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

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


It's spelled secession. One "C" only.

Little things for little minds.

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.

The fact remains the war was about slavery. Stating the number of slave owners won't change that.

Are you claiming the war would have happened without slavery? Or are just venting over people telling the truth?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Caligastia


But Chris said tarrifs couldnt be applied...

Chris was rather ambigous.

US Tarrifs were and still are federal and in fact the Federal government's mains source of taxes at the time was tarrifs. I believe what Chris was saying is that tarrifs were not interstate. The tarrifs were on imports from other countries. The South did more importing than the North so they thought of it as a tax on them rather the tax on imports that it actually was.

[Caligastia]

ah, I see

[Chris 62]

Ethelred is correct Cal, I was not being precise.

[Caligastia]

You are forgiven my son

[Chris 62]

Shouldn't you be the one apologizing?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
No joke? My point flew right over your pointed little head.

Your points on this thread have consisted of irrelevant ones and personal insults like this one. You head is filled with your own unreasoned hate on this thread.

While us terrible Texans were abusing the Blacks, the North was busy screwing over the Irish and everyone else they could.
Givemea****ingbreak.

No one said any such thing. Except you right now. If you think someone said that then perhaps its what you think about your fellow Texans as no one said it here.

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

We are dealing with truth. You are trying to evade it. You have hurled insults over imagined slights that only existed within your mind.

I note that you did not answer a single question but I will ask it again. If you are going to flee that thread that will speak for itself.


Do you think the Civil War would have occured if not for slavery?


That is really what the question the thread started with amounts to.

[ZaphodBeeblebrx]

I'm kind of torn.

On the one hand, I agree completely with MrFun's Constitutional Argument, while on the other hand, as a New Englander, I'm Culturally Predisposed to the Idea, that once a Law, or even a Ratified, Constitutional Amendment, crosses a Certain Line, probably dictated by Common Human Decency, it pretty much becomes, "Get out, while the Gettin's still Good!"

Perhaps even more important, are the possible Secondary Effects, to a Successful Southern Secession.

For a good example of these, I'd recommend, maybe as Required Reading, the book How Few Remain, and its Subsequent Saga, The Great War Series, all by Harry Turtledove.

[SpencerH]

As I understand it, the tariff argument is more to do with the south wanting to sell cotton directly to the Brits rather than go through Yankee middlemen. The tariffs were to be imposed with Lincoln's election in order to stop the south from doing so.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by 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.

Come off it, Slowwhand --- I know you're usually better than this.


Your points about the abuse of the working class and immigrants in the North ignores or dodges the issue at hand here -- whether slavery was the issue that ripped the nation apart, and whether slavery was the basis for Southern economy.

On the count of slavery being the main issue -- I would have to say, most definitely yes.
On the count of slavery being the basis of Southern economy -- I would have to say, most definitely yes.


No one here is denying the abuse and exploitation of workers and immigrants that occurred in the Northern states.
At least --- I'm not denying that.

[ZaphodBeeblebrx]

Originally posted by SpencerH
As I understand it, the tariff argument is more to do with the south wanting to sell cotton directly to the Brits rather than go through Yankee middlemen. The tariffs were to be imposed with Lincoln's election in order to stop the south from doing so.

If true, unfortunately that would Invalidate MrFun's Constitutional Argument, as the COTUS, quite specifically, Outlaws Export Tariffs.

Are you sure that it wasn't a Protective, Import, Tariff, on European Manufactured Goods, that would then have Forced them, to respond in Kind?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MrFun
On the count of slavery being the main issue -- I would have to say, most definitely yes.

I would say that slavery became the issue, just as nazi mistreatment of the Jews and other people became an issue. Wars are fought over money and power not morality.

On the count of slavery being the basis of Southern economy -- I would have to say, most definitely yes.

IMO its probably true.

[Rex Little]

I'm not going to read through this whole thread (100 posts in one day--yeesh!), but my preference would have been to let the South secede peacefully. I think relations between the USA and CSA would then have been similar to USA-Canada in real life, or at worst USA-Mexico. Going forward, the US would have had probably less inclination, and certainly less ability, to throw its weight around in world affairs.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SpencerH

I would say that slavery became the issue, just as nazi mistreatment of the Jews and other people became an issue. Wars are fought over money and power not morality.

I agree -- initially, Lincoln merely wanted to restrict slavery, not abolish it.
But then during the midst of the Civil War, he realized, as others have, that there was no turning back the clock -- it was time to settle this issue pernamently.

It began as a war for the Union, and nothing more, but then changed in the midst of the war, to securing one of the foundational ideals of our government -- liberty.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by ZaphodBeeblebrx

If true, unfortunately that would Invalidate MrFun's Constitutional Argument, as the COTUS, quite specifically, Outlaws Export Tariffs.

Are you sure that it wasn't a Protective, Import, Tariff, on European Manufactured Goods, that would then have Forced them, to respond in Kind?

To be honest, I'm not sure of the specifics. Its something I've picked up from a friend who's opinion I trust (that doesnt make him right of course).

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SpencerH


I would say that slavery became the issue, just as nazi mistreatment of the Jews and other people became an issue. Wars are fought over money and power not morality.

The Southern states were quite clear about in the Secession Documents. They didn't talk about money and the power was about the voting power they needed to maintain slavery.

The money was and power issues were both dependent on slavery. If there was no slavery the other issues would not have existed. The vote power issue in particular. The economic issue would clearly have had be a different one not based on slavery to exist.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by MrFun

It began as a war for the Union, and nothing more, but then changed in the midst of the war, to securing one of the foundational ideals of our government -- liberty.

