wasn't only confined to the South for the 100 years after the Civil War. In fact, there were more violent acts against blacks in the Northern states for most of that period. Granted, had slavery been allowed to die a natural slow death due to attrition, there likely wouldn't have been as much fear and subsequent  racial turmoil anywhere. 

I think a lot of people misinterpret the southern mentality of the time and assume that southern people were slave owners because they were racist people who hated blacks. They were slave owners because that's how you harvested cotton, tobacco and sugar cane. I think it's possible that, as slavery became obsolete, southerners would have assimilated most of the old black slaves and probably would have deported the younger ones. The South very well may have pioneered racial diversification long before the Civil Rights movement simply because of their cultural familiarity with the people. Sure, it's a speculation, but that's all we're doing here, right? 

Another forgotten aspect is the fact that most of the South was destroyed, the economy was tanked, the currency rendered null and void. Aside from having 100k more able-bodied young men to forge ahead with a new nation, they would have been in pretty good shape financially as well. This would have been a huge advantage and head start in a peaceful secession. From a purely objective economic standpoint, the South would have been far ahead of the North right off the bat.


----------



## thanatos144

You neo confederates need to just deal with the fact that Abraham Lincoln SAVED the republic and confederate slave owing bastards wanted it destroyed.


----------



## Moonglow

The North had the majority of population, and industrialized manufacturing..


----------



## rightwinger

Boss said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South held the #1, #2, and #3 leading export of the United States. Cotton, tobacco and sugar cane. The #4 leading export was held by the North, textiles, but textiled relied on Southern cotton. So we have to assume, barring some sort of trade alliance, the South would have been markedly better off from a revenue standpoint. This would have more than funded industrialization in the South.
> 
> Human slavery was on the way out long before the Civil War. We had not had open slave trade markets for more than a generation, and the advent of the cotton gin and other technologies were on the horizon. It would have simply been economically stupid to have continued using slaves past 1900 or so.
> 
> The hypothetical question is almost impossible to consider because we have no way of knowing how history would have handled things like western expansion. Would California have been a Southern state? Would we have fought a war between the US and Confederacy anyway at some point over western lands? With the amounts of gold and silver discovered there, it's hard to imagine some hostility wouldn't have happened. What about the other wars fought with enemies to the South, like the Spanish-American war? Would the Confederacy fought that war by themselves? Would they have defeated the Spanish? Would the Confederates have obtained Florida?
> 
> Then there is the issue of the Native Americans. Could the US have cleared out the huge areas of the midwest without the help of people like the Texas Rangers? Highly doubtful. So the United States would have quickly been solidified as what we currently know to be the Northeast. Much of the Northwest would have probably been ceded to Native American tribes. Our entire continent would have looked completely different.
> 
> Vibrant agriculture trade in the South would have paved the way for technology and industrialization in the 19th century, and the CSA would have likely been the first to put a man on the moon. The South would have retained more timber, oil and coal as well. The Mississippi River would have been a huge lucrative asset for the South, as that would have been the only navigational course for export commerce from midwestern Northern industrial states.
> 
> The more you think about this, the more you can see why Lincoln felt it was absolutely vital to keep the nation intact. Smug and condescending Yankees can second guess and speculate all they like, we'll never know what might have been. I'm guessing it wouldn't have been as rosey a scenario as you may think for the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of speculation there...it is difficult to know what would have occurred had the South been allowed to peacefully secede.
> 
> However the War of Northern Aggression was hardly rosy for most in the North and South.  My point is Lincoln's aggression resulted in terrible consequences including 100 years of horrendous racism throughout the South, suffering and poverty for most African Americans, the shredding of the Constitution, the expansion of the state, to say nothing of the huge number of dead and near total destruction of half the nation.  I think allowing the South to secede, would have been a much better choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is a mistake to say it would have been a "better" choice. It would have changed the course of history in ways we can't even imagine. The horendous racism wasn't only confined to the South for the 100 years after the Civil War. In fact, there were more violent acts against blacks in the Northern states for most of that period. Granted, had slavery been allowed to die a natural slow death due to attrition, there likely wouldn't have been as much fear and subsequent  racial turmoil anywhere.
> 
> I think a lot of people misinterpret the southern mentality of the time and assume that southern people were slave owners because they were racist people who hated blacks. They were slave owners because that's how you harvested cotton, tobacco and sugar cane. I think it's possible that, as slavery became obsolete, southerners would have assimilated most of the old black slaves and probably would have deported the younger ones. The South very well may have pioneered racial diversification long before the Civil Rights movement simply because of their cultural familiarity with the people. Sure, it's a speculation, but that's all we're doing here, right?
> 
> Another forgotten aspect is the fact that most of the South was destroyed, the economy was tanked, the currency rendered null and void. Aside from having 100k more able-bodied young men to forge ahead with a new nation, they would have been in pretty good shape financially as well. This would have been a huge advantage and head start in a peaceful secession. *From a purely objective economic standpoint, the South would have been far ahead of the North right off the bat*.
Click to expand...

