How the Civil War Could Have Been Avoided

Being one who definitely thinks that our Civil War was an unnecessary loss of life and property, I have finally figured out how the South could have averted war, and stopped Northern aggression in its tracks.

You see the South possessed a 'secret weapon' that it didn't realize it had. What the South should have done, in the late 1850's, is to have realized that slavery was a dying institution anyway and that it could get by for the time being with half or a third less slaves than it had.

The South could have granted immediate freedom to half of its slave population with the condition that after manumission they couldn't remain in the South, but would have to move up North. If politically astute, the South could have 'spun' this relocation requirement as simply a way of spreading 'diversity' to the North.

With this, the abolitionist movement up North would have stopped 'dead in its tracks', in my opinion, and over 700,000 lives would have been saved, and all slaves would have been gained freedom anyway before 1900 due to international pressure.

The fact that you are overlooking is that when it comes to the interpretation of the Constitution the only opinion that matters it the Supreme Court's, not yours.

Sigh....no, that is a large part of my point. That and the fact that it was basically a bogus court, the court can reverse itself, and would have every reason to do so in this case. Good god man, if you can't follow simple logic, just stay out of the fray. I can see that you are not capable of acknowledging or accepting pertinent points, so I deem you irrelevant. No more time wasted on the terminally duh. You ARE . . .the weakest link. Good day.

Oh my, your bigotry is showing. That's really your problem isn't it? What, did somebody from Texas kick your ass once and you've held a grudge ever since? Funny thing is, Southern states wanted to be free and independent of the north and the Union and therefore would not be able to "mooch" off of anyone. The Union, however, was so scared it would lose its cash cow (tariffs) it was willing to fight to keep the states in so it could suck the life out of them. The north's actions totally contradict your premise. But then, facts have no meaning to you anyway.

While I cant give accurate refrences (right now) I have heard that a substantial amount of the plantations that owned slaves were actually owned by northern families.

I would have to see the evidence to support that before I could accept it. That would imply that the agricultural economy of the south was in absentee ownership and I have never seen any indication of that from any source from the perior - North or south.

To answer your question I find the issue of reparations for Black Americans for the slavery every bit as ridiculous as the idea of reparations for White southerners for damages done during the war. Happy?

The South could have granted immediate freedom to half of its slave population...

LOL. And just who would have harvested all the cotton so the mint julep sipping aristocrats could live like European royalty while abusing logic and the Constitution with self serving propaganda about their right to treat other humans like cattle?

And who would have cooked for Miss Scarlet?

War of Northern aggression my ass. Who fired the first shots?

OK, you refuse to accept my sources then provide some of your own. I provided three sources which did not support your claim. You provide one which you allege does. Given the evidence against your position, if I were one of your battalion commanders, Colonel, and you persisted on your course I would doubt your command abilities.

If 'Most honest historians would agree that many sources of data from the antebellun era, to include the U.S. census, regarding slavery are inaccurate' then what makes you think that your figures are accurate? How can the census be that wrong? I mean, there is a hell of a difference between 50% of the Black people down south being free and the 4% figure given by then census. What accounts for such a huge error? Answer that, if you can. Provide one shred of evidence that your statistics are more correct than the census figures.

How can you say that the number of slave owners 'dramatically declined' between 1850 and 1860? Once again I would ask that you provide a single verifiable shred of evidence to support that? The slave population goes up by nearly a quarter and the number of slave owners declines? What kind of fool would believe that? You say that slavery was dying a natural death and you expect me to accept that just because you say so?

As far as ego is concerned, I suggest that you are the one with the over inflated sense of self. You expect me, you expect us to believe the ludicrous claims you make when you provide zero, zilch, nada in the way of supporting documentation. Rather than an Ivy league graduate degree I would expect you got yours out of a Cracker-Jack box. If you tried to defend your position based on your evidence, excuse me lack of evidence, you would have been laughed right out of any reputable Big Ten school. I suggest, Colonel, that you toddle along your way. I see no reason for us to continue this debate unless you can come up with something more substantial than your own hot air to support your position.

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.