Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
President Lincoln took office on 4 March 1861. At that time, seven states from the Deep South had seceded from the Union, but four other slave states (Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee) had voted to remain. In mid April Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter, but the bigger economic threat was converting southern ports to duty-free zones. This would have put Northern Ports out of business and deprived the federal government of a primary source of revenue.
In response, Lincoln called for northern troops to put down (i.e., invade) the rebellious states. This unprecedented action outraged the remaining southern states and caused them, led by Virginia, to secede in short order. Virginia was now the most populous and important state in the Confederacy, which quickly moved its capital to Richmond.
What if Lincoln had not taken this precipitous step and Virginia had stayed in the Union? Without it, the Confederacy would have consisted of a collection of backward agricultural states with little manufacturing capacity, almost entirely dependent on imports from foreign countries. Instead of invading these states, Lincoln could have ordered a trade embargo and blockaded their ports. These actions would have been ruinous to the seceding states and, without Virginia's manpower and manufacturing capacity, they would have been forced to capitulate and rejoin the Union.
What do you think of this scenario? Could we have avoided the carnage and destruction of the Civil War if more moderate steps had been taken? Slavery was already a dying institution. (It had completely disappeared in the Western Hemisphere by 1888.) Was it worth 600,000 lives to end it 25 years sooner?
We forgave the Japanese and the Germans after WWII, but the Left can't stop hating the South after the Civil War
What’s that have to do with the belief slavery would die on its own?
It had completely disappeared in the Western Hemisphere by 1888.
Mechanized agriculture was making it uneconomical to maintain a large permanent workforce.
Very true, cotton was a global king for southern states and slavery was a big part of that. Tobacco states went into recession because of it.What’s that have to do with the belief slavery would die on its own?
It had completely disappeared in the Western Hemisphere by 1888.
Mechanized agriculture was making it uneconomical to maintain a large permanent workforce.
Actually just the opposite was happening. Cotton created a huge shift in demand for slaves, from the coastal east to the interior South- huge money was being made by families selling their slaves to huge plantations in the Deep South- Alabama, Missouri. The price- and demand for slaves was very high before the beginning of the Civil War.
It is a myth that slavery was a dying institutionPresident Lincoln took office on 4 March 1861. At that time, seven states from the Deep South had seceded from the Union, but four other slave states (Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee) had voted to remain. In mid April Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter, but the bigger economic threat was converting southern ports to duty-free zones. This would have put Northern Ports out of business and deprived the federal government of a primary source of revenue.
In response, Lincoln called for northern troops to put down (i.e., invade) the rebellious states. This unprecedented action outraged the remaining southern states and caused them, led by Virginia, to secede in short order. Virginia was now the most populous and important state in the Confederacy, which quickly moved its capital to Richmond.
What if Lincoln had not taken this precipitous step and Virginia had stayed in the Union? Without it, the Confederacy would have consisted of a collection of backward agricultural states with little manufacturing capacity, almost entirely dependent on imports from foreign countries. Instead of invading these states, Lincoln could have ordered a trade embargo and blockaded their ports. These actions would have been ruinous to the seceding states and, without Virginia's manpower and manufacturing capacity, they would have been forced to capitulate and rejoin the Union.
What do you think of this scenario? Could we have avoided the carnage and destruction of the Civil War if more moderate steps had been taken? Slavery was already a dying institution. (It had completely disappeared in the Western Hemisphere by 1888.) Was it worth 600,000 lives to end it 25 years sooner?
Ask the slaves.President Lincoln took office on 4 March 1861. At that time, seven states from the Deep South had seceded from the Union, but four other slave states (Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee) had voted to remain. In mid April Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter, but the bigger economic threat was converting southern ports to duty-free zones. This would have put Northern Ports out of business and deprived the federal government of a primary source of revenue.
In response, Lincoln called for northern troops to put down (i.e., invade) the rebellious states. This unprecedented action outraged the remaining southern states and caused them, led by Virginia, to secede in short order. Virginia was now the most populous and important state in the Confederacy, which quickly moved its capital to Richmond.
What if Lincoln had not taken this precipitous step and Virginia had stayed in the Union? Without it, the Confederacy would have consisted of a collection of backward agricultural states with little manufacturing capacity, almost entirely dependent on imports from foreign countries. Instead of invading these states, Lincoln could have ordered a trade embargo and blockaded their ports. These actions would have been ruinous to the seceding states and, without Virginia's manpower and manufacturing capacity, they would have been forced to capitulate and rejoin the Union.
