What happens if Texas secedes

[teagan]

Um, as history tells us, the South fired the first shots of the Civil War at Fort Sumter. Therefore, the South (or more correctly, South Carolina) began the war with the United States. And they did not peacefully secede, they forcibly took over all forts and arsenals in the South after they seceded.

And the war was over slavery. The federal government stopped the expansion of slavery, so Southern states felt this was a blow to their rights as states. So they seceded, starting with South Carolina.

 

[Darth]

And the war was over slavery. The federal government stopped the expansion of slavery, so Southern states felt this was a blow to their rights as states.

Well, no it wasn't over slavery. If it was over slavery, a lot of the Northerners wouldn't even have fought. There were slaves in the north, and again, Lincoln didn't even really care. He did the Emancipation Proclamation later in the war to FRAME it as being about freeing the slaves, as a strategical move, to keep EUROPE from siding with the South, which they were considering.

But no, the South seceded for economic reasons.

P.S. I'm from New England, but I researched this outside of my school textbooks and realized how slanted and untrue they were in painting the war as the evil south and the heroic north fighting to free the slaves. Just wasn't that way.

 

[Dust 2 Dust]

Well, no it wasn't over slavery. If it was over slavery, a lot of the Northerners wouldn't even have fought. There were slaves in the north, and again, Lincoln didn't even really care.
But no, the South seceded for economic reasons.

To the victor goes the spoils, and greatest of these is the right to compose the approved history. That false history has been taught to generations of schoolchildren, and embraced by biased, completely indoctrinated historians and educators.

The average person living in the North could give two sh1ts about freeing slaves so never buy into the propaganda you read in your school books. People in the North knew that if the slaves were liberated then they would have to compete with them for jobs. Those evil slave traders from the south bought there slaves in Boston and New York before being sent south.

Leading Northern generals--like McClellan and Sherman--hated abolitionists. Robert E. Lee had a higher regard for African Americans than Lincoln did. If there had been no Civil War, the South would have abolished slavery peaceably within 20-30 years anyhow.

Cotton and Timber from the South were America's only important exports. But, Government expenditure was controlled by the North who could out-vote the South because they had a smaller population and this led to unhappiness in the south and was certainly the basic economic cause of the war. The cotton industry only existed because the North ( you know those innocent anti-slavery/ abolitionist people) along with England ( the symbol of anti-slavery) highly demanded it. If the North was really fighting a war to free the slaves then all they had to do was boycott the South and starve them into submission. Slavery would have ended decades earlier if the North wanted it to end, but the reality is they didn't. The mayor of New York City wanted to secede from the Union since the lack of the cotton trade during the war created a major economic crisis since it was destroying the manufacturing industry.

If you want to learn the REAL reasons for the civil war then read the book Lies My Teacher Told Me or A Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War.

 

[Dust 2 Dust]

Um, as history tells us, the South fired the first shots of the Civil War at Fort Sumter. Therefore, the South (or more correctly, South Carolina) began the war with the United States. And they did not peacefully secede, they forcibly took over all forts and arsenals in the South after they seceded.

the South sent delegations to Washington D.C. and offered to pay for the federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States. Lincoln rejected any negotiations with Confederate agents on the grounds that the Confederacy was not a legitimate government, and that making any treaty with it would be tantamount to recognition of it as a sovereign government. Since the northern troops wouldn't leave, the south took control of the forts and threw them out by force.

 

[fertileTurtle]

And the war was over slavery.

I seriously doubt many of the poorer southerners would have fought a war over slavery. Fewer than 5% of southerners owned slaves. This war was about state rights started mostly by the overbearing taxation and regulation of the majority states who were more industrialized than the backward, agrarian south; but the social issue of slavery was the motivating factor for the majority of the opponents of the south.

Even without the civil war, the issue of slavery would have been resolved in the preceding years, because more people were turning against the idea and more of the economy was becoming industrialized.

