Posted on 11/14/2010 10:31:23 AM PST by Pacothecat
BASHING AMERICA, GORE VIDAL AND LIB TALKER OPINE: WOULDN‘T IT BE BETTER IF LINCOLN DIDN’T SAVE THE UNION
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/bashing-america-gore-vidal-and-lib-talker-opine-wouldnt-it-be-better-if-lincoln-didnt-save-the-union
The South simply was on the wrong side of world opinion. Had they voluntarily abolished slavery, they could have made the case to the British that they were simply seeking freedom from Northern domination.
Slavery was just not a winning issue for them even if their other grievances were legitimate.
I sympathize with the South, in fact I would say that for the most part, race relations are much better in the South than in the North. The Northerners always talk a good game, but that’s because they don’t have to live next to them. Privately a lot of Yankee liberals are much more racist than people in the South.
Where were the most violent anti-bussing protests in the 70s?
Boston, that so-called bastion of tolerance.
“and was the proximate cause of the Civil War”
The proximate cause of the Civil War was Confederate President Jefferson Davis ordering an attack on Fort Sumter.
He was warned by his own Secretary of State Robert Toombs of Georgia that this would cause civil war, but he decided to ignore the warning.
If the South had selected Toombs or Alexander Stephens as their President the war may well have been averted. The South should have sued for their independence. SCOTUS at the time had a large pro-South majority, and they probably would have won the case.
No it was not. Slavery was a side issue at the time. The South was more agrarian and less inclined to Federal control. The passion that was generated at the time was not as much for control of slaves as it was for self determination. Anyone that tries to make it all about slavery has missed the point. Those issues are being debated today. We were not formed as a democracy, but as a Union of States that is a Republic. We often confuse ourselves with the French Democracy, which we are not.
There aren’t any bats here but there certainly are a few Lost Cause Losers.
Another example of how liberals live in a world of fantasy. The real world does not comport with their dreams, so flights of fantasy take over and rule their thoughts often.
Hope and change that never happens.
I was just watching DeMint with Chris Wallace on Fox...struck me how times don’t change really...a South Carolinian pushing for less Federal encroachment.
thanks for proving my point...now go scurry along and ring up your race baiting pals...you are kind of outnumbered here
Not really outnumbered. It’s just that there’s no compelling reason to debate you, since your cause is indeed lost.
The Abolitionists could have taken ships to points off the Southern coast and taken runaways to freedom. Later, if slavery had still be in existence when the automobile was invented, it would have been even easier to help slaves escape.
Of course there were some Northern whites who assistaed runaways in the "Underground Railroad" but that was after they had already gotten to a free state.
A lot of Northerners may have regarded slavery as an evil (pre-Civil War) but they wanted the slaves to be freed and to stay in the South. Alexis de Tocqueville believed that anti-black bigotry was more extreme in the regions where slavery had been abolished.
The GOP was the first ‘big gov’t’ party, at least compared to the the Democrats of the day. Every interest group that wanted more gov’t spending and interference gathered around the GOP bandwagon, with the equivalent of the social conservatives, the anti-slavery types, being a core group as well.
So if the CSA had succeeded in establishing its independence, we'd have had two intrinsically hostile nations on the continent, plus of course British North America.
And you think a state of continuous hostility, probably with fortified borders and an arms race, plus standing armies, is a prescription for limited government in both sections?
Have you read the history of the late 19th century in Europe? They had what you wanted on one continent: hostile nations, balance of power, universal military service, arms race and the whole bit.
Led directly to expanding governments and, not incidentally, the War to End Wars. From which flowed pretty much all the international problems of the 20th and 21st centuries.
The neo-wannabes on FR think the “south” or whatever is Utopia, much like what Lenin thought the Soviet Union could be....
Thankfully the southern aristocracy was defeated....it gives us these wonderfully entertaining threads like this one....
And the “Zimmermann Note” may not have gone to Mexico, it may have gone to Richmond.
Because somehow slavery wasn't real? It couldn't be that important, right? Not like the stuff we argue about today? That's extremely self-centered and presentist.
It's true that the North didn't go to war to free the slaves, but to preserve the union. But the defense of slavery was the reason for secession. Indeed, it was the reason behind the bitterness of the North-South conflict.
I’m not sure Lincoln actually saved the Union. Seems like it’s in a pretty sad shape, in any event.
I wonder if the Latin American experience may not have been in people's minds at the time. Even if wasn't, the idea that smaller countries are inevitably freer and happier takes a hit when you look at what's happened south of the border.
Lost cause? Lincoln's own words state what was lost (bold mine):
"In Saving the Union, I have destroyed the Republic, before me have I the Confederacy wich I loathe, but behind me have I the bankers wich I fear"
Or it might have gone to Mexico and DC, with the idea that USA and Mexico would divide up the CSA. That would have been right in line with European international politics of the time.
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.