ARCHIVED
 Steve_T_M
Here Toy Go
Team Member
Joined: Jul 2004  USA
 Posts: 6450 Feedback: 100% (5) Link To This Post |
Posted: 3/18/2012 1:11:14 PM
[Last Edit: 3/18/2012 1:11:28 PM by Steve_T_M]
I don't think it was. I think James Buchanan's weak leadership allowed the country to fall to pieces. The country was too far on the road to dissolution by the time Lincoln assumed office.
Keep in mind that there was almost a secession crisis several decades earlier, but Andrew Jackson brought the hammer down and snuffed it out before it gained momentum. I believe he promised to personally lead an army south and "hang the first secessionist I find from the first tree that I see" or something like that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2012 11:17:29 PM
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Originally Posted By ClemY:
Originally Posted By captainpooby:
I don't believe so. Lincoln could have just let the South cecede. Slavery would have died on it's own. I think if Lincoln was half as smart as he thought he was, he would have wished them well and let them go. Slavery was already a dying institution, quickly becoming non-economically viable. Slavery would have died and the South would have drifted back to the Union, probably by the turn of the century. As it was, we were refighting the war at least up through the 1970s. It not only killed a bunch of people, destroyed most of an entire region on the country, it created hate and discontent that lasted for generations. It was all so avoidable (maybe). The reality that Lincoln faced wasn't as simple as the scenario you present. Contrary to your view that slavery was a dying institution, there were more slaves in 1860 than in 1850, with the slave population increasing through birthrate instead of importation. Then there is the fact that Texas declared that the institution of slavery "should exist in all future time." Whatever your personal views, they weren't shared by southern states at that time. Then there is the fact that federal bases are property of the Federal Government. A person today might speculate that Lincoln should have simply written off those lands, but the reality is that governments face internal and external consequences when they allow themselves to be robbed of land they have a lawful claim to and don't at least put up a fight about it. Then there is the idea that the US is some kind of "club" and that states can come and go as they please. Sure, some held to that idea as far back as the founding of the nation. Others disagreed...all the way back to the founding of the nation. It wasn't some universally accepted notion. My point is that the reality of what Lincoln faced was much more difficult than some today seem to think. You miss the point about slavery being a dying institution. I won't dispute that the number of slaves was higher in 1860 than 1850 but the reality is that slavery was simply not as effecient as the free market and not as competative. The south was falling behind the north economically because of slavery but the slave owners simply refused to let it go however there are many indications that the younger generation saw that slavery was a loosing proposition and were starting to move away from it. Even in the south slavery was detested by most of the population, unfortunatly it was popular with the minority who had the most infuence. I can see your point about federal bases and lands but I am sure had Lincoln tried some agreement could have been made for means of compensation. You are wrong about states having the right to leave however. In fact some states, one of which being New York, refused to adopt the Constitution without a provision for them to remove themselves from the union should they see fit. If states are not allowed to remove themselves from a union they enter into volitarially then they essentially condemn themselves to slavery. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2012 11:34:01 AM
Originally Posted By captainpooby:
I don't believe so. Lincoln could have just let the South secede. Slavery would have died on it's own. Ridiculous! Slavery was spreading throughout the New Western states and territories, and small wars were flaring up all over the West because of it. If something wasn't done about it a Balkanized country which would have fallen apart due to factional fighting would have resulted. Study history, its the cure for uninformed ideas such as these. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2012 8:23:54 PM
Originally Posted By 1903pa:
Originally Posted By captainpooby:
I don't believe so. Lincoln could have just let the South secede. Slavery would have died on it's own. Ridiculous! Slavery was spreading throughout the New Western states and territories, and small wars were flaring up all over the West because of it. If something wasn't done about it a Balkanized country which would have fallen apart due to factional fighting would have resulted. Study history, its the cure for uninformed ideas such as these. You should take your own advice! Slavery was allowed in most western territories but was rarely practiced. Slavery simply wasn't cost affective solution and it was in fact dieing. Ask yourself why the U.S. was the only country in the western hemisphere that ended slavery by violent means? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2012 7:40:38 AM
I don't think it was inevitable, but it became inevitable because of a hardening of attitudes and a lack of statesmanship in our government. These are definately things we need to keep in mind, since I see our country on a similar path right now.
