Ignoring the issue of slavery, who would you have wanted to win the civil war?

[Ramo]

Ignoring slavery, probably the South.

Even ignoring slavery, the South was an incredibly inegalitarian feudal society, but the North sure as hell didn't do much about it.

The lack of protective tariffs could conceivably bring improved race relations than in our time line, by giving poor whites a better chance at doing well (instead of facing poverty and blaming blacks).

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Okay, so if the confederates hadnt supported slavery, who would you support and why?

Since slavery was the cause of the Civil War there wouldn't have been one. Its a silly question. No slavery, no war. Its that simple.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by MrFun
So in other words, I used a primary source to back up my opinion, and you have not.

Just remember this is a matter of opinion. 2 sources with 1 opinion aren't necessarily more correct than 1 source with 1 opinion. The DoI's value isn't quantified by it's lack of quoted sources is it?

It might be worthwhile to note that an 'original' idea would not have any sources which previously document it. I wouldn't claim my position is original, but just want to make the point that progress depends on new ideas. To only judge ideas based on past documentation of the idea would relegate us to never progressing.

The Southern states already had the right to govern themselves -- any powers that were and are, not explicitly given to the federal government, were and are, left to the states.
To this extent, the state governments could govern themselves within the confines of the legal document called the U.S. Constitution.

The colonies had a limited ability to govern themselves before the War of Independance as well. They (or some people in them) felt it was too limited. The same would be true of any seceding state or revolutionaries.

The Constitution is not a perfect document. The writers of it even knew that, and tried to allow a proceedure for it's improvement. So far this system has worked quite well, but there is always the possibility that the Constitution could fail. It shouldn't be assumed that the limitations placed on States to govern themselves by the Constitution could never be unfair. Also it isn't right to require those who never were involved in the ratification of the Constitution to have to live under it regardless of what form it takes on.

[kittenOFchaos]

The North.


The Confederacy gave up as they had lost belief in the value of what they stood for...they could have fought on for years.

An contemporary example:

Paraguay: 6 years of war (1865-71) against an alliance of Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay...

Paraguay was outnumbered 30:1 in population terms...

Almost every male from twelve to sixty fought in the Paraguayan army. The country lost 56 % of her population, 80% of her male population between ages 12-60.


The Confederacy: A mere 4 years of war against the Union...

Outnumbered 3:1 in terms of white population.

5 % of the Conferderate population killed...25 % of white males of military age killed.


Now had the cause be so noble, so loved and so vital then people would have given their all for it, like the Paraguans.


The Union had division and strife, yet the administration kept the show on the road, the confederate administration was typified by in-fighting, failure to impose vital governmental control.


Quite simply I believe a collection of States each with their own State Governor would have caused in-fighting and division that would seriously have effected American's capability of taking center stage in the 20th Century, which to my mind would have been a bad thing -hell the Confeds could barely impose conscription, nor even raise taxes by anything close to what is needed to pay for a war and many states added tens of thousands to their civil service to prevent men being sent to fight in other states.


Centralised Government that can affect change is vital...had the South won, that "Nation" would have been weak and deeply divided along State lines unable to meet the challenges the 20th Century threw at the New World.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

I was fort the Mexicans

"Die Die ! David Crokett !"

[Sava]

The North. A strong central government is the most important part of a nation. WW2 wouldn't have been won if the US were a Confederacy of feuding states. And we'd all be speaking German right now....

[SlowwHand]

Boris can quote all he wants to quote from whatever South-hating
reference he wants to quote from. It's still bullshit.

Edit to add, so as to not bump up your bigoted thread:

I find it amazing that a gay man would make such a generalized and trash thread.
Evidently in your eyes, a person has to be Gay or Black to have ignorant slobs make stupid observations.
As I've stated on so many ocassions, generalities are a sign of ignorance. You know, like all Texans ride a horse to work the ranch and all Gays are little wimps who should be hung on a fence to die. That sort of thing.
Congrats. Now you can claim to be part of them.
I hate to burst all of your bubbles, but I've shown more respect and tolerance than the sonsof*****es that have posted here.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos

The Confederacy: A mere 4 years of war against the Union...

Outnumbered 3:1 in terms of white population.

5 % of the Conferderate population killed...25 % of white males of military age killed.

