Hollywood's War Against the South

Lewrockwell.com ^ | 2-18-2 | Franklin Harris

[FreedomCalls]

Whether the best place in America is California or The South is a difficult call, but I think The South has the edge.

You've got to be kidding.....

There is more to a state than just scenic beauty.

[Paleo Conservative]

I have a question for all you South lovers, though. Let's say the Confederate States had been allowed to secede. What reason would they have had to NOT continue slavery

On the other hand, the Confederacy would have been recognized as a separate country. Its goods would have been subjected to tarrifs which cannot be applied to goods made or traded within the states. With the South no longer a part of the Union, the balance in Congress would be strongly shifted towards opponents of slavery. They could then impose high tarrifs on goods made with slave labor.

[Paleo Conservative]

tarrifs = tariffs

My eyes are getting tired.

[Paleo Conservative]

'What would Washington have done, were he alive in 1860?'

'It is really hard not to poke fun at such complete ignornce. Washington was one of the leading proponents of a strong national union.'

Probably the same thing he did during the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.

[Paleo Conservative]

Paul Newman did a great southern accent.

His wife, Joanne Woodward is a southerner.

[Green Knight]

Damn, this is an old thread. But anyway, good point on that one. Still, the north isn't the world. The south would still be able to turn a profit from products made with slave labor sold to most of the rest of the world. So where's the incentive in ending slavery?

Not trying to be insulting or anything. I'd honestly like to see a realistic possibility as to how that could have been achieved, as well as equal rights for blacks. Me, I've been torn for a while, now, on the Civil War. While on the one hand, I agree that secession is right, on the other hand, I wouldn't have liked for a slave-holding nation to have continued. Like I said, torn.

[Paleo Conservative]

Still, the north isn't the world. The south would still be able to turn a profit from products made with slave labor sold to most of the rest of the world. So where's the incentive in ending slavery?

The US could also have used its navy to blockade Confederate ports to prevent goods made by slaves to be traded in world markets.

[Green Knight]

Wouldn't that sort of defeat the whole point of allowing states to seceed? One thing to slap them with tariffs, but quite another thing to blockade them. And wouldn't that sort of thing eventually lead to a war, anyway? I doubt the CSA would've just taken that lying down.

[Paleo Conservative]

And wouldn't that sort of thing eventually lead to a war, anyway? I doubt the CSA would've just taken that lying down.

The CSA did not have a lot of people emloyed in maritime trades and lacked the nautical experience that New Englanders had. Winfield Scott wanted to primarily choke off the South's commerce through blockades and seizing control of the Mississippi River. If his stategy had been employed the Civil War might have been much less bloody.

[Green Knight]

Can't argue with that.

[Non-Sequitur]

I'm sorry but I don't see a vote against the Kansas-Nebraska Act automatically constitutes opposition to slavery. His opposition to the rebellion doesn't necessarily mean that he was opposed to slavery, either. Considering that he owned 12 slaves when he died in 1863 would seem to indicate that he didn't have that much of a problem with it.

[Non-Sequitur]

Precisely. Lincoln made sure it was not the US Army that fired first.

No, Davis made sure that he fired first.