Author Topic: anyone other than DJQuag believe "the Civil War wasn't about slavery"?  (Read 3743 times)

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
On another thread, DJQ proclaims:

Quote
The Civil War wasn't about slavery. Don't embarrass yourself

what the hell?

Does anyone other than DJQ swallow that white supremacist turd?

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
State's rights and succession rights, you detestable troll.

DJ: Please see your email. -OrneryMod
« Last Edit: March 15, 2017, 12:07:24 AM by OrneryMod »

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
State's rights and succession [sic] rights, you detestable troll.

Yes, like every American here, I am familiar with the white supremacist whitewash of the "Narthern War of Aggreshun."  I'm just surprised to see something so stupid coming out of your mouth.  I'm also surprised to see you talking to me again despite your pledge never to do so again.  Since you are unwilling to engage me without personal attacks, I return to my OP question: does anyone *other* than DJQ believe this white supremacist apologetics

Missouri and several other states explicitly set out in their proclamations of secession that they were seceding over the issue of slavery.  Now some shameless attorney, if paid enough, could argue with a straight face that this should be framed as an issue of "right to secede" rather than a controversy over slavery.  (I'm speaking of the same species of person that could say, with a straight face, that "nitrous oxide addiction is no laughing matter.")  And that's how it would have been argued if the Southern States had taken their argument for secession to the Supreme Court rather than, say, attacking Fort Sumpter.  But since they chose to resolve the matter through war, the legalistic apologetics that it's ultimately about state's rights rather than slavery is as brainless as it is hypocritical.

I'm not picking on DJQuag here, and would prefer if he stayed away from this thread at least until he calms down.  The whole "Lost Cause" bs construction of the Civil War has been a bee in my bonnet for years, and no one's ever been willing to take me on in a direct argument about it.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2017, 04:37:25 PM by Pete at Home »

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
The right the south most wanted to assert was the right to have em some slaves. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the buildup of many decades, especially the Missouri compromise, Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the Dred Scott decision.

Quote
Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson writes that, "The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states. When Abraham Lincoln won election in 1860 as the first Republican president on a platform pledging to keep slavery out of the territories, seven slave states in the deep South seceded and formed a new nation, the Confederate States of America. The incoming Lincoln administration and most of the Northern people refused to recognize the legitimacy of secession. They feared that it would discredit democracy and create a fatal precedent that would eventually fragment the no-longer United States into several small, squabbling countries.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
So far that's three against the old sheethead apologetics.  Awesome.

A relevant exchange from another thread:



In fact, the reason for all those poor whites to go abandon their starving families and feed themselves into the Confederate meat grinder was slavery.  Because John C Calhoun had convinced them that the existence of slaves kept them from being the bottom rung of society.

And why did Calhoun want them to feel that way? Because he wanted the Southern states to agree on the righteousness of their acrions [sic].


Wrong again.  Calhoun never supported secession, only slavery.  Calhoun wanted the people of the South to agree on the righteousness of SLAVERY.  Period.   He invented Southern Pride out of plain cloth and he wove it around the "peculiar institution" of slavery.  He used Roman Empire atrocities to justify and glorify slavery in the south.

Ultimately John C Calhoun's propaganda caused the eventual secession, and the civil war, but that wasn't his intent.

linuxfreakus

  • All Members
    • View Profile
North had a larger number of abolitionists and progressives, but they also had blatantly racist laws preventing free black people from actually getting rights as citizens. And also, lynch mobs. The North was (and still is I'd say) so prejudice that white people even discriminated against other white people [the Irish at the time].

 Town Line, New York succeeded from the union and never even came back until 1946 (granted that was mostly because of draft riots, they were mad that free blacks were exempt from the draft but white people had to pay $300 to get out of it).

Clearly the central reason for the fight over states rights was slavery, but ultimately the reason they thought they were so justified was that they didn't feel the federal government was within its constitutional rights to legislate against slavery.

In some ways arguments about this are splitting hairs... but anyone who thinks that regardless of the semantics it wasn't chiefly about slavery is probably more than a little misinformed.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
In some ways arguments about this are splitting hairs... but anyone who thinks that regardless of the semantics it wasn't chiefly about slavery is probably more than a little misinformed.

