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

[Ellis]

This actually is correct. skinfan13 did their homework on this one. I didn't believe it at first either.

http://www.theroot.com/views/was-lincoln-racist

That is a fantastic article!

A specific section of it I want to cite for others to read...

Lincoln despised slavery as an institution, an economic institution that discriminated against white men who couldn’t afford to own slaves and, thus, could not profit from the advantage in the marketplace that slaves provided. At the same time, however, he was deeply ambivalent about the status of black people vis-à-vis white people, having fundamental doubts about their innate intelligence and their capacity to fight nobly with guns against white men in the initial years of the Civil War.

The bolded section is the section I believe was the real reason for the abolition of slavery.

It was never about giving black people "Freedom and equality". It was about "abolition of slavery". Without the abolition of slavery--and much prosperity later in our country's history--America would have never developed a middle class. Slavery would have kept this country in the hands of the rich.

[edgun88]

Then blacks would probably not want to live there. And it would probably be like Palestine/Israel.

[SnyderShrugged]

You are simply incorrect.

Please feel free to provide what is incorrect specifically.

[SnyderShrugged]

Your facts are not facts, they are opinions. And I disagree with them.

no, they are facts and despite yopur disagreement, it doesnt change that they are facts.

[Heisenberg]

Then your "facts" are wrong according to various documents, college courses, and historians.

Sorry.

[nonniey]

Please feel free to provide what is incorrect specifically.

See post 75 (It was just too much to resist).

[SnyderShrugged]

see post 75 (it was just too much to resist).

ohhh!!! Lol:)

[SnyderShrugged]

Then your "facts" are wrong according to various documents, college courses, and historians.

Sorry.

I've read plenty of historians who disagree

[Heisenberg]

I've read plenty of historians who disagree

The documents as read in various courses and discussed a ton in this thread all seem to indicate otherwise.

What you are saying is mostly opinion and it's misleading to try to say otherwise.

[SnyderShrugged]

The documents as read in various courses and discussed a ton in this thread all seem to indicate otherwise.

What you are saying is mostly opinion and it's misleading to try to say otherwise.

I've cited 2 federal acts, a concession for one of them, multiple historical figures and events, dates etc. There is zero opinion involved.

[Henry]

I've cited 2 federal acts, a concession for one of them, multiple historical figures and events, dates etc. There is zero opinion involved.

Are you seriously suggesting that no one else in this thread had cited primary source material to support a contrary opinion?

I've read plenty of historians who disagree

And I've read plenty of historians who disagree with them.

You are stating opinions, not facts.

[SnyderShrugged]

Are you seriously suggesting that no one else in this thread had cited primary source material to support a contrary opinion?

And I've read plenty of historians who disagree with them.

You are stating opinions, not facts.

again, what have I posted that is opinion rather than fact?

We know the union was fighting to preserve the union, and we know the south was fighting to maintain their right to secede. It's well documented and isnt even remotely debatable at this point. Your's is the opinion it seems.

[Henry]

again, what have I posted that is opinion rather than fact?

We know the union was fighting to preserve the union, and we know the south was fighting to maintain their right to secede. It's well documented and isnt even remotely debatable at this point. Your's is the opinion it seems.

That wasn't what you stated as fact. Of COURSE the south was fighting for it's right to secede. What we are talking about is WHY the south seceded. What you stated as fact, specifically, was:

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.

That is absolutely an opinion.

[GibbsFactor]

The South guys are owning this thread.

Just saying.

ETA: Goes to show how closed minded so many are.

[Switchgear]

tradition almost never trumps economic advantage.

Tell that to the millions of people around the world who increase their energy bills by 20% this time of year just to put up some twinkling lights.

People ain't rational.

Owned.

SS, the speech Henry posted earlier (in which the VP of the Confederacy specifically states that slavery was the primary reason for secession) would seem to run counter to your argument. I have yet to see you address it at all though. You do seem to be arguing opinion rather than fact, at this point.

[Predicto]

The South guys are owning this thread.

Just saying.

ETA: Goes to show how closed minded so many are.

I'd be curious to know why you think so, in more detail.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Here has always been my thing (and pardon me for being so direct with this)

If it wasn't about slavery, and when it comes down to it, outright racism, why then for the next century, literally the next century, did the former confederate states do everything in their power to prevent blacks from gaining equality?

From separate but equal, segregation, Jim Crow laws, Poll tests, etc. You'd think if it was just "states rights" and about the Constitution, the Southern states would have then obeyed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment

But 93 years later, soldiers were needed to let black students attend a university

90 years later, blacks couldn't drink from the same water fountains as whites

90 years later, blacks were still 2nd class citizens in the south and unable to fully have their civil rights guaranteed to them in the Constitution.

The former confederate states were the antithesis of "All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights..."

