What if the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully?

[thanatos144]

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.

I am not threatened by honest history. I am pissed that you keep lying about history.

 

[Moonglow]

Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.

The South has always been the problem child of the United States. I think what remained of the United States would have been better off without the South. If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better.

In the South slavery impeded the development of industry, and of labor saving agricultural machinery. The vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North.

Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did.

An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.

They probably could have, but the south fired the first shots and the rest is history.

 

[thanatos144]

Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.

The South has always been the problem child of the United States. I think what remained of the United States would have been better off without the South. If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better.

In the South slavery impeded the development of industry, and of labor saving agricultural machinery. The vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North.

Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did.

An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.

They probably could have, but the south fired the first shots and the rest is history.

They will say that the union invaded them LOL The slowest invasion ever! Since the union had that base long before the CSA ever existed.

 

[Foxfyre]

Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.

The South has always been the problem child of the United States. I think what remained of the United States would have been better off without the South. If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better.

In the South slavery impeded the development of industry, and of labor saving agricultural machinery. The vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North.

Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did.

An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.

They probably could have, but the south fired the first shots and the rest is history.

Did they? If say Canada or Mexico blockaded one of our harbors, would THAT have been firing the first shot? Or would the first shots have been our defending ourselves against what we would clearly see as an act of war? However there are historians who believe there was no actual blockade but that the Confederates knew one was in the planning and they took the first move. In which case the sympathy for that could shift to the North. And in the interest of intellectual honesty, a few months earlier, some Confederate rebels took some unauthorized shots at a Union ship that was coming into the harbor to supply Fort Sumter. There is plenty of blame to go around, but in my opinion, it was a war that did not have to happen.

 

[thanatos144]

Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.

The South has always been the problem child of the United States. I think what remained of the United States would have been better off without the South. If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better.

In the South slavery impeded the development of industry, and of labor saving agricultural machinery. The vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North.

Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did.

An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.

They probably could have, but the south fired the first shots and the rest is history.

Did they? If say Canada or Mexico blockaded one of our harbors, would THAT have been firing the first shot? Or would the first shots have been our defending ourselves against what we would clearly see as an act of war?

Did the Union fire the fist shots??????? Lets see how honest you are

 

[Moonglow]

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.

Lincoln had a plan to pay southern slave holders for their slaves to be freed, but the south started the war and the rest is history.

 

[Moonglow]

Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.

The South has always been the problem child of the United States. I think what remained of the United States would have been better off without the South. If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better.

In the South slavery impeded the development of industry, and of labor saving agricultural machinery. The vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North.

Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did.

An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.

They probably could have, but the south fired the first shots and the rest is history.

Did they? If say Canada or Mexico blockaded one of our harbors, would THAT have been firing the first shot? Or would the first shots have been our defending ourselves against what we would clearly see as an act of war?

What act of war? the south fired and took Ft. Sumter, that was the beginning of the war. the south was not about to live under Lincoln no matter what it took to break away from the union and keep the institution of slavery alive.

 

[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.

I am not threatened by honest history. I am pissed that you keep lying about history.

Well by all means post your history that rebuts mine. If I'm wrong I'm happy to admit it. But I won't rewrite history to fit the politically correct notions that some insist that we adopt.

 

[thanatos144]

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.

I am not threatened by honest history. I am pissed that you keep lying about history.

Well by all means post your history that rebuts mine. If I'm wrong I'm happy to admit it. But I won't rewrite history to fit the politically correct notions that some insist that we adopt.

I have consistently done so.

 

[Foxfyre]

They probably could have, but the south fired the first shots and the rest is history.

Did they? If say Canada or Mexico blockaded one of our harbors, would THAT have been firing the first shot? Or would the first shots have been our defending ourselves against what we would clearly see as an act of war?

What act of war? the south fired and took Ft. Sumter, that was the beginning of the war. the south was not about to live under Lincoln no matter what it took to break away from the union and keep the institution of slavery alive.

