Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The CSA's economic system was largely slave based agriculture and export dependent.
Had the Rpublic allowed the CSA to go its own way the war between the USA and CSA would likely have happened shortly after it happened, anyway.
the CSA had its eyes on the American West, Mexica and central America and the Caribean.
Sooner or later the USA and the CSA would have gone to war over some expansionist policy or the other.
Why, when we never had a war with Canada?
You did.
And you lost, big time!
[youtube]Ety2FEHQgwM[/youtube]
There is no doubt Olddick should be ashamed of his silly uninformed statements and hateful rhetoric. Sadly, he is a Lincoln Cultist and the facts will never change him. He learned lies about Lincoln and the war in second grade...in the government propaganda mills....and never progressed from there.
The war was NEVER about slavery, in Lincoln's mind. He sang the praises of slavery over and over before he was elected and in his first inaugural. He had no intention of ending it and was an extreme white supremacist even for his time. The Lincoln Cult likes to cite his inviting black leaders to the White House, as if this proves he was not an outrageous racist. When in fact, he invited them there to ask them to deport themselves.
Slavery no doubt played a big role in causing the war, but it was NEVER Lincoln's cause and he was the one responsible for starting it. He clearly told the slave states you can keep slavery FOREVER, but if you don't pay the Federal government it's taxes, we will kill you.
If the war was about ending slavery, all Dishonest Abe had to do was pay off the slave owners. Would that not have been FAR LESS COSTLY than the war? Of course it would, but the Lincoln Cultists will never tire of their ignorant and foolish beliefs.
The war, in Lincoln's mind, was about increasing federal government power and wealth. Very much like every major war other POTUS's forced on America. Most disgusting!!!
Well, while I agree with you that the war was never about slavery in Lincoln's mind, I, as I have with some others, have to gently disagree on a few other of your observations and opinions.
I think a careful and thoughtful reading of the whole history shows Lincoln not to be one to seek to increase federal powers, but he did interpret the Constitution as intending that the union be preserved. Perhaps at a selfish level, he did not want a division of the country as his legacy, but I do believe he held a heartfelt conviction that preseving the union was the right thing to do.
Also, I can find nothing in Lincoln's writings, speech transcriptions, or in testimony of those who knew him that suggests he was in any way a white supremacist. He was a strong segregationist yes, as he, like almost every other person of his generation and culture, both black and white, was. That is a very different thing.
Lincoln was from Illinois, the most staunchly segregationist and anti-black state of any in the union, so he was definitely working outside the box and outside the prevailing politically correct stance when he said in Peoria in 1854:
When the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs himself and also governs another man, that is more than self-government that is despotism. If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that all men are created equal, and that there can be no moral right in connection with one mans making a slave of another.
In other words his view was equal but separate. The white supremacist sees his race as the superior one. I cannot find any evidence that Lincoln took that view.
Of course he believed the white race superior to blacks. And he sought to deport all blacks from America to his dying day.
On August 14, 1862, Lincoln met with five free black ministers and uttered these words...
You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.
... Even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race ... The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent, not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours. Go where you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you.
... We look to our condition, owing to the existence of the two races on this continent. I need not recount to you the effects upon white men growing out of the institution of slavery. I believe in its general evil effects on the white race.
He told General Butler in April 1865...
"But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free? I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes ... I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves."
John Brown is considered as one of the major triggers of the war, but look at what he was doing. He took over a federal arsennal in Harper's Ferry, VA (now WV) trying to incite a slave rebellion and arm the slaves with weapons from the arsennal. It failed, no slaves showed up or rose up, and Brown was captured, tried, convicted, and hanged.
You can't win hearts and minds to your cause by trying to incite mass murder.
The slavery issue was being fought mainly by the radical abolitionists in Massachusetts and the fire eaters in South Carolina. Most people on both sides didn't give a damn about slavery. They were thinking about and fighting over entirely other things. Revisionist history has made slavery much more of an issue today than it was then.
Taxes and tariffs had been a hot-button issue practically from the founding and led to the Nullification Crises in the 1830's. The tariff issue settle down for a few years, but gradually creeped back in.
During the Crimean War (1853-1856), Southern agriculture was booming. European farmers were feeding the armies and Southern agriculture was feeding the civilian population. When the war ended, the demand for Southern agriculture declined and the nation's economy slumped. In 1857, the economy took further hits when the Dred Scott decision nullified the Missouri Compromise, threw the slvery debate there back into question, and caused the railroads' vast land holdings in the midwest to devalue. Then the New York office of the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Co. closed because of embezzlement and its closure almost caused a run on the banks.