What do you think of this scenario? Could we have avoided the carnage and destruction of the Civil War if more moderate steps had been taken? Slavery was already a dying institution. (It had completely disappeared in the Western Hemisphere by 1888.) Was it worth 600,000 lives to end it 25 years sooner?
Founding Fathers believed slavery would die on its own almost a century earlier.
President Lincoln took office on 4 March 1861. At that time, seven states from the Deep South had seceded from the Union, but four other slave states (Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee) had voted to remain. In mid April Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter, but the bigger economic threat was converting southern ports to duty-free zones. This would have put Northern Ports out of business and deprived the federal government of a primary source of revenue.
In response, Lincoln called for northern troops to put down (i.e., invade) the rebellious states. This unprecedented action outraged the remaining southern states and caused them, led by Virginia, to secede in short order. Virginia was now the most populous and important state in the Confederacy, which quickly moved its capital to Richmond.
What if Lincoln had not taken this precipitous step and Virginia had stayed in the Union? Without it, the Confederacy would have consisted of a collection of backward agricultural states with little manufacturing capacity, almost entirely dependent on imports from foreign countries. Instead of invading these states, Lincoln could have ordered a trade embargo and blockaded their ports. These actions would have been ruinous to the seceding states and, without Virginia's manpower and manufacturing capacity, they would have been forced to capitulate and rejoin the Union.
What do you think of this scenario? Could we have avoided the carnage and destruction of the Civil War if more moderate steps had been taken? Slavery was already a dying institution. (It had completely disappeared in the Western Hemisphere by 1888.) Was it worth 600,000 lives to end it 25 years sooner?
Which means it would have died out.Ask the slaves.President Lincoln took office on 4 March 1861. At that time, seven states from the Deep South had seceded from the Union, but four other slave states (Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee) had voted to remain. In mid April Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter, but the bigger economic threat was converting southern ports to duty-free zones. This would have put Northern Ports out of business and deprived the federal government of a primary source of revenue.
In response, Lincoln called for northern troops to put down (i.e., invade) the rebellious states. This unprecedented action outraged the remaining southern states and caused them, led by Virginia, to secede in short order. Virginia was now the most populous and important state in the Confederacy, which quickly moved its capital to Richmond.
What if Lincoln had not taken this precipitous step and Virginia had stayed in the Union? Without it, the Confederacy would have consisted of a collection of backward agricultural states with little manufacturing capacity, almost entirely dependent on imports from foreign countries. Instead of invading these states, Lincoln could have ordered a trade embargo and blockaded their ports. These actions would have been ruinous to the seceding states and, without Virginia's manpower and manufacturing capacity, they would have been forced to capitulate and rejoin the Union.
What do you think of this scenario? Could we have avoided the carnage and destruction of the Civil War if more moderate steps had been taken? Slavery was already a dying institution. (It had completely disappeared in the Western Hemisphere by 1888.) Was it worth 600,000 lives to end it 25 years sooner?
Founding Fathers believed slavery would die on its own almost a century earlier.
It would have died out if not for the invention of Eli Whitney’s Cotton Gin
Possibly, but at least greatly reduced.Ask the slaves.President Lincoln took office on 4 March 1861. At that time, seven states from the Deep South had seceded from the Union, but four other slave states (Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee) had voted to remain. In mid April Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter, but the bigger economic threat was converting southern ports to duty-free zones. This would have put Northern Ports out of business and deprived the federal government of a primary source of revenue.
In response, Lincoln called for northern troops to put down (i.e., invade) the rebellious states. This unprecedented action outraged the remaining southern states and caused them, led by Virginia, to secede in short order. Virginia was now the most populous and important state in the Confederacy, which quickly moved its capital to Richmond.
What if Lincoln had not taken this precipitous step and Virginia had stayed in the Union? Without it, the Confederacy would have consisted of a collection of backward agricultural states with little manufacturing capacity, almost entirely dependent on imports from foreign countries. Instead of invading these states, Lincoln could have ordered a trade embargo and blockaded their ports. These actions would have been ruinous to the seceding states and, without Virginia's manpower and manufacturing capacity, they would have been forced to capitulate and rejoin the Union.
What do you think of this scenario? Could we have avoided the carnage and destruction of the Civil War if more moderate steps had been taken? Slavery was already a dying institution. (It had completely disappeared in the Western Hemisphere by 1888.) Was it worth 600,000 lives to end it 25 years sooner?
