Lincoln was NOT an abolitionist, and other misunderstandings.

[stjames1_53]

Nonsense. As a separate nation no one would have had much reason to deal with them. They didn't have anything except cotton. England found out that the American South wasn't needed for that. The South would have gone broke. It's money had no value to start with.

The population and the money was in the North. They would have picked up the trade that didn't have to go through the South.

The South couldn't even feed itself. they had little ability to make machinery.

you are being a bit narrow on this. The South had 7-10 ports that could handle more than its fair share of traffic. Cattle were becoming a big business. Slavery would have only carried over so long as mechanized equipment was being introduced. It would have only been a matter of time before the slave trade would have folded on its own.
The North did not want the freeman on their turf. the Fed Gov didn't help one bit on relocation, even paid army shills to keep them on the farm.
Do you really think they would have fought this war solely on the basis to free someone only to re-enslave them? Yes. And they did. it also aided in the development of a centralized government whereby all born and naturalized citizens were to become ".....citizens of the United States" not Citizens of America...two completely different classifications. One denotes property, the other Liberty. That set the stage for the 16th A, because unless you are "property" of the Fed Gov, a citizen of the United States, you could not be required to pay income tax as a Citizen of America.
..........no one is free as long as the Fed Gov can jail you from DC all the way to Texas. Therefore, it can be said that we are all slaves to the Fed Gov.....but isn't that Unconstitutional?

[Captdon]

I probably romanticize the Confederacy much like MLK did Lincoln.

I see the old South as the last of its kind, an old aristocracy from times before the Enlightenment. They were fighting to preserve that way of life even as it was dying.

They fought so they could continue to own people. It wasn't dying when they fought. The South died for 150 years when they couldn't get free labor.

I don't get the romance of it.

[Captdon]

you are being a bit narrow on this. The South had 7-10 ports that could handle more than its fair share of traffic. Cattle were becoming a big business. Slavery would have only carried over so long as mechanized equipment was being introduced. It would have only been a matter of time before the slave trade would have folded on its own.
The North did not want the freeman on their turf. the Fed Gov didn't help one bit on relocation, even paid army shills to keep them on the farm.
Do you really think they would have fought this war solely on the basis to free someone only to re-enslave them? Yes. And they did. it also aided in the development of a centralized government whereby all born and naturalized citizens were to become ".....citizens of the United States" not Citizens of America...two completely different classifications. One denotes property, the other Liberty. That set the stage for the 16th A, because unless you are "property" of the Fed Gov, a citizen of the United States, you could not be required to pay income tax as a Citizen of America.
..........no one is free as long as the Fed Gov can jail you from DC all the way to Texas. Therefore, it can be said that we are all slaves to the Fed Gov.....but isn't that Unconstitutional?

No, this isn't rational. Without the war the railroads would have been extended quicker. Southern ports wouldn't have mattered. Just as far to them as to Baltimore. The railroads would have changed things. You fail to carry your what if far enough. New Orleans wouldn't have been as important.

The US didn't fight the war to free the slaves. They fought only to save the Union. Freeing the slaves was a byproduct and not a reason. No war, no freedom for slaves. There was no reason to pay for relocation. You want to move, you pay for it. Otherwise you're calling for liberalism.

Mechanization doesn't replace free labor. It never could.

That citizens became property is absurd on it's face. The name of the country isn't America it's the United States of America.

The 16th Amendment give the federal government the power to tax anyone for anything.

The federal government could always jail someone from one end to the other for federal crimes.

No, your argument isn't valid. You can't change definitions to prove a case.

[Chris]

They fought so they could continue to own people. It wasn't dying when they fought. The South died for 150 years when they couldn't get free labor.

I don't get the romance of it.

Some leaders fought for slavery, as a whole, to me, it was about power, the North getting to strong and intrusive.

That way of life would have died out anyway. Slavery was about to be replaced by automation.

By romantic, I meant "suggestive of an idealized view of reality."

[stjames1_53]

They fought so they could continue to own people. It wasn't dying when they fought. The South died for 150 years when they couldn't get free labor.

I don't get the romance of it.

Stating slavery was the only reason to go to war is a romantic notion.
While I've clearly stated, slavery was one of the issues, but when they decided to cede from the Union ( which really wasn't a declared Union at that time), real estate was vastly considered for big business. That you cannot deny.
Slavery as a business was already starting to fall off.
Slavery was not the only issue.

