What would have happened if the South was allowed to secede peacefully?

[polywog999]

Ironic that if they got their way of a soft Federal Gov bowing to the demands of dozens of rogue nation-states that all those "freedom-loving" Ron Paulites would most likely be speaking German and goose - stepping right now, praising their glorious leader.

Of course, it is worth considering that a sizable percentage of them wouldn't mind so much.

Kind of off topic, but no! We would be better off not sticking our nose in foreign affairs. Don't know if that was your point or not, kind sir.

This thread made me think about the Civil War with an open mind. It's hard to see your heroes in a bad light. I don't "hate" Lincoln, but I see him as a different person now.

[Burgold]

Kind of off topic, but no! We would be better off not sticking our nose in foreign affairs. Don't know if that was your point or not, kind sir.

This thread made me think about the Civil War with an open mind. It's hard to see your heroes in a bad light. I don't "hate" Lincoln, but I see him as a different person now.

Be wary of that too. There has been a very serious effort to redefine Lincoln and FDR in recent years and cast them as villains. They are still two of our greatest Presidents who presided under some of America's most difficult times and found a way to get us through stronger (Civil War, WWII, Great Depression). Also, remember that a person always exists with a context. I think the most egalitarian person (like a Jefferson) would be looked at as a racist today. We've just thankfully grown up a little bit. Lincoln was a good President and man, who wanted very much to keep the Union together and would have sacrificed some to do it, but also became a champion through his actions of Freedom to the highest degree.

[Thiebear]

I'm kind of with TWA on this one, I think technology (which advanced very quickly just after the war) would have made slavery a non-value proposition for large plantations.

People don't change because they want to... they change because their forced to. No way they give up slavery in an economy that would be dependent on them. Technology would have progressed slower and Mexico would own most of Texas+.

Soviets and Germans would own quite a bit and be the facing enemies.

In reading Lincolns writings he was trying to get the edges of the south to renounce slavery behind the scenes before the war?

will go back and recheck... border states were offered bribes to stop, DC took it. There were other writings from him on the nuance of getting this rolling forward. Well before the war itself.

[polywog999]

Be wary of that too. There has been a very serious effort to redefine Lincoln and FDR in recent years and cast them as villains. They are still two of our greatest Presidents who presided under some of America's most difficult times and found a way to get us through stronger (Civil War, WWII, Great Depression). Also, remember that a person always exists with a context. I think the most egalitarian person (like a Jefferson) would be looked at as a racist today. We've just thankfully grown up a little bit. Lincoln was a good President and man, who wanted very much to keep the Union together and would have sacrificed some to do it, but also became a champion through his actions of Freedom to the highest degree.

Indeed, those were different times. Rest assured that 100 years from now, folks will be talking about how backwards our society was.

We really slapped ourselves on the back for freeing the slaves, but what did we do to help them out after the war? Not a damn thing, overall. Former slaves could not go to school, had very few rights and could not vote. What kind of freedom is that?

[SnyderShrugged]

Ironic that if they got their way of a soft Federal Gov bowing to the demands of dozens of rogue nation-states that all those "freedom-loving" Ron Paulites would most likely be speaking German and goose - stepping right now, praising their glorious leader.

Of course, it is worth considering that a sizable percentage of them wouldn't mind so much.

ahhh, third gratuitous Ron Paul bashing from you in recent weeks!

Maybe you can get it into some other topic threads too? Maybe you can squeeze it into the sprial lights in Norway thread or maybe even the Lesbian language teachers thread? You have done well in getting your weird fetish for RP bashing into threads that have literally no topical reference to him at all.

Great job!

[Henry]

We wouldn't be having this discussion if it wasn't kinda bunk now would we.

Oh stop. Yer breakin my heart.

And I don't despise Lincoln, and understand desperate times call for desperate measures. Keeping the union together was his mission, he succeeded and ended slavery. I have no issues with him. But do understand the knocks against him.

Oh I understand he wasn't perfect as well. I understand he made some tough decisions and some of them might have been incorrect, or might have reflected badly on him. But I also understand that when all was said and done, he was responsible for preserving the union and freeing the slaves. Those are, in my opinion, the two greatest acts any president in the history of the United States has ever done for this country, and FAR balances out some speech he made while running for Senate in 1858 or some political maneuverings he may have had to resort to in the process.

