Do you think not letting the south secede was a good thing?

[The great dane]

No, I dont think not letting the south secede was a good thing.

What gave the Union the right to deny that which the people wanted?
Nothing did.

If they had let the south secede, perhaps we wouldnt have the USA fucking everything up while pretending to be the good guys.
I would had prefered the Confederacy to win that war.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Arguments of whether its constitutional or not for them to secede aside, wasn't it a good thing overall to keep the country united?

What do you think the ramifications would be had they successfully seceded or won the Civil War? How many future wars would there have been over land in the West if two different countries were fighting for control of the remaining unclaimed regions in the west?

spin off of the monstrosity that the Lincoln-hitler thread has become.

There did not need to be a War at all. If the Southern States had remained peaceful we may have had a peaceful resolution to the whole mess when Congress reconvened. THEY chose WAR. In other words they had no intention of talking to begin with.

 

[rdean]

No, I dont think not letting the south secede was a good thing.

What gave the Union the right to deny that which the people wanted?
Nothing did.

If they had let the south secede, perhaps we wouldnt have the USA fucking everything up while pretending to be the good guys.
I would had prefered the Confederacy to win that war.

To keep slavery?

 

[tommywho70x]

They are a bit of a drain on the rest of us.

Nice weather and beaches, though.

kiss the beaches goodbye.

 

[tommywho70x]

No, I dont think not letting the south secede was a good thing.

What gave the Union the right to deny that which the people wanted?
Nothing did.

If they had let the south secede, perhaps we wouldnt have the USA fucking everything up while pretending to be the good guys.
I would had prefered the Confederacy to win that war.

yo, hans christian, the americans saved your asses twice and kept the russians from taking over your porn trade for almost 50 years. so the USA can't be fucking EVERYTHING up --- copenhagen is still a great place to go and buy a sex toy.

and nobody sneaks out to the statue of liberty to slice her head off.

 

[Rogue 9]

Had the south been allowed to leave the union, slavery would have ended in less than 40 years, all by itself. The end was already in sight before the war. The south would have been a stronger nation with ties to Europe. The North may have died off or been absorbed by Canada. I think the Union itself would have split apart after the south left.

I do not know if keeping the south in the union was good in the long run for our nation, I know it was good in the short run, but right now I see a government completely out of control that refuses to do their job (ie secure our borders) and as a result I think our country is falling apart.

Why would the north die out? We had all the industrial might, the railroad system, the telegraph in place, much better infrastructure than the south. The south just had cotton

The south had ties to Europe, who wanted their cotton. The north put tariffs on manufactured goods from Europe. If the south had succeeded, they would have had more ties to the rest of the world than the north...which would have become very protectionist. JMO, but a valid opinion none the less.

I wonder if anyone can design a computer program and put all the facts into it and see what would really have happened if the south had succeeded.

Europe despised the South; the only reason Britain and France even entertained the idea of recognizing the Confederacy in the first place was because emancipation was not a Union war aim until 1863, so they did not see much of a difference since the outcome of the war would not up until that point have had any effect upon the institution of slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation made diplomatic recognition of the Confederacy a political impossibility.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why would the north die out? We had all the industrial might, the railroad system, the telegraph in place, much better infrastructure than the south. The south just had cotton

The south had ties to Europe, who wanted their cotton. The north put tariffs on manufactured goods from Europe. If the south had succeeded, they would have had more ties to the rest of the world than the north...which would have become very protectionist. JMO, but a valid opinion none the less.

I wonder if anyone can design a computer program and put all the facts into it and see what would really have happened if the south had succeeded.

Europe despised the South; the only reason Britain and France even entertained the idea of recognizing the Confederacy in the first place was because emancipation was not a Union war aim until 1863, so they did not see much of a difference since the outcome of the war would not up until that point have had any effect upon the institution of slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation made diplomatic recognition of the Confederacy a political impossibility.