[stjames1_53]

No, this isn't rational. Without the war the railroads would have been extended quicker. Southern ports wouldn't have mattered. Just as far to them as to Baltimore. The railroads would have changed things. You fail to carry your what if far enough. New Orleans wouldn't have been as important.

The US didn't fight the war to free the slaves. They fought only to save the Union. Freeing the slaves was a byproduct and not a reason. No war, no freedom for slaves. There was no reason to pay for relocation. You want to move, you pay for it. Otherwise you're calling for liberalism.

Mechanization doesn't replace free labor. It never could.

That citizens became property is absurd on it's face. The name of the country isn't America it's the United States of America.

The 16th Amendment give the federal government the power to tax anyone for anything.

The federal government could always jail someone from one end to the other for federal crimes.

No, your argument isn't valid. You can't change definitions to prove a case.

Goods from over seas and product leaving have to have a place to ship. Even today, much of our products are shipped via sea ports. It is merely transported from there to here by rail.

[stjames1_53]

No, this isn't rational. Without the war the railroads would have been extended quicker. Southern ports wouldn't have mattered. Just as far to them as to Baltimore. The railroads would have changed things. You fail to carry your what if far enough. New Orleans wouldn't have been as important.

The US didn't fight the war to free the slaves. They fought only to save the Union. Freeing the slaves was a byproduct and not a reason. No war, no freedom for slaves. There was no reason to pay for relocation. You want to move, you pay for it. Otherwise you're calling for liberalism.
You should probably do some deep reading about the Civil War. the North did not want them, they had no property to settle on, the Southeners treated them worse than before the War, and the North sent troops to demonize the slaves all over again.
Mechanization doesn't replace free labor. It never could.
There is no such thing as free. You have to house and feed them at some point, even clothe them. Mechanization was coming regardless

That citizens became property is absurd on it's face. The name of the country isn't America it's the United States of America.
I agree. Change comes, as tech moves forward. It wasn't considered a true Union until after the War. That is a fallacy believed by many. It wasn't even referred to as a Union, officially, until Lincoln made it an issue. After, we became a country run by a centralized government

The 16th Amendment give the federal government the power to tax anyone for anything.
But the government could not tax an Individual unless they could lay claim to that person. That was granted under the 14 A, when all citizens were "Protected" by a central government. If they could have been charged with a tax bill, the Fed Gov would have done it long before then.

The federal government could always jail someone from one end to the other for federal crimes.
Again, Treason against the Fed Gov was punishable. Stealing Fed dollars was illegal, because they owned it. It is illegal to steal Fed Reserve notes/
If you doubt me, look at the top of your dollar bills. Ownership is designated, then go find an old bill and see what it says. But none of this was enforced highly until after we became a Union.

No, your argument isn't valid. You can't change definitions to prove a case.
Never changed any definitions

[Captdon]

Some leaders fought for slavery, as a whole, to me, it was about power, the North getting to strong and intrusive.

That way of life would have died out anyway. Slavery was about to be replaced by automation.

By romantic, I meant "suggestive of an idealized view of reality."

Okay. It was all the leaders though. The average person thought="It's a rich man's war and a poor man's fight."

The people in the mountains were almost all Unionists. The rebel had to send an entire an Army company up there to round up men for the draft.

No slavery would have continued for another 75 years. As the rich bought efficient machinery the slaves would have been sold to those who couldn't buy machines. I think only the Great Depression would have ended it since no one could feed a slave.

I understand your definition because I've seen it all my life. "The Lost Cause" is my favorite. It sounds good as long as you don't say the "Cause" was slavery.

[Chris]

Okay. It was all the leaders though. The average person thought="It's a rich man's war and a poor man's fight."

The people in the mountains were almost all Unionists. The rebel had to send an entire an Army company up there to round up men for the draft.

No slavery would have continued for another 75 years. As the rich bought efficient machinery the slaves would have been sold to those who couldn't buy machines. I think only the Great Depression would have ended it since no one could feed a slave.

I understand your definition because I've seen it all my life. "The Lost Cause" is my favorite. It sounds good as long as you don't say the "Cause" was slavery.

I guess we'll have to disagree. Those leaders before and after the war cited state's rights against an ever more intrusive federal government.