 
The south was an economic and social dinosaur clinging to its past. Millions of immigrants were streaming into the north. Factories, railroads, communications all were in the north.

The industrial revolution was upon us and the south still clung to an economic model built on human bondage


----------



## Boss

rightwinger said:


> The cotton gin was widely available in the early 1800s. It is what created the cotton boom and revigorated the need for slaves. The slave population was increasing not decreasing.Cotton was "white gold" and the South was the worlds leading producer. Untold cotton wealth was flowing into the south and they refused to share that wealth with those who were actually doing the work. Free labor meant more profits.
> Cotton was picked by hand until the 1930s. There would have been no incentive to break away from slavery and when they did, they would have created an official second class citizenship for blacks



Right, the cotton gin was available in the early 1800s, but the modern technology to thrash the cotton as we do today, was just on the horizon, which is what I stated. Untold wealth was flowing into the United States from King Cotton. That's why the US never saw fit to outlaw slavery in the preceding 85 years before the Civil War and the US Supreme Court continued to uphold the institution. Stop trying to rewrite history and cast all that blame on the South. It's dishonest. 

You don't know how blacks would have been handled, your mind is prejudiced because of your bigotry toward southerners. White people in the South entrusted blacks with their own children, they helped to raise them, feed them, take care of them. Most of what we currently know as Southern cuisine is from Africa. Most Southern culture is rooted in culture brought here by the slaves. After the war, many free slaves became sharecroppers and worked in conjunction with the very plantations who once owned them. The human relationship between the slaves and the people who owned them was much different than you imagine in your polluted little head.


----------



## Moonglow

bendog said:


> The bastard canadians are 2-0 against us and sent Ted Cruz our way.


Yeah, too bad their fighters weren't more like Mexicans


----------



## Boss

rightwinger said:


> The south was an economic and social dinosaur clinging to its past. Millions of immigrants were streaming into the north. Factories, railroads, communications all were in the north.
> 
> The industrial revolution was upon us and the south still clung to an economic model built on human bondage



Well, you are just factually incorrect. As I said, the South held the #1, #2 and #3 leading exports. The #4 leading export was fully dependent upon Southern cotton. You want to talk about the industrial revolution? You can't have that without steel, and Birmingham, Alabama had the largest outcrop of natural iron ore in America. What are you going to produce in your industrial factories without steel?


----------



## rightwinger

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south was an economic and social dinosaur clinging to its past. Millions of immigrants were streaming into the north. Factories, railroads, communications all were in the north.
> 
> The industrial revolution was upon us and the south still clung to an economic model built on human bondage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you are just factually incorrect. As I said, the South held the #1, #2 and #3 leading exports. The #4 leading export was fully dependent upon Southern cotton. You want to talk about the industrial revolution? You can't have that without steel, and Birmingham, Alabama had the largest outcrop of natural iron ore in America. What are you going to produce in your industrial factories without steel?
Click to expand...

 
Pittsburgh and cities all around the great lakes had the ore available and the means to produce and ship steel. Didn't even need slaves

The south missed the boat by clinging to its agricultural roots


----------



## Boss

rightwinger said:


> Pittsburgh and cities all around the great lakes had the ore available and the means to produce and ship steel. Didn't even need slaves
> 
> The south missed the boat by clinging to its agricultural roots



Well, no... Birmingham out-produced Pittsburg in steel production and never once used a slave. In fact, Birmingham sold ore to Pittsburg. The South didn't miss any boat. They prospered because of their agriculture and so did the US. That's why Lincoln needed to preserve the Union.


----------



## rightwinger

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cotton gin was widely available in the early 1800s. It is what created the cotton boom and revigorated the need for slaves. The slave population was increasing not decreasing.Cotton was "white gold" and the South was the worlds leading producer. Untold cotton wealth was flowing into the south and they refused to share that wealth with those who were actually doing the work. Free labor meant more profits.
> Cotton was picked by hand until the 1930s. There would have been no incentive to break away from slavery and when they did, they would have created an official second class citizenship for blacks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, the cotton gin was available in the early 1800s, but the modern technology to thrash the cotton as we do today, was just on the horizon, which is what I stated. Untold wealth was flowing into the United States from King Cotton. That's why the US never saw fit to outlaw slavery in the preceding 85 years before the Civil War and the US Supreme Court continued to uphold the institution. Stop trying to rewrite history and cast all that blame on the South. It's dishonest.
> 
> You don't know how blacks would have been handled, your mind is prejudiced because of your bigotry toward southerners. White people in the South entrusted blacks with their own children, they helped to raise them, feed them, take care of them. Most of what we currently know as Southern cuisine is from Africa. Most Southern culture is rooted in culture brought here by the slaves. After the war, many free slaves became sharecroppers and worked in conjunction with the very plantations who once owned them. The human relationship between the slaves and the people who owned them was much different than you imagine in your polluted little head.
Click to expand...

