A message to our Leadership in America

[denuseri]

No not at all, the south just wanted to seperate itself from the country they had previously made an oath to abide within (and our constitution btw too) so they could keep their slaves.

Which would have made the whole of Brittan (as well as some other western european counties at the time more than happy since it would open the dooor to their being able to more readily drive a wedge in any united front we may have previously presented against further domination by them perfectly.

Which is why we ratified the constitution to begin with. (Read the Federalist Papers if you dont believe me)

[Bren122]

No not at all, the south just wanted to seperate itself from the country they had previously made an oath to abide within (and our constitution btw too) so they could keep their slaves.

Which would have made the whole of Brittan (as well as some other western european counties at the time more than happy since it would open the dooor to their being able to more readily drive a wedge in any united front we may have previously presented against further domination by them perfectly.

Which is why we ratified the constitution to begin with. (Read the Federalist Papers if you dont believe me)

The success of the South relied absolutely on recognition by Britain; and Britain refused to supply it because of the pro-slavery stance taken by the confederacy. In fact the failure of the South worked to Britain's favour- it managed to establish cotton farms in labour cheap parts of the Empire and in Egypt as well as weakening France in its misguided pursuit of a Mexican crown. workers in the cotton mills in the north of England sent letters of support to Lincoln and even contributed money to the Northern war effort while their mills stood idle for want of Southern cotton. Liverpool dock workers refused to unload much of the cotton that was smuggled out of the South. Britain put principle above interest in this matter.
the Southern seccession was very obviously a ploy to overthrow the government of the US by making Lincoln's presidency untenable and returning to the Union under its own terms.

[DuncanONeil]

"the Southern seccession was very obviously a ploy to overthrow the government of the US by making Lincoln's presidency untenable and returning to the Union under its own terms."

Evidence? Curious.

[Bren122]

"the Southern seccession was very obviously a ploy to overthrow the government of the US by making Lincoln's presidency untenable and returning to the Union under its own terms."

Evidence? Curious.

from the outset, except in radical journals and radical speeches, the aim of the threat of secession was to change the constitutional arrangements for entry of states into the Union so that parts of the south could be used to balance the plains states and keep a balance in the Senate and House. the nomination of Lincoln as Republican candidate against a divided democrat ticket meant that there was a real chance that an abolitionist would sit in the White House. the aim of the threat was maintained, but there was an additional purpose in attempting to keep Lincoln from being elected and, if elected, from being sworn in.
of course the Republicans won the election and Lincoln was sworn in. the delay between the ceremony and the first shot was used to arm the militias of both sides but also to find a compromise that would allow the south to return; it could not return under anything less than a full backdown by the north and this was never an option. the south's retention of slavery relied on a non-abolitionist president and a balance of states as represented in the House and Senate. there was also the issue of the economic and demographic preponderance of the north- as I noted to Denusseri there is a real element of now or never in the writings of the leadership of the south.
because neither side was prepared to back down the war began; but in order for the South to retain slavery for as long as it needed it had to overturn Lincoln's election and change the constitutional basis for statehood. though the attempt failed it was still an attempt to overthrow the US and the presidency.


the main alternative envisaged by elements of the south was an American Empire in Central America and the Carribean with perhaps extensions into South America. just as Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico were incorporated as conquered lands into the Union it was envisaged that other Mexican states would be included as slave states. of course the north was opposed to this on two fronts- the westward expansion already took up a great deal of energy and resources and the idea of extending slavery to areas where it had been banned. Ironically, the south alone did not have the resources to implement this dream.

[DuncanONeil]

Some of that was not covered in classes I took.
But the summary does make a stronger case that the prime issue of the war was States Rights.
If you consider the attempt to unseat Lincoln an attempt to "overthrow ... the presidency. Can not be said of the actions of those in Florida in 2000? Just an aside.
I am not so certain that it was the issue of slavery that drove the South. Though the existence of slavery was a large factor in the nature of the Southern economy. With the tech available and the size of the work force paying wages must have been seen as a "death knell" for the entire economy of those states.
Oh yes, while slaves did exist in the North the vast majority were in the South. So in some respects the argument about slavery was Pot/Kettle.

from the outset, except in radical journals and radical speeches, the aim of the threat of secession was to change the constitutional arrangements for entry of states into the Union so that parts of the south could be used to balance the plains states and keep a balance in the Senate and House. the nomination of Lincoln as Republican candidate against a divided democrat ticket meant that there was a real chance that an abolitionist would sit in the White House. the aim of the threat was maintained, but there was an additional purpose in attempting to keep Lincoln from being elected and, if elected, from being sworn in.
of course the Republicans won the election and Lincoln was sworn in. the delay between the ceremony and the first shot was used to arm the militias of both sides but also to find a compromise that would allow the south to return; it could not return under anything less than a full backdown by the north and this was never an option. the south's retention of slavery relied on a non-abolitionist president and a balance of states as represented in the House and Senate. there was also the issue of the economic and demographic preponderance of the north- as I noted to Denusseri there is a real element of now or never in the writings of the leadership of the south.
because neither side was prepared to back down the war began; but in order for the South to retain slavery for as long as it needed it had to overturn Lincoln's election and change the constitutional basis for statehood. though the attempt failed it was still an attempt to overthrow the US and the presidency.


the main alternative envisaged by elements of the south was an American Empire in Central America and the Carribean with perhaps extensions into South America. just as Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico were incorporated as conquered lands into the Union it was envisaged that other Mexican states would be included as slave states. of course the north was opposed to this on two fronts- the westward expansion already took up a great deal of energy and resources and the idea of extending slavery to areas where it had been banned. Ironically, the south alone did not have the resources to implement this dream.

