Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How the Civil War Could Have Been Avoided
vanity | 10/31/01 | vanity

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.


TOPICS: Editorial; Political Humor/Cartoons
KEYWORDS: dixie
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-257 next last
To: smolensk
Didn't mean for this topic to get so 'serious', but let me also point out that while he was still president elect, he was conspiring with Winfield Scott, about how to get a war started with the South and make them fire the first shot so public opinion would be in the North's favor.
41 posted on 10/31/2001 8:21:40 AM PST by smolensk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar
Since I went to public school a lot of this is news. Can you suggest any books on the truth about the Civil War and where they may be purchased?
42 posted on 10/31/2001 8:26:14 AM PST by american spirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: smolensk
Er, you mean the civil war in over? You mean I can go home to Mississippi now?
43 posted on 10/31/2001 8:30:41 AM PST by gulfcoast6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5; Paul C. Jesup
Tocqueville in the 1830s thought that the prejudice against blacks was stronger in the areas where slavery had been abolished than where it still continued.

There were two "loyal" slave states at the end of the war which were not covered by the Emancipation Proclamation and had not taken steps to abolish slavery, but the ratification of the 13th amendment in December 1865 officially ended slavery there too. Whether slaveholders in Kentucky and Delaware were actually able to get their slaves to do any work for them in the interval between April and December 1865 is another question, since it was obvious that the institution was on its way out.

44 posted on 10/31/2001 8:31:51 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: american spirit
To American Spirit..

Send me a personal message and I can send you more, but here are some leads for starters...

Start with "When in the Course of Human Events" by Charles Adams - good overview. Then go to website www.crownrights.com (he sells inexpensive reprints of out-of-print historical books) and read "The American Union" by Spence, and "A Republic of Republics" by Sage, and "Americas Caesar" by Duran. For lighter reading, read 'The South was Right' by Kennedy (they get a little hot-headed, but there are many references to other books contained within and what they say is well-documented).

Let me know how it goes.

45 posted on 10/31/2001 8:39:34 AM PST by smolensk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: smolensk
I have studied history and find it fascinating. You learn so much about historical figures that you never do in school. For example, here is a link to a website which details the story of how when Robert E. Lee freed some, but not all, his slaves in the 1850's he paid passage for some of them to go to Liberia. Imagine that. Lee an advocate of sending free Blacks back to Africa. So much so that he would pay their passage. Does that change your high opinion of him?

P.S. Sorry if I won't shut up just because you tell me to.

47 posted on 10/31/2001 9:38:31 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
Sure they did. Texas v. White. 1869. The court found that secession was not Constitutional. Look it up.
48 posted on 10/31/2001 9:40:20 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
You missed both my point. By the North having Two Slave States during and after the Civil War/War Between the States, it totally invalidates the argument that the war was about freeing slaves and proves that the North are hypocrites.
49 posted on 10/31/2001 9:44:11 AM PST by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
The real reason for the Civil War/War between the States was export taxs and not salvery.

There was no export tax. Duties or taxes on exports are unconstitutional.

By the way, there were two NORTHERN Slave States before, during and after the Civil War/War between the States

By the way, there were four NORTHERN slave states. Five when West Virginia was admitted.

50 posted on 10/31/2001 9:46:43 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: freefly
There are a number of EXCELLENT threads on this issue.

Well bring 'em on, I'd love to read them. Especially the one where the south was willing to give up slavery.

51 posted on 10/31/2001 9:48:04 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
"There was no export tax. Duties or taxes on exports are unconstitutional"

Where did you read this at? Originally in the Constitution, Import and Export taxs were the main taxes for the U.S.

52 posted on 10/31/2001 10:06:49 AM PST by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Non-Sequitur...

You talent for distorting history is equaled by your talent for distorting even what you site as a reference.

First of all, the purchase of west African land and later naming it 'Liberia' was an idea of NORTHERNERS! I have a book at home which even gives the name of the man who was head of the organization which sponsored this approach and will post more about it tonight.

Secondly, you state that 'Lee paid passage', when the article you site yourself acutally says that 'Lee OFFERED to pay passage'. It also goes on to say that the family in question were fairly highly educated and wanted to go. I don't think, that as you gently infer, that Lee FORCED anyone to go to Liberia.

Also, speaking of FORCE...Lincoln's plan, on the other hand, was for a mandatory (i.e. forced) re-patriation of all blacks back to Africa whether they wanted to or not. So don't spew this BULL CRAP about Lee around here! You also failed to mention (as you often do) that all Lee's slaves were free prior to the start of the war, and maybe Grant didn't own any slaves that he personally bought, but he sure didn't object to inheriting the slaves that his Missouri wife brought with her into their marriage, and according to the law at that time, the wife's property became the husbands. I didn't see him forcing her to sell them. So technically, he owned slaves thru the war.

Third, What exactly do you call 'junk history books'? I don't think that any of the famous works that are no longer in print are junk. 'Junk' as you call it, is more fitting description of what if published today.

I suppose in your mind, the Official Records of the Civil War would qualify as 'junk' because K. Stampp didn't write them right?