The nation's economy fell into a severe recession. Congress actually did the right thing and passed the Tariff Act of 1857 which lowered the tariff rates and the economy stablized in 2 years.
Just as the economy stablized and began a recovery, Congressman Justin Morrill of Vermont proposed a massive tariff increase called the Morrill Tariff. Southerners knew they would once again bear the brunt of tariffs on imports and exports.
There was a concern about Lincoln being elected as a Republican, however. The Republican Party was founded almost entirely on the abolition issue alone. When the socialist Revolutions of 1848 in Europe failed, many of its participants, known as the Forty-Eighters, were exiled or fled for their lives and emigrated to the US. They entered the Whig Party and split it over the slavery issue. Owning property is contrary to socialist ideals and Marx specifically opposed slavery in his Communist Manifesto. It was these socialist anti-slavery Whigs that formed the Republican Party. When Lincoln won solely on the Northern vote, the South wanted nothing to do with his economic policies and that's what triggered secession.
The Forty-Eighters played a significant role in Lincoln's election and were handsomely rewarded by Lincoln with large tracts of land by the Homestead Act. A lot of them had military experience in the armies back in Europe and from the Revolutions of 1848. Many of these revolutions were attempted military coups, so they had military experience and were appointed by Lincoln as generals in the Union army and offices in the Lincoln administration. There were entire companies and regiments in the Union army from the midwest comprised of these socialist emigrants and they even held their socialist meetings around the campfires.
It's not farfetched to say that the Civil War was the socialist revolution of America and it succeeded where the Revolutions of 1848 in Europe had failed.
Just the opposite about 1848. The plutocrats were afraid it would happen here, so they started a war to kill off the bravest of the working class and also free the slaves to work as scab labor up North.
The reason the cheap-labor scam didn't work was that Blacks are incapable of doing industrialized jobs, which is also the reason the South didn't industrialize.
That's ridiculous. No way white confederate conservatives would put "machinery" into the hands of slaves. Not when they could exploit them so much better doing menial work.
But it was not the South's misconduct toward the North that caused the Civil War but rather it was the North's determination to control the South that caused the Civil War.
I think you have slipped into a grave error. First you have leaped from a simple counterfactual history exercise to an argument on the causes of the Civil War, and in the process taking a side that at its core is a defense of slavery. To that I vehemently object. There was a great deal of Southern misconduct toward the North. No reasonable interpretation of history can ignore the plain fact that from 1820 to 1860 the South made increasing demands on the North, abrogated agreements such as the Missouri Compromise, threatened succession at every turn from 1854, and yet it was not enough.
If this is your view of history, you have aligned yourself with the worst aspects of American history and culture and have become another apologist for racism and slavery.
If you want to discuss a counterfactual history, that is one thing. But to put forward a false history to justify slavery is another. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I am sure slavery going away was great news to the thousands left in bondage for decades by your heroes
Slavery existed in America for 246 years. It only existed in the Confederate states for 4 years. No slave ship ever sailed under a Confederate flag and the south consitutionally banned foreign slave trade from the beginning. Importation was done by Yankee slave traders.
You might also bear in mind that slavery was still legal in 5 loyal Union states: Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, and was legal in the Federal capital when the war began. U.S. Grant didn't free his slaves until the ratification of the 13th Amendment 8 months after the war forced him to do so.
The Underground Railroad took escaped slaves up north...all the way to Canada because the northern states amended their state constitutions to prevent them from moving within their borders.
Southerners aditted their sins a long time ago. Northerners never have.
So you might want to be careful about who you accuse of keeping people in bondage.
So because slavery was around for a long time it is fine that they would have remained so for decades if the emancipation proclamation was never written? Please do all of us republican conservatives a favour and stay a democrat libertarian
Why, when we never had a war with Canada?
You did.
And you lost, big time!
[youtube]Ety2FEHQgwM[/youtube]
1812 was a war against the British army and navy stationed in Canada. You might as well say we had two wars against France, even though those were against the Germans stationed there.
You did.
And you lost, big time!
[youtube]Ety2FEHQgwM[/youtube]
1812 was a war against the British army and navy stationed in Canada. You might as well say we had two wars against France, even though those were against the Germans stationed there.
That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that the USA tried to grab Canada while the British had their hands full fighting the tyrant Napoleon. Having read quite a lot about it I go for the second view.
The US invaded Canada and burnt the then capital, Toronto. Had British forces not been there Canada would have been annexed and incorporated into the USA.
