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

[Prosperity]

Instead of reading revisionist history, look up some old newspaper articles from the south in that era. You'll see that I'm right.

[SnyderShrugged]

Instead of reading revisionist history, look up some old newspaper articles from the south in that era. You'll see that I'm right.

LOL, any point that you disagree with is "revisionist" huh?

again, please explain the Crittendon-Johnson resolution of 1861 and how it seems to totally undermine your opinion on the reason for the war.

[scskin]

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

It was in decline BEFORE the invention of the cotton gin.

However, like many inventors, Whitney (who died in 1825) could not have foreseen the ways in which his invention would change society for the worse. The most significant of these was the growth of slavery. While it was true that the cotton gin reduced the labor of removing seeds, it did not reduce the need for slaves to grow and pick the cotton. In fact, the opposite occurred. Cotton growing became so profitable for the planters that it greatly increased their demand for both land and slave labor.

The article is too long to have you read all of it, but it comes from the Whitney museum. There are numerous others like it to document the increase.

[Capt Rich Fla]

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)

Sir, you have done your studies well. The north was putting a pretty good chock hold on the south long before the war.

[SnyderShrugged]

Sir, you have done your studies well. The north was putting a pretty good chock hold on the south long before the war.

Thank You! I've been a long time study of the civil war. As a kid, I even had my room painted half blue and half gray. LOL:)

[Prosperity]

LOL, any point that you disagree with is "revisionist" huh?

again, please explain the Crittendon-Johnson resolution of 1861 and how it seems to totally undermine your opinion on the reason for the war.

according to wikipedia it was done to keep Maryland Missouri and Kentucky in line

(The North didn't want to use violence to end slavery, but the South was willing to use it to keep it, that's the point, slavery was the underlying reason for the South to seceede. Secession was the underlying reason for the North to kick their ass)

can you explain why during America's expansion whenever we admitted a state that didn't want slavery we also had to admit a state that would keep slavery just so that the slave states wouldn't be outvoted and lose slavery?

since you know that seems to undermine your opinion

by the way revisionist history is not a pejorative term

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism

Pulitzer Prize winning historian James McPherson, writing for the American Historical Association, described the importance of revisionism:

The 14,000 members of this Association, however, know that revision is the lifeblood of historical scholarship. History is a continuing dialogue between the present and the past. Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time. There is no single, eternal, and immutable "truth" about past events and their meaning. The unending quest of historians for understanding the past—that is, "revisionism"—is what makes history vital and meaningful. Without revisionism, we might be stuck with the images of Reconstruction after the American Civil War that were conveyed by D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation and Claude Bowers's The Tragic Era. Were the Gilded Age entrepreneurs "Captains of Industry" or "Robber Barons"? Without revisionist historians who have done research in new sources and asked new and nuanced questions, we would remain mired in one or another of these stereotypes. Supreme Court decisions often reflect a "revisionist" interpretation of history as well as of the Constitution.[1]

I was merely telling you to read some primary source literature to get the mood of that era

[Capt Rich Fla]

Thank You! I've been a long time study of the civil war. As a kid, I even had my room painted half blue and half gray. LOL:)

:secret:I saw that episode on the History Channell too. :hysterical:

[scskin]

LOL, any point that you disagree with is "revisionist" huh?

again, please explain the Crittendon-Johnson resolution of 1861 and how it seems to totally undermine your opinion on the reason for the war.

Don't expect to hear too many Northerners of the time say that they were trying to "end" slavery. Preserving the Union meant bringing the country together under one accord. If that accord happened to be one without slavery then so be it. I am not one to say that slavery was the ONLY issue, but I know that it was the pre-eminent issue. The rest were side issues. This is a small part of a great divide that has kept the South in the dark for a long time.

[SnyderShrugged]

according to wikipedia it was done to keep Maryland Missouri and Kentucky in line

can you explain why during America's expansion whenever we admitted a state that didn't want slavery we also had to admit a state that would keep slavery just so that the slave states wouldn't be outvoted and lose slavery?

since you know that seems to undermine your opinion

by the way revisionist history is not a pejorative term

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism

Pulitzer Prize winning historian James McPherson, writing for the American Historical Association, described the importance of revisionism:

I was merely telling you to read some primary source literature to get the mood of that era

I guaranty you that I have read much more than most on the subject, from both points of view, and my findings are that the war was not about the abolition of slavery. Slavery only comes in to play in an economic sense.

The Crittendon resolution, the Crittendon compromise(proposal, the war stopped it in its tracks) and Lincolns confiscation act all point to the stark and simple fact that he and the majority of congress were only interested in Federalism and keeping the voluntary union intact.

There isnt any form of "revisionist" history there, It's plain old historical fact and cannot be debated.

[SnyderShrugged]

Don't expect to hear too many Northerners of the time say that they were trying to "end" slavery. Preserving the Union meant bringing the country together under one accord. If that accord happened to be one without slavery then so be it. I am not one to say that slavery was the ONLY issue, but I know that it was the pre-eminent issue. The rest were side issues. This is a small part of a great divide that has kept the South in the dark for a long time.

No, slavery was the side issue. You have is backward. If slavery were the issue, how come Delaware still had legal slavery while participating on the Northern side in the war.

