Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
If you read about Reconstruction the white southerns were victims of northern oppressors.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. I don't think anyone here is painting northern participation in Reconstruction as saintly. I think you can definitively that the South had an economic interest in maintaining white supremacy before the CW and had difficult adjusting afterwards. I think you can say the north had similar problems associated with racism and botched several governmental issues involving Reconstruction. The Mason-Dixon line didn't separate saints from villains.
I think you need to explain your position more plainly. Are you saying the Civil War wasn't worth it when you consider what happened afterward? And if you're saying that, how do you suppose slavery would have ended? It's not like the north had ever considered the ending of slavery negotiable. Even the expansion of slavery was a serious cause of heated discussion and bloodshed in Kansas.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. I don't think anyone here is painting northern participation in Reconstruction as saintly. I think you can definitively that the South had an economic interest in maintaining white supremacy before the CW and had difficult adjusting afterwards. I think you can say the north had similar problems associated with racism and botched several governmental issues involving Reconstruction. The Mason-Dixon line didn't separate saints from villains.
I think you need to explain your position more plainly. Are you saying the Civil War wasn't worth it when you consider what happened afterward? And if you're saying that, how do you suppose slavery would have ended? It's not like the north had ever considered the ending of slavery negotiable. Even the expansion of slavery was a serious cause of heated discussion and bloodshed in Kansas.
Jpete,
I believe the CW was unavoidable for a merriment of reasons but the CW like most wars fought for some noble cause, it didn't achieve its' noble goal.
I would argue:
Had the south known it could still achieve it economic interest through segregation and Apartheid, would it have still chosen its path toward war?
If the south had chosen to end slavery and replace it with segregation and apartheid, would the north have interfered?
If the south had been wise and choose Apartheid it would have defuse all the issues of the day in the 1860's?
If the south had chosen segregation and Apartheid over war, it would have taken same 100 years for Black America to achieve justice.
There was a third way for the south to avoid the war but; it took the war for the south to find it, by then the war had destroyed their economy.
I believe the CW was unavoidable for a merriment of reasons but the CW like most wars fought for some noble cause, it didn't achieve its' noble goal.
Very good. Thanks for the response. I'm not sure how to approach that comment, but I agree it was unavoidable.
Quote:
I would argue:
Had the south known it could still achieve it economic interest through segregation and Apartheid, would it have still chosen its path toward war?
So much antagonism had been going on for so long, I'm not sure how much of those decisions were "chosen." I think that's probably unanswerable.
Quote:
If the south had chosen to end slavery and replace it with segregation and apartheid, would the north have interfered?
Absolutely not. I think that north, sadly, would have been completely happy with segregation in 1860 and would have easily have chosen that possibility to war.
Quote:
If the south had been wise and choose Apartheid it would have defuse all the issues of the day in the 1860's?
Not all, but I suspect it might have avoided war. I don't say this with absolute certainty though.
Quote:
If the south had chosen segregation and Apartheid over war, it would have taken same 100 years for Black America to achieve justice.
That's an interesting question. I think that's unanswerable.
Quote:
There was a third way for the south to avoid the war but; it took the war for the south to find it, by then the war had destroyed their economy.
I think the south understood institutional slavery as a bottom line profit margin. If you're implying that the South could have eliminated slavery for apartheid, I doubt they would have been willing to do that. It would eventually mean a loss of revenue and a way of life.
I said Institutional slavery was an economic product defended by the south prior to the CW.
I never said segregation and racism was the "fault" of anything or anybody. In fact, I said it was inherent in the national mind-set and it has taken well over 100 years to grow to the point of national open discussion.
And when did racism become a part of the equation?
And when was racism seen as a massive problem? What years? Before, during, or after the war?
Before, during, or after the Confederacy and slavery?
And what was the "union" government doing about it, besides forcing a lot of things which did little or nothing
to help the situation?
And where, exactly, did the KLAN come from?
And when?
And why?
Now are you beginning to see the problem?
And why has it taken a hundred years after the Confederate flags came down to 'discuss' this?
Southern slavery, because it cannot answer for itself, is seen as the catalyst for all of racism...
If the south had chosen segregation and Apartheid over war, it would have taken same 100 years for Black America to achieve justice.
Did you mean "the same 100 years"? Or did you intend to type "some"?
Although Black America has a legal right to justice, I'm not certain it has the justice it is entitled to. And it did take 100 years.
But southern society would not abandon the peculiar institution voluntarily, and it would not have been forced to. For fear of the loss, it chose a remedy that more certainly led to war; it rebelled.
I'm convinced that, had there been no secession and no war, slavery would have died (incoming!) away in about 50 years. Then there would be "apartheid" for another 50. So without war, there would be official justice around 1965. With the war, there would be official justice around 1965. Does this speculation mean that the devastaion of half the country accomplished nothing?
Just a thought.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Okay. Fine. Let's see it YOUR WAY, for just a moment!
Let's see it from this Northern slant:
You claim that the North, after years of bending over backwards to accommodate the degenerate South, and
their racial hatreds (I cannot believe I am typing this!), finally gave up on the South, and forced them to free their slaves at bayonet point!
And you did it all to preserve the nation! How gloriously NOBLE of you!
Okay. If we accept this premise, then you have to accept the responsibility for your actions in this, as well.
The North was just as guilty of slavery, Jim Crow, or anything else before and after the war.
