Were any of those other countries really set up like the United States, though? Some of them just had nominal slave populations, other South American countries had a lot more. But if everything is decided at the federal level the conflict the USA had doesn’t exist.
The war was stupid and unnecessary because there isn’t a likely path to victory for the South anyway. The North was sick of dealing with the fugitive slave issues and that’s not going away even if you let the South walk away peacefully. Fugitive slaves were a cost that the South was pushing onto the rest of the USA and in effect the world, that’s what made slavery continuing more or less impossible.
Umm, how exactly do you avoid that war when the very notion of outlawing slavery led to the South start a stupid and unnecessary war to preserve the institution of slavery???
The war was stupid and unnecessary from the perspective of the South because they couldn’t win IMO. From the North’s perspective, it was stupid but necessary because at least the North gained something, getting rid of fugitive slave issues and associated costs that the South was pushing on the North.
I think the issue that is danced around, is kind of a tautology or circular argument. Prior to the civil war, the right of states to secede wasn’t in question, and the Confederate states allowed it, they were open to admitting non-slave states. The south goes their own way. There’s a new country. Is that a good thing, is that a bad thing, that isn’t really the point.
I think some historians want to posit there were only two possible outcomes. It seems reasonable to conclude though, that slavery would have (eventually) ended, as it did every where else, and the chief difference is there are three major countries north of the Rio Grande instead of just two.
The real question is what world history would have looked like in the ensuing decades, and whether the US would have risen to such a high station in world affairs.
That’s not what you’ve been saying. You’ve been saying that soldiers who fight in a civil war on the losing side should be treated like ordinary criminals and charged with murder. That is not what historically happens.
No, that’s not correct. Prior to the civil war, there was not a general consensus that secession was legal. Claiming this was true was one of the post-war myths that the Lost Cause movement promoted. When the subject of secession arose before 1860, most people said it would be illegal.
The Confederate states were not open to non-slave holding states joining their country. There was a movement in some northern states with strong commercial ties to the south to break away from the United States and join the Confederacy. While this movement didn’t have widespread support among the populations of these states, it did get enough attention that the Confederate government issued an official response. They said that states that didn’t allow slavery would not be permitted to join the Confederacy.
Claiming that the cause was states rights was another post-war Lost Cause myth. During the war, Confederates openly acknowledged their country was based on keeping slavery legal.
Sure it’s correct. See the earlier post with numerous NE states threatening secession. I’m not arguing it was a good idea. Lincoln even invited the western counties in Virginia to secede, and they formed a new state! West Virginia ring a bell?
Lincoln was OK with slavery, he very publicly said so. Apparently what he was not OK with was losing 90% of the federal revenue coming in from import Tariffs out of New Orleans and Charleston harbor. Keep in mind there was no income tax or sales tax.
The Charleston Mercury wrote: *“*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.”
Charles Dickens wrote: “The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.”
And Karl Marx, as only he could, put it this way: “The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power.”
I certainly am not advocating a position here, just pointing out the right to secede was the cornerstone of the Confederacy, they cited the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson, Lincoln, et al, gave lip service to it. Except, when somebody actually did it. And it’s clear why. Money.
When have I cited a crime of “murder”? It’s treason, based on the definition provided within the constitution. When have I wavered on that?
You claim that it’s not fair to claim treason, since these combatants declared their independence. I’m saying that, fair or not, that’s how the U.S. would interpret the act.
And around and around we go. Were the colonists treasonous for declaring their independence from Great Britain? The King of England certainly seemed to think so. They put all those guys on our currency and coinage now.
Agreed. And if they had lost, do you think they would have been given a pass by the crown?
Treason depends on how well your revolution goes. If you win, and write the narrative, it’s not treason. But if you lose, you don’t really get to claim that it’s unfair if the country prosecutes you for that crime.
Am I reading this correctly as you claiming that the Confederacy allowed states to secede from it? Because that was most certainly not the case, see post 143; the fact that the Confederacy which created itself via secession didn’t allow member states the right to secede was rather telling of what it was all about, the right to slavery.
The Confederate Constitution was much like the Union one, with these differences:
The Confederate President could serve only one, six-year term.
It outlawed protectionist tariffs and permitted nullification and secession.
It outlawed government subsidies for “internal improvements,” except for dredging harbors.
Congressional appropriations required approval by a two-thirds majority vote.
It lacked plans for a central bank, especially not one under the control of politicians.
Prohibited the importation of slaves, and each state could unilaterally free its slaves when it so chose.
Non-slave states could join the Confederacy.
How would that be any different than the United States government not allowing secession? Isn’t that “telling” too? It was created through secession, right?
I’m not taking a position here, just pointing out governments or factions seem to hold a decided “It’s OK when we do it” kind of philosophy. We’re not supposed to notice, I guess.
In addition to the words of the Confederate leaders themselves, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 demonstrates that Southern white politicians didn’t actually care about the concept of “states’ rights” except when its infringement harmed their own interests. They had absolutely no problem with advocating for (and achieving) a clear infringement upon Northern states’ rights when it served their interests of maintaining and strengthening slavery.
Embrace the power of “And”! The error here is trying to make it some sort of duality, or binary either or thing. Classic logical fallacy.
Yeah, all those slaveholders wanted to keep their “property”. That isn’t the point, they believed they were justified in secession, because the Declaration said it’s all groovy.
What I’m talking about, is the fact that Lincoln was willing to allow slavery to continue, in order to keep the Union together. What led up to the war, the machinations they proposed - including enshrining slavery as a constitutional amendment - is quite a bit different than what I was taught in school.
One can be forgiven at this late date for a sneaking suspicion that these guys didn’t care about slavery, they cared about Import Tariffs. Ain’t that grand?
The Confederacy started the war. They fired the first shots, attacking United States soldiers and military property. It’s extremely clear from both the statements and actions of Southern leaders at the time that they started the Civil War in order to preserve slavery. That was their motive, factually speaking, based on all the evidence from the time.