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

[brandymac27]

So you took everything Dick Cheney ever said as being fact?

VP of Confederacy = Dick Cheney. Surprise, surprise!

[Ellis]

Here's a fact that no one has brought up yet...

In 1784 Thomas Jefferson proposed a ban on slavery in the new territories. It was narrowly defeated. By 1808, slave importation was outlawed yet 250,000 +/- slaves were still illegally imported to America between 1808-1860.

From the very beginning of American history, they were trying in vain to get rid of slavery. It took DECADES ending in a civil war to finally get it together.

[skinfan133]

Here's a fact that no one has brought up yet...

In 1784 Thomas Jefferson proposed a ban on slavery in the new territories. It was narrowly defeated. By 1808, slave importation was outlawed yet 250,000 +/- slaves were still illegally imported to America between 1808-1860.

From the very beginning of American history, they were trying in vain to get rid of slavery. It took DECADES ending in a civil war to finally get it together.

here's another fact: we're the only civilized nation to have ever had to resort to war to end slavery, every other country did it peacefully and there was just as much status and racism at stake.

[boobiemiles]

There is never peace when money is on the line.

[alexey]

ok, found it. I read this quote originally in a scholarly work (I can't remember which book, if I find it later I'll edit my post). I think it's very telling.

"If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side"

-Ulysses S. Grant

Did some research on this quote... It looks questionable. Straight-up google search of the quote brings up a wiki site, several extremist sites, and this very thread!

The wiki site claims this quote to be a fake:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Ulysses_S._Grant

Here are some other quotes from Grant, these are actually sourced. Found here:

http://www.nas.com/~lopresti/ps18.htm

1878: "As soon as slavery fired upon the flag it was felt, we all felt, even those who did not object to slaves, that slavery must be destroyed. We felt that it was a stain to the Union that men should be bought and sold like cattle." (Grant, 1969, p367)

1885: "The cause of the great war of the rebellion against the United States will have to be attributed to slavery... Slavery was an institution that required unusual guaranties for its security wherever it existed; and in a country like ours, where the larger portion of it was free territory inhabited by an intelligent and well-to-do population, the people would naturally have but little sympathy with demands upon them for its protection. Hence the people of the South were dependent upon keeping control of the general government to secure the perpetuation of their

favorite institution." (Grant, 1885, v2, p386)

[PeterMP]

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.

I want to make the point that the VA ratification statement talks about the people of the UNITED STATES, NOT the people of VA.

If the people of the UNITED STATES (from which the government arises its power decided) to resume those "powers", then you'd have an argument, but what happened is that some people in the US decided they wanted to resume those powers (as being interpreted at that point in time) eliminated.

That of course has been the state of things since the creation of the Constitution.

The people of VA don't assert their right to seceede in their ratification statement. The asserted the right of the people of the people in the US to resume the powers given to the government by the Constitution, not some set thereof, or the Constitution would have been eliminated pretty much immediately as those involved in the whiskey rebellion wanted to "resume" the powers given to the government by the Constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_va.html

[Predicto]

here's another fact: we're the only civilized nation to have ever had to resort to war to end slavery, every other country did it peacefully and there was just as much status and racism at stake.

What point are you making here? Why do you think that this is significant?

I think it is because we were a collection of states rather than just a nation. Thus, when push came to shove, and the majority of the nation was heading toward abolishing slavery, the minority of states that disagreed felt they could pull out to preserve their peculiar institution, and they started a war over the issue. That could not have happened in England (or France, or Spain). Parliament voted, and that was the end of it.

I think that this point you just stated weighs more for the idea that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War, not less.

[GibbsFactor]

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.

It's fairly simple. I don't have any any preconceived opinions, I do believe that one of the major motivating factors was the slavery issue.

But...

That's an opinion. Only an opinion, even the opinion of the General cited earlier.

Facts are, states rights were the reason. States Rights to allow Slavery, States Rights to allow a certain economy, States Rights to secede if laws favored other states more so then their own.

Those are the facts. The motivating factor many here are talking about are opinions.

Lincoln was the one at fault and most historians without bias agree. It was the right of those states to secede. Arguing over why they did is easy. The Union interpreted what it could and could not do differently and seemed to side with more central power versus a decentralized group of powerful states. The south disagreed and chose to leave the union. Perhaps slavery was a key motivating factor but again, that is opinion. Facts stated were a fundamental disagreement over federal vs state power.

[Heisenberg]

.........

Again, it would just be opinion if it weren't right there in writing.

There's no reason for it to be a main part of their Consitution unless it was a prime reason for them seceding from the union.

[Predicto]

Lincoln was the one at fault and most historians without bias agree.

