What if the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully?

Discussion in 'History' started by Friends, Oct 10, 2013.

  1. Boss
    Offline

    Boss Take a Memo:

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    21,884
    Thanks Received:
    2,760
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    Ratings:
    +10,108
    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?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. Politico
    Offline

    Politico Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    13,855
    Thanks Received:
    937
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,496
    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.
     
  3. thanatos144
    Offline

    thanatos144 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    15,305
    Thanks Received:
    1,331
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Stuart Florida
    Ratings:
    +2,843
    what has any of that to do with the confederate states of slavery?
     
  4. Boss
    Offline

    Boss Take a Memo:

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    21,884
    Thanks Received:
    2,760
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    Ratings:
    +10,108
    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!
     
  5. thanatos144
    Offline

    thanatos144 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    15,305
    Thanks Received:
    1,331
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Stuart Florida
    Ratings:
    +2,843
    Sure it can. They all were democrats.

    Tapatalk
     
  6. mikegriffith1
    Online

    mikegriffith1 Mike Griffith

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,533
    Thanks Received:
    1,430
    Trophy Points:
    380
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +5,866
    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.
     
  7. Boss
    Offline

    Boss Take a Memo:

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    21,884
    Thanks Received:
    2,760
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    Ratings:
    +10,108
    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?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page