South Carolina had already seceded and the Confederacy already controlled all other military installations in the seceded territories. Fort Sumter was the last Union garrison standing and the Confederates were aware that Lincoln was intending to reinforce it with more men and more supplies. That could not be interpreted as anything other than the North intended to retain control over Charleston Harbor. So whether the North actually blockaded Charleston Harbor to cut off Southern suppliers or that was its ultimate goal, the South did take matters into their own hands.

 

[oldfart]

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...

Yawn. Normally I consider intellectual combat with so obviously unarmed an opponent as unsporting, but you are obnoxious and uneducated enough to make an exception. I have no doubt you learn absolutely nothing from this discussion, but some others are not so limited in cognitive capacity.

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.

You clearly are delusional. This analysis of yours makes every war leader a failure. Run that one by your military friends (assuming you have any) that all wars a failures.

As to the First Inaugural Address, it is obvious you have never read it. Unless of course you simply read it but lacked the mental capacity to understand it. Which on second thought is probable.

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.

Yawn. Anything else you want to pontificate?

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.

Of course that famous expert on the how to avoid war through surrender, President Buchanan, probably the worst president in American history; always listed in the bottom five for his sterling performance in leading up to the Civil War. Neville Chamberlain admired him for his capacity for appeasement.

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.

Fleming is a well regarded historian who has clearly lost it in this book. It's sad that a man known for such good work previously produced a book rife with factual errors (like confusing the Constitution with the Articles of Confederation) and based on an absurd premise that the Civil War only occurred because abolitionists didn't talk nicely enough to slaveholders. Aw, gee! But I can see why a guy like you who admires and looks up to Neville Chamberlain and James Buchanan would be attracted to the idea that total surrender is the way to avoid conflict. You don't happen to work as a flak for the House Republicans, do you?

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.

I prefer to think they simply kicked the can down the road. A number of them expressed the opinion that the Constitution would need to be rewritten for each succeeding generation. I hesitate to blame them for having too much faith in posterity. Let those whose own work will last unmodified for centuries pass that judgment.

OK, I've had my fun. I wish you well. You have the makings of doing good history. What would move you there in this topic is to read the literature. Nearly all of Lincoln's papers are easily available on line in Roy Basler's definitive collection Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln

Start with the Second Inaugural Address and the Coopers Union speech.

The best work on the subject would be Russell McClintock's "Lincoln and the Decision for War" (2008). I'd also recommend "Lincoln at Cooper Union: The Speech That Made Abraham Lincoln President" by Harold Holzer (2006).

The best work on Lincoln historiography is still David Donald's "Lincoln Reconsidered" (1947 & subsequent).
Happy hunting.

 

[gipper]

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...

Yawn. Normally I consider intellectual combat with so obviously unarmed an opponent as unsporting, but you are obnoxious and uneducated enough to make an exception. I have no doubt you learn absolutely nothing from this discussion, but some others are not so limited in cognitive capacity.

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.

You clearly are delusional. This analysis of yours makes every war leader a failure. Run that one by your military friends (assuming you have any) that all wars a failures.

As to the First Inaugural Address, it is obvious you have never read it. Unless of course you simply read it but lacked the mental capacity to understand it. Which on second thought is probable.



Yawn. Anything else you want to pontificate?



Of course that famous expert on the how to avoid war through surrender, President Buchanan, probably the worst president in American history; always listed in the bottom five for his sterling performance in leading up to the Civil War. Neville Chamberlain admired him for his capacity for appeasement.

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.

Fleming is a well regarded historian who has clearly lost it in this book. It's sad that a man known for such good work previously produced a book rife with factual errors (like confusing the Constitution with the Articles of Confederation) and based on an absurd premise that the Civil War only occurred because abolitionists didn't talk nicely enough to slaveholders. Aw, gee! But I can see why a guy like you who admires and looks up to Neville Chamberlain and James Buchanan would be attracted to the idea that total surrender is the way to avoid conflict. You don't happen to work as a flak for the House Republicans, do you?

