Replies

It’s unfortunate that Lincoln can very well be classified as both the best and the worst as a result of his election and administration. It’s a very complicated situation, but frankly, a lot of it was merely the “perfect storm” of delaying dealing with the issue of slavery until both sides could not longer tolerate the other.

Had it been abolished at our founding, so much would’ve been avoided, but that was not possible without a decided split between the colonies, and disunity would’ve allowed a victory for the British monarchy.

The South was clearly playing with fire, and in areas where you had free Whites outnumbered by slaves by margins as high as 10-to-1 (such as Charleston), how long did they think they could maintain a status quo before you had a Haitian situation or more Nat Turner uprisings ? Even without arms, sheer numbers of people could use brute force and then obtain said arms.

As I’ve addressed in other posts, though, the North was hypocritical as well. They abhorred slavery, BUT, did not want an exodus of ex-slaves to their hometowns. They were fine with Black folks so long as there were few nearby and the remainder far, far away from them (something even the Black comedian and satirist Dick Gregory observed as late as the 1960s).

The election of subpar to near-incompetent Presidents from 1836 to 1856 didn’t help matters, delaying what was the inevitable. If only because both the Whigs and the Democrats had balances between their pro-slave and anti-slave wings forced both parties to have to appeal to both sides, allowing for that corrosive status quo to continue.

The explicit creation of the Republicans with the collapse of the Whigs, allowing for a singular anti-slave party meant that the election of even one would spark a war. Had Millard Fillmore not tried a third-party bid in 1856 with the remnants of the Whigs continuing to try for a status quo situation, it would’ve just as easily begun with a President Fremont, and hence would’ve been on his head instead.

There was no one really in 1860 that could’ve stopped the inevitable. Perhaps John Bell (the nominee from my state of TN, whom I would’ve voted for, however futile that would’ve been — of course Lincoln was not on the ballot in TN and Bell was closest to the GOP even as an ex-Whig Constitutionalist), but that again would’ve merely delayed the situation to 1864.

Southern Democrats wouldn’t even tolerate the moderate Stephen Douglas. If the Senator from Illinois had managed to put together a coalition to win, the South would’ve considered him virtually as intolerable as Lincoln. Breckinridge ? Utterly intolerable to the Northern states and likely would’ve faced impeachment with a GOP Congress.

So, then, back to Lincoln. But, again, what was he to do ? If he sat back and allowed 11 states to secede without doing anything, he’d have presided over the effective dissolution of the nation. It would’ve been viewed by the North as gutless, cowardly and perhaps even treasonous. Such weak leadership, again, would’ve almost guaranteed his impeachment. Worse, yet, other states might’ve fully defected as well (MO, KY, MD, DE) and swaths of Southern-sympathizing areas in IL, IN and OH. DC itself would’ve been completely surrounded by enemy territory and likely would’ve resulted in the federal government having to retreat and relocate back to Philadelphia.

Any of that would’ve meant Southern victory outright. With a weakened North, that would’ve emboldened the South to go on an unprecedented territorial gobble, first with Caribbean interests (Cuba), then Mexico (as it was 20 years earlier, Southern interests wanted to annex most of Northern Mexico), and clear down Central America to the Colombian border. You’d also have had skirmishes and battles with the aforementioned weakened North to obtain Arizona, New Mexico and Southern California.

Perhaps, even audacious attempts to move on to South America. Of course, in doing all of this, the Whites would’ve been in the decided minority in such a new country, with a large group of Blacks and Native Indians, with the latter probably being formally swallowed up into a new class of slavery (however longer that would’ve lasted).

By the 20th century, the CSA would’ve probably been closer to Mexico in style and substance. An aristocracy in control of the nation with a gargantuan underclass and probably astronomical crime levels. Likely a third-world country.

The greatly shrunken USA might’ve been more like a slightly stronger version of Canada. Curiously, they’d have likely been the ones to build a wall along the border to keep Southern refugees out (read: Blacks and Indians).

If history had unfolded as it did in Europe and Asia, I don’t think the USA alone would’ve been able to stand up to Hitler, et al. Indeed, it’s even conceivable the CSA might’ve aligned itself with Germany in both wars and we’d have had yet more war between the USA and CSA.

Excuse me for going off on a tangent here. Despite all the problems that Lincoln spurred on in keeping the country together, I’d think we’d be in such a vastly different reality today to the point that it would’ve been far worse. We can only speculate, of course. I do rank Lincoln as “Great”, but with a cost, only one that might’ve been easier to pay than had he failed to win the war.

