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

[Ethelred]

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.

The Southern states were quite clear about in the Secession Documents. They didn't talk about money and the power was about the voting power they needed to maintain slavery.

The money was and power issues were both dependent on slavery. If there was no slavery the other issues would not have existed. The vote power issue in particular. The economic issue would clearly have had be a different one not based on slavery to exist.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by MrFun

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.

Only from the North's point of view. Not from the South's and they were the ones that seceded.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SpencerH


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).

It was about IMPORT not export tariffs. The South didn't like the way the taxes were being spent and they didn't like the protective nature of the tariffs. After all it was the Northern industries that were being protected.

However there was a compromise on the issue long before 1860. There was some fear that the protective tariffs would be reinstated. Such tariffs were started up in 1961 to pay for the war effort. Those taxes would not have been needed nor would likely have passed without the secession. After all the Southern states would have voted against them. Without the Southern Congressmen and Senators compromise was nor longer an issue.

[ZaphodBeeblebrx]

For an indication as to just how an Independant Confederacy, would react to the Changing Times, towards the end of the 19th Century, just check out one of the Books that I referenced in a Post, on the Last Page, How Few Remain, as well as a not Quite Unrelated book, called The Guns of the South, also, by the Same Author.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
:
The last battle of the war was in Texas.
And the fact remains the same, only 25% of the total Confederacy had slaves.

No, Slowwhand, it was 31% of the Confederacy. 26% of all slave holding states, and not all of them joined the Confederacy, remember.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ethelred

The Southern states were quite clear about in the Secession Documents. They didn't talk about money and the power was about the voting power they needed to maintain slavery.

The point is that what are cited as reasons for war are not the real reasons. For example:

The cited reason for the gulf war was.......

The real reason was.......

The cited reason for the attacking Serbia was.......

The real reason was.......

Fill in whatever you like for any war, they're not likely to be the same.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SpencerH

The point is that what are cited as reasons for war are not the real reasons. For example:

The cited reason for the gulf war was.......

The real reason was.......

The cited reason for the attacking Serbia was.......

The real reason was.......

Fill in whatever you like for any war, they're not likely to be the same.

I disagree. You're talking wars that are fought in front of modern-day media with modern-day sentiments. I can think of plenty of wars where the cited reason was the real reason (WWI, WWII, Vietnam, The War of Austrian Secession...Thirty Years War...Peleponesian War... )

Besides, if this was the case, it makes the South look worse. I can understand and perhaps respect if they *really* believed in the institution and were willing to fight for it, even though I abhor the institution. If, however, they cynically used it as a cover for economic motives, that engenders no respect I find it callously evil.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SpencerH

The point is that what are cited as reasons for war are not the real reasons. For example:

The cited reason for the gulf war was.......

The real reason was.......

The cited reason for the attacking Serbia was.......

The real reason was.......

Fill in whatever you like for any war, they're not likely to be the same.

So your psychic. You even read dead minds. The real reason for the Gulf War was that Iraq wanted the Kuwaiti oil fields.

The real reason the Serb attacked the non-Serbs is that they want the land for themselves.

The real reason the SOUTH seceded and then started a war is that they feared they would lose slavery. They said so. Not just in official documents either. They ran for office on it. They newspapers said it was about slavery. Private letters discuss slavery. The only thing that could show otherwise is for the Psychic Network to be real.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ethelred

So your psychic. You even read dead minds.

Its funny, but I've only seen you retaliate to these kinds of comments. I guess you're learning how to sling it yourself now.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ethelred

The real reason the Serb attacked the non-Serbs is that they want the land for themselves.

They wanted the land that IS theirs, and has been theirs for hundreds of years. What would the US do if illegal immigrants in the Southwest tried to secede from the Union?

[SpencerH]

I'll give you some examples then

The reason cited by the Nazis for the invasion of the Sudetenland was mistreatment of the german people living there by the Czechs.

The "real" reason was that the nazis wanted to take over Europe.

The reason cited for the cause of WWI was the murder of the Austrian Archduke.

The "real" reason was Imperial designs by european monarchs.

The reason cited for american involvement in the gulf war was to free the Kuwaitees.

The "real" reason was to protect our oil supply (there are lots of others to pick as well).

Boris, you really think you know the true reasons for wars that happened hundreds and thousands of years ago

[History Guy]

A good number of Confederates actually fought for no other reason than that they felt they had to go with their state when it seceded, and that they could not fight against their people, Virginians against Virginians, that sort of thing. And Virginia, many people conviently forget, seems to have seceded mainly due to the fact that U.S. troops were crossing the border to go down and destroy already seceded areas. They saw this as invasion, and no one was going to tell them anything otherwise. The whole thing was one bloody mess. Nuff said.

The reason, of course, that Fort Sumter was fired upon, was because the people of South Carolina, who had claimed independence, believed that this was a sign of Northern aggression, and Major Anderson's hops around from fort to fort in Charleston harbor wasn't a help to the Union at all. In short, the Union brought about the firing by their own unflexibility. Of course, Lincoln had opted not to accept secession as legal, and so nothing was done at all about it. Nuff said.

I still can't shake the feeling, however, that slavery was already on it's last legs. I do doubt that, even had the South seceded peacefully, it would have survived much longer at all. That seems also to be the informed opinions of several major Civil War historians. Nuff said.

[SpencerH]

Wasnt there some invention not long after the war that mechanized the cotton industry and removed the need for laborers?

[SlowwHand]

Do you mean the cotton gin, by Eli Whitney?

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


No, Slowwhand, it was 31% of the Confederacy. 26% of all slave holding states, and not all of them joined the Confederacy, remember.

At least you're consistently wrong.