What if Lincoln had not decided to invade the South?

[whitehall]

We know for a fact that Lincoln's advisers told him that the rebellion would be over in a couple of months. What does that tell you about the Lincoln administration? Biographers portray Lincoln as a freaking genius and some sort of divine entity but he was a fool who had a gift for quips and not much else.

 

[Syriusly]

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 all know Lincoln didn't invade the Confederate rebel states to end slavery. That was not his motivation. Lincoln's motivation was always to preserve the Union. It is interesting to speculate on how it would have gone differently, but its pretty easy to quarterback from 150 years later. Neither side had any clue as to how many lives were going to be ruined- both sides predicted easy victories.

As far as the Southern ports putting Northern ports out of business......not a chance. Industry was all in the North- along with most of the population. It wouldn't have happened.

 

[Syriusly]

We forgave the Japanese and the Germans after WWII, but the Left can't stop hating the South after the Civil War

Why would I hate the South? I despise the Confederacy for rebelling to ensure their slave holding rights- but todays South is not the Confederacy.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

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.

 

[mikegriffith1]

A better question is, What if Jefferson Davis had not made the foolish, hot-headed decision to cut off the supply of food to federal garrison on Fort Sumter in the first place? That senseless decision forced Lincoln's hand and compelled him to abandon his apparent willingness to allow the status quo to continue until tempers cooled.

An even better question is, What if Jefferson Davis had not made the unbelievably bone-headed, hot-headed decision to bombard Fort Sumter when all Lincoln was trying to do was send food to the Sumter garrison? Davis's tragically foolish decision to fire the first shot left Lincoln no choice but to respond with force--unless he wanted to be impeached and removed from office, which he surely would have been if he had not announced the 75K troop callup after the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter. With Lincoln impeached and removed, his abolitionist vice president, Hannibal Hamlin, would have become command-in-chief.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

It is a myth that slavery was a dying institution
The Confederacy was created to ensure it continued to exist forever

Cotton needed to be picked and an automated cotton picker did not come around till the 1930s and we know plantation owners didn’t want to pay to have their cotton picked.

If Lincoln had ignored them, they would have turned into a red neck third world nation similar to South Africa

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Ask the slaves.

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

 

[Likkmee]

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?

 

[Votto]

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?

Ask the slaves.

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

Which means it would have died out.

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.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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?

Ask the slaves.

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.

 

[Votto]

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.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Ask the slaves.

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

Which means it would have died out.

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.

No, it means it should have died out
Instead, cotton became a billion dollar industry and plantation owners became some of the richest men on earth

Rather than share the newfound wealth with those who created it, they formed a new country to ensure they would have free labor forever

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Today’s slavery focuses on big profits and cheap lives. It is not about owning people like before, but about using them as completely disposable tools for making money.

 

[bodecea]

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?

Ask the slaves.

Founding Fathers believed slavery would die on its own almost a century earlier.

And then, the cotton gin was invented. Every school student knows what happened there.

 

[bodecea]

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.

In the North, but the South was resisting that with all they had.

 

[bodecea]

Keep in mind, the South seceded NOT because they were afraid that Lincoln would free the slaves, that was not the agenda of the Republican Party....they seceded because they were afraid Lincoln wouldn't let slavery grow all the way to the West Coast.

 

[Jitss617]

Lincoln 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

 

[rightwinger]

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.

In the North, but the South was resisting that with all they had.

A mechanized cotton picker did not show up until the 1930s

 

[rightwinger]

Lincoln 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

Slavery existed in the south 200 years before the Democratic Party was formed