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.

I prefer to think they simply kicked the can down the road. A number of them expressed the opinion that the Constitution would need to be rewritten for each succeeding generation. I hesitate to blame them for having too much faith in posterity. Let those whose own work will last unmodified for centuries pass that judgment.

OK, I've had my fun. I wish you well. You have the makings of doing good history. What would move you there in this topic is to read the literature. Nearly all of Lincoln's papers
are easily available on line in Roy Basler's definitive collection Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln

Start with the Second Inaugural Address and the Coopers Union speech.

The best work on the subject would be Russell McClintock's "Lincoln and the Decision for War" (2008). I'd also recommend "Lincoln at Cooper Union: The Speech That Made Abraham Lincoln President by Harold Holzer (2006).

The best work on Lincoln historiography is still David Donald's "Lincoln Reconsidered" (1947 & subsequent).
Happy hunting.

You claim to know history, yet nearly everything you post about it is wrong.

All one needs to do is research ALL of America's major wars and one will find a lack of leadership and/or outright deceit in all of them, which allowed the elites to push America to war. The Civil War was no different.

But you have failed to learn from history, so you will no doubt make the same mistakes repeatedly expecting a different result. What is the medical term for this mental condition?

 

[Moonglow]

It is important to remember that the Civil War was not fought to end slavery. It was fought to prevent the South from seceding from the Union. So let's keep slavery in its proper context in the discussion....

The South seceded because they were afraid the USA would eventually make slavery illegal.

And they didn't want their "property" taken away from them.

Not true, laws were passed and bonds were sold to allow Lincoln to buy the slaves their freedom.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am not threatened by honest history. I am pissed that you keep lying about history.

Well by all means post your history that rebuts mine. If I'm wrong I'm happy to admit it. But I won't rewrite history to fit the politically correct notions that some insist that we adopt.

I have consistently done so.

All I have seen you do is spout a bunch of prejudicial and/or insulting one liners while making little or no effort to contribute to the discussion. But if you have posted any rebuttal to my understanding of history that I have posted, I'm sure you can give me a link to it. Otherwise, do have a nice day.

P.S. Calling me a liar is NOT rebuttal.

 

[RKMBrown]

Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.

The South has always been the problem child of the United States. I think what remained of the United States would have been better off without the South. If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better.

In the South slavery impeded the development of industry, and of labor saving agricultural machinery. The vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North.

Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did.

An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.

Wow, talk about blatant racism.

The south would have freed the slaves along the same time frame as was happening anyway. Yes there would have been two America's North and South. We likely would have remained trading partners, and fought side by side in WWI & II. The absence of a murderous civil war and additional competition would have advanced the economy of both America's at a much faster pace. The split up of the north and south would have meant that instead of there being one super power today, there we would be two allied super powers, separate but somewhat equal in strength.

IMO we and the entire world would be much better off today had the North not attacked the South and then used European conscripts to murder a large % of the population of America.

 

[Toro]

P.S. Calling me a liar is NOT rebuttal.

You'll have to inform half the board membership of that.

 

[Foxfyre]

P.S. Calling me a liar is NOT rebuttal.

You'll have to inform half the board membership of that.

LOL. Probably so. But I guess it's something to type if you don't know anything.

I would like to say that even though we have disagreed here and there, I have appreciated YOUR contributions to the thread as well as those of some others. It really is a fascinating concept to think about.

 

[RKMBrown]

Try to imagine what would have happened if the eleven states of the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully from the United States in 1861.

The South has always been the problem child of the United States. I think what remained of the United States would have been better off without the South. If the United States had been able to peacefully unite with Canada the results would have been even better.

In the South slavery impeded the development of industry, and of labor saving agricultural machinery. The vast majority of whites did not own slaves. Those who did not own slaves usually had a lower standard of living than their skills would have earned for them in the North.

