What do you think about the Civil War ?

[Break_The_Walls_Down]

As much as I'd love for the South to separate from the North, the idea that there are some rednecks out there who really think this SHOULD happen is hilarious.

[TheChincster]

As much as I'd love for the South to separate from the North, the idea that there are some rednecks out there who really think this SHOULD happen is hilarious.

Define 'rednecks"

[TheDisintegrators]

Even though a small minority of Southerners actually owned slaves, the majority of whites in the South at least aspired to own slaves someday. It should not come as a surprise that many poor Southerners supported slavery because it gave them a sense of superiority in an otherwise unenviable existence. As for the rich, they clearly stood to lose a lot of money if slavery was abolished. I don't see how you can say that the price of cotton started the war when in fact cotton prices remained largely stable up until 1860. If anything, the cotton industry's rapid expansion fueled the slave trade and made the South all the more eager to protect their peculiar institution.

In short, slavery = cause of Civil War

That's a very poor understanding of the Civil War. The Civil War started because the South felt the Northerners were infringing on state rights by passing laws that superseded the state's influence. The South didn't like that and started breaking off to make their own "countries" essentially (when South Carolina went the dominoes fell).

[sweetiepea09]

it wuz stoopoid

[muonic]

As much as I'd love for the South to separate from the North, the idea that there are some rednecks out there who really think this SHOULD happen is hilarious.

Would rather be known as a redneck than a mindless Billy Yank.

ANYWAY. What would it have hurt if the South would have won? It didn't mean a downfall for the Union. It meant the South and the North would have had their own separate governments. And more than likely the CSA would have joined the USA later on down the road.

And as for calling it the Civil War I'm not surprised to see that no one here (but me) find that term highly offensive. It was the War Between The States, or War of Northern Aggression.

[David]

Would rather be known as a redneck than a mindless Billy Yank.

ANYWAY. What would it have hurt if the South would have won?It didn't mean a downfall for the Union. It meant the South and the North would have had their own separate governments. And more than likely the CSA would have joined the USA later on down the road.

Only all those black people they still had enslaved but that doesn't seem too important to you...

[muonic]

Only all those black people they still had enslaved but that doesn't seem too important to you...

The War wasn't fought over slavery. There were 1.5 million FREED blacks living in the South before 1861 that owned black and white slaves. Slavery would have died out in time. I'm not agreeing that it was right but Whites in the South were good to their slaves, despite what you have been taught.

[David]

lol okay.

[muonic]

another Billy Yank I assume.

[David]

"slavery would have died out anyways."

So what's a few more generations of more people being treated like garbage right?

[muonic]

Not all Slave owners treated their slaves like trash. An d I have already said i didn't agree with the idea of "owning" another person. But you're too ignorant to look past the Slavery issue. The War wasn't about slavery. So stop bringing it into the conversation.
Might as well assume you agree with what Sherman did to Atlanta? Burning, looting, and the slaughter of innocent women and children? I find that far worse than "slavery".
Go read a book and then we'll continue the conversation.

[TheDisintegrators]

Would rather be known as a redneck than a mindless Billy Yank.

ANYWAY. What would it have hurt if the South would have won? It didn't mean a downfall for the Union. It meant the South and the North would have had their own separate governments. And more than likely the CSA would have joined the USA later on down the road.

And as for calling it the Civil War I'm not surprised to see that no one here (but me) find that term highly offensive. It was the War Between The States, or War of Northern Aggression.

The Confederacy would have came back. The whole premise of a confederacy is to limit the central government virtually making each state their own country. The confederation would have been a loose alliance between the southern states because eventually they'd start losing to the unified north in western expansion.

Calling it the War of Northern Aggression was also stupid as it was really the South that started the war.

The War wasn't fought over slavery. There were 1.5 million FREED blacks living in the South before 1861 that owned black and white slaves. Slavery would have died out in time. I'm not agreeing that it was right but Whites in the South were good to their slaves, despite what you have been taught.

No slavery would not have ended. Slavery was the entire basis of how the South kept their economy going as it was free labor after they bought the slave. Consider that tobacco, cotton and sugar cane were the largest exports out of the south. With out slave labor it's highly likely that the South would have failed.

Not all Slave owners treated their slaves like trash. An d I have already said i didn't agree with the idea of "owning" another person. But you're too ignorant to look past the Slavery issue. The War wasn't about slavery. So stop bringing it into the conversation.
Might as well assume you agree with what Sherman did to Atlanta? Burning, looting, and the slaughter of innocent women and children? I find that far worse than "slavery".
Go read a book and then we'll continue the conversation.