Shit....History as told by Gone with the Wind

No, southern whites did not trust blacks. They feared they would rise in the middle of the night and murder them in their beds. They feared they would band together and revolt. They feared they would get educated. They feared they would rape white women and worst of all.....they feared that blacks would consider themselves the equal of whites

We did not resolve those fears with the abolition of slavery. The south carried those fears up through the Civil Rights era when they were forced to finally give them up


----------



## gipper

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south was an economic and social dinosaur clinging to its past. Millions of immigrants were streaming into the north. Factories, railroads, communications all were in the north.
> 
> The industrial revolution was upon us and the south still clung to an economic model built on human bondage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you are just factually incorrect. As I said, the South held the #1, #2 and #3 leading exports. The #4 leading export was fully dependent upon Southern cotton. You want to talk about the industrial revolution? You can't have that without steel, and Birmingham, Alabama had the largest outcrop of natural iron ore in America. What are you going to produce in your industrial factories without steel?
Click to expand...


You have hit on the real reason Lincoln waged total war on the South.  It was all about the money that the state demanded by paid.  He cared not one wit about slavery and hoped to deport African Americans in his second term.

The tariff is why Lincoln went to war...as expected of a disgusting statist.


----------



## thanatos144

gipper said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south was an economic and social dinosaur clinging to its past. Millions of immigrants were streaming into the north. Factories, railroads, communications all were in the north.
> 
> The industrial revolution was upon us and the south still clung to an economic model built on human bondage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you are just factually incorrect. As I said, the South held the #1, #2 and #3 leading exports. The #4 leading export was fully dependent upon Southern cotton. You want to talk about the industrial revolution? You can't have that without steel, and Birmingham, Alabama had the largest outcrop of natural iron ore in America. What are you going to produce in your industrial factories without steel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have hit on the real reason Lincoln waged total war on the South.  It was all about the money that the state demanded by paid.  He cared not one wit about slavery and hoped to deport African Americans in his second term.
> 
> The tariff is why Lincoln went to war...as expected of a disgusting statist.
Click to expand...

The fact that you believe this shit in spite of all historical evidence is disturbing.


----------



## gipper

thanatos144 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south was an economic and social dinosaur clinging to its past. Millions of immigrants were streaming into the north. Factories, railroads, communications all were in the north.
> 
> The industrial revolution was upon us and the south still clung to an economic model built on human bondage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you are just factually incorrect. As I said, the South held the #1, #2 and #3 leading exports. The #4 leading export was fully dependent upon Southern cotton. You want to talk about the industrial revolution? You can't have that without steel, and Birmingham, Alabama had the largest outcrop of natural iron ore in America. What are you going to produce in your industrial factories without steel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have hit on the real reason Lincoln waged total war on the South.  It was all about the money that the state demanded by paid.  He cared not one wit about slavery and hoped to deport African Americans in his second term.
> 
> The tariff is why Lincoln went to war...as expected of a disgusting statist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that you believe this shit in spite of all historical evidence is disturbing.
Click to expand...


Many experts agree with me.  Of course, you do not know this.


----------



## thanatos144

gipper said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south was an economic and social dinosaur clinging to its past. Millions of immigrants were streaming into the north. Factories, railroads, communications all were in the north.
> 
> The industrial revolution was upon us and the south still clung to an economic model built on human bondage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you are just factually incorrect. As I said, the South held the #1, #2 and #3 leading exports. The #4 leading export was fully dependent upon Southern cotton. You want to talk about the industrial revolution? You can't have that without steel, and Birmingham, Alabama had the largest outcrop of natural iron ore in America. What are you going to produce in your industrial factories without steel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have hit on the real reason Lincoln waged total war on the South.  It was all about the money that the state demanded by paid.  He cared not one wit about slavery and hoped to deport African Americans in his second term.
> 
> The tariff is why Lincoln went to war...as expected of a disgusting statist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that you believe this shit in spite of all historical evidence is disturbing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many experts agree with me.  Of course, you do not know this.
Click to expand...

The only people who agree with you are neo confederates with romantic notions of how they wished the south was...


