Ignoring the issue of slavery, who would you have wanted to win the civil war?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I thought we were ignoring slavery.



First off, I think we'd disagree on the definition of "exploitation". Secondly, using hingsight, a weaker US could easily have changed history for the better.

First off, the thread title could be seen as oxymoronic -- can we discuss the American Revolutionary War while ignoring the colonial policies of Great Britain??
If we can do that, then I am mistakened.

Secondly, you always claim to be for individual liberty, but in this case, you do not realize that you're inconsistent, if not hypocritical. The reason is because the Confederacy was based on anything but individual liberty.

It was based on a plantation, aristocratic society that exploited poor white Southerners along with the black slaves.

This does not mean that I idealize the Northern states, or ignore the problems they had with industrial labor issues.
But here, we are talking about the Southern states and the Confederacy.

One more thing -- the Southern politicians before the Civil War demanded for a stronger federal government when they wanted slavery protected or expanded.

[David Floyd]

Secondly, you always claim to be for individual liberty, but in this case, you do not realize that you're inconsistent, if not hypocritical. The reason is because the Confederacy was based on anything but individual liberty.

True, but the US was certainly no better. Sure, they freed the slaves - but only those in the South, which they had no power to free, as a political propaganda tool.
Since neither side was good on individual rights, I'm gonna go with the side that has the least amount of federal power - the CSA. I also support the CSA because having two nations instead of one would have greatly handicapped many of the US's actions from the 1860s to today.

One more thing -- the Southern politicians before the Civil War demanded for a stronger federal government when they wanted slavery protected or expanded.

Yes, and they also started the draft. No one said they weren't hypocrites.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I thought we were ignoring slavery.

It came up anyway. After all if you ignore slavery there is nothing that could have started the war. Differences yes but none that bad.

[David Floyd]

Civil War would have come around sooner or later. As Ramo pointed out, it almost happened in 1833, and New England also seceded during the War of 1812. Neither situation had a thing to do with slavery.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by David Floyd
True, but the US was certainly no better. Sure, they freed the slaves - but only those in the South, which they had no power to free, as a political propaganda tool.

That wasn't just a propaganda tool. The fact is that Lincoln had no way to free slaves in the North. That required a constitutional amendment. He was able to do in the rebelling states simply because they were rebelling.

Since neither side was good on individual rights, I'm gonna go with the side that has the least amount of federal power - the CSA. I also support the CSA because having two nations instead of one would have greatly handicapped many of the US's actions from the 1860s to today.

Well you most likely wouldn't have like the CSA either even if it wasn't a slave state. You seem to be a bit more paranoid about government than is reasonable. Some degree of reticence towards government is a good idea but I think you get carried away.

Yes, and they also started the draft. No one said they weren't hypocrites.

Sometimes survival requires a change in thinking. Then again in this case the South lost.

[Ramo]

Wrong. The total ranged between 5 and 10 percent.

You brought up 10%, you were wrong. I was only pointing out that it was an increase, not a total.

It was raised later in 1862 to something higher than you said so you didn't even get the later version right. It went to 45 percent.

I never said it was the later version, smart guy. I was discussing the earlier version. How is the later version at all relevant to the discussion?

BTW, I mentioned the later version later on in the post, accurately I might add - note the part about the doubling of duties.

Funny how none of them said that. The Senate is where the South was forcing compromises.

Which they could not force any more. Which is why they left the Union.

On top of which it was a new Congress that passed it in 1861 and any decisions by the 1860 Congress that weren't passed and signed had to be restarted. There was no House passed bill in 1861 untill the newly seated Congress started it all over again.

What's your point?

Mine is that the tariff existed before Lincoln's election. It was not fabrictated simply to fund the war.

Back then it was in March that the President was inagurated. March 4th in this case and the bill had to be restarted . Long after the Secession began and even after the South started to seize military instalations and began the blockade of Ft. Sumter.