Europe did not despise the south as the south was one of their best customers. You're right about the rest, however.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Arguments of whether its constitutional or not for them to secede aside, wasn't it a good thing overall to keep the country united?

What do you think the ramifications would be had they successfully seceded or won the Civil War? How many future wars would there have been over land in the West if two different countries were fighting for control of the remaining unclaimed regions in the west?

spin off of the monstrosity that the Lincoln-hitler thread has become.

I have to say I don't think that's the point, especially since it's literally impossible for anyone to say what would or would not have happened if XYZ historical event had not taken place.

I don't think you can judge historical behavior by saying, "Well, the results were good, therefore it was a good thing for them to do." There is no action in the world that does not produce SOME sort of positive effect, but that doesn't make the action itself right or wrong, good or bad.

The only questions you can realistically ask about secession are, "Did the Southern states, in fact, have the right to secede? Did Lincoln have the right to forcibly prevent them from doing so?" Whether or not you, personally, like the results of him having done so from your 21st century perspective is irrelevant.

 

[kellyjack]

Had the south been allowed to leave the union, slavery would have ended in less than 40 years, all by itself. The end was already in sight before the war. The south would have been a stronger nation with ties to Europe. The North may have died off or been absorbed by Canada. I think the Union itself would have split apart after the south left.

I do not know if keeping the south in the union was good in the long run for our nation, I know it was good in the short run, but right now I see a government completely out of control that refuses to do their job (ie secure our borders) and as a result I think our country is falling apart.

For every dollar southern states have to pay the federal government, they get more than a dollar back. For every dollar blue states have to pay the federal government, they get less than a dollar back.
Corn and cotton are needed, no doubt about it. But you really can't compete against education, industry and technology without the same.
If they had split, you would have had poor southern states, once slavery ended and rich northern states who would have had to put up fences to keep the illegal southerners out.

A lot of the Plantation owners were Northners that needed the cotton for their textile mills. Most of the whites living in the South were scot/irish descendants that were dirt poor sharecroppers,these people were very Independent and would never have begged anything from the North.
A lot of the Blacks did eventually migrate North but most of the people in the South are from original families that pre-date the civil war.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Arguments of whether its constitutional or not for them to secede aside, wasn't it a good thing overall to keep the country united?

What do you think the ramifications would be had they successfully seceded or won the Civil War? How many future wars would there have been over land in the West if two different countries were fighting for control of the remaining unclaimed regions in the west?

spin off of the monstrosity that the Lincoln-hitler thread has become.

The South forced the issue. We will never know what Congress would have done because South Carolina and the rest of the South forced armed conflict on the issue.

Lincoln did everything in his power to wait for Congress to reconvene and address the issue. The South would have none of it. They were out for blood and got it.

As for land, the South was blocked by the Union. Texas was bordered by New Mexico, Colorado and Oklahoma all US Territory or States. And it was the farthest west State they had.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Arguments of whether its constitutional or not for them to secede aside, wasn't it a good thing overall to keep the country united?

What do you think the ramifications would be had they successfully seceded or won the Civil War? How many future wars would there have been over land in the West if two different countries were fighting for control of the remaining unclaimed regions in the west?

spin off of the monstrosity that the Lincoln-hitler thread has become.

The South forced the issue. We will never know what Congress would have done because South Carolina and the rest of the South forced armed conflict on the issue.

Lincoln did everything in his power to wait for Congress to reconvene and address the issue. The South would have none of it. They were out for blood and got it.

As for land, the South was blocked by the Union. Texas was bordered by New Mexico, Colorado and Oklahoma all US Territory or States. And it was the farthest west State they had.

If Lincoln was trying to avoid hostilities he wouldn't have tried to resupply Fort Sumter knowing that the south would stop that from happening.

 

[bodecea]

They are a bit of a drain on the rest of us.

Nice weather and beaches, though.

They should NOT have let some of them back in afterwards...SC and TX come to mind.

 

[bodecea]

I know its alt history but the series from Harry Turtledove about this is an interesting read.