----------



## gipper

thanatos144 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south was an economic and social dinosaur clinging to its past. Millions of immigrants were streaming into the north. Factories, railroads, communications all were in the north.
> 
> The industrial revolution was upon us and the south still clung to an economic model built on human bondage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you are just factually incorrect. As I said, the South held the #1, #2 and #3 leading exports. The #4 leading export was fully dependent upon Southern cotton. You want to talk about the industrial revolution? You can't have that without steel, and Birmingham, Alabama had the largest outcrop of natural iron ore in America. What are you going to produce in your industrial factories without steel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have hit on the real reason Lincoln waged total war on the South.  It was all about the money that the state demanded by paid.  He cared not one wit about slavery and hoped to deport African Americans in his second term.
> 
> The tariff is why Lincoln went to war...as expected of a disgusting statist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that you believe this shit in spite of all historical evidence is disturbing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many experts agree with me.  Of course, you do not know this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only people who agree with you are neo confederates with romantic notions of how they wished the south was...
Click to expand...


Yeah you're right...ugh...not likely.  I know you have never heard of these people, but here goes...

Walter Williams
Murray Rothbard
Ralph Raico
Thomas DiLorenzo
Ron Paul
Lew Rockwell
Pat Buchanan
Lord Acton
Walter Block
George Crispin
Karen DeCoster
John Denson
David Dieteman
H.L. Mencken
Gary North
Paul Craig Roberts
-------------need more?

I know the truth is meaningless to Lincoln cultists like you....but I thought I would try....

"Lincoln was a typical example of the humanitarian with the guillotine: a familiar modern 'reform liberal type whose heart bleeds for and yearns to 'uplift' remote mankind, while he lies to and treats abominably actual people whom he knew." ---Murray Rothbard[1]


----------



## regent

Where does secession end? After a time Virginia might have decided it would secede from the CSA, and then a county from Virginia then my neighborhood from the county and then me from the county. Think of it every household an independent country.


----------



## thanatos144

gipper said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you are just factually incorrect. As I said, the South held the #1, #2 and #3 leading exports. The #4 leading export was fully dependent upon Southern cotton. You want to talk about the industrial revolution? You can't have that without steel, and Birmingham, Alabama had the largest outcrop of natural iron ore in America. What are you going to produce in your industrial factories without steel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have hit on the real reason Lincoln waged total war on the South.  It was all about the money that the state demanded by paid.  He cared not one wit about slavery and hoped to deport African Americans in his second term.
> 
> The tariff is why Lincoln went to war...as expected of a disgusting statist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that you believe this shit in spite of all historical evidence is disturbing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many experts agree with me.  Of course, you do not know this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only people who agree with you are neo confederates with romantic notions of how they wished the south was...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah you're right...ugh...not likely.  I know you have never heard of these people, but here goes...
> 
> Walter Williams
> Murray Rothbard
> Ralph Raico
> Thomas DiLorenzo
> Ron Paul
> Lew Rockwell
> Pat Buchanan
> Lord Acton
> Walter Block
> George Crispin
> Karen DeCoster
> John Denson
> David Dieteman
> H.L. Mencken
> Gary North
> Paul Craig Roberts
> -------------need more?
> 
> I know the truth is meaningless to Lincoln cultists like you....but I thought I would try....
> 
> "Lincoln was a typical example of the humanitarian with the guillotine: a familiar modern 'reform liberal type whose heart bleeds for and yearns to 'uplift' remote mankind, while he lies to and treats abominably actual people whom he knew." ---Murray Rothbard[1]
Click to expand...

Like I said neo confederates.


----------



## gipper

thanatos144 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have hit on the real reason Lincoln waged total war on the South.  It was all about the money that the state demanded by paid.  He cared not one wit about slavery and hoped to deport African Americans in his second term.
> 
> The tariff is why Lincoln went to war...as expected of a disgusting statist.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you believe this shit in spite of all historical evidence is disturbing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many experts agree with me.  Of course, you do not know this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only people who agree with you are neo confederates with romantic notions of how they wished the south was...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah you're right...ugh...not likely.  I know you have never heard of these people, but here goes...
> 
> Walter Williams
> Murray Rothbard
> Ralph Raico
> Thomas DiLorenzo
> Ron Paul
> Lew Rockwell
> Pat Buchanan
> Lord Acton
> Walter Block
> George Crispin
> Karen DeCoster
> John Denson
> David Dieteman
> H.L. Mencken
> Gary North
> Paul Craig Roberts
> -------------need more?
> 
> I know the truth is meaningless to Lincoln cultists like you....but I thought I would try....
> 
> "Lincoln was a typical example of the humanitarian with the guillotine: a familiar modern 'reform liberal type whose heart bleeds for and yearns to 'uplift' remote mankind, while he lies to and treats abominably actual people whom he knew." ---Murray Rothbard[1]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said neo confederates.
Click to expand...