Also, not to mention the thousands of black soldiers in uniform, who fought for the Union.


And Slowwhand, no matter how wrong he is with the technical statistics, I think almost any statistical source would show that slavery was the foundation for the Southern economy.

You do not have to hate the South to realize that much -- I don't hate the South, and it would be unfair to simply portray Confederate leaders and its soldiers as simply evil, cardboard, one-dimensional characters when one studies the Civil War.
Both sides believed they were fighting on the right side.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Since slavery was the cause of the Civil War there wouldn't have been one. Its a silly question. No slavery, no war. Its that simple.

I thought that the war was really due to economic friction, and slavery was just used as an excuse to start fighting. Is that wrong?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Caligastia


I thought that the war was really due to economic friction, and slavery was just used as an excuse to start fighting. Is that wrong?

New Zeland immigrants have to re-read the history of the United States.


First off, many white supremacists today, along with Confederate flag worshippers, loudly proclaim that it was state rights that the Civil War was fought over -- the "glorious" cause of the "noble" Southern Confederacy.

In truth, Southern politicians in the 1850's argued for states' rights only when it was convenient for them. They argued for a stronger federal government, when they felt the government could do more to protect slavery.

One more thing -- the Northern states, or the Union was not "noble" either. Many abolitionists were racist themselves, or in the very least, racialists. However, there were, indeed, other abolitionists who were true egalitarians when it came to race.

Abraham Lincoln initially sought to restrict slavery to where it already existed in the Southern states, and prohibit it from spreading in any of the northern territories.
But Southern leaders exaggerated Lincoln's position on slavery, and felt that when he became elected president, it was a first step toward complete abolishment of their beloved slavery system.

Later, during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln realized that the country could not return to where it was in regards to the issue of slavery.
In the midst of the Civil War, he decided to help bring about the ultimate end to this issue that divided our nation since the 1820's -- beginning with the Emancipation Proclamation, which was partial abolishment, then after his death, with the 13th Amendment.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Caligastia
I thought that the war was really due to economic friction, and slavery was just used as an excuse to start fighting. Is that wrong?

Yes it is.

The states rights question only arose over the South's dislike of the free/slave state quoient, the Southerners wanted a slave state for every free state admitted to the union, to maintain a balence, as well as the maintaining of fugative slave laws to continue to be enforced in free states.

When this wasn't happening, they decided to leave the union.

States rights is just an excuse, the war was about slavery, always was, always will be.

[Caligastia]

So there would have been no chance of civil war if both sides agreed on slavery?

[Chris 62]

You got it Cal.

In fact, the South controlled US politics and the US military between the revolution and the civil war, only the slavery issue caused a real riff between the two.

[Caligastia]

Although slavery was the main issue, were there any other issues that caused friction between the two? Didnt the union impose unfair tarifs on the south?

[MrFun]

First off, let me get over my shock that Chris and I agree on a historical issue.

Originally posted by Caligastia
So there would have been no chance of civil war if both sides agreed on slavery?

Yep, as Boris, Chris, and I have been arguing all along.
States' rights was a convenient facade for the Confederate leaders.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by MrFun
First off, let me get over my shock that Chris and I agree on a historical issue.

Not at all.

In the past, you used to interject morality into a historical discussion, and I always said to look at it objectivly.
I have seen your posting style change in the last year, your now on the road to being a good historian, instead of a hack looking to make a splash.

Very well done.

Although slavery was the main issue, were there any other issues that caused friction between the two? Didnt the union impose unfair tarifs on the south?

The US was one nation, doesn't it seem a tad absurd to impose a tarriff on moving withen your own nation?

Besides, you can't apply a tarriff, states have the jusistiction in US law, not the federal government.

This is provided for by the 10th amendment of the US constitution, the last part of the bill of rights:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What exactly that means can be found here:

http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/aae/side/10amend.html

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Boris can quote all he wants to quote from whatever South-hating
reference he wants to quote from. It's still bullshit.

Head-in-the-Sand defense, I see.

Those numbers were not from a South-hating reference. They are from the ACTUAL census data of 1860, and is on file at the University of Virginia. It is first-hand, unadulterated documentary evidence.

The quote was from an actual southern periodical of the times, one supporting the Southern cause.

