Posted on 02/12/2018 3:57:10 AM PST by harpygoddess
It was far worse than just loosing the South's tariff revenue. Lincolns Backers in New York would have lost huge amounts of money as the natural trade between the South and Europe shifted to Southern ports, leaving New York bereft of this trade.
If the South had been allowed to be independent, it would have resulted in 80% of all Trade with North America shifting away from New York and towards Southern port cities such as Charleston and New Orleans.
This new capitalization of these areas would have started industries that would compete with the Northern Industries, and it would have also started a people drain as more and more immigrants and Northern people moved to the South to service these new income streams.
An independent South represented a huge financial loss to the North East, and also a loss of power and influence. This is why they needed a war to stop it. It would have wrecked their industries and income streams if it had been allowed to go forward.
There was going to be a USA after the Civil War ended. That is a fact. At worse the USA was fighting for stalemate, at best they conquered the South. At best the CSA was fighting for existence and at worst case; annihilation. There was no threat to the USA sans the south. The existence of USA was not threatened by the Civil War. The union between the north and the south was at stake but not the USA’s existence.
Not one Southern Railroad received one red cent of support for the Federal Government? Not one light house built at Southern ports was built with Federal Money? Not one Southern port was dredged without Federal Money? Not one mile of road in the South was built with Federal money? So you are saying that every inch of Southern railroads, every foot of post roads, every light house and harbor improvements were 100% paid for by those hard working internal improvement minded cotton planters.
As a practical matter, yes. No territory was admitted without evidence that a majority of the people in it wanted statehood. But as Article IV declares only Congress has a say in whether a state is admitted or not. They are not required to have the approval of the people in the territory or an OK from the president. And while, as I said, the approval of the people of the territory is obtained that alone is not enough to trigger admission. Kansas and Colorado are two examples where the people of a territory requested admission and that was not done until several years later. So your free association is not entirely true. It's admission by permission. And once allowed in why is it not logical to assume that leaving would be done through the same process?
I'm curious. Is Baltimore Plot an entry in the index? Does it describe "Honest Abe" standing up Mary Todd and guests on their originally scheduled wedding date?
ML/NJ
pure speculation.
You’re right that jeff davis and the rest of the southron fire-eaters were no friends of either the Constitution or freedom.
You can read it for yourself and see.
BTW, it’s also available online in a much expanded version. For free.
I’d rather talk about dogs, TBH.
And scooters ;’}
Hells to the yeah!
I’m behind a work firewall so I can’t view but I’ll check it out later ;’]
The war wasn’t about slavery. Go research some more and get back to me with your findings. Once you’re up to speed, we can talk about it.
That’s not what the confederates said...
It’s the meme of Kermit, wondering if his bike is thinking of him, too.
:)
/pondering slogging through 4 inches of mud and a drizzling rain to visit mine
Probably a subject that we would find a lot of common ground on.
And fraudulent citizens.
Glad you recognize that fact. To defend the Confederate Constitution was to defend the institution of Slavery. Didn’t say anything about the war, just that Davis sacrificed thousands of Southerners to defend the Confederate Constitution, which made slavery mandatory in the Confederate States of America. Once you are up to speed on that subject, we can talk about it
That's easy. Hundreds of millions of people would not have been killed. The US intervention in World War I was a disaster. It is probably the worst branch of history we could have chosen.
A United States of lesser power divided between the North and the South would not have intervened because it wouldn't have the robustness of power necessary to meddle in European affairs that were none of it's business.
Many and varied horrible tragedies would have been averted.
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.