This wiki link describes the timeline from the books.

Timeline-191 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In his version the animosity of the split leads to further wars, and vastly different alignments between the americas and european powers.

Great series...the alternate Hitler is a disgruntled Southern Soldier who sets up death camps for blacks.

 

[bodecea]

The south would have been a stronger nation with ties to Europe. The North may have died off or been absorbed by Canada. I think the Union itself would have split apart after the south left.

The North was a far stronger nation than the South at the time of the War. The South would have had no reason to innovate and probably would have stayed with the Plantation culture as long as possible. You still see that here in the South to this day. The major cities that are innovating, like Dallas, have a heavy population of folks that grew up in the North.

However, if the South had been allowed to "just go" I think both the North and the South would have split into many many pieces. The New England states had considered secession during the War of 1812. Texas was its own sovereign nation at one point. It is likely the American Indian tribes could have found a political balance between North and South can kept much of the Great Plains. California and the Pacific Northwest would have likely split due to sheer logistics. Utah tried to secede, and likely would succeed at that in this scenario.

By the time that WWI opened in Europe it is likely we'd have been at least 3 nations, if not more like 8. There almost certainly would have been a front here.

The south was industrializing, however. That's why many believe slavery was on its way out on its own.

Hardly.

 

[bodecea]

Arguments of whether its constitutional or not for them to secede aside, wasn't it a good thing overall to keep the country united?

What do you think the ramifications would be had they successfully seceded or won the Civil War? How many future wars would there have been over land in the West if two different countries were fighting for control of the remaining unclaimed regions in the west?

spin off of the monstrosity that the Lincoln-hitler thread has become.

There did not need to be a War at all. If the Southern States had remained peaceful we may have had a peaceful resolution to the whole mess when Congress reconvened. THEY chose WAR. In other words they had no intention of talking to begin with.

True...they were spoiling for a fight and fired first.

 

[bodecea]

Arguments of whether its constitutional or not for them to secede aside, wasn't it a good thing overall to keep the country united?

What do you think the ramifications would be had they successfully seceded or won the Civil War? How many future wars would there have been over land in the West if two different countries were fighting for control of the remaining unclaimed regions in the west?

spin off of the monstrosity that the Lincoln-hitler thread has become.

The South forced the issue. We will never know what Congress would have done because South Carolina and the rest of the South forced armed conflict on the issue.

Lincoln did everything in his power to wait for Congress to reconvene and address the issue. The South would have none of it. They were out for blood and got it.

As for land, the South was blocked by the Union. Texas was bordered by New Mexico, Colorado and Oklahoma all US Territory or States. And it was the farthest west State they had.

If Lincoln was trying to avoid hostilities he wouldn't have tried to resupply Fort Sumter knowing that the south would stop that from happening.

So, you are saying that if some country takes over our military property, it would be the RIGHT THING TO DO to let them steal it in order to avoid bloodshed?

BTW...who fired first?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Arguments of whether its constitutional or not for them to secede aside, wasn't it a good thing overall to keep the country united?

What do you think the ramifications would be had they successfully seceded or won the Civil War? How many future wars would there have been over land in the West if two different countries were fighting for control of the remaining unclaimed regions in the west?

spin off of the monstrosity that the Lincoln-hitler thread has become.

The South forced the issue. We will never know what Congress would have done because South Carolina and the rest of the South forced armed conflict on the issue.

Lincoln did everything in his power to wait for Congress to reconvene and address the issue. The South would have none of it. They were out for blood and got it.

As for land, the South was blocked by the Union. Texas was bordered by New Mexico, Colorado and Oklahoma all US Territory or States. And it was the farthest west State they had.

If Lincoln was trying to avoid hostilities he wouldn't have tried to resupply Fort Sumter knowing that the south would stop that from happening.

Once again for the stupid and insane. All Federal Forts were FEDERAL property. The fort in question was probably deeded to the US in the late 1700's shortly after the Federal Government came to be. South Carolina had no claim on it and had no right to blockade it. Nor any right to fire on supply ships supplying it nor the Garrison.

