Ted Nugent Wonders if 'We'd Have Been Better Off if the South Had Won the Civil War'

[Origanalist]

More people now realize that the real winner at Appomattox was Big Government. Here's Ted Nugent:


The Detroit-born rocker and outspoken conservative activist writes in a new op-ed for The Washington Times of his fundamental fear of what he calls "Fedzilla," or a government with a social safety net. Triggered by Chief Justice John Roberts voting to uphold President Obama's Affordable Care Act -- but calling the mandate to buy insurance a tax instead of a penalty -- Nugent says, "Because our legislative, judicial and executive branches of government hold the 10th Amendment in contempt, I’m beginning to wonder if it would have been best had the South won the Civil War. Our Founding Fathers’ concept of limited government is dead."

Here's my take on what might have happened if the South had won:

- Lincoln would have been impeached for mishandling the war.

- With the rise of mechanized agriculture, slavery would die out naturally, as it did throughout the rest of the Western world.

- Due to the setback of losing the South, the US remains a manufacturing and mercantile republic, thus avoiding imperial ambitions. The Spanish-American War would never have happened. The Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico would have eventually won their freedom from Spain on their own.

- The US and the CSA would have stayed out of World War I. The belligerent European powers would have been forced to negotiate a cease-fire. The Romanov, Hapsburg, and Hohenzollern royal houses would have remained in power. Thus, no communism, no fascism, no World War II, no Korean War, no Vietnam.


http://lsrebellion.blogspot.com/

[CaseyJones]

Ted Nugent draft dodging pro war pro drug war punk.... F him

[KCIndy]

- Due to the setback of losing the South, the US remains a manufacturing and mercantile republic, thus avoiding imperial ambitions. The Spanish-American War would never have happened. The Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico would have eventually won their freedom from Spain on their own.


Maybe. Or maybe a really PO'ed North would become even *more* belligerent and imperialistic in an attempt to regain "lost" property.



- The US and the CSA would have stayed out of World War I. The belligerent European powers would have been forced to negotiate a cease-fire. The Romanov, Hapsburg, and Hohenzollern royal houses would have remained in power. Thus, no communism, no fascism, no World War II, no Korean War, no Vietnam.


Maybe. Or perhaps the US and the CSA, ever mistrustful of each other, would have been drawn into the war on opposite sides of the conflict, thus ensuring and even bloodier and more destructive war than the first go-round in 1861.

There are a couple of interesting books written by SF/Fantasy author (and History Ph.D.) Harry Turtledove about the aftereffects of the South winning the war. I'm not saying his conclusions are correct, but the speculation is fascinating from an historian's point of view.

[PierzStyx]

There are a couple of interesting books written by SF/Fantasy author (and History Ph.D.) Harry Turtledove about the aftereffects of the South winning the war. I'm not saying his conclusions are correct, but the speculation is fascinating from an historian's point of view.

I like Turtledove. How Few Remain, which kicks off that alternate history universe, is excellent. And I simply adore The Guns of The South. But the series you're talking about, where the North and South end up on opposite sides of WWI and WWII was disappointing to me. Its like all he did was change names from German to Southern and made the South into the Nazis, quite literally. I was hoping for something more than a retread of history with different names.

[AGRP]

Big talk from someone who continually defecated in his pants for around a week so he could stay home and play a guitar.

[oyarde]

It could have been worse , most likely from an economic view , would have been ....

[DerailingDaTrain]

It could have been worse , most likely from an economic view , would have been ....

Not to mention the whole...you know

[Indy Vidual]

Would we be better off if Ted had stayed with his first band?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN2VNFpiGWo

[KCIndy]

I like Turtledove. How Few Remain, which kicks off that alternate history universe, is excellent. And I simply adore The Guns of The South. But the series you're talking about, where the North and South end up on opposite sides of WWI and WWII was disappointing to me. Its like all he did was change names from German to Southern and made the South into the Nazis, quite literally. I was hoping for something more than a retread of history with different names.

I agree 100%. Guns of the South was excellent, and How Few Remain was a great follow-up without the Deus Ex Machina of time travel as a crutch for the plotline.

I was intrigued by Turtledove's speculations about how the North and South might line up on different sides during WWI. It makes sense given the numerous entangling treaties among the European nations that led up to WWI. A mutually distrustful North and South looking for "Big Friends" among the European powers seems fairly plausible.

Unfortunately, Turtledove's "Great War" trilogy itself seemed to be rather hastily cranked out pulp fiction. I'll admit I was disappointed by the literary quality of that series, although the historical projections still fascinate me.

[BamaAla]

Hank Jr. Wondered this years ago; teddy is a Johnny come lately.

[Origanalist]

Hank Jr. Wondered this years ago; teddy is a Johnny come lately.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UE5Z09nYOK0

[DerailingDaTrain]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UE5Z09nYOK0

Ugh

I prefer Hank Sr

[Origanalist]

Ugh

I prefer Hank Sr

Can't argue with that.

[MJU1983]

Probably would have been better off had there not been a Civil War.

[awake]

If the south had won the civil war it would have been the second American independence. It would have reset the precedent of the first American revolution.

[coastie]

Ted Nugent draft dodging pro war pro drug war punk.... F him

You gonna go in the next draft they institute? Are you going to call those that don't cowards and punks? Just wondering.

I assure you I won't go if they institute one, nor will my son...and anyone who survives trying to force me other wise will not remember me as a punk, I promise.


Getting a little sick of people glorifying those that went to war because they were drafted, as it was they who were the real cowards in fear of their own government.

[phill4paul]

You gonna go in the next draft they institute? Are you going to call those that don't cowards and punks? Just wondering.

coastie, I think the point CJ is making is that Nugent is a pro-war neo-con that couldn't be bothered to 'do his duty' but is quite happy to let others get killed while killing 'rag heads.'

[coastie]

coastie, I think the point CJ is making is that Nugent is a pro-war neo-con that couldn't be bothered to 'do his duty' but is quite happy to let others get killed while killing 'rag heads.'

Fair enough, sorry to CJ if that's the case.

I just got into quite the pissing match with a family member about this same topic last night(Vietnam War Vet)....the conversation ended abruptly when I asked if he had rather spent the time in prison they threatened him with-or go through war and do what he did and see what he had seen. SOrry again, CJ.

[kathy88]

Fuck Nuge. Mr. guns endorsed ROMNEY. Forget the guy GOA ranks as the BEST of the BEST on guns. He's a shill.

[phill4paul]

Fair enough, sorry to CJ if that's the case.

I just got into quite the pissing match with a family member about this same topic last night(Vietnam War Vet)....the conversation ended abruptly when I asked if he had rather spent the time in prison they threatened him with-or go through war and do what he did and see what he had seen. SOrry again, CJ.

Since you said the conversation ended abruptly I assume he didn't give a reply. Hopefully, you gave him something to think about. :cool:

[coastie]

Since you said the conversation ended abruptly I assume he didn't give a reply. Hopefully, you gave him something to think about. :cool:

I think I did, or at least I hope I did. He seemed more mad that I had made a point he never thought through before, than at me questioning his "service" or "bravery"(I wasn't).

I mean no disrespect to those who were drafted and went-but it most certainly doesn't gain any respect points from me whatsoever, ESPECIALLY when they use it to berate those that -wisely- chose to burn the draft card and tell Uncle Sam to go fuck himself. This is especially appalling to me since most of those vets defend what they did as "serving the country", when nothing could be further from the truth, and those that did go should know better by now.

[cavalier973]

Going back to the original question, it would seem that an independent South would have provided a key ingredient to maintaining limited government: competition. The U.S. could still try to be the mercantilist paradise of which Lincoln was a chief promoter, but with an independent, free-trade zone that the CSA promised to become, the statist plans would have collapsed. In a "two state" America, slavery would also have been quickly ended, not just because of the industrial revolution, but because slaves could get to freedom by making it to Kentucky rather than having to go all the way to Canada. I doubt the North would have returned runaway slaves, out of spite, if nothing else.
Most importantly, the fact that one section of the country successfully told Uncle Sam to go jump in the lake would have been psychologically powerful for any other state that didn't like Federal policy.

[jkr]

Ted Nugent draft dodging pro war pro drug war punk.... F him
QFT


yeah ted, that will go over REAL well

[Chester Copperpot]

Ted Nugent draft dodging pro war pro drug war punk.... F him

Wow I didnt know that... what a punk..

and then for him to have the nerve to say that he'd be an incredible army man.. that he'd be a colonel before you knew it..

Meanwhile he emaciated himself and shit and piss in his pants to get a 4-F rating.

What a fucking phony...

