Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Libertarianism and the Civil War
Volokh Conspiracy ^ | 6 March 2012 | Ilya Somin

Posted on 03/06/2012 8:27:38 AM PST by donmeaker

There are, generally speaking, three types of libertarian perspectives on the Civil War. Many libertarians actually support the war, some condemn it without defending the Confederacy, and some are actually pro-Confederate.


TOPICS: Hobbies
KEYWORDS: civilwar; libertarianism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-106 next last
To: central_va
Ha!

Looks like you need a refresher, Professor.

Article I Section 9 - Confederate Constitution

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

51 posted on 03/06/2012 11:56:57 AM PST by GunRunner (***Not associated with any criminal actions by the ATF***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
I had a great great grandfather on my mother's side and a great grandfather on my father's who fought the Yankee menace--one served under Wade Hampton and the other under Bedford Forrest.

So of course God was on OUR side;)

52 posted on 03/06/2012 12:13:55 PM PST by Happy Rain ("Better add another wing to The White House cause the Santorum clan is coming.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner
Lincoln did make some statements that were clearly racist in his campaign for the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois. By the standards of our time, most whites would be considered racist. Even in the mid-20th Century, Presidents like Truman and Johnson used the n-word in private conversations. Lincoln might have accepted the continuation of slavery if the South would agree to return to the Union. The early Republican Party was mainly interested in confining slavery to the 15 states where the institution existed and preventing its spread in the Plains States and the West.

Had the South won militarily, or been allowed to secede, it was possible the non-Southern states would have gone their own way, for instance, the Old Northwest (Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois), still mainly agricultural, had longer established trade ties with New Orleans than with the Northeastern ports. To compete with the Southern ports, downstate New York (including New York City) and New Jersey, where Union support was lukewarm during the war, might have set up as a free state to avoid Federal tariffs. The manufacturing-based New England states might have gone their own way, maybe even joining the Dominion of Canada. No doubt the Mormon enclave in Utah would have declared independence, as well as California and its neighbors. Britain might have reasserted its claim to Washington and Oregon from its military forces based in British Columbia.

The dissolution of the United States into multiple entities in competition with each other would have brought British and French, and later German, intervention into the Americas, as the Monroe Doctrine would have become moot.

53 posted on 03/06/2012 12:26:46 PM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
Obviously Lincoln would be seen as racist by today's standards, just as Churchill would be seen as an anti-Semite by today's standards.

The end result however, is that Lincoln's actions led to the liberation of blacks, and Churchill's actions led to the end of genocide against Jews.

Slavery was enshrined as an untouchable principle in the Confederate Constitution. No idiot neo-Confederate can change those facts.

54 posted on 03/06/2012 12:35:48 PM PST by GunRunner (***Not associated with any criminal actions by the ATF***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
Unilaterally? They can just take their ball and go home and to hell with the other partners to the national contract we call the Constitution?

If they can make a case for it, and if they can enforce it with blood and/or treasure, then yes.

This either means something, or it doesn't:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

If it doesn't, we're effed under the current regime.

55 posted on 03/06/2012 12:40:22 PM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner
The end result however, is that Lincoln's actions led to the liberation of blacks

The end result was the enslavement of all Americans.

Slavery was enshrined as an untouchable principle in the Confederate Constitution. No idiot neo-Confederate can change those facts.

"No Amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." --Joint Resolution of Congress, Adopted March 2, 1861

"holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." Abe Lincoln

56 posted on 03/06/2012 1:17:05 PM PST by Idabilly (Tailpipes poppin, radios rockin, Country Boy Can Survive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: central_va
So you admit then, that the war was not about slavery?

Only for the Confederates. Most Union men fought to preserve the Union. The Confederate leadership was only interested in preserving and expanding chattel slavery. Those are the people you constantly defend.

57 posted on 03/06/2012 1:18:51 PM PST by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

“I think the seeds of the destruction of this nation were sown before the nation became a nation. It is in our acceptance of slavery and even protecting it with the creation of the nation.
We will never recover. Slavery was fatal to us. It has just taken a long time for the infection to kill us, even though the original projectile was removed by the Civil War.”

