The Ostend Manifesto

[Orange_Juice]

I know a lot of people like to talk about 'what ifs,' well, what if the slave holders of the south had accomplished their goal of adding Cuba with its 500,000 slaves and its position as a slave trading colony to the union. They wanted to add more slave states and make the African Slave trade legal again. Why else would they have wanted Cuba? Lincoln was right in opposing this, and a slave Kansas, too. It was the south, with the help of febel minded northern puppets, that was trying to aggressivly change this country, not the North.

Ostend Manifesto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What is your point? The Civil War was about slavery. Only apologists claim otherwise. Of course saying it was about States Rights is also true, but one need only read the documents those States wrote as to WHY they left the Union to see the Right they were afraid of losing was the right to slavery.

None of the other economic problems rose to a level of even being mentioned by those States as the reason they abandoned the United States. Now there were other problems to be sure, but not that caused open Rebellion.

 

[Orange_Juice]

What is your point? The Civil War was about slavery. Only apologists claim otherwise. Of course saying it was about States Rights is also true, but one need only read the documents those States wrote as to WHY they left the Union to see the Right they were afraid of losing was the right to slavery.

None of the other economic problems rose to a level of even being mentioned by those States as the reason they abandoned the United States. Now there were other problems to be sure, but not that caused open Rebellion.

How was it about States Rights? In 1850 the South threatened to leave the Union unless they got a stronger FEDERAL fugitive slave law. The Dred Scott decion also strengthen slavery throough Federal law, The Lecompton Constitution of Kansas was a fraud but the South wanted all these or they were going to seceed. Slave holders said they could slaves into free states and the feds agreed

As to my main point about Cuba, it would have greatly strengthened slavery in this nation and opened up the possibility of hundreds of thousands if not millions of more slaves being shipped to the U.S. to fill up the west with slave labor, as it was slave shipers were not being punished by souther jouries in the south, which meant more slaves in our country

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How was it about States Rights? In 1850 the South threatened to leave the Union unless they got a stronger FEDERAL fugitive slave law. The Dred Scott decion also strengthen slavery throough Federal law, The Lecompton Constitution of Kansas was a fraud but the South wanted all these or they were going to seceed. Slave holders said they could slaves into free states and the feds agreed

As to my main point about Cuba, it would have greatly strengthened slavery in this nation and opened up the possibility of hundreds of thousands if not millions of more slaves being shipped to the U.S. to fill up the west with slave labor, as it was slave shipers were not being punished by souther jouries in the south, which meant more slaves in our country

Slavery was a LEGAL Right of the Slave States. Authorized and codified in the Constitution. The Slave States even got representation from slaves at a 3/5 per slave. Lincoln never had the power to end slavery EXCEPT after the South Rebelled. That is why he could only free the rebelling States slaves.

The South, by going to war ensured the destruction of the very thing they sought to protect. As you pointed out the Federal Government bent over backwards to appease the Slave States. They had no reason to leave.

The War was about the Future though, not the present. The Slaves States were afraid that a NON slave State President would aid the Congress and the Country in declaring an end to equal addition of free and slave State. That would have eventually lead to the abolishment of Slavery peacefully.

What is Ironic is by the time the Abolish movement would have had the Votes the South could have easily reached the point where they no longer needed the slaves.

 

[editec]

Slavery was a LEGAL Right of the Slave States. Authorized and codified in the Constitution. The Slave States even got representation from slaves at a 3/5 per slave. Lincoln never had the power to end slavery EXCEPT after the South Rebelled. That is why he could only free the rebelling States slaves.

The South, by going to war ensured the destruction of the very thing they sought to protect. As you pointed out the Federal Government bent over backwards to appease the Slave States. They had no reason to leave.

The War was about the Future though, not the present. The Slaves States were afraid that a NON slave State President would aid the Congress and the Country in declaring an end to equal addition of free and slave State. That would have eventually lead to the abolishment of Slavery peacefully.

What is Ironic is by the time the Abolish movement would have had the Votes the South could have easily reached the point where they no longer needed the slaves.

Exactly.

 

[we_ourselves]

Probably one of the reasons the goal of annexing Cuba didn't go anywhere is that powerful pro-slavery interests in places like Virginia wanted to avoid reopening the trans-Atlantic slave trade. After all, they were making beaucoup bucks breeding slaves on their stud farms. That's why the Confederate constitution prohibited the importation of slaves--not because of any anti-slavery sentiment among its drafters.

 

[Orange_Juice]

Slavery was a LEGAL Right of the Slave States. Authorized and codified in the Constitution. The Slave States even got representation from slaves at a 3/5 per slave. Lincoln never had the power to end slavery EXCEPT after the South Rebelled. That is why he could only free the rebelling States slaves.

The South, by going to war ensured the destruction of the very thing they sought to protect. As you pointed out the Federal Government bent over backwards to appease the Slave States. They had no reason to leave.

The War was about the Future though, not the present. The Slaves States were afraid that a NON slave State President would aid the Congress and the Country in declaring an end to equal addition of free and slave State. That would have eventually lead to the abolishment of Slavery peacefully.
What is Ironic is by the time the Abolish movement would have had the Votes the South could have easily reached the point where they no longer needed the slaves.

Exactly. The South wanted a slave holding country to exist forever and the North felt slavery should end sooner.

As to your other point, the South felt slavery should never end. They saw it as natural and good. Also, you forget that slavery wan't just about "needing" slaves, but more about white supremecy and keeping blacks "in their place." After all, if blacks were free, they might think they were as good as whites

 

[Epsilon Delta]

If the C.S. had won, I've always imagined that they would've put in full motion plans begun by others, notably William Walker, of annexing Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean to a large slave empire. After all, most of those new states that the civil war was fought over had already been stolen from Mexico. There was no doubt interests who would've wanted to continue the trend. But what if the Southern States had won and formed their own state, with an economy based almost entirely on slavery? Further expansionism south would've been much more lucrative. It would've been a scary future for those of us south of Rio Grande!

Another interesting thought is, how long would slavery have kept going in the South if it had won?? I mean, the only other comparable case would be Brazil, where Slavery was the most similar to the Southern US, and it was abolished around 1888. But if the C.S. had really made slavery the staple of their economy, would they have kept it around for much longer? Would we have seen a real slave state survive well into the 20th Century? And how would relations with the US and other European states compared? World history would be totally different, I'd say. I think there's a series of books about this by Harry Turtledove, but I never go around to reading it. I've always kinda been an alternate history buff (and history in general's always been very interesting). But who knows, right?