Ill never look at this guy the same way ever again...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/nugent.asp

[Origanalist]

Going back to the original question, it would seem that an independent South would have provided a key ingredient to maintaining limited government: competition. The U.S. could still try to be the mercantilist paradise of which Lincoln was a chief promoter, but with an independent, free-trade zone that the CSA promised to become, the statist plans would have collapsed. In a "two state" America, slavery would also have been quickly ended, not just because of the industrial revolution, but because slaves could get to freedom by making it to Kentucky rather than having to go all the way to Canada. I doubt the North would have returned runaway slaves, out of spite, if nothing else.
Most importantly, the fact that one section of the country successfully told Uncle Sam to go jump in the lake would have been psychologically powerful for any other state that didn't like Federal policy.

Hey cavalier, how ya doin? That was the main point in my posting this. Discussion of how things might have been different if the South had won their independence. Didn't really mean for it to be about terrible Teddy.

[Athan]

More people now realize that the real winner at Appomattox was Big Government. Here's Ted Nugent:

First of all, the civil war is a failed example. I know there were many causes for the war, but whether you like it or not Slavery was a huge reason. They never declared their independence and decided to immediately free their slaves before Lincoln's emancipation proclaimation. Hence no matter what the Gary Busey, I mean, Ted Nugent say it is only going to fall on deaf ears when conjuring up the civil war as some sort of reference.

Second, all of your "what if's" are semantics. Sorry, but people would have still been stuck in slavery and abused until your "mechanized" farming kicked in. Lincoln may not have been impeached due to this or that.. etc. It doesn't matter.

Do NOT use the civil war to justify anything about independence, freedom, and state rights. Use 1776. Hell even use the Texas and South American war for independence if you must.

[trey4sports]

there is a great mockumentary called "CSA : The Confederate States of America" which is all about if the south won and how the north's legacy would have played out. it's done for entertainement not realism but it is entertaining nonetheless.

[jay_dub]

First of all, the civil war is a failed example. I know there were many causes for the war, but whether you like it or not Slavery was a huge reason. They never declared their independence and decided to immediately free their slaves before Lincoln's emancipation proclaimation. Hence no matter what the Gary Busey, I mean, Ted Nugent say it is only going to fall on deaf ears when conjuring up the civil war as some sort of reference.

Second, all of your "what if's" are semantics. Sorry, but people would have still been stuck in slavery and abused until your "mechanized" farming kicked in. Lincoln may not have been impeached due to this or that.. etc. It doesn't matter.

Do NOT use the civil war to justify anything about independence, freedom, and state rights. Use 1776. Hell even use the Texas and South American war for independence if you must.

Ummm....Texas had slaves and fought for the Confederacy. Brazil had slavery until the 1880's.

Also, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in Confederate territories the North did not hold. It was a PR move to keep England from supporting the South. It did not free any slaves in states that fought for the North. That amounts to over 1 million slaves untouched by the EP. Also, in areas of the South that the North had occupied, the 'freedmen' were taken and used as slaves (though not called such) for the Northern army and were housed in 'Contraband Camps' where the mortality rate averaged around 25%.

So much for the 'Great Emancipator'.

Like it or not, slavery was legal. All other countries ended slavery without a war. Over 600,000 Americans died in order for Lincoln to consolidate power, nothing more. He didn't give a damn about the slaves as his own speeches show. America as it was founded was lost in The War Between The States.

[Origanalist]

First of all, the civil war is a failed example. I know there were many causes for the war, but whether you like it or not Slavery was a huge reason. They never declared their independence and decided to immediately free their slaves before Lincoln's emancipation proclaimation. Hence no matter what the Gary Busey, I mean, Ted Nugent say it is only going to fall on deaf ears when conjuring up the civil war as some sort of reference.

Second, all of your "what if's" are semantics. Sorry, but people would have still been stuck in slavery and abused until your "mechanized" farming kicked in. Lincoln may not have been impeached due to this or that.. etc. It doesn't matter.

Do NOT use the civil war to justify anything about independence, freedom, and state rights. Use 1776. Hell even use the Texas and South American war for independence if you must.

Is that an order Sir?

[Kluge]

N/M already addressed.

[kuckfeynes]

Speculation is pointless because powerful people do not just give up their power without a fight.

Sure, it's a good reason to remind people that slavery was ended peacefully by natural means in the rest of the developed world, but to imagine what the world would be like had the Confederacy successfully seceded -- might as well imagine what it would be like after an alien invasion. The premise is just so exponentially improbable to the point of being impossible.

The Civil War was inevitable, and so will be the next one.

[hazek]

No we wouldn't have been better off. The government is a small gang of people asserting authority to make up arbitrary rules and enforce them through violence and as long as we have such a gang wreaking havoc there will be huge problems both in the social and economical sense and last I checked either side won, we'd still get such a gang doing harm.

[AGRP]

You gonna go in the next draft they institute? Are you going to call those that don't cowards and punks? Just wondering.

I assure you I won't go if they institute one, nor will my son...and anyone who survives trying to force me other wise will not remember me as a punk, I promise.


Getting a little sick of people glorifying those that went to war because they were drafted, as it was they who were the real cowards in fear of their own government.

I don't believe draft dodging is the issue. It's actually the honorable thing to do during unjust/unconstitutional wars. The issue is people who dodge and then act tough by wanting to blindly send other people to war. I would LOVE to see someone confront Ted on what he did to dodge the draft.

[nobody's_hero]

Would the CSA have had a strong-enough central government to go to war in Europe? Would the states have allowed it?

[CaseyJones]

coastie, I think the point CJ is making is that Nugent is a pro-war neo-con that couldn't be bothered to 'do his duty' but is quite happy to let others get killed while killing 'rag heads.'

Yes thank you, I was taking issues with his chickenhawk ways

and Mike, he really has boasted how good a soldier he would have been?? lol

[Sullivan*]

Nuge is anti-drugs... Kind of a douchey position considering the whole sex addict thing.

[jmdrake]

I the south would have won the southern aristocrats would have enslaved white people. They were the first in the civil war to institute the slavery of the draft. Ted Nugent would have been better off if he had come out against the Iraq war.

[emazur]

- With the rise of mechanized agriculture, slavery would die out naturally, as it did throughout the rest of the Western world.

The civil war was about many things, including slavery, but let's put aside what everyone thinks the civil war was "really" about.

If a state or regional government in America today decided to reinstitute slavery because people there felt the high cost of owning slaves was outweighed by the output produced (or for any other damn reason), I would fully expect and insist that the federal government use force and, if necessary, wage war against them. I wouldn't try to rationalize it and say "but you know, with forecasts about the rate of human-like robot technology development, we can reasonably predict slavery will become obsolete within 50 years so there's no need to use force against the enslavers". That's supposed to be one of government's few legitimate purposes - protecting people from the initiation of force, and there are few initiations of force more terrible than slavery.

[Zap!]

He's right. The Confederate States of America is the greatest Constitution ever put on paper. We'd be so much better off with the CFA and USA side by side. I'd move there in a nano-second.

[jmdrake]

He's right. The Confederate States of America is the greatest Constitution ever put on paper. We'd be so much better off with the CFA and USA side by side. I'd move there in a nano-second.

I wouldn't.

3. The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

[CaseyJones]

I think he is confusing it with the Articles of Confederation ?

[jay_dub]

The civil war was about many things, including slavery, but let's put aside what everyone thinks the civil war was "really" about.

If a state or regional government in America today decided to reinstitute slavery because people there felt the high cost of owning slaves was outweighed by the output produced (or for any other damn reason), I would fully expect and insist that the federal government use force and, if necessary, wage war against them. I wouldn't try to rationalize it and say "but you know, with forecasts about the rate of human-like robot technology development, we can reasonably predict slavery will become obsolete within 50 years so there's no need to use force against the enslavers". That's supposed to be one of government's few legitimate purposes - protecting people from the initiation of force, and there are few initiations of force more terrible than slavery.

So...let's put aside reality for a moment and let you carry on with some impossible scenario. Thanks for elevating the discussion. :rolleyes:

I will not say anything to justify slavery but, at the same time as slavery, there was a worse institution doing quite well in America, particularly in the North, and that is child labor.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By 1810, about 2,000,000 school-age children were working 50- to 70-hour weeks. Most of them came from poor families. When parents could not support their children, they sometimes turned them over to a mill or factory owner. One glass factory in Massachusetts was fenced with barbed wire "to keep the young imps inside." The "young imps" were boys under 12 who carried loads of hot glass all night for a wage of 40 cents to $1.10 per night.
.........................................

