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

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


It's spelled secession. One "C" only.

Little things for little minds.

Yes, Texas was a Republic, that voted to join the Union; and we care so much what "you'll say for us".
The last battle of the war was in Texas.
And the fact remains the same, only 25% of the total Confederacy had slaves.

The fact remains the war was about slavery. Stating the number of slave owners won't change that.

Are you claiming the war would have happened without slavery? Or are just venting over people telling the truth?

[Ethelred]

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

Originally posted by Caligastia


But Chris said tarrifs couldnt be applied...

Chris was rather ambigous.

US Tarrifs were and still are federal and in fact the Federal government's mains source of taxes at the time was tarrifs. I believe what Chris was saying is that tarrifs were not interstate. The tarrifs were on imports from other countries. The South did more importing than the North so they thought of it as a tax on them rather the tax on imports that it actually was.

[Caligastia]

ah, I see

[Chris 62]

Ethelred is correct Cal, I was not being precise.

[Caligastia]

You are forgiven my son

[Chris 62]

Shouldn't you be the one apologizing?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
No joke? My point flew right over your pointed little head.

Your points on this thread have consisted of irrelevant ones and personal insults like this one. You head is filled with your own unreasoned hate on this thread.

While us terrible Texans were abusing the Blacks, the North was busy screwing over the Irish and everyone else they could.
Givemea****ingbreak.

No one said any such thing. Except you right now. If you think someone said that then perhaps its what you think about your fellow Texans as no one said it here.

No more of this thread for me. Procede on. Think what you'd like.

We are dealing with truth. You are trying to evade it. You have hurled insults over imagined slights that only existed within your mind.

I note that you did not answer a single question but I will ask it again. If you are going to flee that thread that will speak for itself.


Do you think the Civil War would have occured if not for slavery?


That is really what the question the thread started with amounts to.

[ZaphodBeeblebrx]

I'm kind of torn.

On the one hand, I agree completely with MrFun's Constitutional Argument, while on the other hand, as a New Englander, I'm Culturally Predisposed to the Idea, that once a Law, or even a Ratified, Constitutional Amendment, crosses a Certain Line, probably dictated by Common Human Decency, it pretty much becomes, "Get out, while the Gettin's still Good!"

Perhaps even more important, are the possible Secondary Effects, to a Successful Southern Secession.

For a good example of these, I'd recommend, maybe as Required Reading, the book How Few Remain, and its Subsequent Saga, The Great War Series, all by Harry Turtledove.

[SpencerH]

As I understand it, the tariff argument is more to do with the south wanting to sell cotton directly to the Brits rather than go through Yankee middlemen. The tariffs were to be imposed with Lincoln's election in order to stop the south from doing so.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
No joke? My point flew right over your pointed little head.
While us terrible Texans were abusing the Blacks, the North was busy screwing over the Irish and everyone else they could.
Givemea****ingbreak.

No more of this thread for me. Procede on. Think what you'd like.

Come off it, Slowwhand --- I know you're usually better than this.


Your points about the abuse of the working class and immigrants in the North ignores or dodges the issue at hand here -- whether slavery was the issue that ripped the nation apart, and whether slavery was the basis for Southern economy.

On the count of slavery being the main issue -- I would have to say, most definitely yes.
On the count of slavery being the basis of Southern economy -- I would have to say, most definitely yes.


No one here is denying the abuse and exploitation of workers and immigrants that occurred in the Northern states.
At least --- I'm not denying that.

[ZaphodBeeblebrx]

Originally posted by SpencerH
As I understand it, the tariff argument is more to do with the south wanting to sell cotton directly to the Brits rather than go through Yankee middlemen. The tariffs were to be imposed with Lincoln's election in order to stop the south from doing so.

If true, unfortunately that would Invalidate MrFun's Constitutional Argument, as the COTUS, quite specifically, Outlaws Export Tariffs.

Are you sure that it wasn't a Protective, Import, Tariff, on European Manufactured Goods, that would then have Forced them, to respond in Kind?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MrFun
On the count of slavery being the main issue -- I would have to say, most definitely yes.

I would say that slavery became the issue, just as nazi mistreatment of the Jews and other people became an issue. Wars are fought over money and power not morality.

On the count of slavery being the basis of Southern economy -- I would have to say, most definitely yes.

IMO its probably true.

[Rex Little]

I'm not going to read through this whole thread (100 posts in one day--yeesh!), but my preference would have been to let the South secede peacefully. I think relations between the USA and CSA would then have been similar to USA-Canada in real life, or at worst USA-Mexico. Going forward, the US would have had probably less inclination, and certainly less ability, to throw its weight around in world affairs.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SpencerH

I would say that slavery became the issue, just as nazi mistreatment of the Jews and other people became an issue. Wars are fought over money and power not morality.

I agree -- initially, Lincoln merely wanted to restrict slavery, not abolish it.
But then during the midst of the Civil War, he realized, as others have, that there was no turning back the clock -- it was time to settle this issue pernamently.

It began as a war for the Union, and nothing more, but then changed in the midst of the war, to securing one of the foundational ideals of our government -- liberty.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by ZaphodBeeblebrx

If true, unfortunately that would Invalidate MrFun's Constitutional Argument, as the COTUS, quite specifically, Outlaws Export Tariffs.

Are you sure that it wasn't a Protective, Import, Tariff, on European Manufactured Goods, that would then have Forced them, to respond in Kind?

To be honest, I'm not sure of the specifics. Its something I've picked up from a friend who's opinion I trust (that doesnt make him right of course).