Posted on 10/11/2017 8:33:29 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
“Unlike the civil war, or at least not to the extent of the homogeneity of the civil war population, civil war II would start with millions behind enemy lines.”
Could end up more love the partition of India in that regard.
Often overlooked is the aggressive use of public works spending in support of industrial development primarily in the North, with no commensurate attention to the agricultural economy of the South.
Slavery was simply the mark of the English method of planting—German farms were typically managed without slaves, and were no doubt better, but the majority of the farms were English.
The fact is, two separate economies warred, one used slaves, the other subsistence level wage employees. One economy was relatively rich in liquid capital for payrolls. The other economy was seasonal, cash rich once, perhaps twice a year.
When War came, each side singled out it’s opponents most obvious moral failing. The North’s current exploitation of European immigration, intended similar treatment of the South, and financial back-dealing was cited by the South, and the North seized upon slavery.
This truth is evident in light of the fact that compensated manumission seems never to have been formally offered, or even seriously contemplated to offset the economic and social disaster mandating immediate manumission would bring to a cash-poor economy—as it did at the end of the war.
The worst thing about the lie is that, even if not inspired by,it got folded into the Hegelian, Marxist notion of the forward march of history. The left has been hunting for people and things to liberate ever since. It’s the heart of their moral galaxy.
ping
The author is more likely to be a western intelligence asset, and as such quite adept at developing and disseminating false narratives.
If the goal were to inflame the situation, your reaction would be considered positive feedback.
The author is more likely to be a western intelligence asset, and as such quite adept at developing and disseminating false narratives.
If the goal were to inflame the situation, your reaction would be considered positive feedback.
We cannot “severely restrict immigration” unless Americans start marrying and having children. We don’t have anywhere near enough children and our labor supply depends on immigration.
tsomer: "Often overlooked is the aggressive use of public works spending in support of industrial development primarily in the North, with no commensurate attention to the agricultural economy of the South."
That's a false accusation because: Southern politicians dominated Congress from around 1800 until they walked out in 1861.
So nothing serious happened they didn't want and what they did want they eventually got.
As for antebellum Federal spending, it was split roughly evenly between North & South, meaning the South got disproportionately more, based on their lower populations.
But, some say, the South paid all the Federal taxes!
No they didn't, Deep South cotton exports supported about half of Federal import taxes, but everything else could and did come from other regions.
Bottom line: the South got its fair share of Federal largess and a little bit extra.
tsomer: "One economy was relatively rich in liquid capital for payrolls.
The other economy was seasonal, cash rich once, perhaps twice a year."
In fact, because of remarkable growth in cotton exports during the 1850s, by 1860 average Deep South whites were markedly better off than their Northern cousins.
And with rapidly expanding railroads they were far from backwards.
But they were not as industrialized as the North and that made a huge difference.
tsomer: "...compensated manumission seems never to have been formally offered, or even seriously contemplated to offset the economic and social disaster mandating immediate manumission..."
In fact, several such plans were proposed going all the way back to President Jefferson and always rejected by slave-holders.
Early in the Civil War Confederates could have ended the fighting and kept their slaves, but refused.
Even near the war's end, Confederates were offered compensated manumission but still refused.
Instead they chose to fight on to Unconditional Surrender and total uncompensated abolition.
You give him too much credit. They aren’t that smart.
Much more than just the names -- servants who are paid a wage and can quit their jobs are, by definition, no longer slaves.
A 1754 Massachusetts census recorded about 4,500 slaves, but from 1790 on none were recorded (except one in 1830).
In 1860 Massachusetts had about 10,000 freed-blacks.
By 1860 Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island & New York allowed free black men to vote.
Are you kidding?
The Confederacy was all about consuming & incorporating Union states & territories.
That's what Fort Sumter gave them: 4 Union states which had refused to secede switched sides after Fort Sumter.
Five more slave-states still did not secede, so Confederates sent military aid to pro-Confederates fighting in those Union states.
Confederates also laid claim to at least three Union territories and launched military operations into another half dozen Union states & territories.
And just so nobody could miss their point, Confederates formally declared war on the United States on May 6, 1861.