Theophilus Fisk, a Connecticut publisher and Jackson Democrat is ranked as one of the major leaders of the early U.S. labor movement. Fisk denounced wealthy White campaigners for negro rights and in 1836 gave what has been described as a “fierce anti-abolitionist speech” in South Carolina. Fisk’s anger derived from his observation that White slavery had been ignored. Fisk “found that
America’s slaves had ‘pale faces’ and as abolitionism grew in Boston, called for an end to indulging sympathies for Blacks in the South and for ‘immediate emancipation of the White (factory) slaves of the North.”.

Charles Douglass, president of the New England Association of Farmers, Mechanics and Other Working Men, described the four thousand White children and women at work in the factories of Lowell, Massachusetts in the 1860s as “dragging out a life of slavery and wretchedness... These establishments (New England’s factories) are the present abode of wretchedness, disease and misery...”

Ruth Holland, commenting on the participation of New England factory owners in the cause of abolitionism and rights for negroes in the south, observed, “It’s a little difficult to believe that northern mill owners, who were mercilessly abusing (White) children for profit, felt such pure moral indignation at (negro) slavery.”

http://www.whattheproblemis.com/documents/ra/they-were-slaves.pdf

[heavenlyboy34]

The civil war was about many things, including slavery, but let's put aside what everyone thinks the civil war was "really" about.

If a state or regional government in America today decided to reinstitute slavery because people there felt the high cost of owning slaves was outweighed by the output produced (or for any other damn reason), I would fully expect and insist that the federal government use force and, if necessary, wage war against them. I wouldn't try to rationalize it and say "but you know, with forecasts about the rate of human-like robot technology development, we can reasonably predict slavery will become obsolete within 50 years so there's no need to use force against the enslavers". That's supposed to be one of government's few legitimate purposes - protecting people from the initiation of force, and there are few initiations of force more terrible than slavery.
Nonsense.
"Every other nation ended slavery without a civil war". -Ron Paul

[jmdrake]

Nonsense.
"Every other nation ended slavery without a civil war". -Ron Paul

Can you think of any other nation where slavery was regionally divided such that compensated emancipation would have been a transfer of wealth from non slave holding regions to slave holding regions? Because I can't.

[jay_dub]

Can you think of any other nation where slavery was regionally divided such that compensated emancipation would have been a transfer of wealth from non slave holding regions to slave holding regions? Because I can't.

First off, the slaves were brought over here by Northerners. They were the slave traders. Many prominent New England families made their fortunes off the slave trade. There were 6 Mayors of Philadelphia involved in the slave trade. Even after the importation of slaves to the US was made illegal in 1808, these slave traders still brought slaves to Cuba and Brazil.

Secondly, as Northern states abolished slavery, most slaves were not immediately emancipated. For instance, several states had laws in place that held children in bondage until the age of 25 so the owner could recoup his investment. Many of these slaves were sold in the South before reaching that age.

Lastly, the War Between The States was primarily fought over tariffs, not slavery. The North had been engaging in a transfer of wealth from the South for decades.

Do you still want to to contend that the North would have paid an undue burden in compensating slave owners? A burden that was less than the cost of 600,000 lives and the wreckage of a whole section of the country?

[jmdrake]

First off, the slaves were brought over here by Northerners. They were the slave traders. Many prominent New England families made their fortunes off the slave trade. There were 6 Mayors of Philadelphia involved in the slave trade. Even after the importation of slaves to the US was made illegal in 1808, these slave traders still brought slaves to Cuba and Brazil.

Irrelevant to my point. I wasn't arguing that the north was any more moral than the south. (Although the south did start the immoral practice of drafting soldiers. Shows how much southern aristocrats cared for the men that would become their cannon fodder.)



Secondly, as Northern states abolished slavery, most slaves were not immediately emancipated. For instance, several states had laws in place that held children in bondage until the age of 25 so the owner could recoup his investment. Many of these slaves were sold in the South before reaching that age.


Again irrelevant to my point.



Lastly, the War Between The States was primarily fought over tariffs, not slavery. The North had been engaging in a transfer of wealth from the South for decades.


Says you. History says that tariffs were at historic lows immediately prior to the civil war. History says that during the nullification crisis when tariffs really were high, and a southern slave owner was president (Andrew Jackson) that South Carolina didn't find other southern states willing to stand with it and threaten secession. Further history shows that Lincoln would have been unable to raise tariffs if the southern states had not seceded and removed their senators. Further history shows that in the southern declarations of secession all the southern states prominently mentioned slavery (specifically lack of the expansion of slavery and the enforcement of fugitive slave laws) and only a handful mentioned tariffs and then only in passing.



Do you still want to to contend that the North would have paid an undue burden in compensating slave owners? A burden that was less than the cost of 600,000 lives and the wreckage of a whole section of the country?

I didn't say the civil war was smart. Only that in the other cases of compensated emancipation there was not this regional difference of slave regions versus free regions. Why is it that people on your side of the argument can never actually address the points I raise and you feel the need to go off on tangents? Lincoln actually tried compensated emancipation. He was only successful in Washington D.C. Every other border state rejected the idea. They wanted more money than the non slave states were willing to pay. Now compensated emancipation could have worked if it was tied to tariffs. Uses the tariff money to free the slaves and to establish industry in the south. That would have been the best way IMO. Regardless, industry did come to the south once the war ended and the slaves were free. The slavery/agricultural economy was really holding the south back.

[Southron]

One thing I do know: we wouldn't still be suffering from the effects of Reconstruction here.

[Zap!]

I wouldn't.

3. The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

I'm sure that would have been repealed as the years went on, especially with slavery written in it. CSA supporter for life here.

[jay_dub]

Irrelevant to my point. I wasn't arguing that the north was any more moral than the south. (Although the south did start the immoral practice of drafting soldiers. Shows how much southern aristocrats cared for the men that would become their cannon fodder.)



Again irrelevant to my point.


My answer would be the same for both points you deem irrelevant.

I wasn't talking about morality...only that the North had already been well compensated through its involvement in the slave trade and the tariffs which were largely to the benefit of the Northern Industrialists.



Says you. History says that tariffs were at historic lows immediately prior to the civil war. History says that during the nullification crisis when tariffs really were high, and a southern slave owner was president (Andrew Jackson) that South Carolina didn't find other southern states willing to stand with it and threaten secession. Further history shows that Lincoln would have been unable to raise tariffs if the southern states had not seceded and removed their senators. Further history shows that in the southern declarations of secession all the southern states prominently mentioned slavery (specifically lack of the expansion of slavery and the enforcement of fugitive slave laws) and only a handful mentioned tariffs and then only in passing.


History is not objective and is subject to the biases of men. I'll offer the following (mostly newspaper editorials) from the time period to illustrate the perspective that people were operating under in the days prior to the war.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861, "Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel".

The South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North.

The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions."

As the North American Review (Boston October 1862) put it: "Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation".

An editorial in the Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election stated: "The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism."

On 21 January 1861, five days before Louisiana seceded, the New Orleans Daily Crescent editorialized: "They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."

The Republican platform of 1860 called for higher tariffs; that was implemented by the new Congress in the Morill tariff of March 1861, signed by President Buchanan before Lincoln took the oath of office. It imposed the highest tariffs in US history, with over a 50% duty on iron products and 25% on clothing; rates averaged 47%. The nascent Confederacy followed with a low tariff, essentially creating a free-trade zone in the South. Prior to this "war of the tariffs", most Northern newspapers had called for peace through conciliation, but many now cried for war.

The Philadelphia Press on 18 March 1861 demanded a blockade of Southern ports, because, if not, "a series of customs houses will be required on the vast inland border from the Atlantic to West Texas. Worse still, with no protective tariff, European goods will under-price Northern goods in Southern markets. Cotton for Northern mills will be charged an export tax. This will cripple the clothing industries and make British mills prosper. Finally, the great inland waterways, the Mississippi, the Missouri, and the Ohio Rivers, will be subject to Southern tolls."

In December 1860, before any secession, the Chicago Daily Times foretold the disaster that Southern free ports would bring to Northern commerce: "In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow."

Similarly, the economic editor of the NY Times, who had maintained for months that secession would not injure Northern commerce or prosperity, changed his mind on 22 March 1861: "At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States."

On 18 March, the Boston Transcript noted that while the Southern states had claimed to secede over the slavery issue, now "the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."

In late March 1861, over a hundred leading commercial importers in New York, and a similar group in Boston, informed the collector of customs that they would not pay duties on imported goods unless these same duties were collected at Southern ports. This was followed by a threat from New York to withdraw from the Union and establish a free-trade zone. Prior to these events, Lincoln's plan was to evacuate Fort Sumter and not precipitate a war, but he now determined to reinforce it rather than suffer prolonged economic disaster in a losing trade war. That reinforcement effort was met with force by the South, and the dreadful conflict was upon us.

The above from Charles Adams' book When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Succession.