The South was preaching war through out the South as soon as the election process began for President. They not the North organized militias and drilled and armed for war. They not the North had daily editorials and stories about FIGHTING the North and of beating them. They not the North seized Federal property and stole land and equipment that did not belong to them. And still Lincoln refused to call up the Militia or increase the Army. While the South raised armies Lincoln did nothing but ask for calm until Congress could reconvene. He had ever right and RESPONSIBILITY to maintain control of all Federal Forts and Garrisons. It is the JOB of the President to do so.

Lincoln did NOTHING until the North was fired on. He had less then 16000 troops under arms and did nothing while the South raised armies, armed them, drilled them and trained them. You have not got a leg to stand on. The SOUTH wanted WAR. And they got it. And they paid for their own stupidity.

Because of that stupidity we will never know what Congress may have done. I for one am glad the South forced the issue. I suspect the Congress would not have done so. The South insisted on and forced war and paid the price for their ignorance and stupidity.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The South forced the issue. We will never know what Congress would have done because South Carolina and the rest of the South forced armed conflict on the issue.

Lincoln did everything in his power to wait for Congress to reconvene and address the issue. The South would have none of it. They were out for blood and got it.

As for land, the South was blocked by the Union. Texas was bordered by New Mexico, Colorado and Oklahoma all US Territory or States. And it was the farthest west State they had.

If Lincoln was trying to avoid hostilities he wouldn't have tried to resupply Fort Sumter knowing that the south would stop that from happening.

So, you are saying that if some country takes over our military property, it would be the RIGHT THING TO DO to let them steal it in order to avoid bloodshed?

BTW...who fired first?

They only took it over after Lincoln tried to resupply it, which tells me they were more than willing to allow a peaceful transition but not to have a permanent Union fort within their borders. Not to mention that nobody was killed in the attack, and all Union troops were allowed to return home. If they were interested in starting a war they would have kept those troops.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The South forced the issue. We will never know what Congress would have done because South Carolina and the rest of the South forced armed conflict on the issue.

Lincoln did everything in his power to wait for Congress to reconvene and address the issue. The South would have none of it. They were out for blood and got it.

As for land, the South was blocked by the Union. Texas was bordered by New Mexico, Colorado and Oklahoma all US Territory or States. And it was the farthest west State they had.

If Lincoln was trying to avoid hostilities he wouldn't have tried to resupply Fort Sumter knowing that the south would stop that from happening.

Once again for the stupid and insane. All Federal Forts were FEDERAL property. The fort in question was probably deeded to the US in the late 1700's shortly after the Federal Government came to be. South Carolina had no claim on it and had no right to blockade it. Nor any right to fire on supply ships supplying it nor the Garrison.

The South was preaching war through out the South as soon as the election process began for President. They not the North organized militias and drilled and armed for war. They not the North had daily editorials and stories about FIGHTING the North and of beating them. They not the North seized Federal property and stole land and equipment that did not belong to them. And still Lincoln refused to call up the Militia or increase the Army. While the South raised armies Lincoln did nothing but ask for calm until Congress could reconvene. He had ever right and RESPONSIBILITY to maintain control of all Federal Forts and Garrisons. It is the JOB of the President to do so.

Lincoln did NOTHING until the North was fired on. He had less then 16000 troops under arms and did nothing while the South raised armies, armed them, drilled them and trained them. You have not got a leg to stand on. The SOUTH wanted WAR. And they got it. And they paid for their own stupidity.

Because of that stupidity we will never know what Congress may have done. I for one am glad the South forced the issue. I suspect the Congress would not have done so. The South insisted on and forced war and paid the price for their ignorance and stupidity.

Well you can't have it both ways. Lincoln knew resupplying the fort would lead to war, which is exactly what he wanted.

 

[rdean]

TaxProf Blog: Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed

Missed opportunity. Hindsight.