Right, because the President has to consent to sign the tariff bill, unless Congress has an overwhelming majority. Saying that the government waited until March to pass the bill is irrelevent; Lincoln had to come into office before it could pass.

If it passed and that would have brought the tariff to 5 to 10 percent. Whats your evidence that the tariffs were the cause of the war. They weren't passed till after the South had Seceeded and the South was clear about slavery being the issue.

Addressed above many, many times.

It was a tax that had to be passed by both houses and signed. With the Southern states there that would have been difficult.

But likely.

In any case the South did not go to war over a tax. You are speculating and have nothing except the fact of tax and you are denying all the real evidence that it was over slavery.

That's probably why the South rebuffed Lincoln when he offered in his inaugural to support a Constitutional Amendment to preserve slavery in the South in exchange for their readmission to the Union.

That is speculation.

No, it's not speculation. The North had the power in both population and number of states, thanks to the Compromise of 1850.

Effects generally follow causes. In the case the secession is the cause and the tax was an effect. The tax likely would have at least been different without a war brewing and the Southern Congressman and Senators there to fillibuster and negotiate.

Right, it probably would've been in its original form, which is what I already said.

Some did. The principles and the alleged honor always involved slave issues. Want to take another look at what Texas said? There were especially clear about slavery. In fact so was that SC document you linked to.

Do you have some kind of bone to pick?

The principles and honor were always about legality, which could imply slavery or states rights or any number of propaganda purposes.

You have nothing to support the claim of mere propaganda. You didn't the last time and you don't this time either.

I just did. Reread the entire link next time.

Are you claiming that ALL the papers, ALL the States that seceeded and everyone else that said it was about slavery were in engaged in a massive coordinated campaign to mask the true nature of the secession? Rubbish.

They generally emphasized a more minor reason for secession to insure the new nation survives. What's so hard to believe?

Funny how that is STILL a slavery issue and not even close to a tariff issue. Thanks for backing me up.

Huh? I was explaining why tariffs weren't mentioned...

I posted a link to that the last time. It supports me. The complaints are all slave based. The other parts are legal jusifications based on the Revolution. There is nothing about tariffs.

*Sigh* Copying the revelant portion:
"I agree with the gentleman from Richland, that the power of taxation is the central power of all governments. Put that power into my hands, and I care very little what the form of government it is; I will control your people through it. That is the question in this address. We have instructed the Committee to present a summary of the reasons which influenced us in the action we have now taken. My friend from Richland said that the violation of the Fugitive Slave Laws are not sufficient, and he calls up the Tariff. Is that one of the causes at this time? What is that cause? Your late Senators, and every one of your members of the House of Representatives, voted for the present tariff. [Mr. Miles. I did not.] Well, those who were there at the time voted for it, and I have no doubt you would, if you were in it. The question of the tariff did agitate us in 1832, and it did array this State against the Federal Government.

I maintain, and do always maintain, that this State triumphed then. Mr. Clay said, before nullification, that the protective tariff system had been established for all time. After the Nullification Ordinance, Mr. Clay did say that the State had accomplished the destruction of that system, and that the State had triumphed. The history of that time has never been written. It is true, we were cheated in the compromise; and really, sir, in what single compromise have we not been cheated? My opinion is, that the State of South Carolina and every other Southern State have been dealing with faithless confederates.

But the Tariff is not the question which brought the people up to their present attitude. We are to give a summary of our causes to the world, but mainly to the other Southern States, whose co-action we wish, and we must not make a fight on the Tariff question.

The Whig party, thoughout all the States, have been protective Tariff men, and they cling to that old issue with all the passion incident to the pride of human opinions. Are we to go off now, when other Southern States are bringing their people up to the true mark? Are we to go off on debateable and doctrinal points? Are we to go back to the consideration of this question, of this great controversy; go back to that party's politics, around which so many passions cluster? Names are much -- associations and passions cluster around names.