Then we have Lincoln making this comment:

"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.


I didn't say the civil war was smart. Only that in the other cases of compensated emancipation there was not this regional difference of slave regions versus free regions. Why is it that people on your side of the argument can never actually address the points I raise and you feel the need to go off on tangents? Lincoln actually tried compensated emancipation. He was only successful in Washington D.C. Every other border state rejected the idea. They wanted more money than the non slave states were willing to pay. Now compensated emancipation could have worked if it was tied to tariffs. Uses the tariff money to free the slaves and to establish industry in the south. That would have been the best way IMO. Regardless, industry did come to the south once the war ended and the slaves were free. The slavery/agricultural economy was really holding the south back.

I have addressed the points you made. I'm fine with it if want to label the issues I raised as 'tangents'.

[jmdrake]

Probably would have been better off had there not been a Civil War.

+rep

[jmdrake]

My answer would be the same for both points you deem irrelevant.

I wasn't talking about morality...only that the North had already been well compensated through its involvement in the slave trade and the tariffs which were largely to the benefit of the Northern Industrialists.


Again irrelevant. Whether you believe they had been "already compensated" has nothing to do with whether or not the Northern states would have agreed to the deal. You can think a deal is the greatest thing on earth, but unless the other side agrees you don't have a deal.




History is not objective and is subject to the biases of men. I'll offer the following (mostly newspaper editorials) from the time period to illustrate the perspective that people were operating under in the days prior to the war.


That's nice. Have you ever read the southern declarations of secession? You know, the documents that were actually voted on my by the men who seceded?



I have addressed the points you made. I'm fine with it if want to label the issues I raised as 'tangents'.

Actually you didn't. But that's okay.

Edit: Here's more on tariffs. From Mises proof that tariff's were at historic lows immediately prior to secession.

http://mises.org/daily/5442

From senate.gov: Proof that the Morill tariff did not pass until after the resignation of key southern senators.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/CivilWar_chronology.shtml

If the south wanted to keep tariffs low they could have just simply not seceded.

[jmdrake]

I'm sure that would have been repealed as the years went on, especially with slavery written in it. CSA supporter for life here.

So you support the draft then.

[Zap!]

So you support the draft then.

No. However, the USA had the draft as well for many periods in its history. How do you know the CFA would have one in 2012? I hate the draft, but I'd be willing to deal with it in a country that bans abortion, isn't afraid to display Crosses, does not go to war unless attacked, and does not have government forced SS and Obamacare. The CFA may not be perfect, but it would be a lot better than the current US. Much cooler flag as well (just an added bonus, I know).

[jmdrake]

No. However, the USA had the draft as well for many periods in its history. How do you know the CFA would have one in 2012? I hate the draft, but I'd be willing to deal with it in a country that bans abortion, isn't afraid to display Crosses, does not go to war unless attacked, and does not have government forced SS and Obamacare. The CFA may not be perfect, but it would be a lot better than the current US. Much cooler flag as well (just an added bonus, I know).

Sure the U.S. has had a draft in various periods. But to my knowledge it never had a draft before it learned the idea from the CFA. He's the deal. These "freedom loving" aristocrats didn't even care about the freedom of their fellow whites. But hey, if you want to romanticize them feel free to do so. And LOL at the flag comment. I personally think the brits have the coolest flag.

[jay_dub]

Again irrelevant. Whether you believe they had been "already compensated" has nothing to do with whether or not the Northern states would have agreed to the deal. You can think a deal is the greatest thing on earth, but unless the other side agrees you don't have a deal.

Nice of you to be in a position to deem things' irrelevant'. I suspect anything that doesn't agree with your weak argument is 'irrelevant'.

You do make one good point. Unless both sides agree, you don't have a deal. The South refused to further agree with most of the tariff monies being expended in the North.



That's nice. Have you ever read the southern declarations of secession? You know, the documents that were actually voted on my by the men who seceded?

Yes, and only 4 states mention slavery. I addressed the real causes of secession in my earlier post.

Also, 4 states seceded only after Lincoln called for them to send men to fight the South. I'm sure you'll deem that irrelevant, too.


Actually you didn't. But that's okay.

Your lack of comprehension is not my problem.

[anaconda]

- With the rise of mechanized agriculture, slavery would die out naturally, as it did throughout the rest of the Western world.



We did have mechanized agriculture, but look at what happened to the South anyway. It failed to have the economic vitality of the north because there was no infrastructure and less population. While folks in the north were scrambling building ships, tools, guns, dairy, newspapers, schools, banking, and so forth, the south was comprised of very large plantations with a sole owner. These owners imported most of the things they needed from Europe and exported most of their product to Europe. So the production and consumption cycle was divorced from local investment.

[DerailingDaTrain]

Can't we all just agree that slavery was horrible since it involves owning people?

[jmdrake]

Nice of you to be in a position to deem things' irrelevant'. I suspect anything that doesn't agree with your weak argument is 'irrelevant'.


The argument isn't weak. But nice of you to be in a position to deem it so. ;) Again I specifically raised the question to heavenlyboy of whether there has ever been any country where slavery was regional as opposed to being uniformly spread out across the country. It's a simple yes or no question. You have yet to address it.



You do make one good point. Unless both sides agree, you don't have a deal. The South refused to further agree with most of the tariff monies being expended in the North.


I've seen no evidence of how the tariff monies were actually spent once they were brought into the treasury. The main benefit typically cited to the north is that their industries were protected against (primarily British) competition. Once the south industrialized (aka Birmingham steel mills) some of the same people who were against tariffs became for them. But again, I said that ideally one way past the impasse would have been for the tariffs to have been used for compensated emancipation. Sadly the southern senators resigned paving the way for the Morill Tariff to pass. Had they stayed it wouldn't have passed.



Yes, and only 4 states mention slavery. I addressed the real causes of secession in my earlier post.


Every ordinance of secession mentions slavery. All of the declarations of secession I've seen also mentions it. If you have one that doesn't I'd like to see a link.



Also, 4 states seceded only after Lincoln called for them to send men to fight the South. I'm sure you'll deem that irrelevant, too.


That certainly doesn't help your "they left because of the tariffs" argument.



Your lack of comprehension is not my problem.

You haven't addressed the fact that tariffs were at historic lows and didn't rise until after secession. You didn't address the fact that when tariffs were really bad South Carolina couldn't get other states to go along with secession. You haven't even bothered to answer my initial question which is can you think of any country where slavery was divided regionally that ended slavery without bloodshed. It's a simple question. I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble answering it. I guess it's easier for you to be rude than to answer a simple question.

[jmdrake]

We did have mechanized agriculture, but look at what happened to the South anyway. It failed to have the economic vitality of the north because there was no infrastructure and less population. While folks in the north were scrambling building ships, tools, guns, dairy, newspapers, schools, banking, and so forth, the south was comprised of very large plantations with a sole owner. These owners imported most of the things they needed from Europe and exported most of their product to Europe. So the production and consumption cycle was divorced from local investment.

+rep for putting forward a cogent economic argument.

[TCE]

Can't we all just agree that slavery was horrible since it involves owning people?

Get that common sense out of here.

[jay_dub]

The argument isn't weak. But nice of you to be in a position to deem it so. ;) Again I specifically raised the question to heavenlyboy of whether there has ever been any country where slavery was regional as opposed to being uniformly spread out across the country. It's a simple yes or no question. You have yet to address it.

There is no perfect parallel in comparing slavery in the US to slavery in other countries, so comparing compensation is a futile exercise. England is the only country I know of that compensated slave owners.

It's a weak argument as it presupposes an unfair burden on one region of the country when any compensation could have come from federal monies. However, Lincoln did not make any overtures towards compensation until after the war had begun.


I've seen no evidence of how the tariff monies were actually spent once they were brought into the treasury. The main benefit typically cited to the north is that their industries were protected against (primarily British) competition. Once the south industrialized (aka Birmingham steel mills) some of the same people who were against tariffs became for them. But again, I said that ideally one way past the impasse would have been for the tariffs to have been used for compensated emancipation. Sadly the southern senators resigned paving the way for the Morill Tariff to pass. Had they stayed it wouldn't have passed.

I posted earlier about how some of the tariff money was expended. Since you must have missed it, here it is again.

The South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North.

Some have said that it was the Southern senators resigning that allowed the Morill Tariff to pass. That is not so clear cut as it may seem, however. the Northern democrats were losing influence to the Republicans and could not be seen as opposing the Tariff. It is unlikely the Southern Senators would have been able to stop its passage.