Some harvests of wrath take centuries to grow.

You’re right, of course. The finest observation I ever read on the peculiar institution:
“We should have picked our own cotton.”

Somebody else wrote that, but I wrote this:
“We should have mowed our own lawns....”


58 posted on 03/06/2012 1:24:38 PM PST by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
Because, if slavery was NOT expanded, the abolitionists would have control of Congress.

They had a far more compelling problem than that. If slavery were not expanded to new markets, two things would have happened because of the rapidly growing slave population. First, the price of slaves would have collapsed wiping out the biggest source of capital in the South. Second, they would eventually be hopelessly out numbered by slaves with the very real possibility of Southern States ending up like Haiti.

The entire John Brown scenario was the worst fear for the old slave masters.

59 posted on 03/06/2012 1:28:39 PM PST by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
If they can make a case for it, and if they can enforce it with blood and/or treasure, then yes.

Then you are talking about The Right to Revolution, not unilateral secession for what ever reason you choose.

I believe that under the Constitution, states could legally secede if that secession is agreed to by the other parties to the national contract. A simple reversal of the Statehood provisions written into the Constitution.

In my readings, if the South had taken that route in 1860, and petitioned congress to that effect, they probably would have been successful. They chose instead a route that guaranteed war. They were very foolish and arrogant men.

60 posted on 03/06/2012 1:39:16 PM PST by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly
OK, but...

Amendment 13, adopted December 6, 1865

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Or is it your contention that the Confederates would have abolished slavery after they won the war? Nice try.

Pathetic neo-Confederate tripe.

61 posted on 03/06/2012 2:30:52 PM PST by GunRunner (***Not associated with any criminal actions by the ATF***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka
Your position is preposterous, demanding that we must support every act of a country or individual in order to support ANY act of same. Your position also disallows the legitimate and logical position that would acknowledge the right of an entity to act, while decrying the purpose for said action.

Let me try this again:
We believe in free speech. Most of us disagree with many of the ideas being promoted with this free speech - like forcing institutions to pay for contraception and abortion against their core principles.

Should we oppose free speech because of how some are using this freedom? If not, then it is philosophically consistent to support the right of southern states to secede, regardless of the reasons for said secession. Then you may have the debate about slavery and if it is incumbent upon a neighboring country to fight a war of liberty against a slave holding neighbor.

So - were I Lincoln, I would have allowed the secession - such being the right of free states. Then attacked the newly formed Confederacy in a war of liberation on behalf of the slaves. Once defeated, the CSA could petition for readmittance, and the USA could either accept or reject that petition.

This is fully consistent with a libertarian viewpoint IF that viewpoint allows an war of liberation against a neighboring country.

62 posted on 03/06/2012 2:50:31 PM PST by GilesB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

Not exactly - the emancipation proclamation did as you describe. The result of the war itself was the end of slavery in the United States.


63 posted on 03/06/2012 2:52:49 PM PST by GilesB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost

See my #62 above regarding what I think Lincoln should have done.

I came to this conclusion while writing my response - I say that to establish that my previous question was an honest one, not intended as a gateway to interject my already formulated “great idea”.


64 posted on 03/06/2012 2:58:56 PM PST by GilesB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
The dissolution of the United States into multiple entities in competition with each other would have brought British and French, and later German, intervention into the Americas, as the Monroe Doctrine would have become moot.

Give me a break. The Confederate Army(P.A.C.S) of 1864 could have conquered all of Europe in 1864 if you gave them a sealift over there. THe Union could have done the same, only more quickly. The Europeans were in awe of Gen Lee and the ANV.

65 posted on 03/06/2012 4:23:52 PM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly

Nice to see your moniker again.


