If the CSA had succeeded?

[SpiritofPickett]

....I wish they'd won.

Could've banned Ole from anywhere Sunny then,

[ole]

Fortunately, SpiritofCurlylocks, my tiny piece of the world enjoys sun much more than half the year. (How is it in your neighborhood?) I have no need to seek sun elsewhere. If I were hankering for bugs, fire ants, and sand in my shorts, I might feel restricted.
Ole

[larry_cockerham]

Had the Confederate States formed a nation, it would have been just a matter of time until the yankees came south seeking sun and cheap cigarettes, hence telling us what to do all over again. Unity would have been achieved and the corruption in government would have lived on.

[ole]

Had the Confederate States formed a nation, it would have been just a matter of time until the yankees came south seeking sun and cheap cigarettes, hence telling us what to do all over again. Unity would have been achieved and the corruption in government would have lived on.

Larry. You are such a silly. The sun and the cheap cigarettes would have long since been under the control of greedy northern interests. Friendly advice. Skip the grits; concentrate on country ham and home friesl
Ole

[SpiritofPickett]

Having secured our Northern borders, move west, annexe Nevada and corner the ****** market.

Then onto California, to save it from Austrian domination in the 20th and 21st centuries.

P.S. Ole, not much sun here.that's why all us English pop down to Florida!

[Thomas29ID]

Originally Posted by ole

The CS government was not created for the benefit of southerners. If it had been, it wouldn't have kicked off a war.

How did any southerner "kick off a war"?? (and please dont say "fired the first shots at sumpter" -- the war was going on long before this... I think it is fair to say that both sides we responsible for the start of everything.

Originally Posted by ole

Southern state legislatures were monopolized by slaveholders, as was the CS Legislature. Everything the states had done up to secession was for the benefit of the existing powers and virtually none for the common good. More of these people could have much more comfortable if there had been roads and commerce. By 1860 (so I've read) there was no Ohioan more than 25 miles from a railroad.

This puzzles me a little that you would bring up an antebellum statistic in this convo. Of course southerners wanted roads, wanted commerce, wanted railroads; we have already alluded that southrons we not stupid. Wouldn't even a slaveholder that allegedly had a monopoly on CS Legislature benefit from such a thing?? I guess the point I'm making is that in an antebellum sense couldn't a southerner feel that he isn't being taken care of by his federal govt as well as his northern counterpart has been? You've already admitted (and I believe it is well known) the early connection of railroads and the govt. Now keep in mind if you tell me these powers were controlled mostly by the state govt. in antebellum times then I'm going to have to say this is a point in the states power = states rights = right to secede (which I obviously already feel in their time was constitutional.

Originally Posted by ole

The real political power in the South was not interested in commerce beyond their own little corner of it. No industries to offer opportunity for the laborer, no way to market farm goods (suppressing any desire to produce more than what might be consumed locally), nothing for anyone but the planter class.

I feel this is very naive Naïve statement. Everyone in the 19th century knew that "commerce beyond their own little corner" was the name of the game! Thus all the cotton bailed waiting on the docks for european ships! What good was all that cotton if it wasn't traded/sold? -- Industries? Of course they wanted industries...unfortunetely the North was monopolizing all the industries; I think a successful secession would have greatly influence industry in the south!

I feel like everything you said in your last post is based on pre-war establishments. Your hypothesis of post-war is that things would continue down that same path. I want to conclude that a new country would open new doors for such things as industry, a centralized govt for southern states, rather originally controlled by the planter class or not, would see the benefits of all these things you mentioned for the common good and legislate accordingly.

(by the way ole, I'm enjoying this convo...appreciate it)

(tommy)

[ole]

How did any southerner "kick off a war"?? (and please dont say "fired the first shots at sumpter" -- the war was going on long before this... I think it is fair to say that both sides we responsible for the start of everything.

I'll agree that hard-heads on both sides were responsible, however, without Sumter, there may have been no shooting war.

This puzzles me a little that you would bring up an antebellum statistic in this convo.

Just verifying the spots on the leopard.

Of course southerners wanted roads, wanted commerce, wanted railroads; we have already alluded that southrons we not stupid. Wouldn't even a slaveholder that allegedly had a monopoly on CS Legislature benefit from such a thing??

If it was in his interest, it would have been there.

I guess the point I'm making is that in an antebellum sense couldn't a southerner feel that he isn't being taken care of by his federal govt as well as his northern counterpart has been? You've already admitted (and I believe it is well known) the early connection of railroads and the govt.

He could feel that way, and shout it from the steeples, but it remains that he could have had the same if he'd wanted it.

Now keep in mind if you tell me these powers were controlled mostly by the state govt. in antebellum times then I'm going to have to say this is a point in the states power = states rights = right to secede (which I obviously already feel in their time was constitutional).

State responsibilities and powers in no way include a right to secede. This has been hashed out endlessly on other threads.

I feel this is very naive Naïve statement. Everyone in the 19th century knew that "commerce beyond their own little corner" was the name of the game! Thus all the cotton bailed waiting on the docks for european ships! What good was all that cotton if it wasn't traded/sold? -- Industries? Of course they wanted industries...unfortunetely the North was monopolizing all the industries; I think a successful secession would have greatly influence industry in the south!

How was the north keeping the south from starting its own industries? Were the mills in the north standing in the way of mills in the south? (There were mills in the south and some of them were quite successful.) It remains that the south had about 50,000 factory workers -- the north had that many factories. A successful secession would have required industry in the south. My contention is that the leopard doesn't change his spots. The political power simply wasn't interested in industry; it was vitally interested in keeping things the way they were.

I feel like everything you said in your last post is based on pre-war establishments. Your hypothesis of post-war is that things would continue down that same path. I want to conclude that a new country would open new doors for such things as industry, a centralized govt for southern states, rather originally controlled by the planter class or not, would see the benefits of all these things you mentioned for the common good and legislate accordingly.

You may want to conclude that conditions would be radically different in an independent south -- I cannot. You know: the leopard::spots thing. Industry was initiated because of the war. Without the war ..... nah.

Ole

[Thomas29ID]

The leopard analogy has got me man --

I guess we do just differ on two main thoughts: (please agree or disagree w/ me on this one)

-X-Antebellum's lack of desire to have Vs. their ability to have such things as roads, rail and commerce
-Y- CS Centralized post war govt being benevolent or not to anyone other than the planter class.

In Reference to -X- Imagine no conflict; imagine if you will a Douglas victory in 1860..would it or would it not be beneficial to continue to have half the country promote agriculture and half the country work in the industrial field? Especially w/ their status of laborers? My point is simply; did the Antebellum US Govt Promote industry in the South?? I dont think they did; and assuredly they didn't promote road/rail -- I honestly don't know how commerce got thrown into all of this. Seems to me the fact tariffs were such a big deal in general would lead one to think that the southern states were fairly successful in foreign commerce. Am I correct in that thought pattern?

I'll agree w/ you southern states did a Crash Industry to support the war effort, but, your concluding that the CS would not have created any industry of their own had their been a peacful secession because planters held most of the power is legislature. Well, obviously the south was an agricultural society, but they were incredibly successful at it!

I feel like the south would have promoted industry w/ a separation from the north. Obviously you don't. You gotta love arguments about What If's.

And in Reference to -Y-
It seems to me this planter class felt that a republican Govt was not going to be benevolent to them at all -- oh and so did the hundreds of thousands of confederate boys that cheered down the streets at the thought of standing up for their independence. So did all the southern woman at home writing letters.

In fact it seemed the southern people in general were more apt to support their govt than northern people...The enlistment vs conscription # support this in my mind.

seems like I'm lost here, can't figure out what the start of the argument (I mean convo) was about...that means its a good one!

(tommy)

[ole]

I guess we do just differ on two main thoughts: (please agree or disagree w/ me on this one)

-X-Antebellum's lack of desire to have Vs. their ability to have such things as roads, rail and commerce
-Y- CS Centralized post war govt being benevolent or not to anyone other than the planter class.

Agree that my arguments closely resemble your X/Y examples. The southern portion of the US was definitely not inferior to the northern portion. They just opted for a significantly different different economic plan.I

I honestly don't know how commerce got thrown into all of this. Seems to me the fact tariffs were such a big deal in general would lead one to think that the southern states were fairly successful in foreign commerce. Am I correct in that thought pattern?

Tariffs were not a big deal. Southern commerce was. Seems that the secessionists objected to the amount of money they were paying northerners to accomplish the transfer. And here, I'll repeat myself, it was well within the ability of the planter to create his own shipping, financing, and other agents to facilitate the export of cotton to Europe. They didn't. But they complained greatly about it.

I feel like the south would have promoted industry w/ a separation from the north. Obviously you don't. You gotta love arguments about What If's.

So why didn't the south promote industry without separation? It was there. They had the wherewithal and smarts. But they didn't. As to "would have," that fails the test.

In fact it seemed the southern people in general were more apt to support their govt than northern people...The enlistment vs conscription # support this in my mind.

Can't find any justification in that statement. Purt near all the rebs were conscripts, whereas about 6 percent of the Yanks were draftees.

Time to cut this short and look back on all your writing for possible response.
Ole

[milhistbuff1]

Ole, Thomas

Wouldn't industrialization be antithetical to the south's desire to keep slavery going. Say you do set up industry, in order to maintain profits, slaves would have to do the grunt and machinery work, no? Why would the planter class allow that? if they could learn how to make objects like hammers, why not gunbarrels? If they could make barrel staves, why not rifle/musket stocks.

Should the CSA have survived, It would have wound up like a combination of the Holy Roman and Ottoman Empires, agrarian based, and in a million pieces. Eventually even the deep south would have come in out of the cold to prevent the French or another imperial power from moving North and East. Whether that would have taken 20 years or 80, who knows?