No all slaves were treated like shit unless they worked in the house. Even then they were still treated poorly, but not as bad as the field slaves. Although, a majority of those in the house were field slaves at one time so it's not like they didn't know the slave driving of the field.

Also you're over-looking the fact that burning resources is common place during war especially when you're pushing people out. You don't leave the supplies there for the reinforcements to make use of. The south did it too when marching to take northern towns and cities.

[fball51]

That's a very poor understanding of the Civil War. The Civil War started because the South felt the Northerners were infringing on state rights by passing laws that superseded the state's influence. The South didn't like that and started breaking off to make their own "countries" essentially (when South Carolina went the dominoes fell).

What state right were they infringing on? Oh, right, slavery.

Would rather be known as a redneck than a mindless Billy Yank.

ANYWAY. What would it have hurt if the South would have won? It didn't mean a downfall for the Union. It meant the South and the North would have had their own separate governments. And more than likely the CSA would have joined the USA later on down the road.

Considering the fact that thousands of soldiers would have died the longer the war went (which is what would have been required for the CSA to win) that'd have been quite a hurt. To say nothing of the millions more slaves that would have been kept in bondage.

And as for calling it the Civil War I'm not surprised to see that no one here (but me) find that term highly offensive. It was the War Between The States, or War of Northern Aggression.

The North was so aggressive that the first shots were... fired by the South.

The War wasn't fought over slavery. There were 1.5 million FREED blacks living in the South before 1861 that owned black and white slaves. Slavery would have died out in time. I'm not agreeing that it was right but Whites in the South were good to their slaves, despite what you have been taught.

The War was fought over slavery. Which is to say that in the absence of slavery, the Civil War never happens. Any assertion to the contrary is patently false.

Whites were overwhelmingly NOT good to their slaves. To say nothing of the fact that the treatment of a slave within the context of their slavery doesn't negate the slavery itself, at all.

[ThisIsTheNewMe]

This thread is entertaining. However, I'm still trying to figure out why everyone's speculating on what could have, would have, or should have happened nearly 150 years ago.

But since we're on topic, if slavery didn't exist in the South, the Civil War never happens. The Civil War never happens, Lincoln likely doesn't get assassinated.. if he even becomes President at all.

Though, for muonic to say that the Civil War wasn't fought because of slavery is ridiculous.

[Evlmstr]

That's a very poor understanding of the Civil War. The Civil War started because the South felt the Northerners were infringing on state rights

Like fball said, the state "right" that they were butthurt over was slavery.

by passing laws that superseded the state's influence. The South didn't like that and started breaking off to make their own "countries" essentially (when South Carolina went the dominoes fell).

and what laws were these, exactly? Secession began in 1860 because the South was pissed over Lincoln winning the election.

[Mr_Quick]

Considering the fact that thousands of soldiers would have died the longer the war went (which is what would have been required for the CSA to win) that'd have been quite a hurt.

Er, no. There is no reason why the South successfully leaving the Union necessitates a longer war. For one, the North always had the option of ceding the forts and letting them go, both prior to the initiation of hostilities and likely afterward as well (is it really likely that the South would have continued fighting if the North simply gave up trying to reconquer them and made peace?). For two, the war could have quite plausibly been ended at Bull Run if competent commanders had been present. The North was continually a crushing defeat or two away from losing their will to fight; total defeat would have been unnecessary. Meanwhile, the North had far superior industrial capacity and thus was better equipped for a long war of attrition. As such, a scenario where the South wins probably results in the war wrapping up quicker and with fewer casualties than if the North wins.

The North was so aggressive that the first shots were... fired by the South.

Interestingly, in many cases where abuse occurs between people who know each other, the eventual victim is the first to strike physically. For instance, this is a common progression in date rape cases: the couple are together in private, things start getting hot up in there, the man pushes his luck further and further while the woman puts up more and more resistance, then eventually the man goes too far, gets a slap, and all hell breaks loose. I'm curious if you'd consider "she started it" to be a defense in such an instance.

[ThisIsTheNewMe]

Who were the Commanders at Bull Run, anyway? I'm too lazy to look it up on Google.

[fball51]

Er, no. There is no reason why the South successfully leaving the Union necessitates a longer war. For one, the North always had the option of ceding the forts and letting them go, both prior to the initiation of hostilities and likely afterward as well

And the Poles had the option of ceding the Polish corridor. (Note, this is not to compare the Germans to the South, but to point out that you are advocating that a nation give up territory that is its by rights to claimants that have ZERO right to it).

(is it really likely that the South would have continued fighting if the North simply gave up trying to reconquer them and made peace?).

