re: Question for any Civil War buffs (1850s)

quote:

---

You had local papers and they were mostly written by like minded local journalists.

---

and not as many who could read

quote:

---

My preference would be a perfectly peaceful, mutual, seperation

---

How would this occur...what do you envision?

It was divided by two distinctive economies that don’t reconcile together along pretty clear geographical boundaries.. once the common enemy’s were dispatched both abroad and on our western boundaries the North and the South no longer had enough common adversaries to bridge the widening differences between the two regions in not only their respective economies but also their cultural and class systems..

I posted these comments in EKG's thread the other day

quote:

---

This country never really has had a common interest due to cultural differences. The North has always been a predominately mercantile economy involving banking and manufacturing, the South predominantly agrarian by nature.

The New Englanders were throwing around the secession/ break up talk in 1794 by Rufus King and Oliver Ellsworth to John Taylor of Caroline.

Then again in 1803 after the Louisiana purchase. NE was afraid that the newly acquired territory would be more farmers, which would mean a people sympathetic to the South and Jeffersonian by nature.

Then again in 1814 over Jefferson's embargo during the war of 1812. (Hartford Convention)

Each time it was over POWER. Pure power. The New England states saw the office of the president going to Virginian after Virginian and saw it was they who would never regain power to control the US.

They wanted the power to control the flow of money as it best suited their regional benefit.

This led to the Tariff of Abominations in 1828 and the Nullification Crisis of 1832.

These divisions would not settle down until finally after divisiveness of other acts such as the Morill Tariff would lead to the South seceding from the union.

The issue has always come from the Yankee desire to hold the power to control policy to enrich themselves.

This culture still exists today and permeates all of Washington DC. It's why whether we get Desantis or Trump, or Biden stays in office, they will not make significant change to course correct back to the principled ideas because its messy.

---

quote:

---

No. Secession is the right answer (mainly because federalism was buried as part of Lincoln winning the CW) as it gives each ideology it's place to succeed or fail.

Discussions can take place over things like where to spend infrastructure money, support for vital industries like farming and energy, how much assistance should go to the poor, what our involvement should be in foreign aid, etc.

We can't ideologically come to agreements over abortion at will ,hyper-sexualization of children, unilateral money to proxy wars, unending authoritarian edicts, etc.

---

Really was a War Between the States. Today it would be a Civil War.

quote:

---

I can't remember where I read it before, but just the cotton exports from the South was greater then the entire GDP of the North. The tariffs on export goods was the North's way of funding their infrastructure.

---

In Kenneth Stamp's book which contains a lot of news and commentary of the time, it is noted that almost all of the revenue supporting the federal government was from tariffs affected the South, that 5 out of 6 dollars spent on infrastructure improvement was spent on Northern projects.

quote:

---

Good to see you had a few minutes to spare from your boot licking to contribute nothing as usual.

---

Lol, I guess this is referring to something but I literally have no idea what.

There is no possibility of 'secession' taking place while also 'having discussions' in the sense that whoever you quoted meant. This isn't the way states operate. It would be suicidal for nascent breakaway states to negotiate such agreements as well. It doesn't make any sense from any geopolitical perspective.

The reality is that regardless of what people who support secession want, governments generally act the same. That includes your idealized government in a secession scenario. Nations operate in anarchic environments where their security is not assured. Since resources are not evenly spread across a landmass, that by itself creates new geopolitical realities where none existed before.

It's a psychotic scenario that makes no sense.

quote:

---

The reality is that regardless of what people who support secession want, governments generally act the same

---

But when there are many smaller governments, spread out, and ideally somewhat homogenous in nature, this should allow for the optimum amount of harmony.

There will if course still be conflict, but with power decentralized, it allows for better systems of governments and cultures to compete, trade, interact with eachother without having to live side by side or under the rule of cultures, religions, governments they don't adhere to.

quote:

---

But when there are many smaller governments, spread out, and ideally somewhat homogenous in nature, this should allow for the optimum amount of harmony.

---

The Euro history of the last few years seems similar to what you speak of.