Founding Fathers believed slavery would die on its own almost a century earlier.
It would have died out if not for the invention of Eli Whitney’s Cotton Gin
No, it means it should have died outWhich means it would have died out.Ask the slaves.President Lincoln took office on 4 March 1861. At that time, seven states from the Deep South had seceded from the Union, but four other slave states (Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee) had voted to remain. In mid April Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter, but the bigger economic threat was converting southern ports to duty-free zones. This would have put Northern Ports out of business and deprived the federal government of a primary source of revenue.
In response, Lincoln called for northern troops to put down (i.e., invade) the rebellious states. This unprecedented action outraged the remaining southern states and caused them, led by Virginia, to secede in short order. Virginia was now the most populous and important state in the Confederacy, which quickly moved its capital to Richmond.
What if Lincoln had not taken this precipitous step and Virginia had stayed in the Union? Without it, the Confederacy would have consisted of a collection of backward agricultural states with little manufacturing capacity, almost entirely dependent on imports from foreign countries. Instead of invading these states, Lincoln could have ordered a trade embargo and blockaded their ports. These actions would have been ruinous to the seceding states and, without Virginia's manpower and manufacturing capacity, they would have been forced to capitulate and rejoin the Union.
What do you think of this scenario? Could we have avoided the carnage and destruction of the Civil War if more moderate steps had been taken? Slavery was already a dying institution. (It had completely disappeared in the Western Hemisphere by 1888.) Was it worth 600,000 lives to end it 25 years sooner?
Founding Fathers believed slavery would die on its own almost a century earlier.
It would have died out if not for the invention of Eli Whitney’s Cotton Gin
Dingleberry
But instead, around a million white boys gave their lives to free the black population from their slavery, something they will never get credit for doing thanks to the American hating Left who continues to insist white America is still racist and needs to be destroyed.
There are far more slaves in the world today than back then.
There Are More Slaves Today Than at Any Time in Human History – Alternet.org
So I'm thinking we are going backward, not forward, yet the only slavery the Left wants to focus on is previous suffering and previous slavery.
Very telling.
And then, the cotton gin was invented. Every school student knows what happened there.Ask the slaves.President Lincoln took office on 4 March 1861. At that time, seven states from the Deep South had seceded from the Union, but four other slave states (Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee) had voted to remain. In mid April Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter, but the bigger economic threat was converting southern ports to duty-free zones. This would have put Northern Ports out of business and deprived the federal government of a primary source of revenue.
In response, Lincoln called for northern troops to put down (i.e., invade) the rebellious states. This unprecedented action outraged the remaining southern states and caused them, led by Virginia, to secede in short order. Virginia was now the most populous and important state in the Confederacy, which quickly moved its capital to Richmond.
What if Lincoln had not taken this precipitous step and Virginia had stayed in the Union? Without it, the Confederacy would have consisted of a collection of backward agricultural states with little manufacturing capacity, almost entirely dependent on imports from foreign countries. Instead of invading these states, Lincoln could have ordered a trade embargo and blockaded their ports. These actions would have been ruinous to the seceding states and, without Virginia's manpower and manufacturing capacity, they would have been forced to capitulate and rejoin the Union.
What do you think of this scenario? Could we have avoided the carnage and destruction of the Civil War if more moderate steps had been taken? Slavery was already a dying institution. (It had completely disappeared in the Western Hemisphere by 1888.) Was it worth 600,000 lives to end it 25 years sooner?
Founding Fathers believed slavery would die on its own almost a century earlier.
In the North, but the South was resisting that with all they had.What’s that have to do with the belief slavery would die on its own?
It had completely disappeared in the Western Hemisphere by 1888.
Mechanized agriculture was making it uneconomical to maintain a large permanent workforce.
A mechanized cotton picker did not show up until the 1930sIn the North, but the South was resisting that with all they had.What’s that have to do with the belief slavery would die on its own?
It had completely disappeared in the Western Hemisphere by 1888.
Mechanized agriculture was making it uneconomical to maintain a large permanent workforce.
Slavery existed in the south 200 years before the Democratic Party was formedLincoln should not be remembered as a good person, the south didn’t want slavery DEMOCRATS WANTED SLAVERY!.
There was absolutely no need for this war it would have settled down after a few years and would have rejoined