Dj, as always... Impressive.

You’re a frigging living encyclopedia of history.

As I’ve addressed in other posts, though, the North was hypocritical as well.

Wrong. The North didn't bring them here and wasn't responsible for them. The slave owners who controlled the South bare 100% responsibility for the war, remember no one was gonna take their slaves but they were unwilling to let their political and economic power continue to decline. Bunch of Soroses.

Opposing human bondage and not wanting indigent ex-slaves to live next door to you and take jobs in your area are not morally incongruous positions any more than opposing abortion and not supporting the government paying for every crack whore's kid are morally incongruous positions.

You try too hard to be even handed. And way too many people of Southern extraction needlessly defend that rebellion for no better reason than silly pride that their ancestors couldn't have possibly been on "the wrong side". Rebelling so slavery could be expanded is not a defensible position, which is why we always hear nonsense propaganda about how the war wasn't really about slavery. Neo-Confederate Romanticism does nothing but make us look bad.

Correct. There was no one who could have stopped the war in 1860.

James Huston’s book, “Calculating the Value of Union” is exceptionally good (even though he goes off the rails at the end) in that he makes clear that the issue, deep down, was the definition of “property.”

Was a human “property?” Half the states and about 1/3 of the white population said “yes.” The problem arose that with the Missouri Compromise territory opening up, those numbers were about to drop precipitously. Thus the incredible fight over such a relatively meaningless territory as Kansas.

Ultimately as Huston shows, if slaves got into the territories, it would be impossible legally and philosophically to keep them out of the north. After all, a chair in Alabama is a chair in Utah is a chair in Ohio. On the other hand, if slaves could be legally and philosophically prohibited in the territories once and for all, there was no way the slave states could keep abolition out of the south.

The 11 states that made up the Confederacy were the riches region in the country PURELY due to the value of land and slaves. For example, slaves and land values in the South surpassed ALL railroads and textile mills in the North in 1850. By 1860, of the 11 wealthiest states in the union, 10 were in the South.

Changing this definition of property would vastly change the wealth differential between the two sections. While ultimately I do believe the war was about an idea, on a more basic level it was about the South protecting its wealth, pure and simple.

It’s unfortunate that Lincoln can very well be classified as both the best and the worst as a result of his election and administration. It’s a very complicated situation, but frankly, a lot of it was merely the “perfect storm” of delaying dealing with the issue of slavery until both sides could not longer tolerate the other.

Well this statement presupposes that the issue of slavery had something to do with the cause of the war. Despite the claims and the propaganda spin since the war, there is too much evidence that it did not. Yes, I know most people believe this, because that's all they've heard for their entire lives, but a careful examination of the facts makes it impossible for a rational man to accept that something which persisted for "Four Score and Seven years" had suddenly become an intolerable problem for which Invading the South and killing people was the only solution.

Had it been abolished at our founding, so much would’ve been avoided, but that was not possible without a decided split between the colonies, and disunity would’ve allowed a victory for the British monarchy.

In 1776, all the states were slave states. In 1787, when they were negotiating the constitution, most of the states were still slave states, and the few that were "free" had to accept slavery in the rest, because otherwise there would have been no Constitution.

During the Constitutional convention. The "free states" conceded that slavery would be incorporated into the Union and legally protected.

As I’ve addressed in other posts, though, the North was hypocritical as well. They abhorred slavery, BUT, did not want an exodus of ex-slaves to their hometowns. They were fine with Black folks so long as there were few nearby and the remainder far, far away from them (something even the Black comedian and satirist Dick Gregory observed as late as the 1960s).

Many Northern states passed laws forbidding blacks from living in their states. Lincoln's state of Illinois was a state that made it illegal for blacks to become residents. The notion that the North was full of the milk of human kindness towards blacks is completely incorrect. They hated them and wanted them out of the country.

The election of subpar to near-incompetent Presidents from 1836 to 1856 didn’t help matters, delaying what was the inevitable.

War was not inevitable, and certainly not over the issue of slavery. Slavery was inevitably going to be abolished, but it would not have been legally abolished anytime soon. If all the existing slave states voted to oppose, any amendment to prohibit slavery would have taken a union with 64 states in it to override their veto, so it wasn't going to happen until mindsets in the slave states changed. Add to this Lincoln's efforts to pass a constitutional amendment protecting slavery, and it would have been even more difficult to constitutional abolish slavery.

