Would the USA be better off to have let the Confederate states go peaceably ?

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Status
Not open for further replies.

DanSBHawk

Sergeant Major
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
They sought to leave. Possibly they could have picked somewhat better methods but many of the people posting on this issue are saying they had no right to leave under any circumstances as their ancestors had effectively enslaved them for eternity by signing the initial constitution. Ditto that Lincoln had the right to use military force to prevent any attempt at secession. They only used limited force, to remove an hostile military presence of what they considered a foreign power from one of their main ports after the ruler of that foreign power made clear he intended both to hold that and other fortified positions within their state and to reject their attempts to leave.
That's an interesting way to put it, considering what they were seceding for, but in fact the southern whites enjoyed all the same constitutional rights that the northern whites did.
 

steve59p

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
Based on the line I high lighted, here is an article that may put a little light on the subject. And it has foot notes that are worthy.

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/was-the-south-poor-before-the-war/
Very interesting and paints a massively different picture from what is commonly presented. I would agree that the head count must include slaves as they provide the south with an equivalent to the many poor workers - albeit that the latter had somewhat more rights and the ability to look for a better life. Even so the southern states come out a lot richer than much of the NE powerhouse of the union and the evidence in that link seems to suggest this wasn't simply because the bulk of the wealth was concentrated in the hands of a rich planter class as is often presented and I thought myself. Thanks for that link.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Not, All of the South, grew Cotton. That was not the South’s only, contribution.

If not for the War, other sources probably would not of been developed. The South had a superior product and a lower price.

What benefit was the Yankee, to the South. Other than Slave catchers. South could of used financing and shipping from Europe. Would of been Cheaper and more efficient. Yankees would of been Naked, without the South.
Can you cite how much tariff revenue was collected from Southern families vs Northern families. That is the average Southern white family paid X amount of tariffs vs Northern families paid Y amount?
Keeping in mind there was no federal income tax,nor Social Security tax nor even sales tax just how much money in taxes did the Southern white family pay vs a Northern family.
Unless we have some context the debate over tariffs us irrelevant.
Leftyhunter
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

JerseyBart

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Location
New Jersey
After There was a dangerous threat from the Lincoln Flotilla of reinforcements present.
You are more than welcome to look at any historical timeline to see that aggression: U.S. Troop, fort, arsenal seizures and voluntarily turnovers from southerners to southerner began before Lincoln was inaugurated, as was the attack on a u.s. ship.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

WJC

Major General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
After There was a dangerous threat from the Lincoln Flotilla of reinforcements present.
Let's assume you are right, that-in addition fo food and other provisions to sustain the garrison- lincoln reinforced the garrison several- fold, say to 1000 men.
How would they have been a "dangerous threat"?
 

lelliott19

Captain
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Joined
Mar 15, 2013
Please don’t put words in my mouth. This all based on the assumption that the southern states had seceded.
I wouldn’t want to test it either but the question remains. Were the southern states necessary for future conflicts of the USA ? Did they take more with them than they left behind ? Could southern secession prevent the USA from it’s role in being the arsenal of democracy ? Could the manpower reduction have been made up from the north ? I consider the bravery factor a wash but numbers matter as the ex-confederate states know all too well.
Yeah, you already said that. Back on page 1, post 18 and page 2, post 23. Since I had already provided data you judged unsatisfactory, I chose not to respond directly to your question. I wouldn't have responded now, but you replied to me again, implying that you desired a response. :nah disagree:

Since you have apparently not read the intervening posts, you may be pleased to know that I have since changed my opinion and have been convinced that YES, indeed, the US would have been much better off had they allowed the slave states to secede. But, as I noted in my previous post (on page 11, post #218), separation should have been accomplished long before 1861 - you know, so as to avoid all those uncomfortable "compromises."

Perhaps as early as 1789 when the two sections disagreed over the location of the US Capital and Assumption of States' Debts? That disagreement resulted in the first (of a number) of uncomfortable "compromises." Interestingly, it was the Northern states that threatened secession and dissolution of the Union - first in 1789 over locating the Capital and assumption of States' debts (Thomas Jefferson, Abridgment of Debates, vol 1., p. 250.) and again in 1809 over the trade embargo (Hillhouse, of Connecticut, Speech before the US Senate, January 1809.) and again in 1811 over the proposed purchase of Louisiana Territory (Quincy, of Massachusetts, Speech before Congress, January 15, 1811.) <I could continue to cite many more examples, but I'll refrain.>

Had the slave states been disassociated at any of those opportunities, it would certainly have solved all the subsequent problems of which you speak. No uncomfortable compromises; no slavery in what remained of the United States; no US installations in the South; no Fort Sumter; no Civil War; no huge war expenditures; no great loss of life; no reconstruction; no excess consumption of resources by the southern states (as you suggested earlier in this thread). Seems to me, when you look at it this way, whatever remained of the United States would certainly have been better off.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
Can you cite how much tariff revenue was collected from Southern families vs Northern families. That is the average Southern white family paid X amount of tariffs vs Northern families paid Y amount?
Keeping in mind there was no federal income tax,nor Social Security tax nor even sales tax just how much money in taxes did the Southern white family pay vs a Northern family.
Unless we have some context the debate over tariffs us irrelevant.
Leftyhunter

You tell us. Your the one focused on it.