I can give no better illustration than to relate an anecdote given me by a member from Louisiana. He said, after the election of Lincoln, he went to an old Whig party friend and said to him: We have been beaten -- our honor requires a dissolution of the Union. Let us see if we cannot agree together, and offered him a resolution to this effect --Resolved, That the honor of Louisiana requires her to disrupt every tie that binds her to the Federal Government. [Laughter.]

It is name, and when we come to more practicability we must consult names. Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it. I believe the address, in this respect, cannot. The gentlemen from Chesterfield (Mr. Inglis) says that certain constructions of the Act of Pennsylvania are denied. He might have gone further and have said that certain constructions of the Personal Liberty Bills are denied. I have never seen any Abolitionist yet who did not say that these Acts had no reference to fugitive slaves.

I, myself, have very great doubts about the propriety of the Fugitive Slave Law. The Constitution was, in the first place, a compact between the several States, and in the second, a treaty between sections, and, I believe, the Fugitive Slave Law was a treaty between sections. It was the act of sovereign States as a section; and I believe therefore, and have very great doubts whether it ought not have been left to the execution of the several States, and failing of enforcement , I believe it should have been regarded as a causi belli.

I go for the address, because, I believe it does present succinctly and conspicuously what are the main primary causes. "

It shows the South was not honest regarding States Rights. You brought it up. How about you tell me what your point was supposed to be? You neglected to make one.

What are you on about? I brought up nothing of the sort. My point to "what about the balance of slave and free states" was addressed right after the sentence. You'll note that the paragraph had nothing to do with states rights, whatsover.

You keep on bringing up states rights as reasons for secession, not me.

He had more. They would have had to pay to free the slaves. In any case the South was quite clear that it thought abolition was not only possible but likely. The Constitution is clearly amendable. Even that part was an amendment.

Constitutional Amendments require the consent of all the states, which was my point.

And I specificly mentioned agriculture goods. What is your point unless it is to evade the fact that the South wanted tariffs but only when good for the South.

My point has to do with the cause of the Civil War. How is that relevant to the cause of the Civil War? I belive your point has to do with picking a bone.

Lincoln was dealing with an act of secession. He did NOT say that only tariffs were involved.

Nor did I. Again:
"Lincoln said he would not invade if he could retain federal forts and collect tariff duties in his inaugural! Why didn't the South give Lincoln his money if it was so insignificant? The Compromise proposed by the NY Chamber of Congress involved the repeal of the Morrill Tariff, which Lincoln didn't like very much."

Please read what I'm writing before posting.

If the South had acceded to those things they would essentialy have been going back on the Secesion.

Lincoln did not mention that he would require the South to respect all federal laws, such as, for instance, abolition. All he wanted were duties and forts.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Civil War would have come around sooner or later.

Not without slavery being involved.

As Ramo pointed out, it almost happened in 1833, and New England also seceded during the War of 1812. Neither situation had a thing to do with slavery.

However the Civil War had nearly everything to do with slavery.

You overstate your case. New England did not seceed. They only threatened.

[David Floyd]

You overstate your case. New England did not seceed. They only threatened.

Excuse me - you are correct, I mis-spoke.

Not without slavery being involved.

Not necessarily.

That wasn't just a propaganda tool. The fact is that Lincoln had no way to free slaves in the North. That required a constitutional amendment. He was able to do in the rebelling states simply because they were rebelling.

No, the CSA was independent. Lincoln had no power there.

Well you most likely wouldn't have like the CSA either even if it wasn't a slave state. You seem to be a bit more paranoid about government than is reasonable. Some degree of reticence towards government is a good idea but I think you get carried away.

*shrug*

Sometimes survival requires a change in thinking.

That sounds like the beginning of a slippery slope scenario

In any case, survival at the expense of the most important thing - individual rights - is worthless, in my opinion.

[ZaphodBeeblebrx]

Originally posted by David Floyd
. . . New England also seceded during the War of 1812.