[DuncanONeil]

The Civil War was not a single issue conflict. In fact if it was just about slavery, it likely would not have occurred as the North had slaves at the time.

No not at all, the south just wanted to seperate itself from the country they had previously made an oath to abide within (and our constitution btw too) so they could keep their slaves.

Which would have made the whole of Brittan (as well as some other western european counties at the time more than happy since it would open the dooor to their being able to more readily drive a wedge in any united front we may have previously presented against further domination by them perfectly.

Which is why we ratified the constitution to begin with. (Read the Federalist Papers if you dont believe me)

[denuseri]

The Civil War was not a single issue conflict. In fact if it was just about slavery, it likely would not have occurred as the North had slaves at the time.

Any model that trys to establish a focus for the cuase of the Civil war that doesnt include "slavery" as the primary issue of contention between the North and South is litterally and purposefully (through ignorance or othwerwise) obscure the issue in a retroactive "political correctnes" attempt to make modern day southerners feel ok about themselves for what their ancestors promoted and or side step the ugly truth.

Which is quite unessesary and counter productive to discussion of the events.

No modern day Southerner is alive today that took part in the events. Despite the old adage of a father's sins passing unto the son, there simply is no culpability involved with the issue of slavery for us anymore.

But, that doesnt mean that rasism didnt survive and attempt to thrive. Nor does it excuse those who promote it even to this day.

Just look at the volume of perspectives that history has preserved in letters and newspapers and other writtings the Southerners and Northerners of those times made about it if you need any further conformation. For every individual involved in the war saying that it was not about slavery for them per say, there were a hundred others who say it was.

[Bren122]

Any model that trys to establish a focus for the cuase of the Civil war that doesnt include "slavery" as the primary issue of contention between the North and South is litterally and purposefully (through ignorance or othwerwise) obscure the issue in a retroactive "political correctnes" attempt to make modern day southerners feel ok about themselves for what their ancestors promoted and or side step the ugly truth.

Duncan is partially correct; had it been possible for the previous compromises to continue in relation to the admittance of the states on the basis of free and non-free then the war either would have been long delayed or never have taken place. mechanisation of cotton production would have effectively seen slavery die out anyway. it was the unwillingness of the North to change constitutional conditions for state entry that ultimately led to the war. combined with a fear that the industrial strength of the North, already quite pronounced and shortly to become overywhelmingly dominant in the world, made an attempt at secession an increasingly now or never alternative- even 10 years on would have made a big difference in terms of population and economic power. eventually the south was swamped in a war of attrition.
slavery was the major difference between the states; it was slavery that retarded southern economic progress and caused the constitutional crisis. the election of Lincoln was the spark to a volatile situation. while publicly stating he had no intention of legislating an abolition of slavery, as Duncan himself has pointed out in a previous thread, there was no guarantee for the south that he would keep his word when in office.

[DuncanONeil]

slavery was the major difference between the states; it was slavery that retarded southern economic progress and caused the constitutional crisis.

Actually I would say the major difference between the North and the South was Agriculture vs Manufacturing, as you stated earlier. The fact that the South was almost totally agrarian did place them at a serious disadvantage in a war.

[DuncanONeil]

I never said it was not about slavery! I said the war was not a single issue event.
Ask most anyone what the Civil War was about and the answer you get is "slavery". On the face of it that can not be the raison d'être for the war. Else there would be no slaves in the North. As there were something else had to be the primary impetus for the war. Note I said primary!

Any model that trys to establish a focus for the cuase of the Civil war that doesnt include "slavery" as the primary issue of contention between the North and South is litterally and purposefully (through ignorance or othwerwise) obscure the issue in a retroactive "political correctnes" attempt to make modern day southerners feel ok about themselves for what their ancestors promoted and or side step the ugly truth.

Which is quite unessesary and counter productive to discussion of the events.

No modern day Southerner is alive today that took part in the events. Despite the old adage of a father's sins passing unto the son, there simply is no culpability involved with the issue of slavery for us anymore.

But, that doesnt mean that rasism didnt survive and attempt to thrive. Nor does it excuse those who promote it even to this day.

Just look at the volume of perspectives that history has preserved in letters and newspapers and other writtings the Southerners and Northerners of those times made about it if you need any further conformation. For every individual involved in the war saying that it was not about slavery for them per say, there were a hundred others who say it was.