So, then, back to Lincoln. But, again, what was he to do ? If he sat back and allowed 11 states to secede without doing anything, he’d have presided over the effective dissolution of the nation.

Which is the same situation King George III was in, yet our founders declared there to be a God given Natural law right for people to have independence if they wished it. Funny that the nation should assert to be founded on such a right, but then refuse to accept the same principle ourselves.

Worse, yet, other states might’ve fully defected as well (MO, KY, MD, DE) and swaths of Southern-sympathizing areas in IL, IN and OH. DC itself would’ve been completely surrounded by enemy territory and likely would’ve resulted in the federal government having to retreat and relocate back to Philadelphia.

I only quote this so as to draw attention to your statement for the benefit of BroJoeK and "x". It shows that I am not the only person to view this development as likely. The balance of power would have shifted to the Southern States, just as I have been saying for several years now. Lincoln and his backers weren't stupid. They realized what allowing the South to become independent would do to their control of the power.

Any of that would’ve meant Southern victory outright. With a weakened North, that would’ve emboldened the South to go on an unprecedented territorial gobble, first with Caribbean interests (Cuba), then Mexico (as it was 20 years earlier, Southern interests wanted to annex most of Northern Mexico), and clear down Central America to the Colombian border. You’d also have had skirmishes and battles with the aforementioned weakened North to obtain Arizona, New Mexico and Southern California.

I disagree. An independent South would have inevitably acquired these areas with very little conflict, and their power would have grown. The South would have acquired a lot of territories that became states, and eventually the Southern nation would have looked something like this. (But perhaps without Ohio and Indiana.)

Perhaps, even audacious attempts to move on to South America. Of course, in doing all of this, the Whites would’ve been in the decided minority in such a new country, with a large group of Blacks and Native Indians, with the latter probably being formally swallowed up into a new class of slavery (however longer that would’ve lasted).

You mean like Mexico? Mostly Spanish descended Whites run Mexico, and are vastly outnumbered by the majority indigenous descended peoples. I believe the same situation occurs in various countries throughout South and Central America.

By the 20th century, the CSA would’ve probably been closer to Mexico in style and substance. An aristocracy in control of the nation with a gargantuan underclass and probably astronomical crime levels. Likely a third-world country.

And this is not an unreasonable surmise. It does indeed seem to be the model that occurs when the Wealthy class drives out the middle class.

The greatly shrunken USA might’ve been more like a slightly stronger version of Canada. Curiously, they’d have likely been the ones to build a wall along the border to keep Southern refugees out (read: Blacks and Indians).

Are you listening BroJoeK and "x"? This man is seeing the same thing I have been seeing.

If history had unfolded as it did in Europe and Asia, I don’t think the USA alone would’ve been able to stand up to Hitler, et al.

You seem to be knowledgeable enough about history to grasp the significance of what would happen if the USA had not entered WWI on the side of Britain and France. I argue that if Germany had won WWI, (which I believe they would have done were it not for the US entry into the war.) Then there would have been no Hitler. In fact, most of the horrible things that happened subsequently to WWI would likely not have happened.

I suggest that an American continent divided between the USA and the CSA would likely not have intervened in WWI. (I am not the only person who has put forth this opinion.) With a smaller potential population to call on, the USA would have been less likely to commit itself, or if it did, would have been less likely to be effective.

With the CSA having the Southern part of the Country, Germany would have been less likely to put out the Zimmerman telegram, and this would have drastically reduced the probability of significant North American intervention into WWI. (Canada would have probably still did what they did.)

Excuse me for going off on a tangent here. Despite all the problems that Lincoln spurred on in keeping the country together, I’d think we’d be in such a vastly different reality today to the point that it would’ve been far worse.

Or potentially far better. Lenin was transported to Russia *after* the US announced it would go to war against Germany. No Lenin, no communist takeover of the Russian revolution. Germany wins first World War. (Europe is today dominated by the German government.) No Hitler. No Holocaust. Potentially no Communist takeover in Russia, and therefore likely no Communist takeover in China.

No second world war. No atomic bombs. No Holodomor. No "Long March". No hundred million people killed in the 20th century.

In other words, far less death, suffering and misery than what actually occurred. In fact, you would be hard pressed to contemplate another scenario in which the 20th century would have turned out more bloody and disastrous than it actually did.