[SnyderShrugged]

:secret:I saw that episode on the History Channell too. :hysterical:

??? (I rarely watch TV, and I'm not sure what you are speaking of)

[Prosperity]

No, slavery was the side issue. You have is backward. If slavery were the issue, how come Delaware still had legal slavery while participating on the Northern side in the war.

the North wasn't fighting to end slavery (at least not at the beginning), the North was fighting to keep the union.

The South was breaking the union in order to keep slavery.

[SnyderShrugged]

the North wasn't fighting to end slavery (at least not at the beginning), the North was fighting to keep the union.

The South was breaking the union in order to keep slavery.

The South was breaking the union because the federal Government overstepped their constitutional boundaries at the time and attempted to crush southern "aristocracy" by economic sanctions.

I understand its not the popular thing to believe in this PC age, but thems the straight up facts.

[Prosperity]

The South was breaking the union because the federal Government overstepped their constitutional boundaries at the time and attempted to crush southern "aristocracy" by economic sanctions.

I understand its not the popular thing to believe in this PC age, but thems the straight up facts.

yes by far the biggest economic sanction being the ending of slavery

glad we could come to an agreement

[twa]

The best case against it was the threat to free the slaves in the South IF they did not rejoin the Union.

[SnyderShrugged]

yes by far the biggest economic sanction being the ending of slavery

glad we could come to an agreement

I dont like to repeat myself, please see my post above that describes the economic items that the south seceded for.

[twa]

the North wasn't fighting to end slavery

Thank you;)

[Capt Rich Fla]

??? (I rarely watch TV, and I'm not sure what you are speaking of)

I'm just ****in with ya. I do have a dvd in my collection of civil war studies that goes into detail just what you stated. It's a good documentory.

You fellas keep at this little debate. The last couple of pages has been full of facts from both points of view. Good read.

[scskin]

No, slavery was the side issue. You have is backward. If slavery were the issue, how come Delaware still had legal slavery while participating on the Northern side in the war.

Slavery was still legal in Delaware, but much of the populace was either anti-slavery or believed secession to be an over-reaction. Only 587 slaveholders lived in Delaware at the time (or 0.5% of the population), and they owned on average three slaves — slave-owning interests were not vital to Delaware. So rather than leave the Union, Delaware’s legislature voted overwhelmingly to stay in it and continue to seek compromises on the issue of slavery.

[SnyderShrugged]

I'm just ****in with ya. I do have a dvd in my collection of civil war studies that goes into detail just what you stated. It's a good documentory.

You fellas keep at this little debate. The last couple of pages has been full of facts from both points of view. Good read.

cool! whats the name of the documentary? I'll make sure to check it out!

[SnyderShrugged]

Slavery was still legal in Delaware, but much of the populace was either anti-slavery or believed secession to be an over-reaction. Only 587 slaveholders lived in Delaware at the time (or 0.5% of the population), and they owned on average three slaves — slave-owning interests were not vital to Delaware. So rather than leave the Union, Delaware’s legislature voted overwhelmingly to stay in it and continue to seek compromises on the issue of slavery.

right, and Delaware fought for the union, correct? They still had slaves all the way up to 1865. They obviously werent fighting to end slavery.

[Burgold]

I think that there were many reasons for the civil war just as there were many reasons behind the Iraq War. For some, abolition was the biggie. Just like for some, getting rid of a monster like Sadam who practiced genocide on the Kurds was a good enough justification for desert storm.

I don't think freeing the slaves wasn't part of the rationale. I think some of you are underselling it perhaps in the way that elementary schools focus on that. It's a good reason for the little ones to glom onto because it creates a nice good versus evil story and links to some of the other reasons that can be expounded on as the child gets more sophisticated.

[SnyderShrugged]

I think that there were many reasons for the civil war just as there were many reasons behind the Iraq War. For some, abolition was the biggie. Just like for some, getting rid of a monster like Sadam who practiced genocide on the Kurds was a good enough justification for desert storm.

I don't think freeing the slaves wasn't part of the rationale. I think some of you are underselling it perhaps in the way that elementary schools focus on that. It's a good reason for the little ones to glom onto because it creates a nice good versus evil story and links to some of the other reasons that can be expounded on as the child gets more sophisticated.

If freeing the slaves was part of the rationale, why were so many acts, speeches, etc very specific in saying that it wasnt?

I do personally believe that for some it was about slavery, but for the whole, it was way beyond that.

[scskin]

right, and Delaware fought for the union, correct? They still had slaves all the way up to 1865. They obviously werent fighting to end slavery.

It's not that the Union was fighting to end slavery as much as it was the Confederacy fighting to maintain it. Once Union states realized that the stakes had risen they went all in to preserve the Union (without slavery). Lincoln carefully crafted his words as to not alienate the border states that were essential for victory. Any mention of slavery could have tilted those states towards the Confederacy. What we have here are two obviously educated people with a variance in relation to this particular subject. This kind of discourse is obviously more appropriate than that seen in Parliament or the U.S. Congress. You're not going to call me out as a lier are you?

[Burgold]

I think the who, what, where and when dictated a lot of the language. There was also a lot of careful dialogue going on to try to appease different groups because secession was something that they were trying to actively avoid. So, taking on the issue head-on would have excaserbated what some considered a more dangerous problem (keeping the nation whole)

I liken it to the way that Obama was speaking at West Point, but also was speaking to the people of the Middle East including Afghanistan and Pakistan. Sure, you had to send a certain message to those cadets and the American people, but you had to work your speech to not create fires for everyone else who may be listening.