66 posted on 03/06/2012 4:40:25 PM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: central_va
The wartime Confederate and Union armies were the most powerful military force the world had seen since the fall of Napoleon. However, had the South won or the North acceded to secession, there would have been rapid demobilization, as America did after both world wars and the War for Independence and as the Union did post Appomattox. And who is to say that either the Confederacy or the Union would have remained intact? As Texas evolved from a cotton producing state to a cattle producing one, its interests would have diverged from the rest of the South. As I noted previously, the Union had several regions whose economic interests diverged sharply. Furthermore, its territory would have remained very large. Don't forget that the British and the French were on the Canadian and Mexican borders, respectively.

Only the preservation of the Union prevented the reassertion of European powers into the Western Hemisphere. The Germans, shut out of Africa and Asia by the British and French, would have found South America very tempting. Don't forget that hundreds of thousands of Germans emigrated to Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. The existence of two, and probably more, independent and rival nations on the current U.S. territory would have made the Americas a playground for the European powers. Perhaps they would not have re-colonized the former U.S., but they would have had wide latitude in Latin America.

67 posted on 03/06/2012 4:46:59 PM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
The wartime Confederate and Union armies were the most powerful military force the world had seen since the fall of Napoleon.

Gen Lee and the ANV would have made mince meat out of Napoleons Army. (Even if you upgrade the Frenchy's rifled muskets to Springfields )

68 posted on 03/06/2012 4:52:16 PM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf; rockrr
I see it this way: Before the war we were called “these united states”. The union was like a big brick wall where the states were the bricks and the FedGov was the mortar holding them together. Thanks to Lincoln, the country is now like a big wall made of mortar with 50 marbles embedded in it.

An awful lot has happened since 1789. The frontier was settled. People left farms for the city. Some didn't find jobs. Some didn't like what they got for their work.

Universal suffrage was introduced (depending on what people at any given time meant by "universal). A lot of immigrants arrived. We became the policeman of the world. We got rich. People started to feel entitled.

Laying the responsibility for how things are now on the Civil War or Abraham Lincoln seems a little oversimplified. Maybe you should consider those other changes as well.

69 posted on 03/06/2012 5:01:22 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: x

—Laying the responsibility for how things are now on the Civil War or Abraham Lincoln seems a little oversimplified. Maybe you should consider those other changes as well.—

I consider it the beginning, and a strong one it was.


70 posted on 03/06/2012 5:09:29 PM PST by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: central_va

So in effect you are saying that the army of Generals Grant and Meade was better than Napoleon’s army. General Lee failed in trying to make mince meat out of them.


71 posted on 03/06/2012 5:09:45 PM PST by X Fretensis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: X Fretensis
The Union Army and the Confederate Army were superior to all of the Armies of Europe at the time. The Military academies of Europe studied the Civil War and mostly General Lee and Sherman right up to today. I never thought of it but the two Armies combined could would have been totally unbeatable.

So yes, the Army of Potomac would also have made mince meat out of Napolean's Perfumed And feathered peacock Army.

72 posted on 03/06/2012 5:16:03 PM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
I consider it the beginning, and a strong one it was.

Abe didn't execute the republic, but he built the scaffold.

73 posted on 03/06/2012 5:18:11 PM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: central_va

It’s only the 6th of March cva - isn’t that a little early to be spreading manure? ;-)


74 posted on 03/06/2012 8:05:36 PM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Wyoming Cowboy

Actually, the good guys won, because the southern states, and some of the northern states, needed a federal counterbalance to state oppression. Secession and nullification were illegal incitements to insurrection, with no force of law, and no standing in law, with no process in law to correct error. The only way to correct error in pretended secession or nullification was by appeal to force.

Article 3 of the federal constitution provides a legal route for an oppressed state to appeal for redress in law. by accepting that article with the rest of the constitution the states gave up any pretense to nullification or secession.


75 posted on 03/06/2012 9:14:04 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Slavery was not on its way out. Rather, the first fruits of the industrial revolution created increased demand for its products. Slavers were desperate for new unspoiled land, hence their revolt against the Republican party that was pledged to (1) let slavery die where it was and (2) deny slavers the opportunity to poison any new states or territories, as had been done by the founders with the Northwest Ordinance.