The Morrill Tariff had passed the House of Representatives in 1860 by a significant majority, reflecting the fact that free state congressmen outnumbered their slave state counterparts (although the Republicans did not have control of the House when the 36th Congress opened). Democrats retained control of the Senate, however. Partisan and sectional loyalties placed northern Democrats in a challenging position, because Republicans held them accountable for the failure of protective tariff legislation in the wake of a significant economic downturn in the wake of the panic of 1857 (they cited the tariff of 1857 as evidence of an insufficient response controlled by southern interests). Recall that Republicans did not have to beat southern politicians for seats in state legislatures (which in turn elected United States senators) and in the House of Representatives: they had to beat the northern Democrats who were contesting those seats. In turn, unless northern Democrats could retain support at the polls (a support that had slipped, first in the 1856 presidential contest, then in the 1858 offyear elections), they would find themselves in serious trouble. How could they present themselves as the party of economic recovery without supporting a protective tariff, widely seen in some corners as essential to American prosperity, at least north of the Mason-Dixon line?

http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/tariffs-government-policy-and-secession/



Every ordinance of secession mentions slavery. All of the declarations of secession I've seen also mentions it. If you have one that doesn't I'd like to see a link.

OK...here's a few Ordinances of Secession.

South Carolina

AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."

We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the "United States of America," is hereby dissolved.

Done at Charleston the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty.

Source: Official Records, Ser. IV, vol. 1, p. 1.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mississippi

AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of Mississippi and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."

The people of the State of Mississippi, in convention assembled, do ordain and declare, and it is hereby ordained and declared, as follows, to wit:

Section 1. That all the laws and ordinances by which the said State of Mississippi became a member of the Federal Union of the United States of America be, and the same are hereby, repealed, and that all obligations on the part of the said State or the people thereof to observe the same be withdrawn, and that the said State doth hereby resume all the rights, functions, and powers which by any of said laws or ordinances were conveyed to the Government of the said United States, and is absolved from all the obligations, restraints, and duties incurred to the said Federal Union, and shall from henceforth be a free, sovereign, and independent State.

Sec. 2. That so much of the first section of the seventh article of the constitution of this State as requires members of the Legislature and all officers, executive and judicial, to take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States be, and the same is hereby, abrogated and annulled.

Sec. 3. That all rights acquired and vested under the Constitution of the United States, or under any act of Congress passed, or treaty made, in pursuance thereof, or under any law of this State, and not incompatible with this ordinance, shall remain in force and have the same effect as if this ordinance had not been passed.

Sec. 4. That the people of the State of Mississippi hereby consent to form a federal union with such of the States as may have seceded or may secede from the Union of the United States of America, upon the basis of the present Constitution of the said United States, except such parts thereof as embrace other portions than such seceding States.

Thus ordained and declared in convention the 9th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1861.

Source: Official Records, Ser. IV, vol. 1, p. 42.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Florida

ORDINANCE OF SECESSION

We, the people of the State of Florida, in convention assembled, do solemnly ordain, publish, and declare, That the State of Florida hereby withdraws herself from the confederacy of States existing under the name of the United States of America and from the existing Government of the said States; and that all political connection between her and the Government of said States ought to be, and the same is hereby, totally annulled, and said Union of States dissolved; and the State of Florida is hereby declared a sovereign and independent nation; and that all ordinances heretofore adopted, in so far as they create or recognize said Union, are rescinded; and all laws or parts of laws in force in this State, in so far as they recognize or assent to said Union, be, and they are hereby, repealed.

Source: Official Records, Ser. IV, vol. 1, p. 54.

[Passed Jan. 10, 1861]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Most ordinances of Secession do not mention slavery. There are a couple that do, but most do not.


That certainly doesn't help your "they left because of the tariffs" argument.

No....what it speaks to is that some states were unwilling to make war on their countrymen.


You haven't addressed the fact that tariffs were at historic lows and didn't rise until after secession. You didn't address the fact that when tariffs were really bad South Carolina couldn't get other states to go along with secession. You haven't even bothered to answer my initial question which is can you think of any country where slavery was divided regionally that ended slavery without bloodshed. It's a simple question. I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble answering it. I guess it's easier for you to be rude than to answer a simple question.

All answered.

[Origanalist]

Can't we all just agree that slavery was horrible since it involves owning people?

Yes.

[Athan]

Ummm....Texas had slaves and fought for the Confederacy. Brazil had slavery until the 1880's.

Also, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in Confederate territories the North did not hold. It was a PR move to keep England from supporting the South. It did not free any slaves in states that fought for the North. That amounts to over 1 million slaves untouched by the EP. Also, in areas of the South that the North had occupied, the 'freedmen' were taken and used as slaves (though not called such) for the Northern army and were housed in 'Contraband Camps' where the mortality rate averaged around 25%.

So much for the 'Great Emancipator'.

Like it or not, slavery was legal. All other countries ended slavery without a war. Over 600,000 Americans died in order for Lincoln to consolidate power, nothing more. He didn't give a damn about the slaves as his own speeches show. America as it was founded was lost in The War Between The States.

Texas war of Independence from MEXICO. The general populace of America tends not to bring that up since it requires actual history knowledge. Same thing for Brazil.


Is that an order Sir?

Goddamn right its an order! We are in the business of winning arguments, not playing into their argument traps.

[Origanalist]

Goddamn right its an order! We are in the business of winning arguments, not playing into their argument traps.

Sorry Athat, I'm the last person you want to give an order to.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51-wq%2BfodsL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

[Zap!]

Can't we all just agree that slavery was horrible since it involves owning people?

Collateral damage. 600,000+ dead and two different countries supersedes something that would have ended soon anyway.

[Origanalist]

Collateral damage. 600,000+ dead and two different countries supersedes something that would have ended soon anyway.

Separate issue, the war wasn't fought over freeing the slaves.

[Zap!]

Separate issue, the war wasn't fought over freeing the slaves.

True. There never should have been a war in the first place.

[Origanalist]

True. There never should have been a war in the first place.

Some things never change, that statement could be said about most wars. They are always fought for reasons the soldiers have no clue about.

[DerailingDaTrain]

Collateral damage. 600,000+ dead and two different countries supersedes something that would have ended soon anyway.


Separate issue, the war wasn't fought over freeing the slaves.


Even though Lincoln promised that as president he would not interfere with slavery in existing states and supported the proposed Corwin Amendment, secessionists claimed that such guarantees were meaningless. Besides the loss of Kansas to free soil Northerners, secessionists feared that the loss of slaves in the border states would lead to emancipation, and that upper South slave states might be the next dominoes to fall. They feared that Republicans would use patronage to incite slaves. Then slavery in the lower South, like a "scorpion encircled by fire, would sting itself to death."


Historians argue that both Union and Confederate soldiers who did the actual fighting believed slavery to be the cause of the Civil War. At some point, Union soldiers mainly believed the primary reason for the war was to bring emancipation to the slaves. Confederate soldiers fought to protect southern society, and slavery as an integral part of it. "The power of the federal government to affect the institution of slavery, specifically limiting it in newly added territories.", was the primary political debate in Southern states over secession, rather then states’ rights in general.

Also, what about the document, where SC declares it is seceding?


The next section asserts that the government of the United States and of states within that government had failed to uphold their obligations to South Carolina. The specific issue stated was the refusal of some states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and clauses in the US Constitution protecting slavery and the federal government's perceived role in attempting to abolish slavery.

The next section states that while these problems have existed for twenty-five years, the situation had recently become unacceptable due to the election of a President (this was Abraham Lincoln although he is not mentioned by name) who was planning to outlaw slavery.

While later claims have been made that the decision to secede was prompted by other issues such as tariffs, these issues were not mentioned in the declaration.

[TheTexan]

The Northern Aggressor didn't care 2 shits about freeing the slaves. He was just a power hungry tyrant. He didn't free the slaves in the south... he enslaved the south. Black, white, all of us - we're all subject to the tyranny of his "inseparable union"

Secession, for whatever reason its done for, is an act of peace. Lincoln broke that peace. In doing so, he took away the strongest tool we ever had to combat tyranny. Without the threat of secession, the country just goes further and further into tyranny, because there is zero recourse.

The resentment from the war was also unfortunately taken out on blacks. The slaves may have been "freed" but they certainly weren't "free". They were treated as sub-human, beaten, raped, killed, etc. This continued well into the 20th century. It's hard to say how much the resentment from the war contributed to racism, but if I had to guess... I'd say, a lot.

Definitely didn't need a war to end slavery. As so many others pointed out, every other nation managed to do it without a war.

[Origanalist]

It's hard to say how much the resentment from the war contributed to racism

No, not really.

[GunnyFreedom]

One thing I do know: we wouldn't still be suffering from the effects of Reconstruction here.