Ignorance is bliss.


----------



## thanatos144

gipper said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you believe this shit in spite of all historical evidence is disturbing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many experts agree with me.  Of course, you do not know this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only people who agree with you are neo confederates with romantic notions of how they wished the south was...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah you're right...ugh...not likely.  I know you have never heard of these people, but here goes...
> 
> Walter Williams
> Murray Rothbard
> Ralph Raico
> Thomas DiLorenzo
> Ron Paul
> Lew Rockwell
> Pat Buchanan
> Lord Acton
> Walter Block
> George Crispin
> Karen DeCoster
> John Denson
> David Dieteman
> H.L. Mencken
> Gary North
> Paul Craig Roberts
> -------------need more?
> 
> I know the truth is meaningless to Lincoln cultists like you....but I thought I would try....
> 
> "Lincoln was a typical example of the humanitarian with the guillotine: a familiar modern 'reform liberal type whose heart bleeds for and yearns to 'uplift' remote mankind, while he lies to and treats abominably actual people whom he knew." ---Murray Rothbard[1]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said neo confederates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance is bliss.
Click to expand...

 That does describe you


----------



## Boss

rightwinger said:


> Shit....History as told by Gone with the Wind
> 
> No, southern whites did not trust blacks. They feared they would rise in the middle of the night and murder them in their beds. They feared they would band together and revolt. They feared they would get educated. They feared they would rape white women and worst of all.....they feared that blacks would consider themselves the equal of whites
> 
> We did not resolve those fears with the abolition of slavery. The south carried those fears up through the Civil Rights era when they were forced to finally give them up



If anyone needs to see how the mind of a bigot works, look no further than the above posting. This is how bigots think. "The South" is consolidated into a single entity, as if every person living south of the Mason-Dixon had one universal mind, acted one universal way, held one universal belief. Not only does this bigot believe everyone was the same, he goes on to tell us exactly how they all thought and felt. Even more, how their ancestors thought and felt up until today. No need to argue with the bigot, he is right in his mind and you are wrong.

I suspect, if we peeled back this bigots layers of dishonesty, we'd find that his heart is filled with the sort of hateful and shameful things he is attempting to attribute to someone else. It's called "projection" and bigots do it very well. I think they do it because they can't live with the kind of people they are. Some say it's so they can shine the light of truth away from themselves. Whatever the reason, when you see someone exhibit this sort of lumping all people into one universal set of thought and behavior, rest assured, that is a Class A, certified bigot.


----------



## rightwinger

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit....History as told by Gone with the Wind
> 
> No, southern whites did not trust blacks. They feared they would rise in the middle of the night and murder them in their beds. They feared they would band together and revolt. They feared they would get educated. They feared they would rape white women and worst of all.....they feared that blacks would consider themselves the equal of whites
> 
> We did not resolve those fears with the abolition of slavery. The south carried those fears up through the Civil Rights era when they were forced to finally give them up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone needs to see how the mind of a bigot works, look no further than the above posting. This is how bigots think. "The South" is consolidated into a single entity, as if every person living south of the Mason-Dixon had one universal mind, acted one universal way, held one universal belief. Not only does this bigot believe everyone was the same, he goes on to tell us exactly how they all thought and felt. Even more, how their ancestors thought and felt up until today. No need to argue with the bigot, he is right in his mind and you are wrong.
> 
> I suspect, if we peeled back this bigots layers of dishonesty, we'd find that his heart is filled with the sort of hateful and shameful things he is attempting to attribute to someone else. It's called "projection" and bigots do it very well. I think they do it because they can't live with the kind of people they are. Some say it's so they can shine the light of truth away from themselves. Whatever the reason, when you see someone exhibit this sort of lumping all people into one universal set of thought and behavior, rest assured, that is a Class A, certified bigot.
Click to expand...

 
Did EVERY person in the South believe the same? Of course not

But enough to pass JimCrow laws, enact segregation and terrorize "negroes" throughout the south