76 posted on 03/06/2012 9:17:41 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Kids are taught about slaves with Egyptians, the Jews, the Greeks and the Egyptians. Jews celebrate their release from bondage every year. Jefferson and Madison went to war against the Barbary pirates because: they were capturing Americans, and making them slaves.

Wilberforce was a key factor in marshaling Christians against slavery. After his logical presentations no Christian could honestly support slavery. Washington freed his slaves. Lee freed his slaves with his father in law’s slaves.

Yet the pretended vice president of the pretended confederacy spoke in earnest that slavery was the cornerstone of the confederacy. He had missed his Sunday school lessons I guess.


77 posted on 03/06/2012 9:24:20 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Aristotle got almost everything wrong.

He never bothered to check anything. Per Aristotle, ants have 4 legs.


78 posted on 03/06/2012 9:27:13 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: central_va

the souths prosperity was due to cotton, which was due to northern inventions such as the cotton gin.

Without that, the south would still be picking through the seeds by hand, and with productivity 1/100th that which existed with the cotton gin. Not worth making the special machines to spin card, or comb cotton. Not worth laying down railroads. Not worth sending more than one boat a year up the rivers.


79 posted on 03/06/2012 9:32:23 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

Which was why the South opened fire on US forces at Ft. Sumter.


80 posted on 03/06/2012 9:35:42 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Road Glide

I always did mow my own lawn, and often other peoples.


81 posted on 03/06/2012 9:39:26 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: central_va

No, it wasn’t Abe that built the scaffold, it was that southerner Wilson who resegregated the federal govenment,, and the southern Democrats during the Roosevelt administration that voted for the various alphabet organizations.

The legal justification for the health care individual mandate is Korematsu vs. US, where a Japanese American was ordered to a concentration camp. We can hope that the current consideration of an individual mandate is an opportunity to overturn that bad decision.

The legal justification for the Interstate Commerce Clause giving federal government control of everything is Filburn vs. Wichard. Mr Filburn complied with the law passed by the southern Democrats to pump up wheat prices and didn’t sell more than the allotted amount. That wasn’t good enough for the southern Gentlemen who wanted white land owners to get paid for not hiring black sharecroppers.


82 posted on 03/06/2012 9:46:35 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
Aristotle got almost everything wrong.

So I guess you feel that way about Ayn Rand too?

ML/NJ

83 posted on 03/07/2012 4:17:25 AM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner
Or is it your contention that the Confederates would have abolished slavery after they won the war? Nice try.

Fact:

Your chosen side only disliked slavery because of their deep seated hatred for any category other than "lily white.""

"in favor of our new territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home ... as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over." Lincoln

"are most decidedly a race of mongrels. I understand that there is not more than one person there out of eight who is pure white." Lincoln

“I plead the cause of free white men,” “I would preserve to white labor a fair country, a rich inheritance, where the sons of toil, of my own race and my own color can live without the disgrace which association with Negro slavery brings upon free labor.” David Wilmot of Pennsylvania

"See our present condition—the country engaged in war! Our White men cutting one another’s throats! And then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another. “Why should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated.” Abe Lincoln

84 posted on 03/07/2012 7:56:38 AM PST by Idabilly (Tailpipes poppin, radios rockin, Country Boy Can Survive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner; central_va
Pathetic neo-Confederate tripe.

Neo-yanks repent everybody’s sins except their own.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK1EOle6OQw&feature=related

85 posted on 03/07/2012 8:35:01 AM PST by Idabilly (Tailpipes poppin, radios rockin, Country Boy Can Survive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QaPRJWdtts&feature=related


86 posted on 03/07/2012 8:47:22 AM PST by Idabilly (Tailpipes poppin, radios rockin, Country Boy Can Survive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Who said the French or the British would have invaded the South? Napoleon III may have established alliances with the free states of Texas and Louisiana to help expand his empire in Mexico, perhaps to reclaim California and its neighboring states. Such an alliance would have been advantageous for both states if there were trade concessions opening Mexico and maybe Central America to traders in New Orleans and Galveston. There would have been nothing that Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee, sitting in Richmond, could have done about it, as those states would have voluntarily aligned with France. President Davis would never had denied the right of secession for any state.

