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

[Ramo]

Ignoring slavery, probably the South.

Even ignoring slavery, the South was an incredibly inegalitarian feudal society, but the North sure as hell didn't do much about it.

The lack of protective tariffs could conceivably bring improved race relations than in our time line, by giving poor whites a better chance at doing well (instead of facing poverty and blaming blacks).

[Ethelred]

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

Originally posted by Caligastia
Okay, so if the confederates hadnt supported slavery, who would you support and why?

Since slavery was the cause of the Civil War there wouldn't have been one. Its a silly question. No slavery, no war. Its that simple.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by MrFun
So in other words, I used a primary source to back up my opinion, and you have not.

Just remember this is a matter of opinion. 2 sources with 1 opinion aren't necessarily more correct than 1 source with 1 opinion. The DoI's value isn't quantified by it's lack of quoted sources is it?

It might be worthwhile to note that an 'original' idea would not have any sources which previously document it. I wouldn't claim my position is original, but just want to make the point that progress depends on new ideas. To only judge ideas based on past documentation of the idea would relegate us to never progressing.

The Southern states already had the right to govern themselves -- any powers that were and are, not explicitly given to the federal government, were and are, left to the states.
To this extent, the state governments could govern themselves within the confines of the legal document called the U.S. Constitution.

The colonies had a limited ability to govern themselves before the War of Independance as well. They (or some people in them) felt it was too limited. The same would be true of any seceding state or revolutionaries.

The Constitution is not a perfect document. The writers of it even knew that, and tried to allow a proceedure for it's improvement. So far this system has worked quite well, but there is always the possibility that the Constitution could fail. It shouldn't be assumed that the limitations placed on States to govern themselves by the Constitution could never be unfair. Also it isn't right to require those who never were involved in the ratification of the Constitution to have to live under it regardless of what form it takes on.

[kittenOFchaos]

The North.


The Confederacy gave up as they had lost belief in the value of what they stood for...they could have fought on for years.

An contemporary example:

Paraguay: 6 years of war (1865-71) against an alliance of Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay...

Paraguay was outnumbered 30:1 in population terms...

Almost every male from twelve to sixty fought in the Paraguayan army. The country lost 56 % of her population, 80% of her male population between ages 12-60.


The Confederacy: A mere 4 years of war against the Union...

Outnumbered 3:1 in terms of white population.

5 % of the Conferderate population killed...25 % of white males of military age killed.


Now had the cause be so noble, so loved and so vital then people would have given their all for it, like the Paraguans.


The Union had division and strife, yet the administration kept the show on the road, the confederate administration was typified by in-fighting, failure to impose vital governmental control.


Quite simply I believe a collection of States each with their own State Governor would have caused in-fighting and division that would seriously have effected American's capability of taking center stage in the 20th Century, which to my mind would have been a bad thing -hell the Confeds could barely impose conscription, nor even raise taxes by anything close to what is needed to pay for a war and many states added tens of thousands to their civil service to prevent men being sent to fight in other states.


Centralised Government that can affect change is vital...had the South won, that "Nation" would have been weak and deeply divided along State lines unable to meet the challenges the 20th Century threw at the New World.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

I was fort the Mexicans

"Die Die ! David Crokett !"

[Sava]

The North. A strong central government is the most important part of a nation. WW2 wouldn't have been won if the US were a Confederacy of feuding states. And we'd all be speaking German right now....

[SlowwHand]

Boris can quote all he wants to quote from whatever South-hating
reference he wants to quote from. It's still bull****.

Edit to add, so as to not bump up your bigoted thread:

I find it amazing that a gay man would make such a generalized and trash thread.
Evidently in your eyes, a person has to be Gay or Black to have ignorant slobs make stupid observations.
As I've stated on so many ocassions, generalities are a sign of ignorance. You know, like all Texans ride a horse to work the ranch and all Gays are little wimps who should be hung on a fence to die. That sort of thing.
Congrats. Now you can claim to be part of them.
I hate to burst all of your bubbles, but I've shown more respect and tolerance than the sonsof*****es that have posted here.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos

The Confederacy: A mere 4 years of war against the Union...

Outnumbered 3:1 in terms of white population.

5 % of the Conferderate population killed...25 % of white males of military age killed.

Also, not to mention the thousands of black soldiers in uniform, who fought for the Union.


And Slowwhand, no matter how wrong he is with the technical statistics, I think almost any statistical source would show that slavery was the foundation for the Southern economy.

You do not have to hate the South to realize that much -- I don't hate the South, and it would be unfair to simply portray Confederate leaders and its soldiers as simply evil, cardboard, one-dimensional characters when one studies the Civil War.
Both sides believed they were fighting on the right side.

[Caligastia]

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

Originally posted by Ethelred


Since slavery was the cause of the Civil War there wouldn't have been one. Its a silly question. No slavery, no war. Its that simple.

I thought that the war was really due to economic friction, and slavery was just used as an excuse to start fighting. Is that wrong?

[MrFun]

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

Originally posted by Caligastia


I thought that the war was really due to economic friction, and slavery was just used as an excuse to start fighting. Is that wrong?

New Zeland immigrants have to re-read the history of the United States.


First off, many white supremacists today, along with Confederate flag worshippers, loudly proclaim that it was state rights that the Civil War was fought over -- the "glorious" cause of the "noble" Southern Confederacy.

In truth, Southern politicians in the 1850's argued for states' rights only when it was convenient for them. They argued for a stronger federal government, when they felt the government could do more to protect slavery.

One more thing -- the Northern states, or the Union was not "noble" either. Many abolitionists were racist themselves, or in the very least, racialists. However, there were, indeed, other abolitionists who were true egalitarians when it came to race.

Abraham Lincoln initially sought to restrict slavery to where it already existed in the Southern states, and prohibit it from spreading in any of the northern territories.
But Southern leaders exaggerated Lincoln's position on slavery, and felt that when he became elected president, it was a first step toward complete abolishment of their beloved slavery system.

Later, during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln realized that the country could not return to where it was in regards to the issue of slavery.
In the midst of the Civil War, he decided to help bring about the ultimate end to this issue that divided our nation since the 1820's -- beginning with the Emancipation Proclamation, which was partial abolishment, then after his death, with the 13th Amendment.

[Chris 62]

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

Originally posted by Caligastia
I thought that the war was really due to economic friction, and slavery was just used as an excuse to start fighting. Is that wrong?

Yes it is.

The states rights question only arose over the South's dislike of the free/slave state quoient, the Southerners wanted a slave state for every free state admitted to the union, to maintain a balence, as well as the maintaining of fugative slave laws to continue to be enforced in free states.

When this wasn't happening, they decided to leave the union.

States rights is just an excuse, the war was about slavery, always was, always will be.

[Caligastia]

So there would have been no chance of civil war if both sides agreed on slavery?

[Chris 62]

You got it Cal.

In fact, the South controlled US politics and the US military between the revolution and the civil war, only the slavery issue caused a real riff between the two.

[Caligastia]

Although slavery was the main issue, were there any other issues that caused friction between the two? Didnt the union impose unfair tarifs on the south?

[MrFun]

First off, let me get over my shock that Chris and I agree on a historical issue.

Originally posted by Caligastia
So there would have been no chance of civil war if both sides agreed on slavery?

Yep, as Boris, Chris, and I have been arguing all along.
States' rights was a convenient facade for the Confederate leaders.