- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why did the Union not allow the Confederacy to secede without a war?
Posted on 5/17/26 at 11:59 am to TulsaSooner78
Posted on 5/17/26 at 11:59 am to TulsaSooner78
Pretty simple.
My view was always that the south made the goods, shipped them to the north which shipped them overseas. Tarrifs involved and North would get money. South wanted to bypass the north and go straight to shipping overseas and the north wasnt having it. South seceded in order to basically get rid of the middle man.
They also wanted a port in Charleston that got blockaded.
This is what I have to say about the Civil War. The South were aholes for wanting to keep slavery. The North were aholes for going to war with the other group of aholes and fought to keep the aholery intact.
If the Civil War wouldn't have happened, the South would have ended slavery without war in a few years time due to the Dutch shutting the slave trade down and the majority of the world ending slavery.
Remember this, from your Civil War "hero"
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
My view was always that the south made the goods, shipped them to the north which shipped them overseas. Tarrifs involved and North would get money. South wanted to bypass the north and go straight to shipping overseas and the north wasnt having it. South seceded in order to basically get rid of the middle man.
They also wanted a port in Charleston that got blockaded.
This is what I have to say about the Civil War. The South were aholes for wanting to keep slavery. The North were aholes for going to war with the other group of aholes and fought to keep the aholery intact.
If the Civil War wouldn't have happened, the South would have ended slavery without war in a few years time due to the Dutch shutting the slave trade down and the majority of the world ending slavery.
Remember this, from your Civil War "hero"
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
1
Posted on 5/17/26 at 12:00 pm to TulsaSooner78
1) The north didn't want to lose the tax revenue from the cash crops in the south. The south did most of its business with Britain. The north did not like this so they imposed tariffs on imported British goods in an attempt to force the south to buy inferior products from the north. This had an indirect effect on exports, too, as Britain didn't want to send ships just to pick up cotton if those ships weren't able to sell goods while at port. (Although in practice, the Brits needed the cotton so bad that they sent ships anyway). The north imposed tariffs on goods multiple times and it almost led to war in the 1830's (Nullification Crisis).
2) The north argued that if we allow states to secede any time they are upset about something, we would eventually have a dozen countries. It wasn't sustainable and there had to be a strong federal government to keep everyone together, even if by force. Not only was it better for everyone economically, but it was much better for national defense.
2) The north argued that if we allow states to secede any time they are upset about something, we would eventually have a dozen countries. It wasn't sustainable and there had to be a strong federal government to keep everyone together, even if by force. Not only was it better for everyone economically, but it was much better for national defense.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 12:22 pm to bhtigerfan
quote:
The best argument I’ve ever read about succession was a guy saying that most southern states would have never joined the Union in the first place if they were going to be held to “an unbreakable union that they could never exit.”
After fighting a bloody secession war with England that they had all agreed was justified, no one in their right mind would assume that the people who fought and bled with you would have an about face on that issue.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 4:10 pm to Beau Fontenot
quote:
As a young boy growing up in the 60's, I can still hear my grandmother using the term "scallywag" when referring to Northerners.
I've heard that one quite often, too. My still preferred descriptive from back then and now is "damyankee". That is one word, btw.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 4:50 pm to AUstar
quote:
2) The north argued that if we allow states to secede any time they are upset about something, we would eventually have a dozen countries. It wasn't sustainable and there had to be a strong federal government to keep everyone together, even if by force. Not only was it better for everyone economically, but it was much better for national defense.
Yankee scare propaganda
Posted on 5/17/26 at 4:55 pm to TulsaSooner78
The Union needed the resources in the South and Lincoln demanded the U.S. to stay united,
Posted on 5/17/26 at 4:58 pm to Auburn1968
It is a shame that some kind of peaceful accord wasn't reached.
But there is a similar struggle today, as the Globalist Left seek to destroy the Culture that stands in the way of International Global Socialism commanded by a World Government.
