Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 10-18-2014, 12:45 AM
 
1,161 posts, read 2,437,998 times
Reputation: 2613

Advertisements

I have seen no compelling evidence (nor have I ever heard of such a concept before) that the Midwest and the West would have seceded from the Union had the South prevailed in the war. The Midwest and even the western territories were very closely linked to the northern states and the "old" Midwest of Ohio, Indiana and Michigan. So many of the settlers originally came from the East and Eastern wealth was used to fund the infrastructure of the new states, such as the railroads.

And why would much of the world be deep in deep famine by 1900 had the Midwest not been settled? America isn't the only source of food. Let's assume that for some reason the Midwest and the Great Plains remained unsettled, places like Canada would have stepped up to bat and the plains of central Canada would have continued to provide resources and foodstuff for export. And, of course, in 1900, most of the world did not consume foodstuff exported from the US, which is still the case today.

A handful of men in the Confederacy did have dreams of creating an empire in central and South America but this is an extremely simplistic thinking that properly falls into the category of dreams built on air. Not only would have the loosely organized Confederacy faced difficulties in raising the resources and manpower to launch a full scale invasion of foreign territories, they would have run into the other colonial powers jostling for influence as well as the natives of these countries, who had only recently thrown off the yokes of Spanish rule. The Confederacy's wealth was based on agriculture, not the exporting of raw resources nor did the Confederacy have notable industries that could compare to the North or, say, Britain. And of course, many if not most people in the Confederacy would have recognized the hypocrisy of rejecting the Northern hegemony only to turn around and impose its own hegemony on foreign countries. Expansion into the unsettled areas of the American southwest and Texas was one thing, these lands were seen as "empty" and up for grabs. Expansion into settled, independent nations is something else entirely. Probably the closest to foreign expansion would be further incursions into Mexico (but most of Northern Mexico is dry, worthless scrublands) or possibly into Cuba.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAllenDoudna View Post

The average American, North or South, actually thought more along the lines of a Confederacy than a Federal Union. Had the South won the Midwest and West Coast would also have seceeded. The United States would have broken down into about twenty seperate countries, each with its own currency and its own foreign policy. There would have been taxes upon travel from one State to the next. It's safe to say there would have been no settlement of the Great Plains and no fields of waving grain. Much of the world would have been in deep and desperate famine by 1900--with no way out, no relief in sight. Cursed with larger armies than they actually had, World War I would have been bloodier than it was. The Nazis would have won World War II.

The North was interested in expanding to the West where many more small family farms could be created. That had been accomplished. The South was interested in expanding to Latin America where more slave plantations could be created. Feature illegal immigration in reverse as the Yanquis conquored Mexico, Central America, the Caribean, and South America fell under the American Empire.

Do you really believe Abraham Lincoln killed the 600,000 men who died in the Civil War? Your thinking is naive and simplistic. Who was responsible for all the lives lost in World War II: FDR or Hitler? America would have broken up into a couple dozen different countries each at odds with the other. The bloodshed in these many Wars Between the States would have far exceeded the 600,000 lost in this one war to preserve the Union.

 
Old 10-18-2014, 12:52 AM
 
Location: Somewhere below Mason/Dixon
9,446 posts, read 10,738,988 times
Reputation: 15916
Lincoln waged war against the southern states for their LEAGAL secession from the voluntary union. This war cost the lives of 600000 Americans, both north and south. Lincolns war made northern federalism supreme, hence the beginning of the era of big government in America. Todays sprawling corrupt, spying, wiretapping, tyrannical federal government was born at Appomatix courthouse in 1865. Was Lincoln a great president???? Uh I think not.
 
Old 10-18-2014, 03:14 AM
 
1,161 posts, read 2,437,998 times
Reputation: 2613
"LEAGAL" secession?

Pray, tell, where does it say in the Constitution that any state may peacefully secede from the Union? Did any state constitutions specifically include a clause that allowed it to secede from the federal union?

You talk of a tyrannical federal government? What about the Confederacy, which wholeheartedly supported the enslavement of millions of people within its boundaries? Is that not even worse tyranny?

Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72 View Post
Lincoln waged war against the southern states for their LEAGAL secession from the voluntary union. This war cost the lives of 600000 Americans, both north and south. Lincolns war made northern federalism supreme, hence the beginning of the era of big government in America. Todays sprawling corrupt, spying, wiretapping, tyrannical federal government was born at Appomatix courthouse in 1865. Was Lincoln a great president???? Uh I think not.
 
Old 10-19-2014, 08:05 AM
 
Location: Peterborough, England
472 posts, read 922,860 times
Reputation: 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72 View Post
Lincoln waged war against the southern states for their LEAGAL secession from the voluntary union. This war cost the lives of 600000 Americans, both north and south. Lincolns war made northern federalism supreme, hence the beginning of the era of big government in America. Todays sprawling corrupt, spying, wiretapping, tyrannical federal government was born at Appomatix courthouse in 1865. Was Lincoln a great president???? Uh I think not.

What do you mean by "Lincoln's war!?

He only did what any Republican POTUS would have done, and probably any likely Democratic one. A comfortable majority in Congress also supported the war from beginning to end. So secession would have led to war whoever was President, and the test of Lincoln's greatness was how effectively he conducted that war when it came. On that score he would seem to have done well enough.

Last edited by Mikestone8; 10-19-2014 at 08:26 AM..
 