53 posted on 10/31/2001 10:45:09 AM PST by smolensk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Non-Sequitur...

You talent for distorting history is equaled by your talent for distorting even what you site as a reference.

First of all, the purchase of west African land and later naming it 'Liberia' was an idea of NORTHERNERS! I have a book at home which even gives the name of the man who was head of the organization which sponsored this approach and will post more about it tonight.

Secondly, you state that 'Lee paid passage', when the article you site yourself acutally says that 'Lee OFFERED to pay passage'. It also goes on to say that the family in question were fairly highly educated and wanted to go. I don't think, that as you gently infer, that Lee FORCED anyone to go to Liberia.

Also, speaking of FORCE...Lincoln's plan, on the other hand, was for a mandatory (i.e. forced) re-patriation of all blacks back to Africa whether they wanted to or not. So don't spew this BULL CRAP about Lee around here! You also failed to mention (as you often do) that all Lee's slaves were free prior to the start of the war, and maybe Grant didn't own any slaves that he personally bought, but he sure didn't object to inheriting the slaves that his Missouri wife brought with her into their marriage, and according to the law at that time, the wife's property became the husbands. I didn't see him forcing her to sell them. So technically, he owned slaves thru the war.

Third, What exactly do you call 'junk history books'? I don't think that any of the famous works that are no longer in print are junk. 'Junk' as you call it, is more fitting description of what if published today.

I suppose in your mind, the Official Records of the Civil War would qualify as 'junk' because K. Stampp didn't write them right?

54 posted on 10/31/2001 10:47:03 AM PST by smolensk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Gotcha! Knew I could suck you in. You're too easy. The short reply is, no, you look it up. But here's a few tidbits for the rest of the folks who will enjoy watching me eat your lunch.

The truth is, if you can stand it, is that Texas vs White was more about Southern states having rights under the Constitution DESPITE the fact that they had seceded. Chief Justice S. P. Chase used a conflict over bonds to mount his own personal vendetta to "illegitimize" the "right" of states to secede. Writing for the 5-3 majority, (interesting that it was split, considering that it was a stacked reconstruction era court) he basically said that the majority believed that states do not have the right to secede because the UNION WAS OLDER THAN THE STATES. Obviously a ridiculous ruling that could have only been made by a pro-federal government court during reconstruction. I think even you have enough sense to admit that the Union could not possibly predate the states. Anyone with a brain has to realize that, were there any will or impetus to challenge such a ridiculous stance, -- then or now - the conclusion would be much different.

The fact is, the issue is open. The post-conflict Supreme Court blocked attempts to try Davis for treason, saying Secession was justified. The decision remains the unchallenged final say.

While it is trendy for the modern day history revisionists like yourself to call the 19th century Confederates seditious and treasonous, a cursory look at prominent Union leaders' statements clearly contradicts that claim. Was it treasonous for a state to secede from the Union? Not so, according to the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. When confronted with whether or not to charge captured Confederate officers with treason, he offered, "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion."

Furthermore, the South did not rip the Constitution apart. It was primarily Southern made and formed. It was Southerners who made sure this country was to be made up of free and independent republics, not a centralized, tyrannical power! The South did not commit a traitorous act, when in 1860 South Carolina seceded from the union. It did what it knew it had a right to do under the law...SC, as you well know, was not the first state to attempt secession. Several New England States held secession conventions over the War of 1812 and nearly left the union then, and would have except the war with England ended before they could agree on their plan for "CONFEDERATION". If New England yankees had a right to secede in 1812, then the Southern States certainly did in 1860/61.

Jeff Davis was not tried for treason because the united States government would have lost the case...in court, the constitutional rights of the Southern States' right of secession would have been upheld. Also, Jeff Davis was not a citizen of the United States...no one was until the 14th amendment was passed after the "War". Davis was a citizen of Mississippi, the federal government had no jurisdiction over him.

The northern states would have been shown to be the tyrants they were and Lincoln the jackass that he was. Have you ever asked the question, "Why didn't they try Davis, Lee, Johnston, et al..." I can assure you, it wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts. They knew they had no legal leg to stand on.

I could go on with more of your history lesson, but I'm tired of being so right. You know, I think you said that you consider the Civil War a hobby. Man, if I was you, I'd get another hobby, one that you know something about.

55 posted on 10/31/2001 11:31:59 AM PST by Lee'sGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
Article I, Sec. 9, of the U.S. Constitution reads (in part):

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

56 posted on 10/31/2001 11:56:13 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
During the Civil War, slavery was legal in the states of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri. All of these state were part of the Union, not the Confederacy.
57 posted on 10/31/2001 12:29:24 PM PST by Savage Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: american spirit
"The Living Lincoln" is good to start.An overview of his life through his speeches,letters etc.

Amazon probably has it.

58 posted on 10/31/2001 12:33:15 PM PST by mdittmar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Derville; mike2right; shuckmaster; JoeGar; Intimidator; ThJ1800; SelfGov; rb22982; tex-oma...
BUMP
59 posted on 10/31/2001 12:36:09 PM PST by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

Comment #60 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-257 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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