Before the war, the North were the slave traders.
After the war, they were the ruling empire of the Federal government. The 14th amendment and other laws were placed into practice to solidify this power, and it was so.
The Federal government was now superior to the states.
No Southerners, either controlled by Liberal puppet governments or centrist 'Conservative' platforms
(today known as Republicans) could have done anything
without Federal approval.
Thus, any and all implied 'racism', coming from the destruction of the institution of slavery, is the fault of the conquerors from the 'victory' over slavery in 1865.
The Legacy of the Republican Liberals:
Eight of the next nine presidents after Lincoln, were all high ranking yankees in the civil war. (save for Grover Cleveland, twice, a Conservative who hired someone to be in the yankee army in his place). All of them were Liberals.
When the so-called Democrats came back into power, they were no longer Southern block Conservative Democrats, but (around Woodrow Wilson), became Liberal Democrats.
These collectivists have ruled, as a force, since Grant!
Only briefly (Eisenhower, and Reagan, most notably) have any Confederate-esque minded presidents come to power... Not any real Conservatives, at all; only Liberals and Centrists have been elected.
So, where again, does the problem with racism lie? With the party which is supposed to be helping these people?
Seems to me, there should be no complaints at all since 1865! After all, the Confederacy was no more! The Union was of one mind! And the true Conservative party had been all but annihilated off the face of the earth!
So, there should be no complaints, any longer! At least, not with the "Unionists"!
After running things for 150 years, the Conquerors of Appomattox should have a pretty good handle on things, yes?
Beowulf
Beowulfie,
Your presidencial knowledge is as offal as your knowledge of Celtic and Southern history but; creatively offal and cute to read.
Remember, lets say from 1876 to 1900 was called the Gilded age where conservative business interest control the politics of the day.
The presidents in your diatribe was referring to were bought an own by the masters of the Gilded age and these Gilded age masters were not liberals.
The nearest President back then to a liberal was Teddy at best and segregation was not on his to do list.
As conservatives like to joke: On one knew Black America existed until Eleanor Roosevelt discovered Black America.
For being a bellowing conservative Beowulfie, you do not know your liberal presidents form the conservative presidents.
Your presidencial knowledge is as offal as your knowledge of Celtic and Southern history but; creatively offal and cute to read.
Remember, lets say from 1876 to 1900 was called the Gilded age where conservative business interest control the politics of the day.
The presidents in your diatribe was referring to were bought an own by the masters of the Gilded age and these Gilded age masters were not liberals.
The nearest President back then to a liberal was Teddy at best and segregation was not on his to do list.
As conservatives like to joke: On one knew Black America existed until Eleanor Roosevelt discovered Black America.
For being a bellowing conservative Beowulfie, you do not know your liberal presidents form the conservative presidents.
Enjoy your slanted view of the world!
8 of the next 9 after Lincoln were not Republican Liberals?
Not high-ranking yankees in the Civil War? Not collectivists, most of whom were badgered by corruption and et cetera?
Could you tell me which ones I was wrong about? Grover Cleveland being the one 'Conservative' exception... and I don't think Garfield was ever actually in a uniform... but yanks all!
And I think all of them could have qualified to have been
affected by Tenskatawa's supposed ZERO-YEAR CURSE...
had they been elected in a zero year, a la Harrison.
I'll explain.
You recall Tenskatawa, brother of Tecumseh, who placed a curse upon Harrison (Whig Liberal) who died after like a month in office? Harrison had apparently lied to these people, and so this indian calls out the heap-big medicine curse, and
lays a big one on the old boy...
And the myth of the zero-year curse was born...
Only it wasn't a zero-year curse, because both Reagan and Bush have beaten it!
Why was Reagan able to beat the curse? And Bush?
They were NOT LIBERALS! This is the difference. Liberals elected in a zero year have died while in office! This slight modification of the curse has not been noticed until Reagan! So the curse must have been for 'whigs' while
'in office' on 'zero year' elections...
Four Liberals have been shot to death while in office. Zero years figure in many of these instances of deaths while in office... Reagan and Ford, both Conservatives, have both survived attempts on their lives while in office. A Conservative has never been assassinated in this country.
And, so to bed. I was moving about and sleepless until that, Beowulf. Thanks.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Very good. Thanks for the response. I'm not sure how to approach that comment, but I agree it was unavoidable.
So much antagonism had been going on for so long, I'm not sure how much of those decisions were "chosen." I think that's probably unanswerable.
Absolutely not. I think that north, sadly, would have been completely happy with segregation in 1860 and would have easily have chosen that possibility to war.
Not all, but I suspect it might have avoided war. I don't say this with absolute certainty though.
That's an interesting question. I think that's unanswerable.
I think the south understood institutional slavery as a bottom line profit margin. If you're implying that the South could have eliminated slavery for apartheid, I doubt they would have been willing to do that. It would eventually mean a loss of revenue and a way of life.
Just my opinion.
Jpete,
I agree the north would have accepted Apartheid type solution to the slavery issues of the late 1859 to the calls for secession.
The Southern slave owners thinking a slaves gave them economic wealth and social status had a false perception of their wealth. Their true wealth can from the control of labor not owning slaves.
Apartheid is about the controlling a cheap labor force.
Southern slave interest could only understand that it was not slavery but the control of a cheap labor force would insure their wealth. It could have changed the slavery debate and maybe have avoided the CW.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