The South held the #1, #2, and #3 leading export of the United States. Cotton, tobacco and sugar cane. The #4 leading export was held by the North, textiles, but textiled relied on Southern cotton. So we have to assume, barring some sort of trade alliance, the South would have been markedly better off from a revenue standpoint. This would have more than funded industrialization in the South.
Human slavery was on the way out long before the Civil War. We had not had open slave trade markets for more than a generation, and the advent of the cotton gin and other technologies were on the horizon. It would have simply been economically stupid to have continued using slaves past 1900 or so.
The hypothetical question is almost impossible to consider because we have no way of knowing how history would have handled things like western expansion. Would California have been a Southern state? Would we have fought a war between the US and Confederacy anyway at some point over western lands? With the amounts of gold and silver discovered there, it's hard to imagine some hostility wouldn't have happened. What about the other wars fought with enemies to the South, like the Spanish-American war? Would the Confederacy fought that war by themselves? Would they have defeated the Spanish? Would the Confederates have obtained Florida?
Then there is the issue of the Native Americans. Could the US have cleared out the huge areas of the midwest without the help of people like the Texas Rangers? Highly doubtful. So the United States would have quickly been solidified as what we currently know to be the Northeast. Much of the Northwest would have probably been ceded to Native American tribes. Our entire continent would have looked completely different.
Vibrant agriculture trade in the South would have paved the way for technology and industrialization in the 19th century, and the CSA would have likely been the first to put a man on the moon. The South would have retained more timber, oil and coal as well. The Mississippi River would have been a huge lucrative asset for the South, as that would have been the only navigational course for export commerce from midwestern Northern industrial states.
The more you think about this, the more you can see why Lincoln felt it was absolutely vital to keep the nation intact. Smug and condescending Yankees can second guess and speculate all they like, we'll never know what might have been. I'm guessing it wouldn't have been as rosey a scenario as you may think for the US.
The South held the #1, #2, and #3 leading export of the United States. Cotton, tobacco and sugar cane. The #4 leading export was held by the North, textiles, but textiled relied on Southern cotton. So we have to assume, barring some sort of trade alliance, the South would have been markedly better off from a revenue standpoint. This would have more than funded industrialization in the South.
Human slavery was on the way out long before the Civil War. We had not had open slave trade markets for more than a generation, and the advent of the cotton gin and other technologies were on the horizon. It would have simply been economically stupid to have continued using slaves past 1900 or so.
The hypothetical question is almost impossible to consider because we have no way of knowing how history would have handled things like western expansion. Would California have been a Southern state? Would we have fought a war between the US and Confederacy anyway at some point over western lands? With the amounts of gold and silver discovered there, it's hard to imagine some hostility wouldn't have happened. What about the other wars fought with enemies to the South, like the Spanish-American war? Would the Confederacy fought that war by themselves? Would they have defeated the Spanish? Would the Confederates have obtained Florida?
Then there is the issue of the Native Americans. Could the US have cleared out the huge areas of the midwest without the help of people like the Texas Rangers? Highly doubtful. So the United States would have quickly been solidified as what we currently know to be the Northeast. Much of the Northwest would have probably been ceded to Native American tribes. Our entire continent would have looked completely different.
Vibrant agriculture trade in the South would have paved the way for technology and industrialization in the 19th century, and the CSA would have likely been the first to put a man on the moon. The South would have retained more timber, oil and coal as well. The Mississippi River would have been a huge lucrative asset for the South, as that would have been the only navigational course for export commerce from midwestern Northern industrial states.
The more you think about this, the more you can see why Lincoln felt it was absolutely vital to keep the nation intact. Smug and condescending Yankees can second guess and speculate all they like, we'll never know what might have been. I'm guessing it wouldn't have been as rosey a scenario as you may think for the US.
Lots of speculation there...it is difficult to know what would have occurred had the South been allowed to peacefully secede.
However the War of Northern Aggression was hardly rosy for most in the North and South. My point is Lincoln's aggression resulted in terrible consequences including 100 years of horrendous racism throughout the South, suffering and poverty for most African Americans, the shredding of the Constitution, the expansion of the state, to say nothing of the huge number of dead and near total destruction of half the nation. I think allowing the South to secede, would have been a much better choice.
Human slavery was on the way out long before the Civil War. We had not had open slave trade markets for more than a generation, and the advent of the cotton gin and other technologies were on the horizon. It would have simply been economically stupid to have continued using slaves past 1900 or so.
.
The South held the #1, #2, and #3 leading export of the United States. Cotton, tobacco and sugar cane. The #4 leading export was held by the North, textiles, but textiled relied on Southern cotton. So we have to assume, barring some sort of trade alliance, the South would have been markedly better off from a revenue standpoint. This would have more than funded industrialization in the South.