Besides, after a Union defeat or accession to Southern independence, the Confederacy would likely have rapidly demobilized, so there would not have been an Army of Northern Virginia, nor a Union Army of the Potomac, for that matter. The only Confederate state with Indian problems in the 1860s was Texas, and the Rangers would have taken over the whole responsibility for the frontier, a task they shared with the U.S. Army from 1845 until 1860. So for all practical purposes, the Confederate government would have been toothless.

Ditto for the Union if the British enticed the New England states and upstate New York into joining the Dominion of Canada in order to protect the St. Lawrence Valley and the eastern Great Lakes. The New England merchant and fishing fleets would gain the protection of the Royal Navy and access to British Empire markets. The Federal government would be similarly helpless, perhaps even more so, as their frontier responsibilities were far greater than those of the CSA.

87 posted on 03/07/2012 9:28:25 AM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
A lot of people nowadays simply project their own concerns today back on the past, and make every past conflict revolve around what interests them now.

For decades, Southern Democrats weren't so worried about big government so long as it let them have their way locally in racial matters. Who's to say the Confederacy would have been any different?

One big lesson in politics: people oppose a faraway government because it isn't "theirs." They see every act of the government as a usurpation. When people get a government that is "their own," they tolerate and even demand the same kinds of things they objected to before.

88 posted on 03/07/2012 3:12:16 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Of course the war was started by the southern hotheads to make the world save for slavery. Of course the war was won by the US to save the Union, and since slavery was a cause of disunion, then slavery had to go.

The tariff was low at the time the rebellion started. The tariff was raised only because of the rebellion.

Of course the jails are full of people who disagree that they should be coerced by the government.


89 posted on 03/08/2012 1:50:31 AM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain

Your false G-d lost.


90 posted on 03/08/2012 1:51:44 AM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

I can tell you are so proud of the Union that Lincoln the Butcher left us, So proud. May he rot in hell.


91 posted on 03/08/2012 4:07:04 AM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: x

—One big lesson in politics: people oppose a faraway government because it isn’t “theirs.” They see every act of the government as a usurpation. When people get a government that is “their own,” they tolerate and even demand the same kinds of things they objected to before.—

It is because they exercise more control over their local government. They are also more accountable.


92 posted on 03/08/2012 5:12:08 AM PST by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.

“As Texas evolved from a cotton producing state to a cattle producing one, its interests would have diverged from the rest of the South. “

Texas leads the Nation in cotton production and only produces 30% of the nation’s cattle.

http://cotton.tamu.edu/cottoncountry.htm


93 posted on 03/08/2012 5:31:39 AM PST by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: central_va

I am so saddened by the war forced on the US by the slavers. May they rot in hell.


94 posted on 03/08/2012 6:05:35 AM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: antisocial

Your reference says Texas produces 25% of US cotton, and that can be compared to your claim of 30% of US cattle.

That would be enough for the interests of Texas to diverge from the other southern states, if the southern states continued to produce cotton.


95 posted on 03/08/2012 6:11:16 AM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker; Happy Rain
Your false G-d lost.

Your sense of family values is lost.

I've never met any Conservative that proclaimed himself to be roman pagan. If worshiping broomsticks and cooking mouse tails in your cauldron isn't libtarded enough -- you other chosen hobby of marrying first cousins definitely takes the cake.

96 posted on 03/08/2012 7:24:26 AM PST by Idabilly (Tailpipes poppin, radios rockin, Country Boy Can Survive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
I am so saddened by the war forced on the US by the slavers.

What do your children say about only having one set of Grandparents?