And just because you think the war was not really fought over slavery, does not make you for it.

 

[fertileTurtle]

He did the Emancipation Proclamation later in the war to FRAME it as being about freeing the slaves, as a strategical move, to keep EUROPE from siding with the South, which they were considering.

And more to the point, he wanted some legal reason to ransack the south and use as much violence as he needed to gain control. It was all about control then and it's all about control now. The way they control us is by stealing our money and throwing us in jail of course.


He really was a huge racist himself and I wouldn't give him the credit for being the great humanitarian so many people have been told to think of him as. He has been quoted many times on that score, so I don't even know why it's a debate at this point other than the fact that people are just to lazy to google.

 

[teagan]

How could the South have abolished slavery? Their entire economy depended on it. There were no slaves in the North except for border states. The reason slavery was not abolished there was because Lincoln needed their immediate support. The emancipation proclamation provided a legal context for the freeing of Southern slaves and served as a political gain for the North.

And the war was over slavery, everything else like tariffs and industrialization was secondary. Whether you like to call it economic, social, political, whatever the case, it all related back to slavery. The entire South was based on an agrarian society promoted entirely by slavery. Take the slaves away, you take the economy away. Even though a small percentage of people owned slaves, the majority benefitted from them.

And during this time, the North was becoming increasingly abolitionist. Sure, not everyone was an abolitionist in the North, but enough key people were to scare the South.

Slavery would not have ended peacefully in the South. Bleeding Kansas proved this.

 

[Dust 2 Dust]

How could the South have abolished slavery? Their entire economy depended on it. T

Modern farming techniques which by the 1890's made slaves obsolete. Also, Robert E. Lee who more than likely was going to be the next president of the south hated slavery.

Any intelligent capitalist would free the slaves, pay them minimum wage, and charge them for rent, food, and clothing. That is the Capitalist way.

 

[teagan]

Free labor is free labor. Saying slaves were obsolete is like saying employees are obsolete. You still needed someone to use the "modern farming techniques." And why charge slaves when you can work them for free? It's a better deal that way.

And moreover, Lee did not hate slavery. In fact, he owned over one hundreds slaves himself. However, he did emancipate them after 5 years of owning them. He originally wanted to rid himself of them right away because he did not consider himself a worthy slave owner. He kept them, though, because he realized their potential for profit generation. There are even stories of Lee having some of his slaves whipped for not obeying him.

"How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence" (Robert E. Lee). Lee did not hate slavery, he was just unfamiliar with it and, as such, believed it was God's will.

 

[Luthor Rex]

To the victor goes the spoils, and greatest of these is the right to compose the approved history. That false history has been taught to generations of schoolchildren, and embraced by biased, completely indoctrinated historians and educators.

And for his next trick! D2D will tell us how the Holocaust was exaggerated or even didn't exist at all!

At the after-show party D2D will show us how we can stage our own hoaxed NASA moon landing!

:kick:

 

[Luthor Rex]

In the so-called "Civil War," the North was actually in the wrong. The southern states peacefully seceded, and the North initiated war.

"In the presidential election of 1860, the Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln, had campaigned against the expansion of slavery beyond the states in which it already existed. The Republican victory in that election resulted in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union even before Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861. Both the outgoing and incoming U.S. administrations rejected secession, considering it rebellion.

Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces attacked a U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Lincoln responded by calling for a volunteer army from each state, leading to declarations of secession by four more Southern slave states."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

I'm sure you believe that Oswald wasn't a lone gunman either.

 

[Cry For Love]

"In the presidential election of 1860, the Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln, had campaigned against the expansion of slavery beyond the states in which it already existed. The Republican victory in that election resulted in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union even before Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861. Both the outgoing and incoming U.S. administrations rejected secession, considering it rebellion.

Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces attacked a U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Lincoln responded by calling for a volunteer army from each state, leading to declarations of secession by four more Southern slave states."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

I'm sure you believe that Oswald wasn't a lone gunman either.

listen & learn mate

http://mises.org/multimedia/MP3/mu2006/DiLorenzo-MC.mp3

 

[Evzone]

Not going to happen.

If it did, the rest of the US would have more to lose than Texas, if the results of California and New York's consistent anti-business policies are any indication. Businesses have been moving to friendlier grounds in the South. Just look at how auto manufacturers have set up shop in South Carolina and Alabama; meanwhile, Detroit looks more and more like Somalia.

 

[fertileTurtle]

How could the South have abolished slavery?

Ever been to Georgia? In the country you will see hundereds of fields of cotton. People can still make good money off of it even without slave labor.

 

[fertileTurtle]

Not going to happen.

If it did, the rest of the US would have more to lose than Texas, if the results of California and New York's consistent anti-business policies are any indication. Businesses have been moving to friendlier grounds in the South. Just look at how auto manufacturers have set up shop in South Carolina and Alabama; meanwhile, Detroit looks more and more like Somalia.

Texas created more jobs this year than all other 49 states combined. They are also like the only state (maybe 1 or 2 others I don't know) to lower taxes this year instead of increase taxes. And oh yeah, the 2 states with the biggest taxes are also the 2 states with the biggest deficits which are NY and Califvckya.

So yes, Texas is paying for everyone else's welfare in a sense.

 

[Darth]

^^Thank you...I didn't have time to justify my statements with sources. That's how it happened.

 

[teagan]

Even though I respectfully disagree, I have to hand it to Danger for having sources.

However, your quotes do not prove much. You're just pulling assumptions from them. Nowhere in there does it actually mention that the United States of America went to war with with the Confederate States over the economy.

Furthermore, Fort Sumter was still American property at the time. The forces from South Carolina had began to siege it when Lincoln ordered it to be resupplied. South Carolina was the first aggressor of the war by laying siege to the fort.

Also, your end assumption contradicts earlier arguments made by others saying the war started due to economic sanctions placed on the South. You are saying the North went to war with the South because the Northern economy was in a depression and therefore needed a diversion for the economy. Unless you are saying that the North placed economic sanctions on the South which caused them to go to war with the North.

Lastly, slavery was illegal in New Jersey. It was legal in only 4 states after the emancipation proclamation. These were the border states. Besides those 4 states, all other states in the North had abolished slavery long before that document.

 

[teagan]

I hate to use wikipedia as a source but it pretty clearly sums up what I've read by many historians and believe happened to cause the American Civil War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War

 

[FairShake]

I think that if Texas secedes America might have a better showing on those international IQ tests our children always score poorly on.

Other than that...meh. I won't miss them.

As for the Civil War, let's quote Alexander Stephens on the eve of the Civil War:

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted."

Let's see, Northern and Southern states have beef over the expansion of slavery into new territories, Southern states leave country when anti-slavery party comes into power, Northern states forcibly rid border states of slavery during war, Southern states who attack Northern states say war is about slavery, and finally the war ends by ending slavery.

Sinking in?

 

[Da Realist]

I thing the Civil War wasn't totally about slavery. Leading up to the war, the North was afraid the South would have too much power in Congress while the South was afraid of losing their power because the North was growing quickly. Any new states would tip the balance of power because they would either become slave states or free states. The only thing really diving the two was slave labor. The North had industry and really didn't need slaves while the South did. The funny thing about the South is that only a third of the white males owned slaves, so no slaves means the rich in powerful in the region would be pennyless. So the rich guys convinced the poorer ones the government was out to get them and made their own country eventhough they kept all the infrastructure from the federal government. The slaves themselves were just pawns between the rich and the government. Truthfully, I see it as a class war more than anything. But then the war ends and former slaves get treated second class citizens eventhough Daddy Lincoln cared so much for their freedom, and the South is still backwards because people are still living as though the Conferderacy was a success.