----------



## Boss

rightwinger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit....History as told by Gone with the Wind
> 
> No, southern whites did not trust blacks. They feared they would rise in the middle of the night and murder them in their beds. They feared they would band together and revolt. They feared they would get educated. They feared they would rape white women and worst of all.....they feared that blacks would consider themselves the equal of whites
> 
> We did not resolve those fears with the abolition of slavery. The south carried those fears up through the Civil Rights era when they were forced to finally give them up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone needs to see how the mind of a bigot works, look no further than the above posting. This is how bigots think. "The South" is consolidated into a single entity, as if every person living south of the Mason-Dixon had one universal mind, acted one universal way, held one universal belief. Not only does this bigot believe everyone was the same, he goes on to tell us exactly how they all thought and felt. Even more, how their ancestors thought and felt up until today. No need to argue with the bigot, he is right in his mind and you are wrong.
> 
> I suspect, if we peeled back this bigots layers of dishonesty, we'd find that his heart is filled with the sort of hateful and shameful things he is attempting to attribute to someone else. It's called "projection" and bigots do it very well. I think they do it because they can't live with the kind of people they are. Some say it's so they can shine the light of truth away from themselves. Whatever the reason, when you see someone exhibit this sort of lumping all people into one universal set of thought and behavior, rest assured, that is a Class A, certified bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did EVERY person in the South believe the same? Of course not
> 
> But enough to pass JimCrow laws, enact segregation and terrorize "negroes" throughout the south
Click to expand...


Did the South cause the SCOTUS to uphold Jim Crow laws? Did the South cause the race riots in Milwaukee, Detroit, Chicago, New York? Was "negro" only a word used in the South?


----------



## rightwinger

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit....History as told by Gone with the Wind
> 
> No, southern whites did not trust blacks. They feared they would rise in the middle of the night and murder them in their beds. They feared they would band together and revolt. They feared they would get educated. They feared they would rape white women and worst of all.....they feared that blacks would consider themselves the equal of whites
> 
> We did not resolve those fears with the abolition of slavery. The south carried those fears up through the Civil Rights era when they were forced to finally give them up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone needs to see how the mind of a bigot works, look no further than the above posting. This is how bigots think. "The South" is consolidated into a single entity, as if every person living south of the Mason-Dixon had one universal mind, acted one universal way, held one universal belief. Not only does this bigot believe everyone was the same, he goes on to tell us exactly how they all thought and felt. Even more, how their ancestors thought and felt up until today. No need to argue with the bigot, he is right in his mind and you are wrong.
> 
> I suspect, if we peeled back this bigots layers of dishonesty, we'd find that his heart is filled with the sort of hateful and shameful things he is attempting to attribute to someone else. It's called "projection" and bigots do it very well. I think they do it because they can't live with the kind of people they are. Some say it's so they can shine the light of truth away from themselves. Whatever the reason, when you see someone exhibit this sort of lumping all people into one universal set of thought and behavior, rest assured, that is a Class A, certified bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did EVERY person in the South believe the same? Of course not
> 
> But enough to pass JimCrow laws, enact segregation and terrorize "negroes" throughout the south
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the South cause the SCOTUS to uphold Jim Crow laws? Did the South cause the race riots in Milwaukee, Detroit, Chicago, New York? Was "negro" only a word used in the South?
Click to expand...

 
No the South didn't cause the SCOTUS to uphold Dredd Scott either....but they applied political pressure. Pressure that finally caught up to them in Brown vs Board of Education

Fact is our southern "brothers" drove our nations racial policies for almost the first 200 years of our existence. They did not give up their "peculiar institutions" without a fight and resorted to lynching, firebombing, intimidation and political obstruction to preserve their "heritage"


----------



## Boss

rightwinger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit....History as told by Gone with the Wind
> 
> No, southern whites did not trust blacks. They feared they would rise in the middle of the night and murder them in their beds. They feared they would band together and revolt. They feared they would get educated. They feared they would rape white women and worst of all.....they feared that blacks would consider themselves the equal of whites
> 
> We did not resolve those fears with the abolition of slavery. The south carried those fears up through the Civil Rights era when they were forced to finally give them up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone needs to see how the mind of a bigot works, look no further than the above posting. This is how bigots think. "The South" is consolidated into a single entity, as if every person living south of the Mason-Dixon had one universal mind, acted one universal way, held one universal belief. Not only does this bigot believe everyone was the same, he goes on to tell us exactly how they all thought and felt. Even more, how their ancestors thought and felt up until today. No need to argue with the bigot, he is right in his mind and you are wrong.
> 
> I suspect, if we peeled back this bigots layers of dishonesty, we'd find that his heart is filled with the sort of hateful and shameful things he is attempting to attribute to someone else. It's called "projection" and bigots do it very well. I think they do it because they can't live with the kind of people they are. Some say it's so they can shine the light of truth away from themselves. Whatever the reason, when you see someone exhibit this sort of lumping all people into one universal set of thought and behavior, rest assured, that is a Class A, certified bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did EVERY person in the South believe the same? Of course not
> 
> But enough to pass JimCrow laws, enact segregation and terrorize "negroes" throughout the south
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the South cause the SCOTUS to uphold Jim Crow laws? Did the South cause the race riots in Milwaukee, Detroit, Chicago, New York? Was "negro" only a word used in the South?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No the South didn't cause the SCOTUS to uphold Dredd Scott either....but they applied political pressure. Pressure that finally caught up to them in Brown vs Board of Education
> 
> Fact is our southern "brothers" drove our nations racial policies for almost the first 200 years of our existence. They did not give up their "peculiar institutions" without a fight and resorted to lynching, firebombing, intimidation and political obstruction to preserve their "heritage"
Click to expand...


