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

[Predicto]

I feel that the South would have ended slavery themselves if the North hadn't threatened them with abolishing it. Its like they felt backed in a corner and the only way they could get out of it was if they fought back. The South would have eventually seen the error in their ways...

I still don't understand why anyone assumes this, other than out of generalized loyalty to a romanticized view of the antebellum South. The aristocrats that ruled the South were not enlightened people. They believed that they were superior to blacks, and had constitutional property rights over them. They even couched their justification of slavery in religious terms. the Confederate Constitution was explicitly based on the institution of slavery.

What makes you think they would suddenly have changed their mind?

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

I still don't understand why anyone assumes this, other than out of generalized loyalty to a romanticized view of the antebellum South. The aristocrats that ruled the South were not enlightened people. They believed that they were superior to blacks, and had constitutional property rights over them. They even couched their justification of slavery in religious terms. the Confederate Constitution was explicitly based on the institution of slavery.

What makes you think they would suddenly have changed their mind?

That superiority complex was still around in the 1950s, its not like abolishing slavery stopped it. I feel like the whole ordeal caused the South to cling to slavery kinda like how a girl clings to her ****ty BF when her parents disapprove of him.

I don't like the way the South is portrayed now, they come across as racist rednecks. Its not an accurate picture of the entire South. Yes, some slave holders were horrible people, but not all of them were. The need for slaves would have decreased. The sudden abolishment of slavery left black people vulnerable...there was no thought about what happens to them once they were free. If the North had gone about trying to free the slaves a better way, I strongly believe race relations would have been different.

[Destino]

I still don't understand why anyone assumes this, other than out of generalized loyalty to a romanticized view of the antebellum South. The aristocrats that ruled the South were not enlightened people. They believed that they were superior to blacks, and had constitutional property rights over them. They even couched their justification of slavery in religious terms. the Confederate Constitution was explicitly based on the institution of slavery.

What makes you think they would suddenly have changed their mind?

Especially with a constitution backing it that explicitly prohibited the abolition of slavery:

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed"

That language alone would make it extremely difficult to do away with slavery.

[scskin]

I think it was more about preserving the way of life and economic benefits.

I like the way you put it. Way of Life(Slavery). Economic benefits(Slavery). States Rights(Right to keep slaves). I'm sure we're just talking semantics here.

[Destino]

That superiority complex was still around in the 1950s, its not like abolishing slavery stopped it. I feel like the whole ordeal caused the South to cling to slavery kinda like how a girl clings to her ****ty BF when her parents disapprove of him.

I don't like the way the South is portrayed now, they come across as racist rednecks. Its not an accurate picture of the entire South. Yes, some slave holders were horrible people, but not all of them were. The need for slaves would have decreased. The sudden abolishment of slavery left black people vulnerable...there was no thought about what happens to them once they were free. If the North had gone about trying to free the slaves a better way, I strongly believe race relations would have been different.

Your fantasy world doesn't match up with history. You make it sound like the north forced the south to take that position. They were all in congress and the south was so afraid that slavery might one day be abolished that they refused to add states unless a slave state was added along with it to make sure congress would never gain the numbers to try to ban it. You try to make it seem like slavery wasn't a major factor for the civil war or for southern leaders when history plainly shows otherwise.

Look at the language in the confederate constitution that I posted early. Consider their actions prior to war in congress. Look at their actions following the war. Remember that they justified their right to own blacks in a warped version of Christianity.

Every possible means of justifying and securing slavery was attempted by them.

[Predicto]

That superiority complex was still around in the 1950s, its not like abolishing slavery stopped it. I feel like the whole ordeal caused the South to cling to slavery kinda like how a girl clings to her ****ty BF when her parents disapprove of him.

I don't like the way the South is portrayed now, they come across as racist rednecks. Its not an accurate picture of the entire South. Yes, some slave holders were horrible people, but not all of them were. The need for slaves would have decreased. The sudden abolishment of slavery left black people vulnerable...there was no thought about what happens to them once they were free. If the North had gone about trying to free the slaves a better way, I strongly believe race relations would have been different.

I know you FEEL that way. I just don't think there is any logical basis for that feeling. I think it is emotional apologism.

As a boy raised in Virginia, I used to feel the same way. The Confederacy was misunerstood. Eventually, I came to realize that my feelings were less due to any real historical evidence, and more to do with my sense of loyalty to my home state and people. I was part of that history, ergo, what the Confederacy did could not have been as indefensable as it seems. "My people" would never be that wrong.

But I was kidding myself.

[Koolblue13]

There is still plenty of slavery in the US, we just allow it to happen, instead of stopping it or making it a focal point.

When todays slavery has as much political pull as it did then, we will stop it somewhat.

If the war never happened, who's to say the North would have stopped slavery when they did.