Those who Collected the Tariffs, did not consume them. The North received the vast majority of Imports, unfortunately. Those taxes were passed on, as a part of the prices of the item purchased. Some don't have the capacity to understand that.
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
I'll post it again...the south didn't "go" peacefully. They "went" aggressively.
If Lincoln and the North had a problem with South Carolina and Sumpter, why did they not, attack Sumpter? The Upper South would of had a very different response to the Federal Government trying to take back Sumpter, rather than calling up Troops to start a Civil War.

So, Lincoln was AGGRESSIVE in his response to Sumpter. He tried to resupply Sumpter as a pretext for starting a Civil War. Dragging a huge population into a dispute that had nothing to do with Sumpter.
 

John Fenton

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Location
retired traveling
Yeah, you already said that. Back on page 1, post 18 and page 2, post 23. Since I had already provided data you judged unsatisfactory, I chose not to respond directly to your question. I wouldn't have responded now, but you replied to me again, implying that you desired a response. :nah disagree:
You are correct that i missed a few posts. Sorry. I see that you did change your opinion. I just resented my position being misrepresented. Again sorry. I am on the fence , so to speak, and believe that the war, achieved a goal that made it worthwhile, even if that goal was not the northern goal that made them fight in the first place. Were it not for that i believe we could have let the south go, before hostilities in arms started and still maintained a significant global influence. The only thing that would have made a difference is if north and south found themselves on opposite sides in future conflicts and ended up fighting a war anyway. Had we allied ourselves with each other we might have both benefitted without the price of war. Slavery made this impossible though and war inevitable at some point.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

WJC

Major General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
UOTE="Rebforever, post: 2094115, member: 7521"]Lincoln had already said he was not going to let the South go.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for your response.
Of course. Lincoln did not want to "let them go". Instead, he wanted to 'buy time' for secessionists to reconsider.
But back to your claim that there was a "dangerous threat from the Lincoln Flotilla of reinforcements": how would they have been a "dangerous threat"?
 

John Fenton

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Location
retired traveling
Always a great source [ The Abbeville Institute ] .
there is a thread here on their reliability...
https://civilwartalk.com/threads/is-the-abbeville-institute-a-reliable-source-for-information-related-to-the-civil-war.151956/
i would add that they claim [Livingston and the Institute] the "invasion" of the south was immoral while slavery was not only moral but benevolent .

for more...
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2004/ideologues
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
UOTE="Rebforever, post: 2094115, member: 7521"]Lincoln had already said he was not going to let the South go.
Thanks for your response.
Of course. Lincoln did not want to "let them go". Instead, he wanted to 'buy time' for secessionists to reconsider.
But back to your claim that there was a "dangerous threat from the Lincoln Flotilla of reinforcements": how would they have been a "dangerous threat"?[/QUOTE]
No response. It will be of topic. I have responded to your question.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC

JerseyBart

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Location
New Jersey
If Lincoln and the North had a problem with South Carolina and Sumpter, why did they not, attack Sumpter? The Upper South would of had a very different response to the Federal Government trying to take back Sumpter, rather than calling up Troops to start a Civil War.

So, Lincoln was AGGRESSIVE in his response to Sumpter. He tried to resupply Sumpter as a pretext for starting a Civil War. Dragging a huge population into a dispute that had nothing to do with Sumpter.
Who fired at Fort Sumter? Southern Rebels...starting the Civil War. But please, please let's not pretend that Sumter was the beginning of rebel aggressive actions.

Here is a timeline of aggressive rebel actions prior to their aggressive actions at Sumter, starting the war: https://civilwartalk.com/threads/first-shots-of-the-civil-war.77566/page-2

Post number 21 compiled by @ForeverFree. I won't ignore them and pretend they didn't happen.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Joined
Sep 28, 2013
Location
Mississippi
Yeah, you already said that. Back on page 1, post 18 and page 2, post 23. Since I had already provided data you judged unsatisfactory, I chose not to respond directly to your question. I wouldn't have responded now, but you replied to me again, implying that you desired a response. :nah disagree:

Since you have apparently not read the intervening posts, you may be pleased to know that I have since changed my opinion and have been convinced that YES, indeed, the US would have been much better off had they allowed the slave states to secede. But, as I noted in my previous post (on page 11, post #218), separation should have been accomplished long before 1861 - you know, so as to avoid all those uncomfortable "compromises."

Perhaps as early as 1789 when the two sections disagreed over the location of the US Capital and Assumption of States' Debts? That disagreement resulted in the first (of a number) of uncomfortable "compromises." Interestingly, it was the Northern states that threatened secession and dissolution of the Union - first in 1789 over locating the Capital and assumption of States' debts (Thomas Jefferson, Abridgment of Debates, vol 1., p. 250.) and again in 1809 over the trade embargo (Hillhouse, of Connecticut, Speech before the US Senate, January 1809.) and again in 1811 over the proposed purchase of Louisiana Territory (Quincy, of Massachusetts, Speech before Congress, January 15, 1811.) <I could continue to cite many more examples, but I'll refrain.>

Had the slave states been disassociated at any of those opportunities, it would certainly have solved all the subsequent problems of which you speak. No uncomfortable compromises; no slavery in what remained of the United States; no US installations in the South; no Fort Sumter; no Civil War; no huge war expenditures; no great loss of life; no reconstruction; no excess consumption of resources by the southern states (as you suggested earlier in this thread). Seems to me, when you look at it this way, whatever remained of the United States would certainly have been better off.
Well said !
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top