I take issue with your use of "reconquer." There are two ways to look at the ACW: That the South was a legitimate independent nation (I don't agree with this) and launched the initial attack thus giving the North cause for war, and every right to secure itself through invasion. Or that the South was an illegitimate rebellion (I take this view) and thus the North had every right to put it down.

For two, the war could have quite plausibly been ended at Bull Run if competent commanders had been present. The North was continually a crushing defeat or two away from losing their will to fight; total defeat would have been unnecessary. Meanwhile, the North had far superior industrial capacity and thus was better equipped for a long war of attrition. As such, a scenario where the South wins probably results in the war wrapping up quicker and with fewer casualties than if the North wins.

This scenario presumes that the continuation of the war is done on a Napoleonic basis, as opposed to a guerrilla style conflict that would have negated the North's numerical and industrial advantages. A presumption that is not entirely accurate.

Interestingly, in many cases where abuse occurs between people who know each other, the eventual victim is the first to strike physically. For instance, this is a common progression in date rape cases: the couple are together in private, things start getting hot up in there, the man pushes his luck further and further while the woman puts up more and more resistance, then eventually the man goes too far, gets a slap, and all hell breaks loose. I'm curious if you'd consider "she started it" to be a defense in such an instance.

We've been over this before, in this very thread: The arguments that you have offered in support of the South as the non-aggressive party do not hold up under scrutiny. While the above is certainly true in a 'date rape' scenario, it does not hold, at all, under the context of the American Civil War.

[Mr_Quick]

And the Poles had the option of ceding the Polish corridor. (Note, this is not to compare the Germans to the South, but to point out that you are advocating that a nation give up territory that is its by rights to claimants that have ZERO right to it).

If the Polish corridor had consisted of a number of residual military bases left within German territory after they exercised their right to secede from Poland, this would be a great comparison. As it stands, no one asked the North to cede the border states, which would have been a more direct analogy with the PoCo in my view. What they requested was more the equivalent of asking your ex-boyfriend to return his key to your house after a breakup, since post-secession the only real reason for the North to maintain those bases was to facilitate a war of aggression against the South.

I take issue with your use of "reconquer." There are two ways to look at the ACW: That the South was a legitimate independent nation (I don't agree with this) and launched the initial attack thus giving the North cause for war, and every right to secure itself through invasion. Or that the South was an illegitimate rebellion (I take this view) and thus the North had every right to put it down.

Or, alternately, that the North's continual, progressive violations of the CSA's sovereignty after their secession demanded a protective response from the South to secure their borders, just as a date rapist's continual, progressive violations of their victim's personal space frequently provokes a violent response.

This scenario presumes that the continuation of the war is done on a Napoleonic basis, as opposed to a guerrilla style conflict that would have negated the North's numerical and industrial advantages. A presumption that is not entirely accurate.

Fair point.

[fball51]

If the Polish corridor had consisted of a number of residual military bases left within German territory after they exercised their right to secede from Poland, this would be a great comparison. As it stands, no one asked the North to cede the border states, which would have been a more direct analogy with the PoCo in my view. What they requested was more the equivalent of asking your ex-boyfriend to return his key to your house after a breakup, since post-secession the only real reason for the North to maintain those bases was to facilitate a war of aggression against the South.

Since when did the nature of a territory preclude the right to holding that territory? The South had as much right to those federal bases as did the Germans to the Polish Corridor. Also, another relevant comparison would be Guantanamo Bay: If Castro had invaded Gitmo, would you be advocating the arguments that you are now on behalf of the CSA? Somehow I doubt it.

And AGAIN with you applying SOCIAL situations to the affairs of states in an historical context. It's mind boggling and has yet to produce an example that stands up to scrutiny when applied to the specific historical context we are talking about. And the reasons for those bases was not only limited to aggressive intent: the base in Florida (whose name escapes me atm) was a vital point for trade between the U.S. and Caribbean markets.

And frankly the North's intent for the forts is irrelevant. Their intent does not shift the right of ownership to the CSA.

Do I need to go back to the thread where you are the one arguing that the South had no right to the forts?

Or, alternately, that the North's continual, progressive violations of the CSA's sovereignty after their secession demanded a protective response from the South to secure their borders, just as a date rapist's continual, progressive violations of their victim's personal space frequently provokes a violent response.

Again your social comparisons fail when applied to our specific context: The South became belligerent toward the North FAR before there were any 'violations' were done upon the part of the North. You are not even arguing the events as they took place but applying broad present day situations that don't even begin to compare and hardly translate from the levels of individuals to the affairs of states.