Negro slavery discouraged the development of a work ethic among Southern whites, because they thought hard work was something slaves did.

An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.

They probably could have, but the south fired the first shots and the rest is history.

Did they? If say Canada or Mexico blockaded one of our harbors, would THAT have been firing the first shot? Or would the first shots have been our defending ourselves against what we would clearly see as an act of war? However there are historians who believe there was no actual blockade but that the Confederates knew one was in the planning and they took the first move. In which case the sympathy for that could shift to the North. And in the interest of intellectual honesty, a few months earlier, some Confederate rebels took some unauthorized shots at a Union ship that was coming into the harbor to supply Fort Sumter. There is plenty of blame to go around, but in my opinion, it was a war that did not have to happen.

First shots? Who cares who fired the first shots? The important thing was that no one was shot. It was more an angry disagreement with some folks firing in the air than a battle, I don't believe a single person was injured and they should not have been there in the first place. The northern occupiers were not wanted on confederate soil, and were somewhat peacefully evicted. They were asked to leave nicely and refused. So there was a minor disagreement and the northern forces then left of their own free will.

However, what Lincoln did in response.. yeah that was declaring war. The jerk sent an Army of 70k men down onto confederate soil to take back the southern territory no matter what the cost.

 

[RKMBrown]

P.S. Calling me a liar is NOT rebuttal.

You'll have to inform half the board membership of that.

LOL. Probably so. But I guess it's something to type if you don't know anything.

I would like to say that even though we have disagreed here and there, I have appreciated YOUR contributions to the thread as well as those of some others. It really is a fascinating concept to think about.

When people call you a liar it's usually because everything you said from beginning to end was a complete lie. Tearing your lies down piece by piece is believed to be a waste of time as you won't listen or care that your beliefs are mostly based on lies. Well that is how you should read the accusation, but then I'm just assuming you were not lying about your statement that you think if they call you a liar it's because they don't know anything. More likely likely they know a lot more than you. Just sayin, the odds are good you are wrong.

 

[Foxfyre]

They probably could have, but the south fired the first shots and the rest is history.

Did they? If say Canada or Mexico blockaded one of our harbors, would THAT have been firing the first shot? Or would the first shots have been our defending ourselves against what we would clearly see as an act of war? However there are historians who believe there was no actual blockade but that the Confederates knew one was in the planning and they took the first move. In which case the sympathy for that could shift to the North. And in the interest of intellectual honesty, a few months earlier, some Confederate rebels took some unauthorized shots at a Union ship that was coming into the harbor to supply Fort Sumter. There is plenty of blame to go around, but in my opinion, it was a war that did not have to happen.

First shots? Who cares who fired the first shots? The important thing was that no one was shot. It was more an angry disagreement with some folks firing in the air than a battle, I don't believe a single person was injured and they should not have been there in the first place. The northern occupiers were not wanted on confederate soil, and were somewhat peacefully evicted. They were asked to leave nicely and refused. So there was a minor disagreement and the northern forces then left of their own free will.

However, what Lincoln did in response.. yeah that was declaring war. The jerk sent an Army of 70k men down onto confederate soil to take back the southern territory no matter what the cost.

While I won't sugar coat the Lincoln of our childhood history books, I won't call him a jerk either. If you are President of the United States and a number of our states decide to split off from the union, along with a lot of stuff that ALL the people have paid for, what do you do?

Did he handle it in the most productive way? In the 20-20 prism of hind sight, no he didn't. But at the time did he do the best he could as he saw it? I believe he did.

You can equate the same kind of thing, with far lesser consequences of course, of the current stalemate in Washington. Did the Republicans have their priorities straight? Yes, I believe they did. Did they handle the situation in the most productive way possible? No way. They blew it.

But blowing something does not necessarily make somebody evil or even a jerk.