Most of the world would be speaking German, but we wouldn't have been in a war then or since.

I would also live in a state that was a little more free, wouldn't have an over reaching central government and my taxes would be a hell of a lot cheaper. Local food would be more prevalent and so would local manufacturing in general.

Just my opinion though.

[Capt Rich Fla]

slavery would have lasted for a lot longer than economic viability of it, because it was a sign of status in an extremely status oriented society (Southern Aristocracy).

Really unpredictable other than that, but I think the European powers may have used the South to destabilize the continental US. America wouldn't become a super power until much later because we could never be guaranteed to have peace out home.

The invention of the cotton gin was doing away with slavery. So I'm told. There are always two sides of any story, but I gather slavery was coming to an end anyway.

[Destino]

If the war never happened, who's to say the North would have stopped slavery when they did.

The north had already begun banning slavery.

[Predicto]

The invention of the cotton gin was doing away with slavery. So I'm told. There are always two sides of any story, but I gather slavery was coming to an end anyway.

No. Plantation farming was coming to an end. That does not mean that slavery was coming to an end.

[Destino]

No. Plantation farming was coming to an end. That does not mean that slavery was coming to an end.

My Virginia public school made sure to point out that slavery wasn't a major reason behind the civil war. That people over played it when it reality it was about other issues and slavery was just a small side issue of little significance.

[Hubbs]

The apartheid comparison is probably pretty accurate, given the continued persistence of segregation until the 60's.

[scskin]

The invention of the cotton gin was doing away with slavery. So I'm told. There are always two sides of any story, but I gather slavery was coming to an end anyway.

The invention of the Cotton Gin caused a revival of slavery. The gin took the seeds out of the cotton, but slaves still were necessary for picking it. More slaves= more cotton picked= more cotton ginned and sold.

[Predicto]

My Virginia public school made sure to point out that slavery wasn't a major reason behind the civil war. That people over played it when it reality it was about other issues and slavery was just a small side issue of little significance.

So did my Virginia public school.

It was untrue, but that is what they taught us in 1968. I guess the truth was too uncomfortable or awkward. It all came back to slavery.

[Larry]

deleted post.

[SnyderShrugged]

Many of the Generals and officers in the confederacy either had already freed their slaves or had specific plans for them to be freed upon their death. It's myopic to claim that slavery was the sole underlying reason for secession. It was about economic freedom and the rights of the states. As Destino pointed out (accurately, I may add) Slavery was an item that was overplayed as a sound reason for the war. If you look at the historical record, you will find most even in the north really didnt care if they were freed or not. Also in the historical record you will see that it was quite some time before true emancipation was enacted. Lincolns emancipation proclamation only "freed" slaves that assisted the north in the war effort. Heck, Lincoln and many of the abolitionists had plans to repatriate them all back to Africa.

[twa]

They believed that they were superior to blacks,

What makes you think they would suddenly have changed their mind?

What made Lincoln change his mind on that?

Oh Wait...he never did :evilg:

[scskin]

Many of the Generals and officers in the confederacy either had already freed their slaves or had specific plans for them to be freed upon their death. It's myopic to claim that slavery was the sole underlying reason for secession. It was about economic freedom and the rights of the states. As Destino pointed out (accurately, I may add) Slavery was an item that was overplayed as a sound reason for the war. If you look at the historical record, you will find most even in the north really didnt care if they were freed or not. Also in the historical record you will see that it was quite some time before true emancipation was enacted. Lincolns emancipation proclamation only "freed" slaves that assisted the north in the war effort. Heck, Lincoln and many of the abolitionists had plans to repatriate them all back to Africa.

The part about Lincoln is true. It wasn't as if Lincoln had a love affair with black folks. What type of econmic freedom did the south want and what rights were kept from the south?

[skinfan133]

Intriguing thread to say the least, something I like to argue and think about from time to time. Take what I have to say with a grain of salt: On my desk here at school I display a diorama of flags, The American flag in the middle, the stars and bars on the right, and the blood stained banner on the left.

I think people today have many misconceptions about the War, both southern apologists and union folks alike. misconceptions about secession, about the war, and about reconstruction.

First of all, and I believe this has been discussed already, Secession in itself was not illegal, it simply was not mentioned in the Constitution. It was an implied right (or in the case of Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York, an explicit right since when they ratified the Constitution they stipulated they could leave at any time and for any reason they wanted. their ratification was used to justify the Union's existence under article VII [9/13 ratify]). the other states in the Union considered it a right under the 10th amendment which reserved all rights not given the federal government to the states.

Virginia in fact cited it's ratification clause when it seceded.

I no longer have the energy to discuss the war.

I will say that Lincoln does not deserve even a quarter of the praise he gets, and I'm not just saying that as someone who generally agrees with the south.

