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.

Why don't you know the history of your country? Could it be....... Southern laziness?

Let me tell you one darn thing, whoever you are Mr. DDEUSANT, anyone will tell you that southerners know more history than northerners. Even my past professors who were biased to the north admitted in every class I had that in the south people talk about history, and are much more aware of it, than people in the north.

I just moved up here to Ohio 3 years ago, and after asking at least 40 or so people - people who are educated and the subject of history came up on conversation - they don't know 'diddly squat' about their own state's history, much less US history! I've yet to meet a native Ohian who even heard of Clement Vanlandigham, one of their own famous Congressmen from the past.

It is that 'crap' like people like you love to spew out that fueled a war 140 years ago, and people like you relish in it.

As to the 'rebels' of 1812, you answered yourself, - they won their point.

No, maybe you missed the point. The point is that several northeastern states, who in 1861 send troops to back up their position that a state couldn't secede, felt strongly in 1814 that they had the LEGAL RIGHT to secede.

Can you please point out to me which Constitutional Amendment was passed and ratified between 1814 and 1860 that changed this fact? I know of none.

Are you that 'blind' to not be able to see the hypocrisy here, or are you just being coy?

Regarding education North vs South...

Yes, I do agree that in the early 19th Century, Massachusetts lead the world (even ahead of Sweden and Denmark) in education. I will take your word that there were some small percentage of blacks who excelled in school due to the fact that I haven't studied that specific area myself.

However, to address your 'broad-brush' implications and assertions that Southerners were 'uneducated', I cite again McPherson's book 'Ordeal by Fire' wherein he states the follwing figures...

Percentage of Population Literate North 94% (free pop) 94% (total pop) South 83% (free pop) 58% (total pop)

Now, he also states that in the South, 10% of the slaves were literate, and for the north there is a '-' dash on the chart which I assumes means less than 1% or negligible.

He also points out that northerners went to school on the average of 135 days per year, whereas Southerners only attended school on the average of 80 days per year.

This was due to the longer growing and harvest season in the South and children worked in the fields and some I guess were lazy as some say.

HOWEVER, it is interesting to note that even though Southerners spent 40% LESS TIME in school than northerners, they were, on the whole, only 12% less literate.

That would seem to indicate to me that Southerners weren't that lazy in that they could learn almost just as much as Northerners in a much shorter period of time, and still have time to cultivate, pick, and gin a few bales of cotton each year to boot! So there! (James McPherson "Ordeal by Fire", page 27 second edition)

No hypocrisy, you see human nature in action. Those states used threats, & they won their point on the 1812 war.

The south could have done the same in 1860 , even used massive civil disobedience to win their points. -- They chose war, & paid for it.

To my mind, this is how the present day federal stranglehold can be broken. States can refuse to obey unconstitutional federal law, and protect their citizens from federal officials, by every means short of open rebellion.

'They' can't jail a whole state.

You are still down though on the issue of the states bought and created by the Union as a whole. They never existed as separate entities and therefore never had an existence as such. Too obvious a simple fact to be necessary to state, except to you.

DDEUSANT, I have a question for you? Have you actually ever read the ratifying resolutions of the states when they ratified the Constitution? What was the status of Rhode Island and N. Carolina during the period of time when 11 of their sister states ratified the Constitution and they didn't?

And if states didn't exist as separate entities, as you allege, then why were there many international treaties that required the separate signatures of all the different sovereign states?

I've read many old books from way back in the early 1800's, and I can tell you for a fact that had you done a poll in 1820 on the question of whether a state could secede from the Union, you would have received about 90% responses that said 'yes, they can'.

About Northerners owning Southern Plantations...

Actually, they didn't actually own them, but many Northerners (banks) had liens against them which represented a vested interest, or some might say 'part ownership'.

You see, there was the widespread practice that was referred to in that day as 'factoring'. Do any of the highly educated Northern apologists here know what that is? (On your word of honor, don't go and look it up first).

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?

Ditto, you talk like someone who just finished reading about the Civil War in a high school history book and are so 'pumped up' with enthusiasm and newly discovered facts that you had to chime in or 'bust a gut'.

So, please tell me o wise one, what exactly was it that NORTHERNERS considered blacks as when they were rushing to build slave ships, and beating a path to Africa, and chaining them below decks in crowded quarters to bring them over here and sell them?

Oh, I see, they were really bringing them here to educate them in Massachusetts schools, and to convert them to Christianity right? I see.

HERE! HERE! for 2/75 Ranger!

I might also point out that there are two books currently available that detail one of the atrocities of Sherman in Roswell, GA. This is where he rounded up mostly women and their children, plus some old men, who had previously worked in a now destroyed CSA ammunition factory there in Roswell.