You can just refuse to accept whatever you want, but that just shows you're incapable of rational thought.

I find it amazing that a gay man would make such a generalized and trash thread.

Cali is gay? He started the thread.

Evidently in your eyes, a person has to be Gay or Black to have ignorant slobs make stupid observations.
As I've stated on so many ocassions, generalities are a sign of ignorance. You know, like all Texans ride a horse to work the ranch and all Gays are little wimps who should be hung on a fence to die. That sort of thing.

What on earth are you talking about? This is a meaningless diatribe that doesn't address anything. I'm not making any generalities, I'm presenting you with documented facts. I've no generalities.

Congrats. Now you can claim to be part of them.
I hate to burst all of your bubbles, but I've shown more respect and tolerance than the sonsof*****es that have posted here.

How is showing first-hand documentary evidence being intolerant about anything? All I can think is that I touched a nerve and you don't like what you see. Fair enough, why don't you present your own data supporting your assertions. I've done the courtesy of presenting support for my arguments, you have not. Until you do so, your rants will be dismissed as just that: empty ranting.

And Slowwhand, no matter how wrong he is with the technical statistics, I think almost any statistical source would show that slavery was the foundation for the Southern economy.

But, MrFun, I am not wrong. The numbers speak for themselves.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Yes it is.

The states rights question only arose over the South's dislike of the free/slave state quoient, the Southerners wanted a slave state for every free state admitted to the union, to maintain a balence, as well as the maintaining of fugative slave laws to continue to be enforced in free states.

When this wasn't happening, they decided to leave the union.

States rights is just an excuse, the war was about slavery, always was, always will be.

Spot on.

(Like MrFun, astonished to be agreeing with Chris 62... )

[Boris Godunov]

You do not have to hate the South to realize that much -- I don't hate the South, and it would be unfair to simply portray Confederate leaders and its soldiers as simply evil, cardboard, one-dimensional characters when one studies the Civil War.
Both sides believed they were fighting on the right side.

100% correct. The notion that if one disagrees with southern apologists, one is therefore a south hater is absurd. Of course everything must be taken in the context of the times. But I will not tolerate lies to justify actions, and the assertion that the South wasn't fighting to protect slavery is indeed a lie.

That does not make all Southerners evil, or even a majority. It just makes them people who thought slavery was ok and worth seceeding over and fighting for.

I certainly do not hate the south. For pete's sake, I was born and raised in Tennessee. I also admire Robert E. Lee as my favorite figure of the war, after Lincoln himself. Longstreet is up there, too.

[SlowwHand]

The total percentage for the "Slave States" was 26%.
Yes, in the Deep South, ie Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia, the percentage was 1/3 of the population owned slaves. Hardly a majority, even by your standards, and these 4 states drives the total percentage up dramatically.
What's left out is that the first slaves were American Indians, and that the first Black slaves were sold out by their brothers in Africa.
Even today, racism against Blacks, by darker Blacks, is worse in Africa than it ever was in the South.
Should slavery have happened? Well hell no.
But don't any of you Northerners take the position that your crap doesn't stink. After all, we have you to thank for Labor Unions.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The total percentage for the "Slave States" was 26%.

Yes, but not all Slave states joined the CSA. If you take only CSA states, the percentage rises to 31%.

Yes, in the Deep South, ie Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia, the percentage was 1/3 of the population owned slaves. Hardly a majority, even by your standards, and these 4 states drives the total percentage up dramatically.

Did I not say this? I'm pretty sure the statistics I cited say this exactly. I never asserted a majority owned slaves, but a sizable minority did. 1/3 is nothing to sneeze at.

What's left out is that the first slaves were American Indians, and that the first Black slaves were sold out by their brothers in Africa.
Even today, racism against Blacks, by darker Blacks, is worse in Africa than it ever was in the South.
Should slavery have happened? Well hell no.

And what on EARTH does this have to do with what we're discussing? 100% irrelevant. We're talking about the factual extent of slave-holding in the South and the purported reasons behind secession. Comparative racism studies aren't the issue here, and you're the only one bringing this up.

But don't any of you Northerners take the position that your crap doesn't stink. After all, we have you to thank for Labor Unions.