Well, North Carolina was one of the minority (I think three states?) that did not in any way consider the maintenance of slavery as just cause to go to war or to secede. NC seceded and joined the war effort mostly over the suspension of habeas corpus, territorial invasion, and federal aggression against South Carolina. I recognize, however, that NC was atypical. Also, a lot of people do not know that Robert E. Lee was an abolitionist, for some reason they don't boher to teach that in history class. :rolleyes:

[Origanalist]

Well, North Carolina was one of the minority (I think three states?) that did not in any way consider the maintenance of slavery as just cause to go to war or to secede. NC seceded and joined the war effort mostly over the suspension of habeas corpus, territorial invasion, and federal aggression against South Carolina. I recognize, however, that NC was atypical. Also, a lot of people do not know that Robert E. Lee was an abolitionist, for some reason they don't boher to teach that in history class. :rolleyes:

Add it to the list.

[DerailingDaTrain]

Wasn't Lee one of those people who didn't like slavery but condoned it because they believed it would only end once God was in power?


They believed that slavery existed because God willed it and they thought it would end when God so ruled. The time and the means were not theirs to decide, conscious though they were of the ill-effects of Negro slavery on both races. Lee shared these convictions of his neighbors without having come in contact with the worst evils of African bondage. He spent no considerable time in any state south of Virginia from the day he left Fort Pulaski in 1831 until he went to Texas in 1856. All his reflective years had been passed in the North or in the border states. He had never been among the blacks on a cotton or rice plantation.

[FindLiberty]

Would we be better off if Ted had stayed with his first band?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN2VNFpiGWo

NO. Here's proof thanks to YouTube's Time Machine (I'm kidding, that song/recording in the above URL was/is still great for its day!):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEJp2BsaeiE&feature=related

* If the South had won the war, would Lincoln be featured on the penny?

* What would a penny be worth today in terms of inflation?

* Would we all still be tax/inflation slaves?

[jay_dub]

Well, North Carolina was one of the minority (I think three states?) that did not in any way consider the maintenance of slavery as just cause to go to war or to secede. NC seceded and joined the war effort mostly over the suspension of habeas corpus, territorial invasion, and federal aggression against South Carolina. I recognize, however, that NC was atypical. Also, a lot of people do not know that Robert E. Lee was an abolitionist, for some reason they don't boher to teach that in history class. :rolleyes:

Could you provide some background on this? I knew Lee was not 'pro-slavery', but never considered him to be a radical abolitionist. Below is a letter from Lee to his wife, dated 1856, in response to a speech by then-President Pierce.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:

I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?

[GunnyFreedom]

Could you provide some background on this? I knew Lee was not 'pro-slavery', but never considered him to be a radical abolitionist. Below is a letter from Lee to his wife, dated 1856, in response to a speech by then-President Pierce.

Oh, he surely was not a radical abolitionist, he simply believed that slavery should not exist and that it would eventually go extinct. He was an abolitionist nonetheless, even if he believed that slavery would not ultimately go away until God was good and ready for it to.

He sure as hell was no John Brown, and I never meant to imply that he was. My only point in bringing it up was that he believed that if 'all were right in the world' slavey should not exist, so he was not himself fighting to preserve slavery but rather the political system of individual and state sovereignty.

I don't believe that the IRS should exist, but if I go to war it won't be over the IRS but maybe FEMA Camps or some other atrocity. Lee believed that slavery should not exist in much the same way I currently believe the IRS should not exist. I'll state my opinion on the IRS as he did on slavery, but he didn't think there was much he could do about slavery "until God wills it should be so" just like I don't think there is much I can do about the IRS until the people of America are ready to abolish it.

I think Lee was wrong, slavery was a horrific atrocity and no man of good conscience should have stood by and let it continue...but who knows 150 years from now our ancestors may (hopefully!) say the same thing about income taxation. We have the luxury of hindsight that he did not have. A few brave men like John Brown and Frederick Douglass and the rest of the radical abolitionists were clearly in the right. I like to think that were I alive in the 1850's I would have been a radical abolitionist also, maybe even at John Brown's side during his raid on Harper's Ferry. US Army Colonel Robert E. Lee was the one who put down the John Brown planned slave uprising at Harper's Ferry, and I would like to have thought I would have been there with Brown, not Lee, so I am certainly not trying to glorify or make a hero out of Lee.

My primary point was that history is written by the victors, and the rights and wrongs of the Civil War were not as clear cut as so many believe. I do not at this point have my primary sources for Lee's feelings on slavery at hand, but I remember having read them in the past that Lee was a "soft abolitionist" (as opposed to a radical abolitionist) who opposed slavery in much the same way most of us today oppose the existence of the Income Tax and the IRS.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:

I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?

[jay_dub]

Oh, he surely was not a radical abolitionist, he simply believed that slavery should not exist and that it would eventually go extinct. He was an abolitionist nonetheless, even if he believed that slavery would not ultimately go away until God was good and ready for it to.

He sure as hell was no John Brown, and I never meant to imply that he was. My only point in bringing it up was that he believed that if 'all were right in the world' slavey should not exist, so he was not himself fighting to preserve slavery but rather the political system of individual and state sovereignty.

I don't believe that the IRS should exist, but if I go to war it won't be over the IRS but maybe FEMA Camps or some other atrocity. Lee believed that slavery should not exist in much the same way I currently believe the IRS should not exist. I'll state my opinion on the IRS as he did on slavery, but he didn't think there was much he could do about slavery "until God wills it should be so" just like I don't think there is much I can do about the IRS until the people of America are ready to abolish it.

I think Lee was wrong, slavery was a horrific atrocity and no man of good conscience should have stood by and let it continue...but who knows 150 years from now our ancestors may (hopefully!) say the same thing about income taxation. We have the luxury of hindsight that he did not have. A few brave men like John Brown and Frederick Douglass and the rest of the radical abolitionists were clearly in the right. I like to think that were I alive in the 1850's I would have been a radical abolitionist also, maybe even at John Brown's side during his raid on Harper's Ferry. US Army Colonel Robert E. Lee was the one who put down the John Brown planned slave uprising at Harper's Ferry, and I would like to have thought I would have been there with Brown, not Lee, so I am certainly not trying to glorify or make a hero out of Lee.

My primary point was that history is written by the victors, and the rights and wrongs of the Civil War were not as clear cut as so many believe. I do not at this point have my primary sources for Lee's feelings on slavery at hand, but I remember having read them in the past that Lee was a "soft abolitionist" (as opposed to a radical abolitionist) who opposed slavery in much the same way most of us today oppose the existence of the Income Tax and the IRS.

OK....thanks for clarifying at least how you perceive Lee.

It's impossible for us to go back in time and walk a mile in someone else's shoes, but I don't think there were many that were whole-heartedly pro-slavery in the way some think of it today. 'Slavery' was not some singular thing that wore the same face in all instances. Slavery was sometimes a man or two working your land with you where you all ate the same thing, sometimes at the same table. Sometimes it was a huge plantation with overseers that treated the slaves like farm animals. It was also every conceivable increment in between. The slave narratives recorded in the Depression gives a good view on the daily realities of slavery and is probably the most honest resource we have to study from.

Lee's personal experience with slavery was more on the genteel side of it rather than the harsher side of it, so his views were probably governed by what he saw. Most abolitionists painted slavery with the same broad brush to stir emotion.

I would use other analogies than the IRS or FEMA. There are much worse things that good people have allowed to happen. How about Hitler, a man elected by a people to lift their nation up after a disastrous aftermath to a war? People today look back and wonder how could they have allowed him to do those things he did? By the same token, I could ask how will future generations judge us in allowing the American Empire to rise up and run roughshod over much of the planet? Or, if the worst fears we have of the Elites running our societies into the ground should come to pass, how will our descendents look upon us? Will we be seen as morally wrong and complicit as any slave owner of 150 years ago? Time will tell.

To get back to the point of the OP, yes, I believe we would have been better off had the South won or if the war had not been fought. It seems that these discussions always get derailed with the issue of slavery, while ignoring the shredding of our Constitution that this war brought about. I see Abe Lincoln as the original Big Brother...the well which the over-bearing government we suffer with today sprang from. Slavery is the Red Herring that has become Big Government's best friend when we attempt to explore where this nation has gone wrong in our Liberty experiment. It's evident.....even on this 'Liberty' Forum. I find that ironic and sad at the same time. If we can't move past that here to get at the real heart of the matter, what chance does Liberty have?

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

Ted's seems chill. And his music is good. Should've endorsed Ron Paul.

[CaseyJones]

Ted's seems chill. And his music is good. Should've endorsed Ron Paul.

*facepalm*

[jmdrake]

There is no perfect parallel in comparing slavery in the US to slavery in other countries, so comparing compensation is a futile exercise. England is the only country I know of that compensated slave owners.


