Works for me as far as it goes. And the only hope for the Union was to go to war.
Aloha
Nope. The only difference is that instead of a civil war, you have a war between two sovereign states over borders, trade, and westward expansion. The plains becomes the first battleground–a continuation of Bloody Kansas, but with both nations’ regular armies engaged.
The Confederacy would not be constrained, and neither would the Union… and both would have equal claim to the Plains, the Rockies, and the Pacific West.
Concession would delay the war by, at most, a dozen years.
I imagine that in some parallel universe, the South realized it was being incredibly racist, apologized, and let them all go with compensation
Yeah, how about all the billions of dollars for a hypothetical government slave buyout go to the freed slaves, rather than the slavemasters?
I think hanging John Calhoun may have worked.
And Capt. Kirk I agree with iiandyiiii. By coincindence, I’m reading Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals. Heres a quote describing the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in which the antislavery minority of Congress “was crushed”:
Sure, the vast majority of Northerners were racist and many didn’t want to grant equal rights, much less let a black man marry their daughters, but that doesn’t mean they liked slavery. Many hated it. In one of Bruce Catton’s books, he quotes a Yankee soldier who said he felt like he went to a different country when he fought in the South. I might note that I’ve lived most of my life in Indiana and there is still a great deal of racism here. For many Hoosiers to sign petitions in 1854 means a deep and abiding hatred of the peculiar institution.
The American Civil War is one of those great events that does have a simple cause. It was all about slavery.
I’m sure the Southern Colonels could get behind that. Great idea.
That’s a good point that I hadn’t considered: even if the South had been allowed to secede there probably would have been fighting over the territories. California, though, was a Free State in 1850 which puts a hard stop on western advancement.
OK, so, if I disagree with you, I don’t think black people’s opinions don’t count? This has a very mature ring to it.
But, for a historical context, black people’s opinions didn’t count overly much when the secession votes were taken.
Hie thee home, and stop getting in over your head.
This is a different way of saying that the South should have asked permission to secede. How does one negotiate a secession? And, they didn’t shoot their way out-they had already seceded. They then demanded the surrender of the soldiers of the fort, as trespassers.
If somebody plants something on my property, and I tell them to get the hell off, am I a thief? Also, it wasn’t the kind benificiences of the government that paid for the fort-till then, the South had to pony up a bit of tax money themselves, I suspect. Remember, that till ‘Secession’, the South had been a part of the Republic, with equal shares of rights and responsibilities. Withdrawing and taking Sumter was part and parcel of the whole point of secession-“**We **are the masters of our state…”
Which is why it’s ridiculous to talk about “popular will” or the reasons for the Declaration of Independence when discussing secession. It was only popular will if you ignore the will of millions of people.
Says the guy who, when discussing the reasons for the South’s attempted secession, ignores the stated reasons from southern states and the frickin’ VP of the Confedracy.
Fort Sumter was a US Army fort, built on an island that the South Carolina Legislature had given the US government, and built, using US government funds, with granite from New England. In what sense did it belong to the state of South Carolina? The only way it does is if South Carolina is able to unilaterally decide that all federal property in the state belongs to them (which is what they did). So, how is that not theft?
You don’t need the qualifier unless you’re trying to mollify neo-Confeds.
A rational interpretation would be hard-pressed to find ANY root cause for the war that does not stem from slavery, unless you’re going to posit some absolute “right to self-determination” that includes gross human abuse.
Not every single reason is slavery by itself; I’ve never heard a good argument that did not rest on some aspect of slavery, a slave-based economy, slaves as personal property and wealth, etc. No matter how much you churn it, it’s slavery all the way down.
I thought it was the Pacific ocean that put a hard stop on western advancement.
Try telling that to the Hawaiians or the Filipinos 
Aloha
Touché. 
While it isn’t well-publicized, Northern banks, industrialists, textile manufacturers, shippers, smugglers and slave traders, were quite happy to sell slaves and textiles, arms and other manufactures to the South and receive in return cotton, rum and shipping costs.
There’s no it escaping folks. The South was founded as a Union colony, a banana republic. The corrupt Union oligarchies supported the corrupt Confederate oligarchies for sixty years primarily with the 3/5 rule, giving slaves the right to vote as their masters did. Indeed, in the early days of the Republic, the South, united behind leisure and profit built on slavery, was easily a match for a confederation of Union financial powers, competing among themselves.
But as slavery fell into disfavor during the first half of the 19th century, the game changed. The South seceded, the Northern military intervened and Northern capitalists (and a few in the South) found more profit in war than in uneasy peace.
And, the longer the war, the better. Years of Northern military “incompetency” prolonged the war to the point where nothing but the total destruction of the Southern infrastructure would do, hence Sherman.
The North picked up the pieces at firesale prices and with the end of reconstruction allowed the South to maintain American Apartheid unmolested for 60 years. It was only in the 1950’s that the USG began to turn around on civil rights. Conveniently, it happened just as the blacks were becoming consumers of note. So the world turns.
Aloha
Gosh, you… you mean there was TRADE between the northern and southern states? I can see how that led to a war.
I’d like some details about what you consider “the north selling slaves to the south,” though, as the slave trade had been abolished almost 50 years earlier.
You cold ask the Scots, or the Québécois. Although their independence movements have not, as yet, succeeded, they’ve both used the existing democratic political structures to push the issue.
If you gave them permission to put it there in the first place, yes. Yes you are.
Yes, I’m sure they did. So what? All that means is, at best, they didn’t have to pay back the full value of the fort, just the amount provided by the twenty-three states remaining as part of the US.
I agree entirely: you cannot separate the unmitigated banditry of the Southern States from the cause of secession, no more than you can disentangled slavery.