I'm not very knowledgeable about the Civil War, but I always get suspicious when I hear a claim that a war was fought mostly over an ideal. I have read a few things about the economic conditions at the time, and it seems to me that the North and South were in some senses in competition with each other, and were using different means of production as their economic base. The South was obviously reliant on slave labor, while the North was verging towards industrialization. We can think of this as analogous, perhaps, to the current situation with oil dependence and certain sectors fighting hard to keep big oil in its position of power. The 'old system' is going to cling on as long as possible until it's pushed out by the new, and in the case of the Civil War there was a geographical component to that. Morally it seems hard to avoid concluding that slavery was wrong and that the war *had to* be at least in part about that, just as at present we can suggest that moving on from oil has at least something to do with the fact that the use of oil is non-renewable and pollutes the environment. The analogy isn't entirely perfect, but regardless if you look at the current situation of moving away from oil dependence you'll find that there has been an ongoing fight for years for the oil industry to keep control, and in the end that's about money and about maintaining the old power structure. It would be fruitless to argue that the conflict in this sense is entirely "about" oil, even though there are legitimate reasons to oppose its use. Oil is a means to an end here, and if there was some way for those powerful through oil to magically become powerful through some other means they'd dump oil in a heartbeat and snatch up that other resource as their power base. They likely don't care a fig about oil, in and of itself. Likewise, I somehow doubt that most Southerners cared about slavery on a moral basis, as in, legitimately believed that the moral fabric of the universe demanded that having slaves was the right and proper moral choice. Maybe some believed that, but I doubt most did. It seems to me more likely that slavery was a means to an end of maintaining their lifestyle and production methods, and they literally couldn't see any other option. This shouldn't read as an apology for slave owners, as they no doubt also thought various negative things about black people that justified their views. I'm just suggesting that while it may be ridiculous to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, it also seems to me that it likely wasn't entirely about the moral situation of slavery either.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
State's rights and succession rights

It was more about economics more than anything else, and since most of the southern economy at the time was reliant on slavery, it ultimately cycled back to that issue.

Basically in the instance of the US Civil War "All roads lead back to slavery" as to the cause and impetus of the South ultimately deciding to form the Confederacy.

There were a long list of reasons the south had, but for many, if not most of them, it circled back to the slavery issue at its core. For which the emphasis on "state's rights" in particular tended to put emphasis on how under threat the southern states felt the institution of slavery was by the growing and industrializing north. Throwing trade tarrifs into the mix(which mostly hurt the south, and helped the north) didn't help.

linuxfreakus

  • All Members
    • View Profile
I hear you... I totally get that the dynamics in play which caused slavery to be a central issue are a lot more nuanced, but it does not change the fact that slavery was the core problem IMO.

Most people don't realize that slavery still is legal even today.  The 13th amendment is very wishy-washy.  The whole mexico/illegal immigrant problem is also very inter-related too IMO.  We get tons of what is essentially slave labor from this in certain industries and they absolutely have become dependent on it at this point.  Its not that "americans" wouldn't ever want to do these jobs, its just that they would never accept so little compensation for them and with various other economic conditions the way they are, the economy wouldn't be able to absorb added costs without increased wages or decreased debt or both... which "elites" are also fighting tooth and nail.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Tho much speculation, not enough history.

The South was actually heading towards admitting slavery was wrong until John C Calhoun stemmed the tide and made the "unique institution" of slavery and white supremacy something the South should be proud of.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: anyone other than DJQuag believe "the Civil War wasn't about slavery"?
« Reply #10 on: March 29, 2017, 11:55:19 AM »
What you say it true, NH, but try saying that Malcolm X was a placeholder in a room full of leftists and see if you get out alive.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: anyone other than DJQuag believe "the Civil War wasn't about slavery"?
« Reply #11 on: March 29, 2017, 01:34:41 PM »
Most people don't realize that slavery still is legal even today.  The 13th amendment is very wishy-washy.

IIRC, you can voluntarily enslave yourself, and it is technically possible for a court within the United States to sentence someone to a term of slavery as well(they're the only ones with the legal ability to compel it). Of course, most would immediately interpret such a sentence as "cruel and unusual" punishment, so that options largely moot.

Closest thing in the modern era for the United States is a general services contract set for a fixed term, kind of like a piece of paper most people who've volunteered for military service have signed.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: anyone other than DJQuag believe "the Civil War wasn't about slavery"?
« Reply #12 on: March 29, 2017, 01:58:07 PM »
What you say it true, NH, but try saying that Malcolm X was a SLAVEholder in a room full of leftists and see if you get out alive.

