[Cagey]

I'll lend you my time machine when I'm done with it. I'm using it right now to prevent the French Revolution.

[Puppage]

The Civil War was NOT about slavery, so your opinion means squat. Go back to the history books & get back to us.

[Liberty Ship]

General Patrick Cleburne, CSA, had a similar thought. He spent the last part of the war in "time out" for suggesting that the South could win if they granted freedom to any slave who enlisted in the Confederate Army. From their desks in Richmond, Jeff Davis and Braxton Bragg thought this was a bad idea. So bad that when Davis relieved Johnston after the Battle of Atlanta, the command was given to Hood rather than Cleburne. Hood proceeded to loose the rest of the Confederate Army (and Cleburne) in Nashville and Franklin.

[texlok]

The war was about states' rights. Don't let the liberals fool you.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Interesting premise, but I don't think that would work, because quite a few southern leaders had an interest in slavery as an institution.  If Calhoun and other southern hotheads hadn't tried to break the Missouri compromise, the north would not have gotten hot and bothered.  If the north had gotten rid of, or significantly reduced, those nasty tariffs, then the southern leaders would probably not have been able to whip up war sentiment in the south.

[Shooter 2.5]

You're correct. Removing the will of the North would have stopped the Fire Eaters and as one politician said, "Let the erring sister go". It also would have helped if good old what's his name[I can't remember his name at the moment] didn't pull the first shot. He wouldn't have blown his brains out in 1865.

[sola gracia]

I noticed that you posted this under Political Humor/Cartoons. Hmmmmm, interesting. I needed a good giggle this morning. Thanks!

[Savage Beast]

The destruction of the South could also have been prevented by the military assistance of Great Britain in return for the abolition of slavery and the repeal of the Declaration of Independence.

From this point of view, Victoria repeated the colossal mistake of George III--the loss of the American colonies.

[Non-Sequitur]

Y'all spend a lot of time complaining it was about taxes. Nice to see you're admitting that the major cause was the defense of slavery by southern political leaders.

[jgrubbs]

If this wasn't posted under Political Humor/Cartoons I would have thought you have no clue what you are talking about, or have been totally brainwashed by the government education system.

If you look at the facts you will see that while although slavery was an issue in the War between the States, it was not the main issue. You will also find that the Southern General Robert E. Lee set his slaves free way before Northern General U.S. Grant who even kept his slaves after 1865.

[Republic of Texas]

Just so you know, the Civil War is over, move on. Unless you have a way to bring back Hood's Texas Brigade to kick some Taliban ass.

[x]

Looks like this is another of Lew Rockwell's "parody Free Republic" pages. I can almost recognize some of the real posters who, with a little poetic licence, might have made these comments.

I suppose the South could have been saved if they had used a time machine to get an atomic bomb and detonated during one of Lincoln's inaugurals. Or crashed a Boeing into the capitol.

Seriously, I suppose if the CSA had emancipated its slaves early in the war, I suppose they could have won recognition and support from Europe and deprived the US government of that support. But emancipation was something they would not do, not even by the last year of the war. If you examine documents of the times it's pretty clear what the Southern mood was like at the beginning of the war.

Would the taliban abandon its ideas about women or criminal punishments to win favor with the world community? Would we adopt their views to appease them? Tempers are running high now. So when you look around you now, try to apply what you see to your understanding of the past. What we take to be optimal, rational problem solving activity isn't always possible in the heat of the moment.

A half-way, or two-thirds emancipation would be seen as a stopgap measure and would convince no one. To be sure, the Union did not free all the slaves at one blow either, but they were moving in that direction -- certainly moving faster that the Confederacy, which wasn't moving at all. While a sweeping emancipation measure might have won support in Europe, a half-hearted half-way measure would have done little, once it became clear where the Northern war aims were headed.

Moreover, since such a measure would have involved breaking up families, it would be subject to all the Southern arguments against abolition and also general humanitarian arguments. What would you do with the freed slaves? Would you drive them out? You couldn't send them to Africa with the blockade on. Would expect them to do what you told them to do? Would you pay them? With currency that was losing its value rapidly, or in kind? How would you react if they wanted to fight to free their relatives? Black slavery freed the great mass of Southern whites to fight (an ironic use of the word "freed," perhaps). If you had to police freed blacks, it would mean withdrawing those soldiers from the front lines. And how would you choose? Would you pick out those who were no longer of any use to you to free? That economical solution seems more to be in your own best interest and reflects what Southrons would call "Yankee mentality." What seems to you like a rational and sensible solution, not only went against the passions of the early war years, but also is beset with many practical and moral difficulties.

Be sure to check out George Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism." I don't agree with all of it but he does make some interesting points.

[freefly]

Actually the South DID offer to "give up" slavery.
But that wasn't what the war was really about and the offer was turned down.
As far as the North accepting the freed slaves is concerned, several states did not allow ANY free blacks to live there.
In the South, people allowed blacks to raise their children and lived next to each other.
Not so in most of the North.
During the war, the South treated black soldiers the same as white soldiers, same pay, same medical treatment, same food, etc.
What's more, the South had black NCO's, officers, and even general staff.
The North was just the opposite: unequal pay, unequal facilities, few black NCO's, (and I think NO officers).
In the South, blacks were volunteers, in the North, the biggest riots in US history occured when the blacks were conscripted.
In short, the North was far more prejudiced against blacks than the South.
The slavery issue was used to legitamize an illegal unjust war.
The winners write the history.
Propaganda works.
There are a number of EXCELLENT threads on this issue.
If you have no luck with a search, then let me know.

[tpaine]

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 it in its tracks.

They could have agreed to abide by the constitution.

[Paul C. Jesup]

The real reason for the Civil War/War between the States was export taxs and not salvery.

The North was bleeding the South dry through use of export taxs.

The North used slavery as an excuse to wage war with the South and to keep the British from helping the South.

If there had been no slaves in the South at that time. Then the North would have found or made up another or excuse to wage war with the South.

By the way, there were two NORTHERN Slave States before, during and after the Civil War/War between the States. These two NORTHERN Slave States did not become Free States until some time in the 1880's. Long after the Civil War/War between the States was over.

[Snuffington]

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

"The South" could have done this? Do you mean the governments of the southern states? Are you saying you support government action depriving slaveowners of their property? That wasn't a terribly popular proposition in the South at that time.

[Cogadh na Sith]

But what about the Dingell-Norwood bill?

[laureldrive]

The Civil War could have been avoided if the South hadn't seceded. But Southern politicians were too insistent on getting slavery extended into the western territories, and when Lincoln's election made that unlikely, they tried to take their marbles and leave.

[Teacher317]

interesting thought... gotta keep in mind that they were doing their best to avoid that war since the founding of the nation, basically. The Missouri Compromise, etc. did a decent job of stalling the inevitable (which was more good news for the Yanks... the North's indutrialization had more time to progress even further). Another decade or two, and slavery may have been a moot issue. However, since that wasn't the only issue being debated, the underlying tension would still have existed. It would have been a lot simpler for Constitutionists today if the fight had come down to purely States Rights vs. Federal Power.

[smolensk]

Let me also say to all those who posted telling me that slavery wasn't the main issue...

If that I am fully aware and well-read upon the subject. The fact remains that whether it was or wasn't, this manuever by the South would have stopped Northern aggression because those hypocrites didn't want blacks in the North - heck, their lily-white Puritan and Quaker hearts couldn't even handle Catholics!

Also, it wasn't the Constitution that saved the slaves because there were many movements up North by abolitionists that saw our Constitutions as the 'compact from hell' and wanted to abolish our Constitution because it protected slavery.