Posted on 10/31/2001 4:13:33 AM PST by smolensk
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 Northern aggression in its tracks.
You see the South possessed a 'secret weapon' that it didn't realize it had. What the South should have done, in the late 1850's, is to have realized that slavery was a dying institution anyway and that it could get by for the time being with half or a third less slaves than it had.
The South could have granted immediate freedom to half of its slave population with the condition that after manumission they couldn't remain in the South, but would have to move up North. If politically astute, the South could have 'spun' this relocation requirement as simply a way of spreading 'diversity' to the North.
With this, the abolitionist movement up North would have stopped 'dead in its tracks', in my opinion, and over 700,000 lives would have been saved, and all slaves would have been gained freedom anyway before 1900 due to international pressure.
I did like your theory, not that it could have happened, but it would have been the biggest display of hypocracy of ever witnessed. Of course, the other way in which the war could have been avoided would have been if the US had have removed its troops from sovereign states, especially South Carolina.
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.
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.
This is from the 1860 Republican platform. It referred primarily to the Fugitive Slave Act - a legally enacted law upheld by the courts. Now lecture me about the importance of abiding by the Constitution.
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.
"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.
The largest CW riot occurred in New York by Whites and it started as a protest of the draft law. A Black orphanage was burned and any Blacks found were attacked.
I am not aware of any Black General Officer let alone any black officer.
The North was far more prejudiced against blacks? There is no way I'm going to believe that one. I'm pretty sure the Underground Railroad didn't go South. < Sarcasm >
Whats your constitutional objection to that platform?
You 'Puritan' notherners are the ultimate in hypocrisy and I reiterate (now in all seriousness) that most of the abolitionist movement would have shut-up quickly if they thought they might have to share part of the problem.
And regarding displacing individuals? HA! That is a joke. I thought things were so backward and miserable down South that you would love to have these people come up North. And your own Abraham Lincoln (who I'm sure you adore and worship in God-like fashion) was ALL in favor of displacing all of them ALL the way to Africa! But that doesn't seem to change your high opinion of him.
So, SHUT UP!
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.
How about political power? Do you think that might have had a little something to do with it? Just look at the scabbling that goes on today over re-districting congressional districts and you will get a hint.
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.