Okay. So you agree with my initial point. Which proves my subsequent point that you went off on a bunch of tangents. I did not say "The South is evil" or "the south was 100% wrong" or anything else like that. I was rebutting the argument that every country besides the U.S. ended slavery without a civil war. And actually even that isn't true. Haiti ended slavery through violent revolution.



It's a weak argument as it presupposes an unfair burden on one region of the country when any compensation could have come from federal monies. However, Lincoln did not make any overtures towards compensation until after the war had begun.


Lincoln wasn't president until secession. But that's besides the point anyway. The states he offered compensation to didn't rebel. If they weren't willing to accept what was offered then what makes you think anyone else would have?




I posted earlier about how some of the tariff money was expended. Since you must have missed it, here it is again.


Well, using the tariffs for compensated emancipation could have worked. If the southern senators had done their duty, stayed in the senate, blocked the Morill Tariff and made this proposal they may have avoided the civil war.



Some have said that it was the Southern senators resigning that allowed the Morill Tariff to pass. That is not so clear cut as it may seem, however. the Northern democrats were losing influence to the Republicans and could not be seen as opposing the Tariff. It is unlikely the Southern Senators would have been able to stop its passage.


Nonsense. The votes simply weren't there. The northern democrats were losing influence because they were losing elections. But this was between elections. There were enough votes to block the tariff and to push for some other kind of comprimise



OK...here's a few Ordinances of Secession.

South Carolina


South Carolina had already declared slavery as a major cause for secession in its declaration of secession.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.



Mississippi

AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of Mississippi and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."


Mississippi had already declared slavery as a major cause for secession in its declaration of secession.

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.




Florida

ORDINANCE OF SECESSION


I may grant you Florida because it's declaration of secession was never published. But it was drafted and slavery was prominent in it.

The nullification of these laws by the Legislatures of two thirds of the non slaveholding States important as it is in itself is additionally as is furnishing evidence of an open disregard of constitutional obligation, and of the rights and interests of the slaveholding States and of a deep and inveterate hostility to the people of these States.

The Congressional halls where the members should meet with fraternal feelings, a just regard for the interests of all the States there represented and respect for the feelings of all its members has been prostituted to the daily denunciation and vituperation of the slave holding States as sanctioning oppression robbery and all villainies, thus subjecting the members from these States to the degradation of gross and constantly repeated insults, and compelling the exclusion from our public press of the debates of our national Legislature or the circulation of the most incendiary matter.

By the agency of a large proportion of the members from the non slaveholding States books have been published and circulated amongst us the direct tendency and avowed purpose of which is to excite insurrection and servile war with all their attendant horrors. A President has recently been elected, an obscure and illiterate man without experience in public affairs or any general reputation mainly if not exclusively on account of a settled and often proclaimed hostility to our institutions and a fixed purpose to abolish them. It is denied that it is the purpose of the party soon to enter into the possession of the powers of the Federal Government to abolish slavery by any direct legislative act. This has never been charged by any one. But it has been announced by all the leading men and presses of the party that the ultimate accomplishment of this result is its settled purpose and great central principle. That no more slave States shall be admitted into the confederacy and that the slaves from their rapid increase (the highest evidence of the humanity of their owners will become value less. Nothing is more certain than this and at no distant day. What must be the condition of the slaves themselves when their number becomes so large that their labor will be of no value to their owners. Their natural tendency every where shown where the race has existed to idleness vagrancy and crime increased by an inability to procure subsistence. Can any thing be more impudently false than the pretense that this state of things is to be brought about from considerations of humanity to the slaves.

And don't forget how Florida came into existence. Andrew Jackson, the beloved southern president who threatened to hang South Carolinians back when tariffs were the only cause for rebellion, invaded Florida prior to becoming president to end anti slave raids by Florida Indians.



Most ordinances of Secession do not mention slavery. There are a couple that do, but most do not.


Dig a little deeper. Take the Arkansas ordinance of secession. It mentions a separate resolution that lists its "causes of complaint". I can't find the resolution, but here's a quote from the secession convention.

http://www.constitution.org/csa/ordinances_secession.htm#Arkansas

AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union now existing between the State of Arkansas and the other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."

Whereas, in addition to the well-founded causes of complaint set forth by this convention, in resolutions adopted on the 11th of March, A.D. 1861, against the sectional party now in power in Washington City, headed by Abraham Lincoln, he has, in the face of resolutions passed by this convention pledging the State of Arkansas to resist to the last extremity any attempt on the part of such power to coerce any State that had seceded from the old Union, proclaimed to the world that war should be waged against such States until they should be compelled to submit to their rule, and large forces to accomplish this have by this same power been called out, and are now being marshaled to carry out this inhuman design; and to longer submit to such rule, or remain in the old Union of the United States, would be disgraceful and ruinous to the State of Arkansas:[i]

http://civilwarcauses.org/quotes.htm
[i]Henry M. Rector, Governor of Arkansas, March 2, 1861, Arkansas Secession Convention, p. 4 "The area of slavery must be extended correlative with its antagonism, or it will be put speedily in the 'course of ultimate extinction.'....The extension of slavery is the vital point of the whole controversy between the North and the South...Amendments to the federal constitution are urged by some as a panacea for all the ills that beset us. That instrument is amply sufficient as it now stands, for the protection of Southern rights, if it was only enforced. The South wants practical evidence of good faith from the North, not mere paper agreements and compromises. They believe slavery a sin, we do not, and there lies the trouble."



No....what it speaks to is that some states were unwilling to make war on their countrymen.


Right. And some people within those states were unwilling to make war on the union. That's why the CSA had to institute a draft. And some regions in the south seceded from their fellow southern states and joined the union. Once hostilities start other beligerents are bound to jump in for their own separate reasons. I doubt that the people in North Alabama who seceded and joined the union were fighting for tariffs or slavery.




All answered.

Well you've answered my initial point by in effect saying I was right. ;) England, according to you, is the only country that successfully did compensated emancipation. Actually I'm sure there were probably other countries that did. Haiti ended slavery through a rebellion that was arguably more bloody than our own civil war. It's simply not as easy as saying "Well we should have just paid for the slaves and been done with it."

[Athan]

Sorry Athan, I'm the last person you want to give an order to.
Then go do it. See how successful you are. Sometimes experience is the best teacher.

[jay_dub]

Okay. So you agree with my initial point. Which proves my subsequent point that you went off on a bunch of tangents. I did not say "The South is evil" or "the south was 100% wrong" or anything else like that. I was rebutting the argument that every country besides the U.S. ended slavery without a civil war. And actually even that isn't true. Haiti ended slavery through violent revolution.

I only agree that there are no 2 countries with exact conditions regarding slavery and their government. I don't agree with your supposition that some undue burden would have been placed on one region versus the other.


Lincoln wasn't president until secession. But that's besides the point anyway. The states he offered compensation to didn't rebel. If they weren't willing to accept what was offered then what makes you think anyone else would have?

Also remember that there was no motivation to end slavery in the states that didn't secede. They were unaffected by the war as far as slavery goes and slavery was left intact for them. Even the later Emancipation Proclamation didn't affect those states loyal to Lincoln.


Well, using the tariffs for compensated emancipation could have worked. If the southern senators had done their duty, stayed in the senate, blocked the Morill Tariff and made this proposal they may have avoided the civil war.

So now it's all the Southern senators fault?


Nonsense. The votes simply weren't there. The northern democrats were losing influence because they were losing elections. But this was between elections. There were enough votes to block the tariff and to push for some other kind of comprimise

I think the info I posted earlier belies that. Besides, Senators were not elected by popular vote at that time.



South Carolina had already declared slavery as a major cause for secession in its declaration of secession.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.



Mississippi had already declared slavery as a major cause for secession in its declaration of secession.

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.




I may grant you Florida because it's declaration of secession was never published. But it was drafted and slavery was prominent in it.

The nullification of these laws by the Legislatures of two thirds of the non slaveholding States important as it is in itself is additionally as is furnishing evidence of an open disregard of constitutional obligation, and of the rights and interests of the slaveholding States and of a deep and inveterate hostility to the people of these States.

The Congressional halls where the members should meet with fraternal feelings, a just regard for the interests of all the States there represented and respect for the feelings of all its members has been prostituted to the daily denunciation and vituperation of the slave holding States as sanctioning oppression robbery and all villainies, thus subjecting the members from these States to the degradation of gross and constantly repeated insults, and compelling the exclusion from our public press of the debates of our national Legislature or the circulation of the most incendiary matter.