I've tried to figure out when the point of no return came about. My best guess is the time of Bleeding Kansas. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2012 10:01:36 PM
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Originally Posted By ClemY:
Originally Posted By captainpooby:
I don't believe so. Lincoln could have just let the South cecede. Slavery would have died on it's own. I think if Lincoln was half as smart as he thought he was, he would have wished them well and let them go. Slavery was already a dying institution, quickly becoming non-economically viable. Slavery would have died and the South would have drifted back to the Union, probably by the turn of the century. As it was, we were refighting the war at least up through the 1970s. It not only killed a bunch of people, destroyed most of an entire region on the country, it created hate and discontent that lasted for generations. It was all so avoidable (maybe). The reality that Lincoln faced wasn't as simple as the scenario you present. Contrary to your view that slavery was a dying institution, there were more slaves in 1860 than in 1850, with the slave population increasing through birthrate instead of importation. Then there is the fact that Texas declared that the institution of slavery "should exist in all future time." Whatever your personal views, they weren't shared by southern states at that time. Then there is the fact that federal bases are property of the Federal Government. A person today might speculate that Lincoln should have simply written off those lands, but the reality is that governments face internal and external consequences when they allow themselves to be robbed of land they have a lawful claim to and don't at least put up a fight about it. Then there is the idea that the US is some kind of "club" and that states can come and go as they please. Sure, some held to that idea as far back as the founding of the nation. Others disagreed...all the way back to the founding of the nation. It wasn't some universally accepted notion. My point is that the reality of what Lincoln faced was much more difficult than some today seem to think. Lincoln did the right thing. As a true patriot, I put my country above my political beliefs and conservative leanings. It is treason to attempt to destroy what the Founders created. 
The United States would never have become a global, thriving superpower if the lower half of North America had been divided between two vastly different enemies. Do not forget that America's rivals and competitors (those who would have wanted the U.S. to be destroyed) were the people who supported the Confederacy in some way or sympathized with it. Britain and France both helped the rebel traitors as a means of furthering their own interests. Today, the same thing is happening. The bankrupt, lunatic fringe ideology of Ron Paul is being supported by Russian state television and one of its mouthpieces, Adam Kokesh (look him up and you will understand). |
|
|
|
Grayrider1862
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2009 KY, USA
Posts: 169 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/31/2012 4:27:35 AM
I sometimes wonder if the sins of slavery were so terrible that our God required a price from our country equally terrible to clense us of that sin.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2012 8:07:28 AM
Yes there was no way around it.