So the Confederacy was a big deal, representing an existential threat to the United States, and refusing to stop fighting on any terms better than Unconditional Surrender.
The institution of Slavery was the fabric of the entire economic system of the south...without slavery their economy would collapse. You are picking at straws. There were no slave plantations in Massachusetts and no cash crops like cotton and tobacco that were picked by the slave labor system of the south. That is what the South was defending when they seceded.
“”Our first Civil War was primarily about slavery”
Of course it had nothing to do with economics or states rights.”
I’ve always thought of it as a war fought over the right of secession, i.e., a war of independence. The North basically said “No. You can’t secede” just as England had said to the colonies in the 1770’s. The difference is the “seceding” colonies won their war of independence whereas the confederate states lost theirs.
What I can’t figure out is how we justify forcing states to stay in the union if they want to leave. When the states ratified the constitution did they know they were joining a club they could never quit?
If there are parallels with today, I’d say if LA, Chicago or entire liberal states like CA hate MAGA that much, and don’t want to abide by the constitution (sanctuary cities, abolish 2nd amendment, excessive tax and regulation, gay marriage, etc.), let them secede without a fight.
Califirnia secession would be sad for conservative patriots living in liberal CA, but it’s sad for them already - and not near as painful as a second Civil War. They could choose whether to remain in the new Socialist California, or relocate to a different state.
If Lincoln was truly great he would have spared 650,000 lives and let the confederates secede. Maybe slavery would have persisted a couple decades longer or maybe it wouldn’t have - nobody knows. But we do know 650,000 Americans lives would have been spared.
Let California secede. Hopefully my daughter will move back east if that happens - it would be her choice.
You should be reading the argument that DiogenesLamp and I are having on the Freeper thread, Let Them Leave. It is getting pretty deep on both sides of that argument.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3593865/posts
Those slaves/servants could never ‘quit’ their jobs in Massachusetts. They had no means of supporting themselves. It took a minimum of 50 acres to provide the resources to survive.
Those who couldn’t support themselves, either because they didn’t know how or because they didn’t have land, were auctioned off to townspeople. People in the town would bid a certain amount and the town would pay the family that amount to provide food and shelter. The person would then live in their house their servant. BTW those were white people were auctioned.
Massachusetts is the colony that brought the first slaves here, yet they claim to be so virtuous.
Read Post 70 by Pete Dovgan. The Confederacy was actively attacking the North in several ways and it became an existential battle. The South wanted to destroy the North, and was never really interested in peaceful coexistence.
Ask Edmund Ruffin what he wanted.
But when these Civil War II threads get going somebody says, "We have all the guns, and we know how to use them!" Not a smart comment. First of all, because nobody has as much firepower as the US military and whatever side they come down on will probably win. Secondly, somebody's always out there to say "See, they really want a civil war!" And third, there may be somebody out there who reads the post and thinks, "Hey, we could win a civil war!"
Foreign Policy has another article on What a new U.S. civil war might look like. It's not very detailed or informative or thoughtful. But it does make you wonder why Foreign Policy is pushing this topic.
A sample:
To counter this emerging threat in America it’s critical to establish more formal practices for identifying and tracking domestic extremism — with an honest recognition that young, white males on both ends of the political spectrum are the most likely to commit violence.
Believe it or not, a lot of extremists and terrorists aren't white or young (a few aren't even male).
——whatever side they come down on will probably win.-—
but not before down the street neighbors have been exterminated
Foreign Policy is the Washington Post. Also Newsweek and Slate.
“That (slavery) is what the South was defending when they seceded.”
I’m not sure that is correct, but for the purpose of this post, let’s assume it is correct: the South was fighting to defend slavery. And the North was fighting to overthrow slavery.
The problem is, the USA constitution enshrined slavery. And the USA President Lincoln took an oath - twice - to defend the pro-slavery USA constitution.
You contend Lincoln and the North took up the bayonet to “free the slaves.”
USA presidents really aren’t supposed to overthrow the constitution with violence.
Do you care to explain your contention the North was fighting to “free the slaves?”
The North was losing the war, losing badly. So the war was repackaged as a war to end slavery and also the Conscription Act was slipped around the same time. Riots ensued.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.