Translation: most historians that I agree with assert that Lincoln was the one at fault.

Come on - that was way too easy. Sheesh.

[alexey]

Facts are, states rights were the reason. States Rights to allow Slavery, States Rights to allow a certain economy, States Rights to secede if laws favored other states more so then their own.

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.

[nonniey]

here's another fact: we're the only civilized nation to have ever had to resort to war to end slavery, every other country did it peacefully and there was just as much status and racism at stake.[/QU

[Switchgear]

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:

What reason would he have to lie? That's just deflection and spin to try to bring other political figures into this. If you have facts that directly dispute the notion that the South seceded because of slavery, by all means list them.

For someone who claims to be interested only in the truth you seem to be grasping at any straw that supports what you currently believe instead of looking at what is actually being presented and weighing its merit. In short, you don't seem at all interested in learning anything.

Also:

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.

[GibbsFactor]

Translation: most historians that I agree with assert that Lincoln was the one at fault.

Come on - that was way too easy. Sheesh.

Not at all, I loved Lincoln and was shocked to see that my "preconceived" notion, the same you and your side (in this debate) are arguing, was simply wrong.

I'm no southern apologist by any stretch of the imagination. I'm just being rational and logical.

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 would not. Sure slavery was a key issue. However, it was a war based on what the US Federal government could do that a state could not. It was a defining moment for the "United States" to becoming "America". State Vs. Federal had been raging on for years, as long as the slave argument went on, and had always been a dividing force within political America. Not everyone in the south owned slaves, but I will concede the powerful did.

From the early colonial days, the south had a complex vs. the north. The plantation economy has been discussed in this thread but again the biggest factor was that the south felt the north was imposing its will on them and their only chance to save face (as much as slave owners could) was to secede. You must remember, slavery was a hot button issue as well for years and years. It was a dividing force, a dick measuring contest ensued and finally the south decided they had enough of the north's dictation.

People think this is a truly racial thing. That the leaders of the south, the financially wealthy were 100% fixated on the slavery thing. I tell you the facts are it was much more benign then that. It was a simple dick measuring contest.

The social unjust that occurred, in some parts to this day, are, again, cultural. It's ingrained; part of the culture. To change that from an outside influence is very difficult to do.

To put out blanket statements like, the American Civil War was fought because the racist south refused to give up slavery is simply too simple, lazy and convienent.

[alexey]

To put out blanket statements like, the American Civil War was fought because the racist south refused to give up slavery is simply too simple, lazy and convienent.

How about a statement that links the rights issue is directly to slavery:

1885: "The cause of the great war of the rebellion against the United States will have to be attributed to slavery... Slavery was an institution that required unusual guaranties for its security wherever it existed; and in a country like ours, where the larger portion of it was free territory inhabited by an intelligent and well-to-do population, the people would naturally have but little sympathy with demands upon them for its protection. Hence the people of the South were dependent upon keeping control of the general government to secure the perpetuation of their favorite institution." (Grant, 1885, v2, p386)

[skinfan133]

What reason would he have to lie? That's just deflection and spin to try to bring other political figures into this. If you have facts that directly dispute the notion that the South seceded because of slavery, by all means list them.

For someone who claims to be interested only in the truth you seem to be grasping at any straw that supports what you currently believe instead of looking at what is actually being presented and weighing its merit. In short, you don't seem at all interested in learning anything.

Also:

wrong. its a legitimate question. Context and audience of a speech is just as, if not more, important than the words.

as for the first part, you're deflecting yourself. You really think politicians always say whats on their mind? or do they give people what they want to hear? that's what I thought.

I am extremely interested in learning. That is why I'm at school right now taking time out to post in this silly thread in between studying for finals. Just what the hell do you think you're trying to teach me with this post?

Fact is, I've read a ****load about the War and the players in it. I've read up on Lincoln: he's a fascinating person, and BECAUSE of what I've read about him over the years, I have come to detest him the most of any US President, other than maybe FDR or both Johnsons. I have conclude that the man a) didn't really care about slaves was very calculating and smart c) aggravated instead of ameliorated the War and d) was willing to do whatever it took to make the Federal government the dominant power in America. He is not the hero he is made out to be today. Lincoln didn't free a single slave, and it kills me to see him get the credit for it, when really it was the Congress who drafted and implemented the 13th amendment.

I've read up on Lee and Jackson quite a bit too. I do not agree with everything they did or stood for, but I would much rather be associated with them than with Lincoln.

[skinfan133]

What point are you making here? Why do you think that this is significant?