97 posted on 03/08/2012 7:39:53 AM PST by Idabilly (Tailpipes poppin, radios rockin, Country Boy Can Survive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: antisocial
Texas' first major crop and principal export was cotton. However, the modern cattle business began in Texas in the 1860s, and both the commercial and cultural aspects of the cowboy culture are Texan in origin. Even as far north as Alberta, Canada, the development of ranching was spurred by Texans. The major cotton producing areas of Texas were in East Texas and South Texas. West of Interstate 35, weather conditions were less conducive to cotton. Before the boll weevil, the Mid-South and Southeast were far stronger in cotton production. Not until the development of extensive irrigation in the High Plains and, to a lesser extent, the Rolling Plains and the Rio Grande Valley in the early 20th Century did cotton see a strong rebirth and Texas become the nation's number one cotton producer.

It was the cattle business that revolutionized the Texas economy in the late 1860s and 1870s, enabling the state to thrive even as Reconstruction crippled her sister Southern states. If the North had been defeated militarily or acceded to Southern independence, it is likely the cattle trade would have continued. With an early end to the war, the transcontinental railroad would have been likely been completed sooner than 1867. There is no reason to believe the North would not have continued attracting millions of European immigrants to the expanding factories and mines and the farmlands of the Great Plains. Therefore, Texas cattlemen would still have driven herds of cattle to Kansas railheads in Abilene and Dodge City.

What effect that would have had on Texas remaining in the Confederacy is speculative. Had George McClellan been elected President in 1864, Federal policy would have been cooperative and conciliatory towards the Confederacy. Had someone like Edwin Stanton succeeded Lincoln, there would have been a sort of cold war. In that case, Texas might have worked out separate trade deals with the North. Additionally, Texas may have negotiated treaties with France (which controlled Mexico) to the benefit of trade and commerce.

98 posted on 03/08/2012 10:47:43 AM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: antisocial
Texas' first major crop and principal export was cotton. However, the modern cattle business began in Texas in the 1860s, and both the commercial and cultural aspects of the cowboy culture are Texan in origin. Even as far north as Alberta, Canada, the development of ranching was spurred by Texans. The major cotton producing areas of Texas were in East Texas and South Texas. West of Interstate 35, weather conditions were less conducive to cotton. Before the boll weevil, the Mid-South and Southeast were far stronger in cotton production. Not until the development of extensive irrigation in the High Plains and, to a lesser extent, the Rolling Plains and the Rio Grande Valley in the early 20th Century did cotton see a strong rebirth and Texas become the nation's number one cotton producer.

It was the cattle business that revolutionized the Texas economy in the late 1860s and 1870s, enabling the state to thrive even as Reconstruction crippled her sister Southern states. If the North had been defeated militarily or acceded to Southern independence, it is likely the cattle trade would have continued. With an early end to the war, the transcontinental railroad would have been likely been completed sooner than 1867. There is no reason to believe the North would not have continued attracting millions of European immigrants to the expanding factories and mines and the farmlands of the Great Plains. Therefore, Texas cattlemen would still have driven herds of cattle to Kansas railheads in Abilene and Dodge City.

What effect that would have had on Texas remaining in the Confederacy is speculative. Had George McClellan been elected President in 1864, Federal policy would have been cooperative and conciliatory towards the Confederacy. Had someone like Edwin Stanton succeeded Lincoln, there would have been a sort of cold war. In that case, Texas might have worked out separate trade deals with the North. Additionally, Texas may have negotiated treaties with France (which controlled Mexico) to the benefit of trade and commerce.

99 posted on 03/08/2012 10:47:51 AM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
It is because they exercise more control over their local government. They are also more accountable.

So people say.

But that goes against the libertarian argument that revolutions and secession movements are against intrusive government and dependence on politicians as such.

Rather, people just want to feel they have more control over government. When they get that they're not as opposed to taxes on "the rich," subsidies, welfarism, and bureaucratic regulation as their earlier rhetoric might have suggested.

After the Revolution we taxed ourselves more than the British tried to tax us. It would have been the same with an independent South.

100 posted on 03/08/2012 5:11:03 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-106 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson