Oops, big lump of your posts....

[redbob]

Except for the prestige of capturing your opponent's capital, a seat of government can be set up just about anywhere; I believe that Richmond's industries was the key to it's value of being worth fighting over. If the seat of government had remained in Montgomery, by 1863; the Union would have been able to exert pressure from bases along the Gulf coast and from Tennessee and Mississippi.

 

[WJC]

That badly misstates how deep the divisions in the country were, and how far back the discontent went. Secession was caused by much more than pique at losing an election.

Thanks for your response.
And once the precedent was set, that any perceived injustice was justification for secession, the 'bar' would have been even lower.

 

[CSA Today]

Or, alternatively, because U. S. citizens were fighting to preserve the American Experiment, which they felt was important not only to themselves and their posterity but to the people of the world. To them, it truly was a struggle to assure "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

In an age of rampant imperialism, not a very good example to set for the people of the world attempting to free themselves from such experiments.

 

[Andersonh1]

Thanks for your response.
And once the precedent was set, that any perceived injustice was justification for secession, the 'bar' would have been even lower.

Possibly, though I think the first thing that would have been done in the event of a US loss in the war would have been a constitutional amendment to make secession explicitly unconstitutional. They would have made sure it didn't happen again.

 

[WJC]

War would of ended Slavery, no matter what happened.

Too bad the secessionists didn't recognize that. Although to give them their due, had the rebels won, slavery would have been protected and expanded. It would have persisted for many more years, probably into the next century.

 

[WJC]

In an age of rampant imperialism, not a very good example to set for the people of the world attempting to free themselves from such experiments.

Thanks for your response.
Perhaps I was not clear in using the term American Experiment, which is generally understood as extending and enhancing individual liberty.
Imperfect as its application has been, it has been a model for those seeking to improve their lot in life since its inception.

 

[CSA Today]

Thanks for your response.
Perhaps I was not clear in using the term American Experiment, which is generally understood as extending and enhancing individual liberty.
Imperfect as its application has been, it has been a model for those seeking to improve their lot in life since its inception.

I doubt the American Indians and the Filipinos thought so.

 

[ErnieMac]

I personally think having the capital in the west may have focussed more government attention in that theater, which IMO was where the War was lost for the Confederacy. The economics and geography of Virginia would have kept the eastern war effort there. I don't see the Confederates back away from that even thought Richmond wasn't the capital.

 

[Potomac Pride]

The actual building of the transcontinental railroad did not begin until 1863 and then was done by three private companies using civilian contractors and workers.

The TRR began in 1863 as a result of the Pacific Railway Act that was passed by Congress in 1862. This legislation provided governments bonds and massive land grants to aid in the construction of a TRR. Lincoln was an advocate of the railroad and it was actually a part of the Republican Party platform in 1860. Old Abe had been a lawyer for the railroads before he became President.

 

[ForeverFree]

No, but I think your analogy, giving credit to Whites for Freeing the Negro is irrelevant

This is not about my analogy or my opinion. The point is that the freedmen and freedwomen gave white Union men credit for ending slavery. That's THEIR opinion.

Blacks fought for their Freedom. Blacks were recruited, to save White Lives. Two different Concepts.

You didn't just say that African Americans fought for freedom or to save white lives. You said

I'm sorry, I don't see how the White Man or the Federal Government can take but very little credit for Saving the Negro, Chinese, or Native American. I think people who try to put forth this Narrative, and doing a disservice to the accomplishments these minority groups, did for themselves.

Well, freedpeople did see fit to give credit to the Union and white Union soldiers, while also acknowledging black soldiers. I think they would find your argument irrelevant.

- Alan

 

[Potomac Pride]

Makes no difference if he, or others despised Slavery or not. His and the vast majority of Northerners, decision to do Nothing, about Slavery, was just as Supportive, to Slavery, as someone who thought it was a Positive Good. So, by default, he and the 85% of Northerners who wanted to leave it alone, were Pro Slavery. I will give you the 15% who wanted Immediate Abolition. That 85% was far more concerned about CW, and the Social and Racial consequences about ending Slavery, than they were about giving Negros rights.

Eric Foner is a Lincoln Apologist. However even he, recognizes how conservative Lincoln was on the Slavery Issue. Lincoln wanted the South subjugated, so he could get what he wanted, for his Section. That was a far greater concern of his, than ending Slavery. Slavery was alway something to be negotiated.

That is a very good post. Lincoln was not an abolitionist and slavery was just another issue that could be negotiated. I think that Lincoln was more concerned in pursuing his economic and public improvements agenda than the issue of slavery.

 

[ebg12]

That is a very good post. Lincoln was not an abolitionist and slavery was just another issue that could be negotiated. I think that Lincoln was more concerned in pursuing his economic and public improvements agenda than the issue of slavery.

But, as it worked out......Honest Abe freed the slaves.

 

[WJC]

The TRR began in 1863 as a result of the Pacific Railway Act that was passed by Congress in 1862. This legislation provided governments bonds and massive land grants to aid in the construction of a TRR. Lincoln was an advocate of the railroad and it was actually a part of the Republican Party platform in 1860. Old Abe had been a lawyer for the railroads before he became President.

Thanks for your response.
All true, but does not invalidate the answer I gave @uaskme earlier to the assertion that the U. S. military effort was hampered by building the Transcontinental Railroad.

 

[WJC]

Lincoln was not an abolitionist

True, though he abhorred the practice.

 

[WJC]

Lincoln was more concerned in pursuing his economic and public improvements agenda than the issue of slavery.

Every President from our first has a preferred agenda that frequently gets mired down or even becomes totally unachievable because of unforeseen events. Lincoln was no different.

 

[John Fenton]

i am new here but cannot believe what i am reading .
that institutionalized slavery was the primary cause of the war is indisputable even if it did not cause the first shot. to minimize it's importance is repugnant . that so many still feel otherwise is equally repugnant. i wonder what confederate supporters want ? was the confederacy really a noble cause or does it need to be in order to rationalize it ?

 

[WJC]

i am new here but cannot believe what i am reading .
that institutionalized slavery was the primary cause of the war is indisputable even if it did not cause the first shot. to minimize it's importance is repugnant . that so many still feel otherwise is equally repugnant. i wonder what confederate supporters want ? was the confederacy really a noble cause or does it need to be in order to rationalize it ?

Welcome! I believe that the reluctance of some to accept that slavery was the root cause for secession and war is at least in part a defense of our ancestors. On the other hand, some recognize that our ancestors' good qualities- courage, persistence, loyalty to family and friends- are worthy of admiration. We can and ought to admit their errors (after all, everyone makes mistakes) while still honoring them.

 

[Potomac Pride]

But, as it worked out......Honest Abe freed the slaves.

True, though he abhorred the practice.

Yes, he did and should be commended for his actions.

 

[Potomac Pride]

Thanks for your response.
All true, but does not invalidate the answer I gave @uaskme earlier to the assertion that the U. S. military effort was hampered by building the Transcontinental Railroad.

My post was intended only to demonstrate that there were a lot of federal government subsidies involved in the construction of the TRR.

 

[GwilymT]

That badly misstates how deep the divisions in the country were, and how far back the discontent went. Secession was caused by much more than pique at losing an election.

Not really. They tried to win by force of arms what they thought they lost at the ballot box: a secure future for slavery and the expansion thereof. (No slavery AND no West, no war) It really isn’t much different than a kid “taking their ball and going home.” At it’s most simplistic, they thought they lost and instead of working within the system they decided to try to break the system in order to get their own way. The metaphor works wonderfully whether you think slavery is the main cause, or the TRR, or tariffs, or.... anything but slavery.