DAMNED PHONE

LZCenter

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: anyone other than DJQuag believe "the Civil War wasn't about slavery"?
« Reply #13 on: March 30, 2017, 12:26:10 PM »
Probably the best insight to the South's motives comes from the Cornerstone Address by the Confederacy's VP, Alexander Stephens.  Clearly, slavery was paramount.  Ironically, Abraham Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley suggests Lincoln wasn't as committed to emancipation as some might believe.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: anyone other than DJQuag believe "the Civil War wasn't about slavery"?
« Reply #14 on: March 30, 2017, 05:00:59 PM »
Good point.  That fact that Abraham Lincoln was not the hard-boiled hell or high water emancipationist, is often misused by lost cause tweakers to argue that the civil war wasn't over slavery.  One might make a better argument that the war wasn't over the legality of slavery, but over the social approval of slavery.  It's the latter, not the former, that Lincoln threatened during his campaign for president.  He wanted to block new and future states from being allowed to practice slavery.

Pete: Please see your email. -OrneryMod
« Last Edit: March 31, 2017, 01:16:59 PM by OrneryMod »

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: anyone other than DJQuag believe "the Civil War wasn't about slavery"?
« Reply #15 on: March 30, 2017, 11:40:35 PM »
Good point.  That fact that Abraham Lincoln was not the hard-boiled hell or high water emancipationist, is often misused by lost cause tweakers to argue that the civil war wasn't over slavery.  One might make a better argument that the war wasn't over the legality of slavery, but over the social approval of slavery.  It's the latter, not the former, that Lincoln threatened during his campaign for president.  He wanted to block new and future states from being allowed to practice slavery.

Which still made it about slavery because those non-slave territories would then become states. The moment they started to do so, the slave holding states would lose the parity they had with the more populous states to the north within the Senate. Which in turn then makes it that much easier for "a congressional action" to terminate the legality of slavery. So instead of waiting for that to happen, they tried to leave before the other shoe could drop. National abolition via slippery slope, and thus grounds for secession in their book.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: anyone other than DJQuag believe "the Civil War wasn't about slavery"?
« Reply #16 on: March 31, 2017, 12:07:31 AM »
That's a legitimate argument that it was ultimately about the legality of slavery.  But I think that the sheer brutality of bleedinig Kansas, and the reelection of the sadistic public torturers of Charles Sumner, drive home my point that the sons of bitches weren't satisfied with slavery being legal, just like some pro-abortion folks today aren't OK with abortion being fully legal.  The big slogan in the woman's march was abortion on demand WITHOUT APOLOGY and that's pretty much the position of the pre-civil war slave culture.  It wasn't enough to have slavery constitutionally protected; they wanted to bring their slaves north and rub them in their neighbors' faces; they wanted to burn down churches that said please don't rape your slaves; they held Congress at gunpoint while they beat an elderly man to the brink of death. Forced all of Congress at gunpoint to watch.  Then went home and got reelected by a landslide.  For defending the legality of slavery? No, for defending the GOOD NAME of slavery.

The bastard that actually bludgeoned Sumner until his blood painted cane broke on Sumner's skull -- do you know they actually had his memorial in DC with a tombstone that proclaimed that Preston Brooks thug as bigger than Jesus?

You'd think that as a regional hero, they'd bring Preston Brooks' body home for funeral.  But no, they had to hold that bigger-than- Jesus farce right in DC in the faces of the abolitionists.  Think about that.

Between Sumner, Bleeding Kansas, and the farce of a trial that hung John Brown, the Civil War started long before Lincoln was elected.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2017, 12:14:49 AM by Pete at Home »

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: anyone other than DJQuag believe "the Civil War wasn't about slavery"?
« Reply #17 on: March 31, 2017, 08:57:24 PM »
In the case of John Brown, he was right there in the thick of it. He was part of the reason Kansas bled, and he was trying to incite a slave revolt with hopes of it becoming a civil war in many respects. So in that regard, he ultimately got his wish, he did had to die to help make it happen.

It wasn't just the Southerners who were looking for war, and willing to get violent over the issue.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: anyone other than DJQuag believe "the Civil War wasn't about slavery"?
« Reply #18 on: March 31, 2017, 09:03:48 PM »
In the case of John Brown, he was right there in the thick of it. He was part of the reason Kansas bled

Baha.

Wrong.

