What if the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully?

[Toro]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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!?

 

[thanatos144]

The Confederates United States was an evil empire

 

[bendog]

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.

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.

 

[gipper]

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.

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

 

[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]

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

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.

 

[bendog]

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.

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.

 

[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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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]

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.

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).

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.

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. 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 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]

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.

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. 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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.