|
|
|
|
Shane333
Member
Team Member
Joined: May 2003 UT, USA
Posts: 34710 Feedback: 100% (13) Link To This Post |
Posted: 6/6/2012 11:23:11 AM
Originally Posted By blkned:
You miss the point about slavery being a dying institution. I won't dispute that the number of slaves was higher in 1860 than 1850 but the reality is that slavery was simply not as effecient as the free market and not as competative. The south was falling behind the north economically because of slavery but the slave owners simply refused to let it go however there are many indications that the younger generation saw that slavery was a loosing proposition and were starting to move away from it. Even in the south slavery was detested by most of the population, unfortunatly it was popular with the minority who had the most infuence. I can see your point about federal bases and lands but I am sure had Lincoln tried some agreement could have been made for means of compensation. You are wrong about states having the right to leave however. In fact some states, one of which being New York, refused to adopt the Constitution without a provision for them to remove themselves from the union should they see fit. If states are not allowed to remove themselves from a union they enter into volitarially then they essentially condemn themselves to slavery. [/div] I haven't missed any point about slavery. The theory that it was a dying institution was nothing but a theory, and was actually contradicted by a statement made in Texas' declaration of causation for secession. You may believe tht it was a dying institution, and are free to believe such, but the ruling class in the South at that time certainly didn't manifest that belief or intention. Remember, slavery wasn't just about economics, but about an aristocratic lifestyle mimicking aspects of European feudalism. Regarding Lincoln and potential compensation, perhaps you've overlooked the fact that secession was declared, federal lands seized, and shots were fired (on the resupply ship Star of the West) before Lincoln was even sworn into office. The southern states never gave Lincoln the opportunity to offer any kind of compromise or compensation related to the issue of slavery before they acted. Perhaps I missed it when I was reading through the Constitution a few weeks ago. Could you show me the Article or Section of the US Constitution that explicitly named New York as having a provision to remve themselves as they saw fit? New York may have written its own document suggesting such a right, but I don't recall it being in the US Constitution, and if it isn't in the Constitution then it is legally questionable even if New Yorkers believed otherwise at the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2012 9:49:35 AM
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Then there is the idea that the US is some kind of "club" and that states can come and go as they please. Sure, some held to that idea as far back as the founding of the nation. Others disagreed...all the way back to the founding of the nation. It wasn't some universally accepted notion. Actually it pretty much was... At least within the halls of Congress and the Senate. The threat of succession was used repeatedly by both northern and southern states to push legislation they wanted passed and far more often to block legislation they didn't want to pass. |
|
|
|
BushBoar
Hated Divorce Lawyer
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2004 NY, USA
Posts: 20609 Feedback: 100% (24) Link To This Post |
Posted: 6/11/2012 10:01:05 AM
Originally Posted By amadeus76: Originally Posted By Shane333: Then there is the idea that the US is some kind of "club" and that states can come and go as they please. Sure, some held to that idea as far back as the founding of the nation. Others disagreed...all the way back to the founding of the nation. It wasn't some universally accepted notion. Actually it pretty much was... At least within the halls of Congress and the Senate. The threat of succession was used repeatedly by both northern and southern states to push legislation they wanted passed and far more often to block legislation they didn't want to pass. And ironically enough it was a southern president that threatened to personally lead and army to put down a threatened secession and hang the leaders. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2012 10:07:33 AM
One thing that people often overlook is that until about 15-20 prior to the war, even in the South, despite their economy being based on it (in the North as well but that isn't as readily apparent), people viewed slavery as morally wrong... Nobody expected or wanted slavery to last forever but nobody had any idea how to do away with it either. Couple that with the recent (in their time) uprising in Haiti where the revolting slaves killed every white person on the island and you can understand the concern over what might happen if millions of former slaves had access to weapons.
The overwhelming majority of Americans, even slave owners, wanted to do away with slavery but like we do today with national debt, Congress continually kicked the can down the road for someone else to deal with. But between John Brown's raid intending to arm slaves and the hardening animosity of the abolitionists the South felt backed into a corner and responded by hardening their own position. The war didn't have to happen... |
|
|
|
4bangin
It's a state of mind
Team Member
Joined: Jul 2005 USA
Posts: 2715 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 6/11/2012 10:16:48 AM
The cotton gin, tractor, and combine would have eliminated 75% of slavery.