Wow, getting so defensive. Who here has said Northerners are better than Southerners? No one. And you have Labor Unions to thank, I'd wager, for your being able to earn a livable wage in clean, safe conditions without having to work 80 hours a week.

Can we get back to the point?

[SlowwHand]

My point is the necessity behind having to have Labor Unions in the first place.
Defensive? My pointing out what and why the statistics are what they are is defensive? I see. Only you and your mouthy buddies can offer insights?
Whatever you say.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
My point is the necessity behind having to have Labor Unions in the first place.

Alas, an aspect of Industrialization that happened in every country. But again, not really relevant.

Defensive? My pointing out what and why the statistics are what they are is defensive?

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you pointed out anything of the kind. Please elaborate.

I see. Only you and your mouthy buddies can offer insights?
Whatever you say.

No one said you haven't offered insights, but those you did offer were off-topic and irrelevant to the discussion. Or did I miss one?

And could I *please* have that apology for your slanderous assertion I was lying, when I proved I wasn't? Thank you.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SlowwHand

I hate to burst all of your bubbles, but I've shown more respect and tolerance than the sonsof*****es that have posted here.

Have you read the Texas Seccession Declaration? They seceded over slavery. No slavery, no seccession. Its that simple.

I will say one thing for Texas. Unlike all but the orignal thirteen colonies Texas really was a sovereign state for a while. The rest never were and even the colonies never were truely sovereign. Thus giving Texas the best legal excuse for seccession. Still if you don't have slavery for an issue you don't have Texas seceeding.

[MrFun]

Slowwhand -- I like you on Apolyton -- I would hate to see this issue dissolve any friendly rappart we had between us.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Caligastia


I thought that the war was really due to economic friction, and slavery was just used as an excuse to start fighting. Is that wrong?

Yes it was wrong. The economics were the economics of Slavery. If you read the Seccession Documents what you will see is a rant for slavery and little mention of economic issues.

The idea of the secession being over economics is a modern revisionist idea not held by the people of the time. There were arguements over tarrifs of course but there were compromises made and the issue was largely on the backburner by 1860. Taxes can be discussed and compomise can be made. Owning slaves is an either/or proposition.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Have you read the Texas Seccession Declaration? They seceded over slavery. No slavery, no seccession. Its that simple.

I will say one thing for Texas. Unlike all but the orignal thirteen colonies Texas really was a sovereign state for a while. The rest never were and even the colonies never were truely sovereign. Thus giving Texas the best legal excuse for seccession. Still if you don't have slavery for an issue you don't have Texas seceeding.

It's spelled secession. One "C" only.
Yes, Texas was a Republic, that voted to join the Union; and we care so much what "you'll say for us".
The last battle of the war was in Texas.
And the fact remains the same, only 25% of the total Confederacy had slaves.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Ethelred

The idea of the secession being over economics is a modern revisionist idea not held by the people of the time. There were arguements over tarrifs of course but there were compromises made and the issue was largely on the backburner by 1860. Taxes can be discussed and compomise can be made. Owning slaves is an either/or proposition.

But Chris said tarrifs couldnt be applied...

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The total percentage for the "Slave States" was 26%.
Yes, in the Deep South, ie Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia, the percentage was 1/3 of the population owned slaves. Hardly a majority, even by your standards, and these 4 states drives the total percentage up dramatically.

Do your numbers somehow change the cause of the Civil War?

What's left out is that the first slaves were American Indians, and that the first Black slaves were sold out by their brothers in Africa.
Even today, racism against Blacks, by darker Blacks, is worse in Africa than it ever was in the South.

That has nothing to do with this discussion. It looks remarkably like an attempt to redirect the conversation away from relevant facts.

Should slavery have happened? Well hell no.
But don't any of you Northerners take the position that your crap doesn't stink. After all, we have you to thank for Labor Unions.

Well then be thankfull. Labor unions saved countless lives in the coal mines. There is nothing wrong with labor unions forming. They are legal and they were VERY needed. Again you are attempting a misdirection. Now why would you want to change the issue to human waste and labor unions?

[SlowwHand]

No joke? My point flew right over your pointed little head.
While us terrible Texans were abusing the Blacks, the North was busy screwing over the Irish and everyone else they could.
Givemea****ingbreak.

No more of this thread for me. Procede on. Think what you'd like.