He 'claimed' that he found them 'adrift' (meaning homeless) and shipped them on a train up north to Indiana. Truth is, they were sold into servitude. They were 'adrift' because he had just finished burning their homes and fields and stealing their mules and milk cows which were the only source of food for many of these people.

The books are: Ruth Cook, "North Across the River, A Civil War Trail of Tears" and

Michael D. Hitt, "Charged with Treason"

I know that all you 'convinced' northern sympathizers are going to run right out and read them right?

And AMEN to 2/75 Ranger for pointing out that most 'professional' historians (the ones publishing the books) don't even bother to read the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion. I guess that's too 'detailed' for them.

Also read 'Lincoln Takes Command' by Tilley if you want to know what REALLY happened about Ft. Sumter, Ft. Pickens, and about the firing of the 'first shot'.

No hypocrisy, you see human nature in action. Those states used threats, & they won their point on the 1812 war.

Yes, 'tpaine' I do see the point that you are making which is somewhat different, albeit related, to the point you have just now further helped me make.

The ultimate right to secede MUST have existed, wouldn't you agree, or else there would have been no real 'threat', only a hollow one.

So thank you for helping me make this point.

No hypocrisy, you see human nature in action. Those states used threats, & they won their point on the 1812 war.

The south could have done the same in 1860 , even used massive civil disobedience to win their points. -- They chose war, & paid for it.

----------------------------------

Yes, 'tpaine' I do see the point that you are making which is somewhat different, albeit related, to the point you have just now further helped me make.

The ultimate right to secede MUST have existed, wouldn't you agree, or else there would have been no real 'threat', only a hollow one. So thank you for helping me make this point. -#151

======================================

Anyone can make threats. The threat to secede doesn't establish that states have that power.

I am first, a US citizen. I own property in Calif. My fellow citizens in CA have no power to tell me that CA is no longer part of the union, and that I must become a citizen of Democalifopia, or leave. -- Instead, - the feds will protect my rights, and there will be civil war.

Anyone can make threats. The threat to secede doesn't establish that states have that power.

Okay, tpaine, now you have lost all credibility and you are now 'backpeddling'.

And the world of 1861 was not the 'liberal' world as it is today in California. People were citizens of their respective states then, NOT the United States. Allegiance was owed to the states and states prosecuted acts of treason. If you lived in a state that decided to secede, yes, you either seceded with it (assuming that most of your neighbors voted for the secession) or you gave up your citizenship to THAT STATE. You aren't a historian are you?

To all... Please read the book "North of Slavery; The Negro in the Free States, 1790-1860" by Litwack. It will be VERY enlightening for many of you! Also, it was very convenient for the north that McCormick invented the harvester early on in the 19th century. Unfortunately for southerners, the mechanized cotton picker wasn't invented at about the same time as the cotton gin. This made the ability to process cotton very lopsided compared to their ability to pick it. It wasn't until 1944 that the first mechanized cotton picker was invented by International Harvester.

Had McCormick invented the cotton picker first instead of the corn harvester, you would probably have had slaves harvesting corn in Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania! And the Southern states would have been the abolitionists and the northern states seceding!

Funny how history goes, and how so many people attribute the course of history to our 'higher selves' when in actuality it is the God almighty dollar.

And your smug pronouncments on my crediblity are amusing, as no one here gives a real damn about your opinions, that I can see

I see. This is a typical reaction of charatans like you who come out like they are experts and then when they are 'out debated', they insult and run. You only make my head bigger, not smaller. I've forgotten more about history than you know.

Here is a website where Ruth Cook talks about her book, painting a different picture. Factory workers sent north, it's true, but nothing about being sold into servitude. More from your fertile imagination.

But on the subject of 'sold into servitude' how do you feel about the free Black citizens of Chambersburg, Maryland who were rounded up and sold down south after Early's men burned the town. Is that somehow OK while Sherman's actions were not? Does the fact that they were Black while the workers at Roswell were White somehow make the confederate actions acceptable? Take a look at the story and let me know. I'm sure you will be able to justify it in your own mind somehow.

Well, maybe you're right but I finished reading my high school history books about 40 years ago when they still taught real history.

As to who's pumped up, tell me who is it who views the most tragic event in our history as some sort of passion play between anal rententive Yankee Puritans and those noble hard working southern democrats who only owned slaves because those nasty Northerners forced it on them.

Time to face the facts. Most southern whites were bearly better off than the black slaves. The slave culture kept them and their region in poverty. The only people who benefited from slavery were a very small but politically potent group of wealthy plantation owners. That small group started the war not because the north wanted to end slavery, but because the north, lead by the Republicans, refused to allow slavery to spread to the west.

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.