Old 10-19-2014, 10:00 AM
 
Location: Mid Atlantic USA
12,623 posts, read 13,875,290 times
Reputation: 5883
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72 View Post
Lincoln waged war against the southern states for their LEAGAL secession from the voluntary union. This war cost the lives of 600000 Americans, both north and south. Lincolns war made northern federalism supreme, hence the beginning of the era of big government in America. Todays sprawling corrupt, spying, wiretapping, tyrannical federal government was born at Appomatix courthouse in 1865. Was Lincoln a great president???? Uh I think not.

Why don't you read what Madison had to say about secession and nullification. He doesn't agree with you, and he basically wrote the Constitution.

FDR couldn't even get an anti-lynching bill through Congress because of hateful southern bigots in the US Congress. Yeah, if any part of this country has ever truly had a vile form of govt it is the southern states and their vicious mistreatment of minorities. It took the hated (by Southerners) Fed Govt to put an end to that.
 
Old 10-19-2014, 10:11 AM
 
Location: Mid Atlantic USA
12,623 posts, read 13,875,290 times
Reputation: 5883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallybalt View Post
"LEAGAL" secession?

Pray, tell, where does it say in the Constitution that any state may peacefully secede from the Union? Did any state constitutions specifically include a clause that allowed it to secede from the federal union?

You talk of a tyrannical federal government? What about the Confederacy, which wholeheartedly supported the enslavement of millions of people within its boundaries? Is that not even worse tyranny?

Interesting that the Constitution explains how a state may enter the Union, but not one word about leaving. Madison felt the only way a state could leave was by getting the consent of all the other states, or basically a constitutional amendment. There was no way the southern states were going to get approval by the other states, so they unilaterally walked away.

And this idea of a voluntary union is one cooked up by Confederate revisionists. The Fed Constitution is a legally binding compact between the "People of the United States" and the Fed Govt. The founders specifically did not want a compact between the states and Fed Govt. That is why each state ratified the Constitution by a ratifying convention and not their state legislatures.

Observing Constitution Day


Beyond the legal requirements for ratification, the state conventions fulfilled other purposes. The Constitution had been produced in strictest secrecy during the Philadelphia convention. The ratifying conventions served the necessary function of informing the public of the provisions of the proposed new government. They also served as forums for proponents and opponents to articulate their ideas before the citizenry. Significantly, state conventions, not Congress, were the agents of ratification. This approach insured that the Constitution's authority came from representatives of the people specifically elected for the purpose of approving or disapproving the charter, resulting in a more accurate reflection of the will of the electorate. Also, by bypassing debate in the state legislatures, the Constitution avoided disabling amendments that states, jealous of yielding authority to a national government, would likely have attached.
 
Old 10-19-2014, 10:16 AM
 
Location: Mid Atlantic USA
12,623 posts, read 13,875,290 times
Reputation: 5883
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72 View Post
Lincoln waged war against the southern states for their LEAGAL secession from the voluntary union. This war cost the lives of 600000 Americans, both north and south. Lincolns war made northern federalism supreme, hence the beginning of the era of big government in America. Todays sprawling corrupt, spying, wiretapping, tyrannical federal government was born at Appomatix courthouse in 1865. Was Lincoln a great president???? Uh I think not.

As much as you constantly mouth off about this legal secession, why don't you start a movement in your state to do just that. Let's see how much support you have. You really think large numbers of African Americans are going to support your cause? Never. If any southern state tried it, the internal unrest and strife in their own state would make the 60's look like a picnic. And loads of more rational people in the rest of the country would join them in putting down such nonsense.
 
Old 10-22-2014, 12:46 AM
 
4,794 posts, read 12,340,635 times
Reputation: 8397
He also signed the Homestead Act, a great idea for distributing land evenly to lots of settlers as opposed to having large wealthy land owners. Very progressive for it's time. The family farm helped make the US a great agricultural power.
 
Old 10-22-2014, 07:43 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,014,227 times
Reputation: 21237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meowtotheworld View Post

When you can find an enumerated power in Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, giving Congress the right to wage war to prevent the legal secession of any part of the union, and a clause of the same document which prohibits any part of the union to secede and defend themselves against federal aggression, then feel free to post it here.

If you can do so, then I will stand corrected.
Find the part of the US Constitution which spells out the process by which individual states may depart peacefully.

Putting together the Union was a national process, was it not? The states under the Articles of Confederation made an agreement with the other states. That they would submit the Constitution for ratification to the individual states and that if eleven of the thirteen states ratified, the United States was born. If two states voted against ratification while the other eleven voted in favor, those negative voting states still became part of the US. There was nothing in the ratification process which permitted dissenting states to remain independent, was there?

It was a national process involving the consent of all of the states, not a process by which a state could or could not join.

So what makes you conclude that even if secession was legal, the southern states went about it properly? They did not rely on a national process to leave, they simply declared "We're outta here" and felt that this was enough. Where was the legality in that?


I brought the above to your attention to demonstrate that when legal language covering a specific act is absent, then there is no clear legality to the act, either way.

The failure of the Constitutional writers to specify anything at all regarding the perpetual nature of the Union, or whether or not it could be dissolved, means that there is no ascendant legal argument which anyone can mount. That is why it required a war to resolve the issue, it could not be resolved legally.
 
Old 10-22-2014, 07:48 AM
 
Location: Peterborough, England
472 posts, read 922,860 times
Reputation: 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meowtotheworld View Post
When you can find an enumerated power in Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, giving Congress the right to wage war to prevent the legal secession of any part of the union, and a clause of the same document which prohibits any part of the union to secede and defend themselves against federal aggression, then feel free to post it here.

Well, if a State has legally seceded than it is a foreign country, and Congress certainly has the power "to declare war and conclude peace" with foreign powers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:24 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top