I think from our comfy chairs of the modern era it's far too easy to criticize for the sake of our own personal politics. And as Burgold notes, it's been happening a lot more often these days.

Was Lincoln some sort of slave-loving demigod? No. He was a man. A man who did some very great things, at the cost of his own life. And I don't think it's a terrible thing to honor him for it.

[Switchgear]

The interesting thing about these type of threads is that it tends to shuffle up who is on which side of the debate. The Conservatives line up with the liberals against the libertarians.

I lean libertarian. I have little sympathy for the Confederacy, they used States Rights as a guise to try to preserve slavery, and in the process helped create the Federal monster we have today. If they hadn't been so obstinate about continuing an evil institution, we might not have nearly as strong a federal system today.

[Switchgear]

It didn't seem like a political debate in this thread to me.

I looked like a genuine discussion where many myths about Lincoln were dispelled and the truth of the War came to the surface.

I personally enjoyed reading everyone's opinion in this thread.

The truth did come to the surface, despite a lot of effort being put forth to obscure it. It's a shame that those who have been proposing alternate theories won't admit that, and will continue to put those other theories forth.

[PiLfan]

Lincoln hated black people and didn't give a damn about them.

Kayne West, is that you?

[Burgold]

Oh stop. Yer breakin my heart.

I think from our comfy chairs of the modern era it's far too easy to criticize for the sake of our own personal politics. And as Burgold notes, it's been happening a lot more often these days.

I think that's what gets me in these types of discussions. People seem to expect that every decision made in a maelstrom ought to be perfect and right. I bet Lincoln had a bunch of misgivings and sleepless nights about what he thought at the time to be necessary and had he had the luxury of hindsight, he would have wished to have done some things differently. However, what he accomplished and why he accomplished it was for the greater good.

[skinfan133]

I will say this about Lincoln though: It's real damn shame the man was assassinated. I think that single moment more so than the War itself really screwed the South. Really screwed the south. Lincoln believed in the Union so much he was willing to forgive and move on despite the Radicals. Johnson took the post-war policy train and ran it way too far off course.

A lot could have been handled differently and for the better. I think if the Confederate congress had abolished slavery in 1864 or 1965 like there was discussion of doing, then our country wouldn't have faced quite as many problems today in regards to race. This is just a hunch of mine and it's quite useless in terms of actually accomplishing anything of value.

[alexey]

I lean libertarian. I have little sympathy for the Confederacy, they used States Rights as a guise to try to preserve slavery, and in the process helped create the Federal monster we have today. If they hadn't been so obstinate about continuing an evil institution, we might not have nearly as strong a federal system today.

That's an interesting perspective! Good to hear a reasonable-sounding libertarian .

See SS, your ideology does not require you to sell your soul to the devil :evilg:

[Henry]

I will say this about Lincoln though: It's real damn shame the man was assassinated. I think that single moment more so than the War itself really screwed the South. Really screwed the south. Lincoln believed in the Union so much he was willing to forgive and move on despite the Radicals. Johnson took the post-war policy train and ran it way too far off course.

I agree with this. Lincoln would have had both the willingness and the political muscle to temper the rage of the Radical Republicans. Johnson, on the other hand, was powerless to stop them. So much could have been smoother had Lincoln not been killed.

[Heisenberg]

I will say this about Lincoln though: It's real damn shame the man was assassinated. I think that single moment more so than the War itself really screwed the South. Really screwed the south. Lincoln believed in the Union so much he was willing to forgive and move on despite the Radicals. Johnson took the post-war policy train and ran it way too far off course.

A lot could have been handled differently and for the better. I think if the Confederate congress had abolished slavery in 1864 or 1965 like there was discussion of doing, then our country wouldn't have faced quite as many problems today in regards to race. This is just a hunch of mine and it's quite useless in terms of actually accomplishing anything of value.

Honestly, I'm not sure why you think there was even a 10% chance of that happening.

EDIT: The first half of the post I definitely agree with.

[Thiebear]

Quick question. Does any libertarian not despise Abraham Lincoln?

You guys are like a cult.

ohh ohhh me, me.. I thought he was a genius in his writings and in his premise of well, they're not equal to get another 1/4 on board.

And pushing them forward till the end...

The Civil War like most other wars was not just one issue.