Before, actually, Damn Stuffed Shirts, in Washington, wouldn't go to War, when We, wanted to!

Try How Few Remain, and the Subsequent The Great War Saga, all by Harry Turttledove; maybe even his Short Story, Must and Shall, about an Alternate Victory.

[David Floyd]

Try How Few Remain, and the Subsequent The Great War Saga, all by Harry Turttledove; maybe even his Short Story, Must and Shall, about an Alternate Victory.

I've read those. Very entertaining, but alternative history that goes too far into the future - such as a CSA victory through the Great War - is much too hard to accurately predict. Alternate history, IMO, can only be accurately predicted up to several months-a few years in the future, in a strictly limited setting, ie what the lack of Lend-Lease would have done to the Soviet Union's war effort, things of that nature.

[ZaphodBeeblebrx]

Your Scenario sounds a bit like MacKinlay Kantor's, If the South Had Won the Civil War, it's considered, rather, Optimistic.

Still, I think that between the, Very, Long Border, and the Adjacent Capitals, USA/CSA would have been a lot less like USA/Great Britain, and more like Germany/France; in fact, even in The Great War, we were more of an Accidental Ally, to Britain, having a Much Closer Relationship, to the French, because of Gratitude, and All.

As for the Books though, what do you think will Happen, to The State of Houston?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo
You brought up 10%, you were wrong. I was only pointing out that it was an increase, not a total.

OK it was an increase. What I read was ambigously written. Its still ambigous there but looking in other places make it more clear.

Mea culpa.

BTW, I mentioned the later version later on in the post, accurately I might add - note the part about the doubling of duties.

That one is wrong though. If the duties were 42 percent in 1861 going to 47 in 1862 percent is not a doubling.

Which they could not force any more. Which is why they left the Union.

They said they left over slavery. They didn't say a thing about the tariffs.

What's your point?

Mine is that the tariff existed before Lincoln's election. It was not fabrictated simply to fund the war.

My point is that it DIDN'T exist before the election. It was passed AFTER the election and AFTER the secession.

Right, because the President has to consent to sign the tariff bill, unless Congress has an overwhelming majority. Saying that the government waited until March to pass the bill is irrelevent; Lincoln had to come into office before it could pass.

It wasn't passed by Congress untill after the new Congress was in session in 1861. That it couldn't be enacted till it was signed by Lincoln has nothing to do whith the fact that it wasn't passed untill after the South seceeded.

Addressed above many, many times.

Only one thing was addressed acuratly. I was wrong on the level of the tax. The tax however was NOT passed by Congress in 1860.

But likely.

Only if a compromise was made.

That's probably why the South rebuffed Lincoln when he offered in his inaugural to support a Constitutional Amendment to preserve slavery in the South in exchange for their readmission to the Union.

More rampant speculation unsupported by evidence and denied by what the South said.

No, it's not speculation. The North had the power in both population and number of states, thanks to the Compromise of 1850.

Predicting things always involves speculation.

Right, it probably would've been in its original form, which is what I already said.

Which is your own version of alternate reality. Real world politics involves compromise then and now. With no Southerners however there was no one to compromise with.

Do you have some kind of bone to pick?

The principles and honor were always about legality, which could imply slavery or states rights or any number of propaganda purposes.

Do you have some evidence that tariffs were the real PRIMARY issue?

The stated causes in the declaration all involved slave issues.

I just did. Reread the entire link next time.

I read the whole thing a year ago and two months ago. There is nothing in that SC document that mentioned tariffs. All the actual stated causes involved slavery. How about you try reading it? Just as before you have not one bit of evidence that the secession was over tariffs.

They generally emphasized a more minor reason for secession to insure the new nation survives. What's so hard to believe?

You insistance that a tariff that is never mentioned was the cause of the secession. Its really hard to swallow something with no support at all. Especially when the evidence is clearly to the contrary.

Huh? I was explaining why tariffs weren't mentioned...