Again, the historical record is clear on the racial riots in Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit and New York. None of which are "southern" cities, as I recall. The Supreme Court doesn't bow to political pressure, it's a separate branch of our government and autonomous. What happened between Dredd and Brown is society changed. 

It's mighty rich to blame the South for "driving racial policies" following the Civil War, when the South went through Reconstruction and was essentially powerless. How the hell did they pull that off in your vapid little bigoted mind?


----------



## Politico

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit....History as told by Gone with the Wind
> 
> No, southern whites did not trust blacks. They feared they would rise in the middle of the night and murder them in their beds. They feared they would band together and revolt. They feared they would get educated. They feared they would rape white women and worst of all.....they feared that blacks would consider themselves the equal of whites
> 
> We did not resolve those fears with the abolition of slavery. The south carried those fears up through the Civil Rights era when they were forced to finally give them up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone needs to see how the mind of a bigot works, look no further than the above posting. This is how bigots think. "The South" is consolidated into a single entity, as if every person living south of the Mason-Dixon had one universal mind, acted one universal way, held one universal belief. Not only does this bigot believe everyone was the same, he goes on to tell us exactly how they all thought and felt. Even more, how their ancestors thought and felt up until today. No need to argue with the bigot, he is right in his mind and you are wrong.
> 
> I suspect, if we peeled back this bigots layers of dishonesty, we'd find that his heart is filled with the sort of hateful and shameful things he is attempting to attribute to someone else. It's called "projection" and bigots do it very well. I think they do it because they can't live with the kind of people they are. Some say it's so they can shine the light of truth away from themselves. Whatever the reason, when you see someone exhibit this sort of lumping all people into one universal set of thought and behavior, rest assured, that is a Class A, certified bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did EVERY person in the South believe the same? Of course not
> 
> But enough to pass JimCrow laws, enact segregation and terrorize "negroes" throughout the south
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the South cause the SCOTUS to uphold Jim Crow laws? Did the South cause the race riots in Milwaukee, Detroit, Chicago, New York? Was "negro" only a word used in the South?
Click to expand...

I love how folks conveniently forget how many laws were in fact passed by 'union' states. Comically the most were in the supposed PC shit hole Kalifornia.


----------



## thanatos144

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit....History as told by Gone with the Wind
> 
> No, southern whites did not trust blacks. They feared they would rise in the middle of the night and murder them in their beds. They feared they would band together and revolt. They feared they would get educated. They feared they would rape white women and worst of all.....they feared that blacks would consider themselves the equal of whites
> 
> We did not resolve those fears with the abolition of slavery. The south carried those fears up through the Civil Rights era when they were forced to finally give them up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone needs to see how the mind of a bigot works, look no further than the above posting. This is how bigots think. "The South" is consolidated into a single entity, as if every person living south of the Mason-Dixon had one universal mind, acted one universal way, held one universal belief. Not only does this bigot believe everyone was the same, he goes on to tell us exactly how they all thought and felt. Even more, how their ancestors thought and felt up until today. No need to argue with the bigot, he is right in his mind and you are wrong.
> 
> I suspect, if we peeled back this bigots layers of dishonesty, we'd find that his heart is filled with the sort of hateful and shameful things he is attempting to attribute to someone else. It's called "projection" and bigots do it very well. I think they do it because they can't live with the kind of people they are. Some say it's so they can shine the light of truth away from themselves. Whatever the reason, when you see someone exhibit this sort of lumping all people into one universal set of thought and behavior, rest assured, that is a Class A, certified bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did EVERY person in the South believe the same? Of course not
> 
> But enough to pass JimCrow laws, enact segregation and terrorize "negroes" throughout the south
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the South cause the SCOTUS to uphold Jim Crow laws? Did the South cause the race riots in Milwaukee, Detroit, Chicago, New York? Was "negro" only a word used in the South?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No the South didn't cause the SCOTUS to uphold Dredd Scott either....but they applied political pressure. Pressure that finally caught up to them in Brown vs Board of Education
> 
> Fact is our southern "brothers" drove our nations racial policies for almost the first 200 years of our existence. They did not give up their "peculiar institutions" without a fight and resorted to lynching, firebombing, intimidation and political obstruction to preserve their "heritage"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the historical record is clear on the racial riots in Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit and New York. None of which are "southern" cities, as I recall. The Supreme Court doesn't bow to political pressure, it's a separate branch of our government and autonomous. What happened between Dredd and Brown is society changed.
> 
> It's mighty rich to blame the South for "driving racial policies" following the Civil War, when the South went through Reconstruction and was essentially powerless. How the hell did they pull that off in your vapid little bigoted mind?
Click to expand...

what has any of that to do with the confederate states of slavery?