|
|
|
|
BushBoar
Hated Divorce Lawyer
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2004 NY, USA
Posts: 20610 Feedback: 100% (24) Link To This Post |
Posted: 6/11/2012 10:20:25 AM
Originally Posted By 4bangin: The cotton gin, tractor, and combine would have eliminated 75% of slavery. History fail. Whitney's patent on the cotton gin was issued in 1794 and it made slavery significantly more profitable. |
|
|
4bangin
It's a state of mind
Team Member
Joined: Jul 2005 USA
Posts: 2719 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 6/12/2012 8:11:12 PM
Originally Posted By BushBoar: yeah yeah yeah..... tractor still cheaper than human.Originally Posted By 4bangin: The cotton gin, tractor, and combine would have eliminated 75% of slavery. History fail. Whitney's patent on the cotton gin was issued in 1794 and it made slavery significantly more profitable. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 1:44:11 PM
The prime reason for slavery in the south was cheap labor. Had the war been avoided, slavery would have gone by the wayside by the end of the 19th century, I think. But the emotions on both sides were so high when Lincoln was elected, the war was probably enevitable, sadly.
|
|
|
|
Shane333
Member
Team Member
Joined: May 2003 UT, USA
Posts: 34899 Feedback: 100% (13) Link To This Post |
Posted: 6/21/2012 3:16:30 PM
Originally Posted By 4bangin:
Originally Posted By BushBoar:
yeah yeah yeah..... tractor still cheaper than human.
Originally Posted By 4bangin:
The cotton gin, tractor, and combine would have eliminated 75% of slavery. History fail. Whitney's patent on the cotton gin was issued in 1794 and it made slavery significantly more profitable. Why would anyone assume that human labor is limited to a single task? There are all sorts of crops that still get picked by hand today. That's just considering one part of the agriculture industry. Slave labor could be applied to other industries as well. Thomas Jefferson, for example, used slave labor to constantly remodel his Monticello. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2012 10:19:37 PM
[Last Edit: 7/15/2012 10:19:59 PM by bamaboy177]
The North needed their tarrifs and taxes, so they were bent on keeping the South in the Union. As for treason mentioned above, I guess you would consider the rebels of 1775 traitors as well?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/16/2012 3:59:28 AM
[Last Edit: 7/16/2012 4:02:10 AM by zapzap]
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Originally Posted By blkned:
You miss the point about slavery being a dying institution. I won't dispute that the number of slaves was higher in 1860 than 1850 but the reality is that slavery was simply not as effecient as the free market and not as competative. The south was falling behind the north economically because of slavery but the slave owners simply refused to let it go however there are many indications that the younger generation saw that slavery was a loosing proposition and were starting to move away from it. Even in the south slavery was detested by most of the population, unfortunatly it was popular with the minority who had the most infuence. I can see your point about federal bases and lands but I am sure had Lincoln tried some agreement could have been made for means of compensation. You are wrong about states having the right to leave however. In fact some states, one of which being New York, refused to adopt the Constitution without a provision for them to remove themselves from the union should they see fit. If states are not allowed to remove themselves from a union they enter into volitarially then they essentially condemn themselves to slavery. [/div] Perhaps I missed it when I was reading through the Constitution a few weeks ago. Could you show me the Article or Section of the US Constitution that explicitly named New York as having a provision to remve themselves as they saw fit? New York may have written its own document suggesting such a right, but I don't recall it being in the US Constitution, and if it isn't in the Constitution then it is legally questionable even if New Yorkers believed otherwise at the time. The better question is, where does it say they can't? The thing about the Constitution, if it doesn't say you specifically can or can't do something, then it is left up to the states. The 10th Amendment does say that the federal government only has the powers given to it as stated in the Constitution, no power to prevent or reverse secession is granted to the federal government (this includes the President). Now, look at Article 1, Section 1 & 2 of the Texas Constitution (our Bill of Rights). "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States…they [the people] have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform, or abolish their government in such a manner as they may think expedient." I would really like to point out two things here, State is capitalized and it doesn't say subject to Congress nor the President. Just an example. Now, could the war have been avoided, maybe. There is always the economic crash that is related to loss of labor in the post-war years. Look at cotton for example, 150 years later, it still hasn't caught back up to the pre-war years (look at prices). A slave cost about as much as a modern car ($22,000-$30,000) and needed only a sack and a plow to plant and harvest. 8 workers, roughly $250,000 giver or take (with sacks and plows). A modern tractor, will run you upwards of $300,000 that doesn't include the 8 row planter (those aren't cheap either), the stripper (there's another few hundred thousand) or the module builder. Easy to see why it hasn't caught back up yet. I'm not even gonna go into sprayers or fuel it takes to make all of that equipment move. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2012 6:22:35 PM