Human slavery was on the way out long before the Civil War. We had not had open slave trade markets for more than a generation, and the advent of the cotton gin and other technologies were on the horizon. It would have simply been economically stupid to have continued using slaves past 1900 or so.
The hypothetical question is almost impossible to consider because we have no way of knowing how history would have handled things like western expansion. Would California have been a Southern state? Would we have fought a war between the US and Confederacy anyway at some point over western lands? With the amounts of gold and silver discovered there, it's hard to imagine some hostility wouldn't have happened. What about the other wars fought with enemies to the South, like the Spanish-American war? Would the Confederacy fought that war by themselves? Would they have defeated the Spanish? Would the Confederates have obtained Florida?
Then there is the issue of the Native Americans. Could the US have cleared out the huge areas of the midwest without the help of people like the Texas Rangers? Highly doubtful. So the United States would have quickly been solidified as what we currently know to be the Northeast. Much of the Northwest would have probably been ceded to Native American tribes. Our entire continent would have looked completely different.
Vibrant agriculture trade in the South would have paved the way for technology and industrialization in the 19th century, and the CSA would have likely been the first to put a man on the moon. The South would have retained more timber, oil and coal as well. The Mississippi River would have been a huge lucrative asset for the South, as that would have been the only navigational course for export commerce from midwestern Northern industrial states.
The more you think about this, the more you can see why Lincoln felt it was absolutely vital to keep the nation intact. Smug and condescending Yankees can second guess and speculate all they like, we'll never know what might have been. I'm guessing it wouldn't have been as rosey a scenario as you may think for the US.
Lots of speculation there...it is difficult to know what would have occurred had the South been allowed to peacefully secede.
However the War of Northern Aggression was hardly rosy for most in the North and South. My point is Lincoln's aggression resulted in terrible consequences including 100 years of horrendous racism throughout the South, suffering and poverty for most African Americans, the shredding of the Constitution, the expansion of the state, to say nothing of the huge number of dead and near total destruction of half the nation. I think allowing the South to secede, would have been a much better choice.
Not with the forced human denigration by southern human misery owners..Their inhuman treatment and social stigmas were a travesty and blight upon the so called Christians that feel that being utter bastards was normal..
The South held the #1, #2, and #3 leading export of the United States. Cotton, tobacco and sugar cane. The #4 leading export was held by the North, textiles, but textiled relied on Southern cotton. So we have to assume, barring some sort of trade alliance, the South would have been markedly better off from a revenue standpoint. This would have more than funded industrialization in the South.
Human slavery was on the way out long before the Civil War. We had not had open slave trade markets for more than a generation, and the advent of the cotton gin and other technologies were on the horizon. It would have simply been economically stupid to have continued using slaves past 1900 or so.
The hypothetical question is almost impossible to consider because we have no way of knowing how history would have handled things like western expansion. Would California have been a Southern state? Would we have fought a war between the US and Confederacy anyway at some point over western lands? With the amounts of gold and silver discovered there, it's hard to imagine some hostility wouldn't have happened. What about the other wars fought with enemies to the South, like the Spanish-American war? Would the Confederacy fought that war by themselves? Would they have defeated the Spanish? Would the Confederates have obtained Florida?
Then there is the issue of the Native Americans. Could the US have cleared out the huge areas of the midwest without the help of people like the Texas Rangers? Highly doubtful. So the United States would have quickly been solidified as what we currently know to be the Northeast. Much of the Northwest would have probably been ceded to Native American tribes. Our entire continent would have looked completely different.
Vibrant agriculture trade in the South would have paved the way for technology and industrialization in the 19th century, and the CSA would have likely been the first to put a man on the moon. The South would have retained more timber, oil and coal as well. The Mississippi River would have been a huge lucrative asset for the South, as that would have been the only navigational course for export commerce from midwestern Northern industrial states.
The more you think about this, the more you can see why Lincoln felt it was absolutely vital to keep the nation intact. Smug and condescending Yankees can second guess and speculate all they like, we'll never know what might have been. I'm guessing it wouldn't have been as rosey a scenario as you may think for the US.
Lots of speculation there...it is difficult to know what would have occurred had the South been allowed to peacefully secede.
However the War of Northern Aggression was hardly rosy for most in the North and South. My point is Lincoln's aggression resulted in terrible consequences including 100 years of horrendous racism throughout the South, suffering and poverty for most African Americans, the shredding of the Constitution, the expansion of the state, to say nothing of the huge number of dead and near total destruction of half the nation. I think allowing the South to secede, would have been a much better choice.