I think it is because we were a collection of states rather than just a nation. Thus, when push came to shove, and the majority of the nation was heading toward abolishing slavery, the minority of states that disagreed felt they could pull out to preserve their peculiar institution, and they started a war over the issue. That could not have happened in England (or France, or Spain). Parliament voted, and that was the end of it.

I think that this point you just stated weighs more for the idea that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War, not less.

what I'm trying to say is the War was really unnecessary and 600,000 Americans died for essentially nothing. Slavery could have been ended peacefully. look at Brazil for a good historical example (I wasn't really referring to Britain at all)

[shk75]

what I'm trying to say is the War was really unnecessary and 600,000 Americans died for essentially nothing. Slavery could have been ended peacefully. look at Brazil for a good historical example (I wasn't really referring to Britain at all)

I see what you are saying, however, historically the US has practiced a very different form of slavery than other countries in the hemisphere. The US slavery was more brutal and there was much less mixing among slaves and non slaves. In Brazil the mixing was much more powerful and over time led to more and more acceptance of the "inferior" race. I am not at all praising their form of slavery since it was evil as well, but this compounded with the political structure and other factors is why the US cannot really be compared to Brazil.

[Predicto]

what I'm trying to say is the War was really unnecessary and 600,000 Americans died for essentially nothing. Slavery could have been ended peacefully. look at Brazil for a good historical example (I wasn't really referring to Britain at all)

But I don't think you made that point very well at all.

Brazil ended slavery because the central government in Brazil had the power to end slavery and impose that rule all over the nation, and it did so. Just like in England. And everywhere else.

The Confederate States seceded and fought the Civil War to make sure that didn't happen to them. Because they wanted to keep their peculiar institution. So how does that prove your point?

[skinfan133]

I see what you are saying, however, historically the US has practiced a very different form of slavery than other countries in the hemisphere. The US slavery was more brutal and there was much less mixing among slaves and non slaves. In Brazil the mixing was much more powerful and over time led to more and more acceptance of the "inferior" race. I am not at all praising their form of slavery since it was evil as well, but this compounded with the political structure and other factors is why the US cannot really be compared to Brazil.

I think the Haitians and other Caribbean slaves would take great exception to these statements. Slavery was much less brutal in America than elsewhere. They simply worked everyone to death in the Caribbean doing incredibly hard physical labor in places like quarry, salt mines, sugar cane fields, etc. It's incredibly naive to throw out that American slavery was more brutal. It was indeed different, but not more brutal.

I really, honestly believe if northern abolitionists had worked with the southern abolition movement we may have avoided the bloodiest war in American history

[skinfan133]

But I don't think you made that point very well at all.

Brazil ended slavery because the central government in Brazil had the power to end slavery and impose that rule all over the nation, and it did so. Just like in England. And everywhere else.

The Confederate States seceded and fought the Civil War to make sure that didn't happen to them. Because they wanted to keep their peculiar institution. So how does that prove your point?

Slavery could very easily have been abolished with or without the government in the United States. that is my point. I'm saying it's unfortunate we had to fight a war for the end result to be total abolition. I'm really dumbfounded that you do not agree with that

[shk75]

Slavery could very easily have been abolished with or without the government in the United States. that is my point. I'm saying it's unfortunate we had to fight a war for the end result to be total abolition. I'm really dumbfounded that you do not agree with that

How could it have easily been abolished without a war? I have not read the whole thread yet so if you already said how sorry to make you restate it but I would be interested to know just how this could have been done without war.

[Switchgear]

wrong. its a legitimate question. Context and audience of a speech is just as, if not more, important than the words.

If you were actually interested in that, you could have looked it up. You're just using it as a means to discount something that doesn't mesh with what you want to believe. But keep on congratulating yourself on how open minded you are. It's quite amusing.

Edit: And by the way, what possible gain would there be in claiming that the war was about slavery? What agenda would he have been trying to mask if he didn't really mean it?

[Predicto]

Fact is, I've read a ****load about the War and the players in it. I've read up on Lincoln: he's a fascinating person, and BECAUSE of what I've read about him over the years, I have come to detest him the most of any US President, other than maybe FDR or both Johnsons.

I'd be curious to know what books you read about Lincoln.

If they were written by Thomas diLorenzo or Grady McWhiney or Clyde Wilson, then I think you have been sold a bill of goods by people with a neo-Confederate agenda.

[shk75]

I'd be curious to know what books you read about Lincoln.

If they were written by Thomas diLorenzo or Grady McWhiney or Clyde Wilson, then I think you have been sold a bill of goods by people with a neo-Confederate agenda.

I do not know if I hate Lincoln but any person who says this is not cool in my book:

"I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. . . We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable." - Abraham Lincoln, after signing the Emancipation Proclamation