John Brown  got into the action in retaliation for pro-slavery Bleeding Kansas terrorism.  The guy he killed with a sword weren't mere slavers -- they were folks who had butchered abolitionists.

Browne didn't seek to start the war; he sought to avoid it with a coup.  The war was coming whether Browne acted or not.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: anyone other than DJQuag believe "the Civil War wasn't about slavery"?
« Reply #19 on: March 31, 2017, 09:28:31 PM »
In the case of John Brown, he was right there in the thick of it. He was part of the reason Kansas bled

Baha.

Wrong.

John Brown  got into the action in retaliation for pro-slavery Bleeding Kansas terrorism.  The guy he killed with a sword weren't mere slavers -- they were folks who had butchered abolitionists.

Browne didn't seek to start the war; he sought to avoid it with a coup.  The war was coming whether Browne acted or not.

I'm not concerned with who "started it" I just know he was a participant. That's enough in my book.

He was one of those who was adding fuel to the fire, provoked or otherwise.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: anyone other than DJQuag believe "the Civil War wasn't about slavery"?
« Reply #20 on: April 01, 2017, 12:22:12 AM »
In the case of John Brown, he was right there in the thick of it. He was part of the reason Kansas bled

Baha.

Wrong.

John Brown  got into the action in retaliation for pro-slavery Bleeding Kansas terrorism.  The guy he killed with a sword weren't mere slavers -- they were folks who had butchered abolitionists.

Browne didn't seek to start the war; he sought to avoid it with a coup.  The war was coming whether Browne acted or not.

I'm not concerned with who "started it" I just know he was a participant. That's enough in my book.

He was one of those who was adding fuel to the fire, provoked or otherwise.

If you'd said, harper's ferry was part of the excuse for the South to Secede, I'd have agreed with you.  But you said that he was part of the reason Kansas bled, and that's poppycock. Kansas bled out before he bled some of its bleeders.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2017, 12:24:20 AM by Pete at Home »

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: anyone other than DJQuag believe "the Civil War wasn't about slavery"?
« Reply #21 on: April 01, 2017, 04:19:32 PM »
No real good place for this, but I've had input and time to think.

Past alcoholism isn't something that should label anyone for their lives. No addiction is.

I felt someone was partaking in personal attacks, and I responded in kind. I tend to have a heavy hand.

Anyway, what I said isn't the end all of the matter. It's entirely possible he's a great father and I made a mistake. That's on me. My bad.

Grant

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: anyone other than DJQuag believe "the Civil War wasn't about slavery"?
« Reply #22 on: April 15, 2017, 09:03:46 AM »
It was both slavery and state's rights.  The war would not have occurred without both. 

The general cause was state's rights and the right to succeed.  But the rights in question were generally over the question of slavery.  Without the institution of slavery in the south, the war would not have occurred when and how it did.  There may have been a war later on down the line over some other matter, but it's hard to imagine another situation that there was so clear a regional divide.  To say that the primary impetus for the north to fight against the succession of the south was to free the slaves is to ignore the question of succession completely and to ignore most of the sentiment expressed by northerners and politicians of the time.  To say that slavery had no effect at all on the feelings of northerners and their politicians is again to ignore the sentiments expressed at the time. 

If there was never any question over the right to succession, if it was made clear in the Constitution or made more clear by the founders, there would have been less ability to effect it.  Nevertheless, it is possible that even with succession clearly illegal by the Constitution, it is possible that the war and succession could have taken place regardless.  The economic and social fears, and widespread racism of white southerners left them with little recourse.  It is also arguable that the Declaration of Independence inherently legalizes revolution and succession. 

Slavery cannot be ignored as a cause of the war.  But the right to succeed and state's rights anchored the southern argument, and the primary goal of the north was to restore the union, not free the slaves.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: anyone other than DJQuag believe "the Civil War wasn't about slavery"?
« Reply #23 on: April 29, 2017, 12:37:53 AM »
If you'd said that "the primary goal of Abraham Lincoln was to free the slaves," that would be true.  But "The North" did not have one unified motivation.  Umion Soldiers didn't march around singing John Brown's Body over restoring the Union. 

While the Constitution is not clear WHETHER states had a right to secede, there's no question whatsoever that the means by which the South attempted to secede was unconstitutional and treasonous.  They should have waited for SCOTUS to arbitrate the constitutional question.  That is after all how the constitution mandates that constitutional issues be resolved.  Can you seriously tell me that the Constitution could be interpreted to allow state legislatures to conspire with each other to secede without consulting the Supreme Court?