----------



## Boss

thanatos144 said:


> what has any of that to do with the confederate states of slavery?



I've not defended slavery, assmunch! 

The fact remains, slavery existed in the United States because the United States allowed it, condoned it, upheld it for 85 years before the Civil War, before the Confederacy existed. Discrimination against black people existed after the Civil War and was upheld by United States laws and Supreme Court rulings for another 100 years. That cannot be blamed on the Confederacy!


----------



## thanatos144

Boss said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what has any of that to do with the confederate states of slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've not defended slavery, assmunch!
> 
> The fact remains, slavery existed in the United States because the United States allowed it, condoned it, upheld it for 85 years before the Civil War, before the Confederacy existed. Discrimination against black people existed after the Civil War and was upheld by United States laws and Supreme Court rulings for another 100 years. That cannot be blamed on the Confederacy!
Click to expand...

Sure it can. They all were democrats. 

Tapatalk


----------



## mikegriffith1

Far from being the "problem child," we should all be grateful that the South had so much influence over national policy.  Had it not been for Southern influence,

* There would have been no Mexican War and thus no Mexican Cession and thus no California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, etc.

* Texas may have remained part of Mexico.

* There would have been no Louisiana Purchase and hence no Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

* The corrupt Bank of the United States would have continued unabated.

* Our currency would have been corrupted much sooner than it was (Lincoln nationalized the currency and destroyed the Independent Treasury System).

* The federal government would have grown much more rapidly, both in size and power, than it did (it didn't start to explode in size and scope until Lincoln came along).

I might add that it's a shame that the South's antebellum push to annex Cuba did not succeed.  Think of how much better off Cuba would have been, and would still be, as an American state.  No Batista, no Castro, etc., etc.

I don't think the South had sufficient cause to secede.  I think they had some valid complaints, especially economic complaints, but I don't think these were sufficient reasons to justify secession.  However, I think the far greater evil was Lincoln's use of force to compel the seceded states to rejoin the Union.


----------



## Boss

> I don't think the South had sufficient cause to secede.



I think the great mistake we make in retrospect is failing to adequately realize the true reason and cause. It is a prime example of the adage, "the victors write the history books." We are taught all through school that the Civil War was fundamentally about slavery, the south wanted to keep it and the north wanted to abolish it, and this was why they fought the war. 

Nothing could be further from the truth. The fundamental issue was the Constitution. You see, we had a problem. The Constitution does grant every citizen his or her inalienable rights, but it doesn't specify slaves are citizens, or even people, really. In the US courts, slaves had been deemed 'property' owned by a citizen, and as such, were protected from illegal seizure by the 4th amendment. Slaves were the same as their house, livestock and tools. This was not THEIR doings, it was what United States policy, law and court findings WERE. It's what US congresses had discussed, debated and passed into US law in America. This institution had been legitimized for 85 years by the policies of the United States of America, not the Confederacy. 

So the issue from the Southern perspective was, you've told us this is our property that we own, now you claim you're going to seize it illegally or render it invalid as property? Uhm, no! And not just no, but HELL no! If slaves are property, and we own this property, your Constitution doesn't give you that power, it is our inalienable right under your own Constituion, as determined by your own Court. 

They very much had a legitimate grievance here, and it wasn't because they simply had a different perspective, as many wish to believe. It was a basic fundamental right they had under the 4th Amendment, and inalienable right as a matter of fact. No court ruling had ever found slaves to be anything other than property owned by the slave owner. They weren't considered people at all, much less, _citizens with rights_. 

Today we look back on this in retrospect and we fail to realize how minds thought differently back then as compared with today. We somehow envision them as being aware they were doing something wrong and horrible, they just didn't care. _How dare those evil Southerners think that black human beings were their property?_ But back then, that wasn't just how Southerners saw it, that was how it was in general. It was very rare to come across an individual who even thought slaves were deserving of consideration as citizens, much less equals. Certainly not social equals by any means. That would take another century to happen. 

We seem to lose perspective of the huge gap between people who saw slavery as inhumane, like you would be opposed to dog fighting, or zoos mistreating the apes, and those who supported true racial equality. Many abolitionists weren't what you would call "on board" with the idea of black slaves mingling in white social society. Very much to the contrary, they had a variety of ways we were going to deal with freed slaves, ever hear of Monrovia?


----------