By the agency of a large proportion of the members from the non slaveholding States books have been published and circulated amongst us the direct tendency and avowed purpose of which is to excite insurrection and servile war with all their attendant horrors. A President has recently been elected, an obscure and illiterate man without experience in public affairs or any general reputation mainly if not exclusively on account of a settled and often proclaimed hostility to our institutions and a fixed purpose to abolish them. It is denied that it is the purpose of the party soon to enter into the possession of the powers of the Federal Government to abolish slavery by any direct legislative act. This has never been charged by any one. But it has been announced by all the leading men and presses of the party that the ultimate accomplishment of this result is its settled purpose and great central principle. That no more slave States shall be admitted into the confederacy and that the slaves from their rapid increase (the highest evidence of the humanity of their owners will become value less. Nothing is more certain than this and at no distant day. What must be the condition of the slaves themselves when their number becomes so large that their labor will be of no value to their owners. Their natural tendency every where shown where the race has existed to idleness vagrancy and crime increased by an inability to procure subsistence. Can any thing be more impudently false than the pretense that this state of things is to be brought about from considerations of humanity to the slaves.

And don't forget how Florida came into existence. Andrew Jackson, the beloved southern president who threatened to hang South Carolinians back when tariffs were the only cause for rebellion, invaded Florida prior to becoming president to end anti slave raids by Florida Indians.



Dig a little deeper. Take the Arkansas ordinance of secession. It mentions a separate resolution that lists its "causes of complaint". I can't find the resolution, but here's a quote from the secession convention.

http://www.constitution.org/csa/ordinances_secession.htm#Arkansas

AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union now existing between the State of Arkansas and the other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."

Whereas, in addition to the well-founded causes of complaint set forth by this convention, in resolutions adopted on the 11th of March, A.D. 1861, against the sectional party now in power in Washington City, headed by Abraham Lincoln, he has, in the face of resolutions passed by this convention pledging the State of Arkansas to resist to the last extremity any attempt on the part of such power to coerce any State that had seceded from the old Union, proclaimed to the world that war should be waged against such States until they should be compelled to submit to their rule, and large forces to accomplish this have by this same power been called out, and are now being marshaled to carry out this inhuman design; and to longer submit to such rule, or remain in the old Union of the United States, would be disgraceful and ruinous to the State of Arkansas:[i]

http://civilwarcauses.org/quotes.htm
[i]Henry M. Rector, Governor of Arkansas, March 2, 1861, Arkansas Secession Convention, p. 4 "The area of slavery must be extended correlative with its antagonism, or it will be put speedily in the 'course of ultimate extinction.'....The extension of slavery is the vital point of the whole controversy between the North and the South...Amendments to the federal constitution are urged by some as a panacea for all the ills that beset us. That instrument is amply sufficient as it now stands, for the protection of Southern rights, if it was only enforced. The South wants practical evidence of good faith from the North, not mere paper agreements and compromises. They believe slavery a sin, we do not, and there lies the trouble."

What you said was that ALL Ordinances of Secession listed slavery. I posted 3 that shows that's not true. You are obviously confusing Declarations Of Causes For Secession with the actual Ordinances Of Secession.

I posted earlier some bits from Northern newspapers that illustrate the feeling in the North regarding secession. Here they are again.

As the North American Review (Boston October 1862) put it: "Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation".

On 18 March, the Boston Transcript noted that while the Southern states had claimed to secede over the slavery issue, now "the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."


Right. And some people within those states were unwilling to make war on the union. That's why the CSA had to institute a draft. And some regions in the south seceded from their fellow southern states and joined the union. Once hostilities start other beligerents are bound to jump in for their own separate reasons. I doubt that the people in North Alabama who seceded and joined the union were fighting for tariffs or slavery.

No, not all Southerners wanted to secede, just as not all Northerners were against their secession. There were Northerners who fought for the South, just as some Southerners wee loyal to the Union. Kentucky is a good example of a state with divided loyalties. Actually, in the South, many men freely joined their State Militias before there was an official Confederate Army. That is what happened in the case of my ancestors. They were then folded into the Confederate army upon its institution. I'm not really sure why you keep making a point about the South and the draft. Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to fight the South. Also, there was the famous case of the draft riots of 1863 in New York. I see no reason to belabor the issue of a draft.


Well you've answered my initial point by in effect saying I was right. ;) England, according to you, is the only country that successfully did compensated emancipation. Actually I'm sure there were probably other countries that did. Haiti ended slavery through a rebellion that was arguably more bloody than our own civil war. It's simply not as easy as saying "Well we should have just paid for the slaves and been done with it."

I never said we should have just paid for the slaves and been done with it. I only said HOW it could have been done and that it would not have been an unfair burden on the North. If you dig into it, you will find that there was little support for freeing the slaves because most people wanted to keep them bottled up in the South. The Black Codes were written for that purpose as were the Exclusion Laws of Oregon, which actually enshrined them in their Constitution.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oregon passed exclusion laws against African Americans twice during the 1840s, considered another law in the 1850s, and in 1857 approved an exclusion clause as part of its constitution. Exclusion laws were also passed in Indiana and Illinois and considered in Ohio, but Oregon was the only free state admitted to the Union with an exclusion clause in its constitution.

The first exclusion law was passed in 1844 by the Provisional Government of Oregon, the temporary governing political structure set up by the first American settlers to reach the region over the Oregon Trail. This first law included a ban on slavery and a requirement that slaveowners free their slaves. African Americans who remained in Oregon after their freedom was granted, however, would be whip-lashed and expelled. If they were caught again in the Territory within six months, the punishment would be repeated. This law was amended to substitute hard labor for whiplashing, and was repealed in 1845, before it could take effect.

In 1849 another exclusion law was passed. This one allowed black residents already in Oregon to remain, but banned further African American in-migration. Ship owners were responsible for their black crew members and could be fined $500 if the crew member jumped ship and remained in Oregon. In this second version, African Americans would be arrested and then ordered to leave. This law was in effect until 1854, when, in a general housekeeping act, it was repealed. Later attempts to reintroduce it suggest that this repeal was accidental.

In 1857, when a constitution was written in anticipation of statehood, a third exclusion clause was inserted, prohibiting new in-migration of African Americans, as well as making illegal their ownership of real estate and entering into contracts. They were also denied the right to sue in court. This clause, Article 1 Section 35, was subject to popular vote, as was the adoption of a ban on slavery and the entire constitution. The exclusion clause received more popular votes than the approval of the constitution or the ban on slavery. Although enabling legislation was never passed and the clause was voided by the14th and 15th Amendments passed after the Civil War, the ban remained a part of Oregon’s constitution until it was finally repealed in 1927.

http://www.blackpast.org/?q=perspectives/black-laws-oregon-1844-1857

[CaptainAmerica]

Obviously the answer is no and only for 1 reason. The south placed a permanent slavery amendment in their founding documents and that pretty much sealed their fate.

[jay_dub]

Obviously the answer is no and only for 1 reason. The south placed a permanent slavery amendment in their founding documents and that pretty much sealed their fate.

How do you come to that conclusion?

From Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural Address....

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.


Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

[Anti Federalist]

bump

[enhanced_deficit]

To b fair, some of his views seem quite controversial though:



“By the late 60s, the 70s, I couldn’t find racism. I never saw racism. I never heard of racism. I thought it was a thing of the past in isolated pockets of inbreeding and cannibalism and spiritlessness.”

Nuge remembered growing up in Detroit, where he was surrounded by mostly black musicians during the Motown era. He says that he never judged people by color, he judged by “spirit and soul,” and others did the same, regardless of race.
But once Obama started injecting race into issues for his own political reasons, Nugent saw the real face of racism. Nuge recalled the controversy early in Obama’s first term, surrounding the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, who is black, by a white police officer — where Obama, before he had any facts — wrongly accused the (White) police of “acting stupidly.”
Ted then blasted Obama’s disgraceful gas-pouring ” If I had a son” comment about Trayvon Martin.
Ted delved into just why Obama taking ownership of Trayvon Martin as a “son” was so disturbing. Why would you want to say that someone who did drugs, got in fights and attacked a community watchman could be your “son”?




http://thepoliticalinsider.com/ted-nugent-blasts-barack-and-michelle-obama-for-racism/

[Ender]

To b fair, some of his views seem quite controversial though:



http://thepoliticalinsider.com/ted-nugent-blasts-barack-and-michelle-obama-for-racism/

Nugent's fulla crap in that quote- there's been plenty of racism going on much of it perpetuated by such slimes as LBJ and other PTB. And I don't even want to get into Trayvon, so don't go there, but that is also a bunch of crap.

[shakey1]

Hey cavalier, how ya doin? That was the main point in my posting this. Discussion of how things might have been different if the South had won their independence. Didn't really mean for it to be about terrible Teddy.

... an innaresting notion indeed.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeZFPcoQr0k