Bear in mind that the Court was 5/9 comprised of Southerners, and had just ruled 6:3 in the Dredd Scott v. Sanford decision!

The South fired the first shots at Fort Sumpter.  There's no possible way that the North could have extricated itself from the South, by mere fiat of the Southern States.  There's no way that the Northern USA could have continued side by side with the Southern Confederacy without a war.  Face it -- the Civil War actually started before secession, with Bloody Kansas and similar events in Missouri.  So long as the South continued slavery, continued violence between the north and south was inevitable.

You aren't the type to engage in legalistic fictions ("yes the war would have happened if Lincoln had allowed secession, but we wouldn't have called it a Civil war"  :'() so I'm not sure how you can argue war would not have happened with slavery but without the question of secession.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: anyone other than DJQuag believe "the Civil War wasn't about slavery"?
« Reply #24 on: April 29, 2017, 12:05:21 PM »
You aren't the type to engage in legalistic fictions ("yes the war would have happened if Lincoln had allowed secession, but we wouldn't have called it a Civil war"  :'() so I'm not sure how you can argue war would not have happened with slavery but without the question of secession.

Ah but if Lincoln had allowed it to happen, the war between the Union and the Confederation likely would have happened a number of years later, after the South became frustrated at the combined Union and British blockade preventing the importation of more slaves from Africa(something that had been ongoing for decades by then), as well as their newly discovered complete inability to have escaped slaves returned to them once found on Union soil. SCotUS may have ruled that states had to return them to their fellow states, but that didn't say anything about what the Federal Government had to do when it comes to escaped slaves from "a foreign nation."

I'm sure the "slave hunting parties" that would repeatedly and frequently "accidentally" cross into Union Territory in pursuit of said escaped slaves would also have been well received by the Union.

In the off chance that cooler head had prevailed in the South, and they didn't end up at war anyway due to Southerners regularly invading the North. They still would have been likely to get crushed economically within a couple decades as the British Empire brought "online" considerable capability for growing Cotton without need for the South. But I find the odds of having seen a non-violent resolution of that particular dispute to have been highly unlikely at best, and the South would have undoubtedly been the instigator for the violence that followed. It would have simply been a matter of when, not if, the Union decided enough was enough and took decisive military action.

In the mean time "bloody Kansas" would have been looking like a walk in the park by comparison.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if some of the calculus went through the minds of more than a few people in Washington right after the Confederacy started shooting at the Union in South Carolina. They could fight the war now, with a clear causus beli and path to resolution, or fight the war later and end up with a scenario that is much harder to unravel(peace treaty/surrender negotiations with a nation that is formally recognized by many major nations, and can't be made to "just go away").

Easier to just call it a civil war from the onset, which gives you more options, and get it over with.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2017, 12:11:21 PM by TheDeamon »

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: anyone other than DJQuag believe "the Civil War wasn't about slavery"?
« Reply #25 on: April 29, 2017, 06:29:46 PM »
Cogent analysis.  I would add that in a few years the South would have had more time (with assistance of the UK and Holland) to industrialize, to establish capital and international credit, whuch Davis would have then used to seize West Virginia, Missouri, Kentucky possibly, Maryland and Delaware. Not to mention warring over California and other territories.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Cogent analysis.  I would add that in a few years the South would have had more time (with assistance of the UK and Holland) to industrialize, to establish capital and international credit, whuch Davis would have then used to seize West Virginia, Missouri, Kentucky possibly, Maryland and Delaware. Not to mention warring over California and other territories.

I doubt the South would have seen much foreign assistance in industrialization. England and Holland alike wanted access to the southern Export market, which was namely cotton and tobacco. Industrializing the south would simply mean less cotton being exported, and more competition on the textiles side of things.

Not in their interests, the Northern portion of the United States had a hard enough time industrializing because England did everything it could to prevent that from happening.  Basically, much like happens in the present day, England, Holland, and France would have been happy to take the Confederacy on as a "client state" in order to gain access to their raw materials, in return for being able to dump their own goods into the markets of the Confederacy, in particular since they'd have been free of those Northern Industrialists and the protectionist trade tariffs that the US Congress had imposed.