[Ellis]

Indeed, those were different times. Rest assured that 100 years from now, folks will be talking about how backwards our society was.

No doubt. That theme has repeated itself countless times.

We really slapped ourselves on the back for freeing the slaves, but what did we do to help them out after the war? Not a damn thing, overall. Former slaves could not go to school, had very few rights and could not vote. What kind of freedom is that?

The first mistake we make looking back on this period of time in America is assuming that the whole situation was about "freeing" the slaves when the reality of the situation was about "abolishing slavery". There is a very big difference between the two. Lincoln himself, despite having admiration for the great Frederick Douglass, wanted to send all the freed slaves to Haiti and other caribbean islands and to Liberia, a nation in Africa created specifically for freed slaves.

150 years ago, a great number of Americans viewed slaves as an inferior race. And just 50 years ago, half the nation still felt that way. Today, you can find a small percentage--and likely it's a large percentage--that still feel this way. So with that said, why would the American's of 1860 embrace equality for all when America was still divided on the issue in 1960? Am I to believe that 1860 America was more racially tolerant than 1960 America? That's just... so unlikely it can't be debated.

We have to understand how people thought back then. Logic leads me to believe that a great majority of American's wanted the slaves shipped back to Africa. I don't think anyone could convince me that I'm wrong about this. Lincoln proposed it!! As did many politicians of his time, dating back to the foundation of America.

I think for us to understand why American's were so worried about freed slaves--which was likely more fear than worry--is that in 1860, we must understand the political climate of the Mediterranean area. (now, my facts may be off on this next section so please correct me). In the late 1700's and early 1800's, America (specifically Jefferson) and Russia had put together a navy to battle a strong Muslim nation--which was basically the Ottoman Empire--in what is now called The Barbary Wars. This loosely undefined nation of pirates was pillaging christian villages for decades and enslaving white christians as well. These christians would be put on the slave market in north Africa and the middle east area. Jefferson and Russia put together a navy to put them out of business. The Ottoman Empire pretty much dominated the coastlines of the Mediterranean Sea.

I know this happened 60 years prior to the Civil War but I feel it's extremely relevant to help understand the mindset of American's of this century. I believe that American's were afraid of seeing slavery occur to the whites in the new nation. People on this thread have tried to paint early Americans as barbaric and racist but the reality is... this mentality was widespread and unfortunately acceptable!! Ya think white christians's in Europe were not seen as inferior race by the North African or middle eastern nations on the mediterranean sea? I think it's likely their mindset was no different than early American's and European's of that time. It's clear there was a major cultural divide between these 2 races that still exists to this day.

It's also worth noting that in this same century, mankind was coming out of the previous century which many are now called The Great Enlightening. It was a period of free thought, debate and scientific ingenuity. Mankind was coming around to a new way of seeing life and government. Democracy was taking hold in Europe and the America's. New ideas were blossoming and old ideas were being weeded out, even with force. Ben Franklin is the best example of the type of people that were coming out of this age.

I know there are a lot of white people today that really, really want to believe that the Civil War was about freeing slaves and about racial equality. But this would be very foolish to assume. Hindsight is difficult to rely on b/c we look back with new information and at times misinterpret what we are looking at.

I'm very happy that 150 years after the Civil War, America is VERY different from what it was once and we still have so much work to do!! We're coming together slowly. I wish we could move towards equality faster but at the same time, old ideas can't be killed... they die off naturally with each passing generation. With that said, what we teach our children about race and equality today DEFINES the next generation. The truth is what should be taught! And if we teach our children all of the changes and evolutions our society has gone through and point out all the things past societies were wrong about, in return they will learn that they play a role in evolving for the better of future generations. They will learn what their responsibility to the next generation is.

Progress cannot be stopped. Old ideas always die.

anyway... that's my rant. lol.

[Off Topic... to those that hate W. Bush and think he's the first president to go to war offensively rather than defensively AND without Congressional Approval, it's worth noting that it was actually Jefferson who was the first president to go do this... 200 years ago.)]

[alexey]

The first mistake we make looking back on this period of time in America is assuming that the whole situation was about "freeing" the slaves when the reality of the situation was about "abolishing slavery"

...

The truth is what should be taught! And if we teach our children all of the changes and evolutions our society has gone through and point out all the things past societies were wrong about, in return they will learn that they play a role in evolving for the better of future generations. They will learn what their responsibility to the next generation is.