Only from the North's point of view. Not from the South's and they were the ones that seceded.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SpencerH


To be honest, I'm not sure of the specifics. Its something I've picked up from a friend who's opinion I trust (that doesnt make him right of course).

It was about IMPORT not export tariffs. The South didn't like the way the taxes were being spent and they didn't like the protective nature of the tariffs. After all it was the Northern industries that were being protected.

However there was a compromise on the issue long before 1860. There was some fear that the protective tariffs would be reinstated. Such tariffs were started up in 1961 to pay for the war effort. Those taxes would not have been needed nor would likely have passed without the secession. After all the Southern states would have voted against them. Without the Southern Congressmen and Senators compromise was nor longer an issue.

[ZaphodBeeblebrx]

For an indication as to just how an Independant Confederacy, would react to the Changing Times, towards the end of the 19th Century, just check out one of the Books that I referenced in a Post, on the Last Page, How Few Remain, as well as a not Quite Unrelated book, called The Guns of the South, also, by the Same Author.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
:
The last battle of the war was in Texas.
And the fact remains the same, only 25% of the total Confederacy had slaves.

No, Slowwhand, it was 31% of the Confederacy. 26% of all slave holding states, and not all of them joined the Confederacy, remember.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ethelred

The Southern states were quite clear about in the Secession Documents. They didn't talk about money and the power was about the voting power they needed to maintain slavery.

The point is that what are cited as reasons for war are not the real reasons. For example:

The cited reason for the gulf war was.......

The real reason was.......

The cited reason for the attacking Serbia was.......

The real reason was.......

Fill in whatever you like for any war, they're not likely to be the same.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SpencerH

The point is that what are cited as reasons for war are not the real reasons. For example:

The cited reason for the gulf war was.......

The real reason was.......

The cited reason for the attacking Serbia was.......

The real reason was.......

Fill in whatever you like for any war, they're not likely to be the same.

I disagree. You're talking wars that are fought in front of modern-day media with modern-day sentiments. I can think of plenty of wars where the cited reason was the real reason (WWI, WWII, Vietnam, The War of Austrian Secession...Thirty Years War...Peleponesian War... )

Besides, if this was the case, it makes the South look worse. I can understand and perhaps respect if they *really* believed in the institution and were willing to fight for it, even though I abhor the institution. If, however, they cynically used it as a cover for economic motives, that engenders no respect I find it callously evil.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SpencerH

The point is that what are cited as reasons for war are not the real reasons. For example:

The cited reason for the gulf war was.......

The real reason was.......

The cited reason for the attacking Serbia was.......

The real reason was.......

Fill in whatever you like for any war, they're not likely to be the same.

So your psychic. You even read dead minds. The real reason for the Gulf War was that Iraq wanted the Kuwaiti oil fields.

The real reason the Serb attacked the non-Serbs is that they want the land for themselves.

The real reason the SOUTH seceded and then started a war is that they feared they would lose slavery. They said so. Not just in official documents either. They ran for office on it. They newspapers said it was about slavery. Private letters discuss slavery. The only thing that could show otherwise is for the Psychic Network to be real.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ethelred

So your psychic. You even read dead minds.

Its funny, but I've only seen you retaliate to these kinds of comments. I guess you're learning how to sling it yourself now.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ethelred

The real reason the Serb attacked the non-Serbs is that they want the land for themselves.

They wanted the land that IS theirs, and has been theirs for hundreds of years. What would the US do if illegal immigrants in the Southwest tried to secede from the Union?

[SpencerH]

I'll give you some examples then

The reason cited by the Nazis for the invasion of the Sudetenland was mistreatment of the german people living there by the Czechs.

The "real" reason was that the nazis wanted to take over Europe.

The reason cited for the cause of WWI was the murder of the Austrian Archduke.

The "real" reason was Imperial designs by european monarchs.

The reason cited for american involvement in the gulf war was to free the Kuwaitees.

The "real" reason was to protect our oil supply (there are lots of others to pick as well).

Boris, you really think you know the true reasons for wars that happened hundreds and thousands of years ago

[History Guy]

A good number of Confederates actually fought for no other reason than that they felt they had to go with their state when it seceded, and that they could not fight against their people, Virginians against Virginians, that sort of thing. And Virginia, many people conviently forget, seems to have seceded mainly due to the fact that U.S. troops were crossing the border to go down and destroy already seceded areas. They saw this as invasion, and no one was going to tell them anything otherwise. The whole thing was one bloody mess. Nuff said.

The reason, of course, that Fort Sumter was fired upon, was because the people of South Carolina, who had claimed independence, believed that this was a sign of Northern aggression, and Major Anderson's hops around from fort to fort in Charleston harbor wasn't a help to the Union at all. In short, the Union brought about the firing by their own unflexibility. Of course, Lincoln had opted not to accept secession as legal, and so nothing was done at all about it. Nuff said.

I still can't shake the feeling, however, that slavery was already on it's last legs. I do doubt that, even had the South seceded peacefully, it would have survived much longer at all. That seems also to be the informed opinions of several major Civil War historians. Nuff said.

[SpencerH]

Wasnt there some invention not long after the war that mechanized the cotton industry and removed the need for laborers?

[SlowwHand]

Do you mean the cotton gin, by Eli Whitney?

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


No, Slowwhand, it was 31% of the Confederacy. 26% of all slave holding states, and not all of them joined the Confederacy, remember.

At least you're consistently wrong.