Posted on 10/31/2001 4:13:33 AM PST by smolensk
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.
and before you start again on your favorite, serious, rant, did you notice this original thread was posted under humor? or don't they have humor, or good manners, wherever it is you live?
What a joke! The Muslims are 'evil in our midst'.
Tpaine - are you sure you know enough about history to even know a debate when you see one, much less participate intelligently in it with historical facts. I'm sorry if I scared you away with historical facts. Insult and then cut and run, that is the style of people who exhaust their knowledge.
The North (northern business) was heavily involved in this symbiotic business relationship with the South. 'Factoring' was when a northern business (usually a branch of a bank) had agents set up shop down south and provide a wide choice of 'services' to the cotton industry.
A 'Factor' would be like a planter's agent. The 'Factor' would take care of all matters (insurance, freight, shipping, customs, etc) on the cotton after it was produced. The 'Factor' would also lend money to the planter for just about anything even loosely connected with the raising of the cotton. The Southern newspapers were full of ads where these 'factors' plied their wares.
The average percentage that a 'factor' received on a cotton crop was 20%.
And, about Southern literacy...
According to James McPherson (highly respected) in 'Ordeal by Fire', he state that just before the war, the South was only 11% behind the north in per capita literacy rate among freemen. However, due to the extended growing season in the South, southern children went to school on the average of 40% less days than in the north (per year), and there were fewer schools in the south than in the north.
And also remember that in several states (Mass being one) in the north, their educational system surpassed even the highly rated Scandinavian countries (meaning the south was only 11% behind a pretty high standard).
So, one could take these statistics to show that Southerners, even while going to school 40% less time than their northern counterparts, were able to close to within 11% of the northern literacy rate, AND do it with much fewer schools! I'd say that smacks a little in the face of those who claim southerners were 'ignorant illiterates'!
I don't know about that tpaine. Let's see you post something that gets over 206 replies! Heh heh
Tpaine - again you divert. No matter what the topic, you divert. You stated just a few posts back that no one cared what I was talking to myself about. I merely pointed out that you were wrong because there were many other posters on this topic (including yourself) who seem to be 'hanging' on my every word. As soon as I post something, you are right there to reply. If I were talking to myself, I presume you wouldn't even be reading the posts. Heh Heh.
Also, I am not concerned with my 'popularity' as I don't subscribe to the 'popular' view of things as you and some others scrabble to do. I could care less about some so-called 'popularity' rating, as you call it. That must be something, however, that IS very important to you in your own mind for you to bring it up.
Libertarian Nazis Caused Civil War!
Should get you 500 replies easy.
I, sir, have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, as have many thousands of other Southerners. Have you?
And I am sorry that you, LLAN-DEUSANT (and his ilk), and all Americans either don't care, don't have the time, or maybe just don't have the intelligence, to investigate the VAST storehouse of information that is there (if you look for it) that are the writings of our ancestors, our philosophers, our forefathers and framers of our Constitution, the CLEARLY show that NO STATE ratified our Constitution under the presumption that once in the United States, there was no way out.
You can claim that it was changed by force of arms, that it was changed by later schools of thought, you can claim that it wouldn't work today and to some degree I can accept ALL those arguments as true. BUT DON'T try to tell me that it wasn't originally intended that a state, or states, could secede.
I could stack book upon book in front of your which contains direct words from the people of the late 18th century, and early 19th century that say that they could. All you have is the strained interpretation and twisting of one word - 'perpetual'.
I'm also sorry (for you and others) that you are so brainwashed and 'convinced' that what you think is true is in fact true that you don't even bother to read. No, you won't find it on the Barnes & Noble bookshelves. You can start by reading the 'Debates on the Federal Constitution - 1787' by James Madison. Then, you should read 'A Republic of Republics' by Bernard Janin Sage. Then, you should read 'A View of the Constitution of the US' by William Rawle (published in 1829). Those are just for starters. I am sorry that you haven't read them. You should also read the 'Federalist Papers'. This is just scratching the surface.
On the other hand, you can't show me in the Constitution where there is an amendment that says that a state can't secede. Wouldn't you think that after fighting a bloody war, the Union would have chosen to put this in the Constitution (as part of the 14th Amendment) just to make sure it was clear for posterity? But they didn't. They did, however, go to enough detail to outline that no person who had been part of the CSA could from that time on hold office as Congressman or Senator (but you knew that didn't you?). You ONLY piece of evidence you have is the Texas vs White case which WAS NOT a trial before the supreme court to determine the validity of secession, by the way.
I know you are desperate when you have to resort to such gutter tactics as bringing up 'Nazis' (a favorite diversion for people of your brainwashed and historically uneducated mindset), so I will consider it a compliment that I have left you with absolutely NOTHING better to say that such gutter talk.
-- Good grief man, get a grip on your obsessions. - You are acting like a loony.
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.