But there is a similar struggle today, as the Globalist Left seek to destroy the Culture that stands in the way of International Global Socialism commanded by a World Government.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 4:59 pm to TulsaSooner78
Doesn’t make sense, they voluntarily joined they should have been allowed to voluntarily leave. Hell, gangs at least let you get beat out.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 5:00 pm to TulsaSooner78
Money, for example, the ship builders in the Northeast were heavily invested in the slave trade, via their ships. They saw this as a loss (the south losing the slaves), but realized they would soon be building numerous ships for the Union fleet.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 5:10 pm to jeffsdad
Money. Yeah. Involved a bit.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 5:48 pm to TulsaSooner78
If South Carolina hadn't jumped the gun at Sumter Lincoln would have faced a hard climb in selling his war to the North. I blame Spurrier.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 5:53 pm to TulsaSooner78
Lincoln was a tyrant who was obsessed with "preservation of the union". Translated into English, that meant "I won the election and I'll sacrifice infinite lives of others to force you to be governed by me". If he's not in Hell, he certainly should be. It is at least fitting that his war, that killed so many Americans, finally claimed his life too.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 7:16 pm to TulsaSooner78
because the excise tax on cotton made up 90% of federal revenue.
there boy now you have your answer go and sin no more!
there boy now you have your answer go and sin no more!
Posted on 5/17/26 at 8:17 pm to TulsaSooner78
The same reason every war has ever been fought. Money and power.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 8:29 pm to TulsaSooner78
this is a great discussion
makes sense to call the civil war...
The War of Northern
Aggression
PS not fought because of slavery
Posted on 5/17/26 at 9:40 pm to TulsaSooner78
Why don't the wonderful blue states let the red ones leave NOW? They say we cost too much.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 9:51 pm to Oneforthemoney
quote:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.
This is very clear.
Posted on 5/18/26 at 6:38 am to goatmilker
On both sides, but looking at it 150 + years later it was a miscalculation on both sides. Beginning in the 1850s the North was becoming much more industrialized than the South and much more self sufficient. The North had 22000 miles of railroads on a unified rail system of which the South did not. The North had something of a monopoly on key resources in terms of things needed for industrial dominance like iron from the UP of Michigan and other places. It had something like 95% of the industrial output even taking the textile argument into consideration. The North had forges for creating things like guns. The North also had a diversified agriculture it grew numerous different crops....the South was limited in food grown because of its reliance on Cotton.....plus by 1860 the British had begun to grow cotton on a large scale in India so that by 1865 -70 any shock from the Civil War was mitigated. Plus the North had numbers 22 million to essentially maybe 6 million in the South because 4 million slaves were not included in that #.
The truth is, the South needed the North much more than the other way around. The argument about excise taxes and Cotton really turns out to be irrelevant by the time of Ft Sumter. The South could not feed itself because it was too dependant on cotton....think Argentina as a modern example. Argentina was and is an agricultural powerhouse.....and an economic basket case with an underdeveloped industrial potential. The South was dependant on Northern shipping conglomerates to facilitate its export. It was also dependant on the North for its food. The South's best land was used for Cotton in LA, MS, AL and parts of GA.
There was never going to be a "gentlemanly" separation. If you had a "divorce", both countries probably descend into war anyway because of the territories in the West. The Southern Planter class and the Northern Mercantile / Industrialist class would inevitably clash over resources out there with the outcome the same. You have divorce, but the custody battle over the "kids" gets brutal .
The truth is, the South needed the North much more than the other way around. The argument about excise taxes and Cotton really turns out to be irrelevant by the time of Ft Sumter. The South could not feed itself because it was too dependant on cotton....think Argentina as a modern example. Argentina was and is an agricultural powerhouse.....and an economic basket case with an underdeveloped industrial potential. The South was dependant on Northern shipping conglomerates to facilitate its export. It was also dependant on the North for its food. The South's best land was used for Cotton in LA, MS, AL and parts of GA.
There was never going to be a "gentlemanly" separation. If you had a "divorce", both countries probably descend into war anyway because of the territories in the West. The Southern Planter class and the Northern Mercantile / Industrialist class would inevitably clash over resources out there with the outcome the same. You have divorce, but the custody battle over the "kids" gets brutal .
Posted on 5/18/26 at 7:28 am to KiwiHead
quote:
On both sides, but looking at it 150 + years later it was a miscalculation on both sides.
So why are we going to do it again?
Posted on 5/18/26 at 7:42 am to RohanGonzales
We aren't. We periodically go through spasms like this. The back and forth of today has not created an environment like say the late 1960 s early 70's where there was real violence and mass protests regularly.
It's all fools talk started by someone who was bored on a Sunday to get other bored people something to talk about.
It's all fools talk started by someone who was bored on a Sunday to get other bored people something to talk about.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News