So long as the Confederacy didn't impose significant tariffs on those same foreign goods from those nations they would have been dependent on, their own industrialization efforts wouldn't have gone very far. Internal politics on that would have been a hoot to watch as well no doubt, considering trade tariffs on imported goods from those nations were some of the biggest (non-slavery) gripes that the Southern States had with the North.

About the only industrialization they might have seen would have likely been in direct relationship to the development and deployment of railroads, and even that was problematic in the south because of the prevalence of transportation via river barge and/or steam ship for most goods and services at the time. That was part of their problem at the onset, yes, there were Southern Railroads in places, but nothing nearly as comprehensive as what the northern states had. Because "The Railroads of the South" were predominately rivers with steamships operating on them as locomotives.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Setting aside the economic industrialization that you describe, do you concede that England and the Netherlands would have helped build the South a better war machine, and that a later-fought "war between the states" would have erased some of the North's advantage over the South?

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Ah but if Lincoln had allowed it to happen, the war between the Union and the Confederation likely would have happened a number of years later, after the South became frustrated at the combined Union and British blockade preventing the importation of more slaves from Africa(something that had been ongoing for decades by then),

You err here.  In fact, importation of slaves other than from the USA or other Confederate states was prohibited explicitly in the Confederate Constitution.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Constitution  This would not have been a conflict.  While one might argue that the clause benefits Virginia (a slave-raising and exporting state), this clause probably existed specifically in order to secure British patronage.

Quote
" Internal politics on that would have been a hoot to watch as well no doubt, considering trade tariffs on imported goods from those nations were some of the biggest (non-slavery) gripes that the Southern States had with the North."

fixed that for you. :)  Slavery was the only unified complaint of the South towards the North.  Several southern states had consistently voted for tariffs prior to secession.


TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Setting aside the economic industrialization that you describe, do you concede that England and the Netherlands would have helped build the South a better war machine, and that a later-fought "war between the states" would have erased some of the North's advantage over the South?

Yes, it is far more likely the South would have actually been able to achieve the goal they thought they would during the Civil War. That by making it a "defensive war" their entrenched and fortified positions would cost the North so much in terms of blood and treasure that they'd sue for peace rather than continue to prosecute the war.

Except South Carolina fired the first shots, and caused hostilities to commence before they could really get much of an defensive infrastructure (vs the Union) in place. Something that the North certainly benefited from.

That isn't to say they had no defenses, but what they had probably isn't close to what they could have had if they were given 2 to 3 years of "peacetime" during which they could bring in foreign experts, and materials(without a blockade) with which to further secure those locations. Instead, they were stuck with locally procured expertise, and local materials.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Thanks.  "Defensive Infrastructure" is the term I should have used, not "industrialization."  I've played too much Sid Meir.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Thanks.  "Defensive Infrastructure" is the term I should have used, not "industrialization."  I've played too much Sid Meir.

Well, in the case of the US. Both WW2 and the Civil demonstrated that Industrial Capacity can result in the ability to construct both "defensive and offensive infrastructure."

Which is where the South ran into trouble. They didn't have much industrial capability, they were almost immediately under blockade so couldn't trade for it from elsewhere(and stockpile). Which then left them at the mercy of when the Union eventually outproduced them by way of using their much larger population, and substantial industrial base.

Starting off in a poor position for defending themselves from attacks originating from the north or west(because it was part of the United States, and thus didn't require defensive fortifications as part of the US) just further doomed them from the moment South Carolina opened fire on the Union.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Thanks.  "Defensive Infrastructure" is the term I should have used, not "industrialization."  I've played too much Sid Meir.

Well, in the case of the US. Both WW2 and the Civil demonstrated that Industrial Capacity can result in the ability to construct both "defensive and offensive infrastructure."

Which is where the South ran into trouble. They didn't have much industrial capability, they were almost immediately under blockade so couldn't trade for it from elsewhere(and stockpile). Which then left them at the mercy of when the Union eventually outproduced them by way of using their much larger population, and substantial industrial base.

Starting off in a poor position for defending themselves from attacks originating from the north or west(because it was part of the United States, and thus didn't require defensive fortifications as part of the US) just further doomed them from the moment South Carolina opened fire on the Union.

I think that in our delayed war scenario, much of the help for industrialization might have come from Northerners.  And there's hardly any incompatibility between factory work and slavery.  China manages it still today.  Also, without immediate Civil war, the South might have suppressed the revolt in West Virginia, and also have gotten Kentucky and Missouri to secede.