And the 100 years after the Civil War proves this to be true, that the south wanted nothing more then to maintain the awful institution of slavery

[Heisenberg]

The South guys are owning this thread.

Just saying.

ETA: Goes to show how closed minded so many are.

Translation: I brought my own preconceived opinions to the thread, read the posts and decided the people posting stuff I happen to agree with were owning the thread.

[Predicto]

Here has always been my thing (and pardon me for being so direct with this)

If it wasn't about slavery, and when it comes down to it, outright racism, why then for the next century, literally the next century, did the former confederate states do everything in their power to prevent blacks from gaining equality?

From separate but equal, segregation, Jim Crow laws, Poll tests, etc. You'd think if it was just "states rights" and about the Constitution, the Southern states would have then obeyed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment

But 93 years later, soldiers were needed to let black students attend a university

90 years later, blacks couldn't drink from the same water fountains as whites

90 years later, blacks were still 2nd class citizens in the south and unable to fully have their civil rights guaranteed to them in the Constitution.

The former confederate states were the antithesis of "All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights..."

And the 100 years after the Civil War proves this to be true, that the south wanted nothing more then to maintain the awful institution of slavery

No, no. You see that was the fault of the North. The carpet baggers during the reconstruction years were so awful that it poisoned the water, and Southerners were rightfully resentful, and they never would have been like that otherwise.

Or something like that. I can't make it sound plausible at all, but then I don't buy into it for one minute.

[Predicto]

Translation: I brought my own preconceived opinions to the thread, read the posts and decided the people posting stuff I happen to agree with were owning the thread.

I have to admit that this kinda is what I suspect, but I wanted to hear what he has to say before I said that. Maybe I am missing something.

But all the arguments that I am hearing are the same ones that I used to buy into, back when I felt the subconscious need to "take the Southern side that I naturally associate myself with, then view the facts as necessary to fit my views."

[skinfan133]

Owned.

SS, the speech Henry posted earlier (in which the VP of the Confederacy specifically states that slavery was the primary reason for secession) would seem to run counter to your argument. I have yet to see you address it at all though. You do seem to be arguing opinion rather than fact, at this point.

So you took everything Dick Cheney ever said as being fact? How about Spiro Agnew? Or even Joe Biden?

Henry still hasn't provided the context of that speech, who was the audience?? I am fully willing to eat crow if it was before the Confederate Congress or some other venue, I simply just want to know where, when, and to whom this speech was given :2cents:

[Heisenberg]

I have to admit that this kinda is what I suspect, but I wanted to hear what he has to say before I said that. Maybe I am missing something.

But all the arguments that I am hearing are the same ones that I used to buy into, back when I felt the subconscious need to "take the Southern side that I naturally associate myself with, then view the facts as necessary to fit my views."

Quite frankly, it's the only way you can make most of the arguments coming from that viewpoint in this thread.

I'll admit - I was better prepared to participate in this thread a few years ago when I was enjoying my history courses in college - but I enjoy history enough to know that some of the things people are trying to pass off as facts are very skewed viewpoints that can be contradicted pretty easily.

I don't think it's a coincidence that a lot of these posters were probably taught about "The War of Northern Aggression" growing up.

[Ellis]

SHF, you're addressing social issues more than gov't issues. (Granted, even the southern governments played their part in enabling these bad social issues.)

.......

Thing is, even with the abolishment of slavery and the movements for equal rights... segregation was inevitable and IMO absolutely necessary for America's survival as a nation. In hindsight, segregation seems to have acted as a cooling off period for the North and South. Voluntary segregation still exists today, where some neighborhoods are all black, all white, all asian, all hispanic, etc.

That article from theroots website posted earlier shows some very telling things regarding Lincoln and the mindset of americans at the time. It seems many wanted slavery abolished but only if some type of segregation happened. Additionally, there was talk of moving the black population to the carribbean or Liberia. It's clear that based on a few small examples from that article, there was no secret love affiar or friendship between abolitionists and slaves. It seems to me that abolitionists were in it more for their own financial gains through the Northern workforce. However, I don't want to be dismissive of the fact that there were quite possible a decent percentage of abolitionists that did feel blacks were equal to whites.

It was a hell of a time to be an American to say the least.

[Heisenberg]

It's been said before but:

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

So you're telling me this wasn't at the top of the list of importance for the Confederate states? Give me a break.

[Burgold]

Here has always been my thing (and pardon me for being so direct with this)

If it wasn't about slavery, and when it comes down to it, outright racism, why then for the next century, literally the next century, did the former confederate states do everything in their power to prevent blacks from gaining equality?

And even if this doesn't absolutely speak to the Civil War question, it absolutely addresses the notion floated within this thread that slavery would have died out almost immediately without the Civil War and life would be peaches for everybody.