...

Very interesting points!

About the second portion... Agree. However, by looking at our current race relations and positions voiced in this very thread, our society does not appear ready for that just yet. Intellectual honesty requires uncommon humility.

As a side note, being honest about cultural evolution means being honest about things many people hold very dear, like religion.

[polywog999]

Originally Posted by Ellis

The first mistake we make looking back on this period of time in America is assuming that the whole situation was about "freeing" the slaves when the reality of the situation was about "abolishing slavery"

...

The truth is what should be taught! And if we teach our children all of the changes and evolutions our society has gone through and point out all the things past societies were wrong about, in return they will learn that they play a role in evolving for the better of future generations. They will learn what their responsibility to the next generation is.

Very good read! People need to understand that the truth is stuck between the textbook pages. I really like when people are open-minded as to what actually happened.

Our ancestors are crying out from the grave. We owe it to them!

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Ellis, that was a very good and interesting post. I never realized that many people assumed abolishing slavery would go hand-in-hand with "deporting" the freed slaves somewhere else.

[Thiebear]

IMHO saying that "States Rights to allow Slavery" was the main reason is the same as saying that "slavery" was the main reason...

Would you deny that the right to own slaves was the main right they were trying to defend? Even things you listed, e.g. "to allow a certain economy," reflects that.

I'm not sure why some are being so stubborn. The General's say it, the VP says it. It even shows in the law.

Yes the war was fought over the right of the states over the Fed.

And the rights being defended were the right to maintain slavery.

[Predicto]

I'm not sure why some are being so stubborn. The General's say it, the VP says it. It even shows in the law.

Yes the war was fought over the right of the states over the Fed.

And the rights being defended were the right to maintain slavery.

As I said before, I think I know why people are so stubborn on this issue. It is because they identify with the South, and need to rationalize away the slavery issue to some degree to maintain a level of comfort with their own heritage. At least that was the case with me.

And there are a few libertarians who have come to associate their views with a mythological memory of antebellum southern society. For them, it is not a need to rationalize away slavery to stay comfortable with their own heritage, but a need to rationalize away slavery to stay comfortable with their own political leanings. Not all libertarians identify with the confederacy, but some sure do.

[polywog999]

As I said before, I think I know why people are so stubborn on this issue. It is because they identify with the South, and need to rationalize away the slavery issue to some degree to maintain a level of comfort with their own heritage. At least that was the case with me.

And there are a few libertarians who have come to associate their views with a mythological memory of antebellum southern society. For them, it is not a need to rationalize away slavery to stay comfortable with their own heritage, but a need to rationalize away slavery to stay comfortable with their own political leanings. Not all libertarians identify with the confederacy, but some sure do.

Please speak for your self! I am proud of my southern heritage.

Just as I am ashamed of slavery.

[GibbsFactor]

I think this thread is hysterical.

Okay yankees. At least you can admit to the Republicans wanting to modify government by expanding its powers. Right?

By the way, the only way I associate with the south is that I'm currently living in Alexandria. I'm from MD and my family is from Penn.

Oh deaf ears.

Admit the failure of Buchanon and the success of the Republicans for this war. Admit it!

You liberals admit that you are Republicans at heart!

[polywog999]

I think this thread is hysterical.

Okay yankees. At least you can admit to the Republicans wanting to modify government by expanding its powers. Right?

By the way, the only way I associate with the south is that I'm currently living in Alexandria. I'm from MD and my family is from Penn.

Oh deaf ears.

Admit the failure of Buchanon and the success of the Republicans for this war. Admit it!

You liberals admit that you are Republicans at heart!

Republican IS a Liberal...who got mugged!

[Henry]

I think this thread is hysterical.

Okay yankees. At least you can admit to the Republicans wanting to modify government by expanding its powers. Right?

I think sectional differences were becoming so untenable that something had to be done. I prefer a stronger central government than permanently carving up the country into pieces.

Admit the failure of Buchanon and the success of the Republicans for this war. Admit it!

Buchanan, Pierce, Fillmore/Taylor ... a decade and a half of weak presidents allowed the nation to split further and further apart until the mere election of a president not to the liking of the slave states resulted in drastic action, and strong reaction from a strong president.

You liberals admit that you are Republicans at heart!

Heh heh.