You failed to support yourself though and indeed you supported what I said instead. Again I thank you.

*Sigh* Copying the revelant portion:

It never hurts to give a clue as to why you post a link. So you have now for the first time in two seperate debates actually adressed my request for something to support you. You have the opinion of ONE man. An oppinion not only not held by the people that wrote the delaration but not even fully held by him as can be seen in the last line.

"I go for the address, because, I believe it does present succinctly and conspicuously what are the main primary causes. "

Even HE says the declaration had the primary causes. Those causes in that Declaration were all slave issues. So even when you try to support yourself you fail to show that I am wrong. He agreed with me not you. He clearly feels that the tariffs are secondary issue of less importance that the slave issues.

What are you on about? I brought up nothing of the sort.

You brought up and dropped without actually making a point.

My point to "what about the balance of slave and free states" was addressed right after the sentence. You'll note that the paragraph had nothing to do with states rights, whatsover.

The issue of balance has a lot do with states rights. The South wanted to force at least some new states to accept slavery even if they didn't want it. If thats not a states rights issue what the heck is?

You keep on bringing up states rights as reasons for secession, not me.

The South brought it up. I merely pointed out that what you brought up involved the South denying rights to other states. Which leaves slavery even more prominent as the primary issue.

Constitutional Amendments require the consent of all the states, which was my point.

Which is false. It does NOT require the consent of all states.

See article V of the Constitution. Its three fourths not unanimous. So your point was invalid. The South had been trying to avoid winding up with 75% of the states being free states. That was why they wanted to force at least some of the new states into being slave states.

My point has to do with the cause of the Civil War. How is that relevant to the cause of the Civil War? I belive your point has to do with picking a bone.

My point has to do with the legitamacy of your tariff arguement.

Whats with bones anyway? That should be on a evolution thread. I like those too. If you want to pick bones how about you start another evolution thread. They tend to get a lot of posts.

Nor did I. Again:
"Lincoln said he would not invade if he could retain federal forts and collect tariff duties in his inaugural! Why didn't the South give Lincoln his money if it was so insignificant? The Compromise proposed by the NY Chamber of Congress involved the repeal of the Morrill Tariff, which Lincoln didn't like very much."

Please read what I'm writing before posting.

Perhaps if you read what you post before doing so you wouldn't make silly errors like when you previously edited out the property remarks which were the main point of the whole comment. You incorectly place the emphasis on the taxes.

Jeferson Davis's compromise was ALL about slavery. He didn't seem to think tariffs had anything to do with stopping secession. The NY Chamber of Comerce had its own reasons for lowering tariffs.

Lincoln did not mention that he would require the South to respect all federal laws, such as, for instance, abolition. All he wanted were duties and forts.

I think that could be because there WAS NO federal law about abolition. Don't you think that could be why he didn't mention a non-existant law? The things he dealt with all involved the South admitting that the US government was the true law of the land and not the CSA.

[Ethelred]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by David Floyd [/SIZE

No, the CSA was independent. Lincoln had no power there.

It wasn't independent. It lost. It had to win to be independent. In the meantime it was a bunch of rebels which makes their property forfeit should the Federal Goverment so desire.

That sounds like the beginning of a slippery slope scenario

All slopes are slippery when goverment is involved. So I won't disagree with you on that.

In any case, survival at the expense of the most important thing - individual rights - is worthless, in my opinion.

I have a different oppinion and I can justify it pretty well.

No matter how few rights a living person has a dead person has less. Rights can be reinsatated after survival is assured. For instance the US no longer has a draft. Rights CAN be restored. Dead people just feed worms.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ramo

Lincoln did not mention that he would require the South to respect all federal laws, such as, for instance, abolition. All he wanted were duties and forts.

And Lincoln did not seek to abolish slavery until in the midst of the Civil War, when he changed his policy towards the issue of slavery and began the process with partial abolishment with the Emancipation Proclamation.

[Ramo]

Ignore...