Originally Posted By amadeus76:
One thing that people often overlook is that until about 15-20 prior to the war, even in the South, despite their economy being based on it (in the North as well but that isn't as readily apparent), people viewed slavery as morally wrong... Nobody expected or wanted slavery to last forever but nobody had any idea how to do away with it either. Couple that with the recent (in their time) uprising in Haiti where the revolting slaves killed every white person on the island and you can understand the concern over what might happen if millions of former slaves had access to weapons. Except that they did have access to weapons, purchasing firearms, alcohol, selling their artisan skills at market, voting - these types of things weren't prohibited until the Maryland Slave Holders meeting in response to Brown and Nat Turner and Unitarian agitation attempting to duplicate the scenario in Haiti. |
|
|
|
Shane333
Member
Team Member
Joined: May 2003 UT, USA
Posts: 35398 Feedback: 100% (13) Link To This Post |
Posted: 7/26/2012 6:32:03 PM
Originally Posted By zapzap:
Originally Posted By Shane333:
Originally Posted By blkned:
You miss the point about slavery being a dying institution. I won't dispute that the number of slaves was higher in 1860 than 1850 but the reality is that slavery was simply not as effecient as the free market and not as competative. The south was falling behind the north economically because of slavery but the slave owners simply refused to let it go however there are many indications that the younger generation saw that slavery was a loosing proposition and were starting to move away from it. Even in the south slavery was detested by most of the population, unfortunatly it was popular with the minority who had the most infuence. I can see your point about federal bases and lands but I am sure had Lincoln tried some agreement could have been made for means of compensation. You are wrong about states having the right to leave however. In fact some states, one of which being New York, refused to adopt the Constitution without a provision for them to remove themselves from the union should they see fit. If states are not allowed to remove themselves from a union they enter into volitarially then they essentially condemn themselves to slavery. [/div] Perhaps I missed it when I was reading through the Constitution a few weeks ago. Could you show me the Article or Section of the US Constitution that explicitly named New York as having a provision to remve themselves as they saw fit? New York may have written its own document suggesting such a right, but I don't recall it being in the US Constitution, and if it isn't in the Constitution then it is legally questionable even if New Yorkers believed otherwise at the time. The better question is, where does it say they can't? The thing about the Constitution, if it doesn't say you specifically can or can't do something, then it is left up to the states. The 10th Amendment does say that the federal government only has the powers given to it as stated in the Constitution, no power to prevent or reverse secession is granted to the federal government (this includes the President). Now, look at Article 1, Section 1 & 2 of the Texas Constitution (our Bill of Rights). "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States…they [the people] have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform, or abolish their government in such a manner as they may think expedient." I would really like to point out two things here, State is capitalized and it doesn't say subject to Congress nor the President. Just an example. Now, could the war have been avoided, maybe. There is always the economic crash that is related to loss of labor in the post-war years. Look at cotton for example, 150 years later, it still hasn't caught back up to the pre-war years (look at prices). A slave cost about as much as a modern car ($22,000-$30,000) and needed only a sack and a plow to plant and harvest. 8 workers, roughly $250,000 giver or take (with sacks and plows). A modern tractor, will run you upwards of $300,000 that doesn't include the 8 row planter (those aren't cheap either), the stripper (there's another few hundred thousand) or the module builder. Easy to see why it hasn't caught back up yet. I'm not even gonna go into sprayers or fuel it takes to make all of that equipment move. Thanks for the explanation. It really is a travesty the way "reconstruction" worked out...to the detriment of states rights. |
|
ARCHIVED