[Prosperity]

My Virginia public school made sure to point out that slavery wasn't a major reason behind the civil war. That people over played it when it reality it was about other issues and slavery was just a small side issue of little significance.

same here

but it shouldn't surprise anyone... home of Lee Jackson King day (one of the few states with a good ol boy network spiteful and powerful enough to remember Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson on the same day as MLK Jr... :doh: )

Virginia public schools are full of **** on this issue. If you read the South's war propaganda you'll see that some vague academic State's Right view point was not the one that was rallying support for the war. The intstituion of slavery, and the institution of Southern Aristocracy was what the war was about. The Southern Aristocrats used all sorts of propaganda to get the soldiers to fight, and state's rights wasn't anywhere near as common as the fear of the social change that would come about from freeing the negro.

I mean seriously here are these people who know they have cruelly oppressed millions of people... and suddenly they were being told that those people would be freed... they were frightened of that prospect.

States Right's

yeah ****ing right

[skinfan133]

The invention of the Cotton Gin caused a revival of slavery. The gin took the seeds out of the cotton, but slaves still were necessary for picking it. More slaves= more cotton picked= more cotton ginned and sold.

what are you talking about? Slavery indeed was declining as a result of the Cotton Gin, even Northern scholars agree with that

[Prosperity]

what are you talking about? Slavery indeed was declining as a result of the Cotton Gin, even Northern scholars agree with that

plantation slavery may have become economically worthless after the importance of the plantation economy subsided, but I think you are SEVERELY underestimating the importance of owning slaves as a status symbol. Slavery would have stayed around, maybe not for picking cotton, but cheaper labor is always better than cheap labor... as our current immigration controversy would attest to.

Best case scenario the South becomes an apartheid state.

[SnyderShrugged]

The part about Lincoln is true. It wasn't as if Lincoln had a love affair with black folks. What type of econmic freedom did the south want and what rights were kept from the south?

Basically the North favored a loose interpretation of the United States Constitution. They wanted to grant the federal government

increased powers. The South wanted to reserve all undefined powers to the individual states. The North also wanted internal improvements

sponsored by the federal government. This was more roads, railroads, and canals. The South, on the other hand, did not want these projects

to be done at all. Also the North wanted to develop a tariff. With a high tariff, it protected the Northern manufacturer. It was bad for

the South because a high tariff would not let the south trade its cotton for foreign goods. The North also wanted a good banking and

currency system and federal subsidies for shipping and internal improvements. The South felt these were discriminatory and that they

favored Northern commercial interests.

After the secession, the seven southern states that seceded met to decide common policy, never once did they want to wage war with the North. It was only after Lincoln ignored their claims that they had the right to secede and blockaded the southern coast (and a failed attempt to resupply the squaters in Fort Sumter) that actual hostilities began.

On a slightly different note, how do those of you here who claim that the war was about slavery, rationalize the Crittendon-Johnson resolution of 1861? (Which said specifically that the war was only about restoring the union and not about the issue of slavery)

[SnyderShrugged]

Intriguing thread to say the least, something I like to argue and think about from time to time. Take what I have to say with a grain of salt: On my desk here at school I display a diorama of flags, The American flag in the middle, the stars and bars on the right, and the blood stained banner on the left.

I think people today have many misconceptions about the War, both southern apologists and union folks alike. misconceptions about secession, about the war, and about reconstruction.

First of all, and I believe this has been discussed already, Secession in itself was not illegal, it simply was not mentioned in the Constitution. It was an implied right (or in the case of Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York, an explicit right since when they ratified the Constitution they stipulated they could leave at any time and for any reason they wanted. their ratification was used to justify the Union's existence under article VII [9/13 ratify]). the other states in the Union considered it a right under the 10th amendment which reserved all rights not given the federal government to the states.

Virginia in fact cited it's ratification clause when it seceded.

I no longer have the energy to discuss the war.

I will say that Lincoln does not deserve even a quarter of the praise he gets, and I'm not just saying that as someone who generally agrees with the south.

You always have great posts!

[SnyderShrugged]

same here

but it shouldn't surprise anyone... home of Lee Jackson King day (one of the few states with a good ol boy network spiteful and powerful enough to remember Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson on the same day as MLK Jr... :doh: )

Virginia public schools are full of **** on this issue. If you read the South's war propaganda you'll see that some vague academic State's Right view point was not the one that was rallying support for the war. The intstituion of slavery, and the institution of Southern Aristocracy was what the war was about. The Southern Aristocrats used all sorts of propaganda to get the soldiers to fight, and state's rights wasn't anywhere near as common as the fear of the social change that would come about from freeing the negro.

I mean seriously here are these people who know they have cruelly oppressed millions of people... and suddenly they were being told that those people would be freed... they were frightened of that prospect.

States Right's

yeah ****ing right

You are simply incorrect