Jackson vs Lincoln

[The Marquis de Leech]

If we're talking economics, Jackson is 4x the president of Lincoln.

How many Depressions did Lincoln create?

[DireWolfSpirit]

Rather overlooks that slavery was the reason for the Confederacy's existence. It was in their constitution, for goodness sake.

The end of slavery means the end of the Confederacy.

It's a moot point since the rebels we're defeated.

But if the Confederacy had won do you think it (slavery) would have continued forever?

If all these other nations managed to end slavery in those preceding decades,

it seems slave practice in the South would've been defeated eventually.

We can only hypothesize the ways how, (trade embargo, property compensation as Britian did with the

West Indies plantations),

but civil war was the exeption, not the rule.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Of course it wouldn't have continued forever. It's just that its demise would have taken the Confederacy with it.

The Confederacy wasn't a viable state, being tied so heavily to a particular doomed system of production. It lived in constant fear of its own slave workforce, had no friends internationally*, and was lumbered with political leadership that was incompetent at best and batshit at worst. And geopolitically, it faced a powerful neighbour with a grudge. If it had won the Civil War, there would have been a re-match before the end of the century, which the North would have won easily.

*No, Britain would never intervene. Not in a million years.

[Zorral]

If we're talking economics, Jackson is 4x the president of Lincoln.

Only someone who has never studied the matter would dream of writing something that ignorant of the history and the documentation.

There was nothing but worthless paper issued by Jackson's pet banks by the time he left office. Everyone was left holding the bag, there was no credit and enormous contraction of all financial and mercantile activity. And it went on and on -- it even affected Europe.

In informed opinion the only really good thing Jackson did was to tell J.C. Calhoun in no uncertain terms that if he tried to play the Nullification card into secession he personally would raise an army and come down and shoot his ass. It was widely rumored that on his deathbed Jackson murmured that his only regret in life was that he didn't hang that son of a bitch Calhoun when he had the chance.

No, Britain and other European countries would never have intervened because, for one thing, none of them recognized the secessionist states as A State / Nation. Also the slave trade out of Africa was now prohibited by all the 'civilized' nations, and this was very popular among the citizens -- while South Carolina, for instance, was determined to re-open the African slave trade into the southern states and territories. Of course the Union blockade rather messed with that idea . . . . Not to mention that England's textile industry was doing excellently well very quickly with her own cotton industry in Egypt and India.

The thing is the war was for the sake of expanding slavery into all of the U.S. and the U.S. had spoken NO to that. You could see it in the ways people in the north felt about the Fugitive Slave Act, that was actually forcing people who didn't believe in slavery and wouldn't own slaves to collaborate in southern slavery -- and how much they hated it.

In fact it had spoken no to that in California with their state constitution banning slavery. It had spoken no to that when the South Carolinian slave power elite financed the shooting wars in Kansas-Nebraska, stealing Kansas's state constitution election -- more people voted for slavery than even inhabited the state! -- and when there was a do-over the free soilers won.

The people said no when SC fired on federal property, Ft. Sumter, and started the war. They had effectively started the shooting war in 1850. People still hoped it could be contained. But clearly with secession and Ft. Sumter it was certain that it could not be.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Only someone who has never studied the matter would dream of writing something that ignorant of the history and the documentation.

There was nothing but worthless paper issued by Jackson's pet banks by the time he left office. Everyone was left holding the bag, there was no credit and enormous contraction of all financial and mercantile activity. And it went on and on -- it even affected Europe.

In informed opinion the only really good thing Jackson did was to tell J.C. Calhoun in no uncertain terms that if he tried to play the Nullification card into secession he personally would raise an army and come down and shoot his ass. It was widely rumored that on his deathbed Jackson murmured that his only regret in life was that he didn't hang that son of a bitch Calhoun when he had the chance.

No, Britain and other European countries would never have intervened because, for one thing, none of them recognized the secessionist states as A State / Nation. Also the slave trade out of Africa was now prohibited by all the 'civilized' nations, and this was very popular among the citizens -- while South Carolina, for instance, was determined to re-open the African slave trade into the southern states and territories. Of course the Union blockade rather messed with that idea . . . . Not to mention that England's textile industry was doing excellently well very quickly with her own cotton industry in Egypt and India.

The thing is the war was for the sake of expanding slavery into all of the U.S. and the U.S. had spoken NO to that. You could see it in the ways people in the north felt about the Fugitive Slave Act, that was actually forcing people who didn't believe in slavery and wouldn't own slaves to collaborate in southern slavery -- and how much they hated it.

In fact it had spoken no to that in California with their state constitution banning slavery. It had spoken no to that when the South Carolinian slave power elite financed the shooting wars in Kansas-Nebraska, stealing Kansas's state constitution election -- more people voted for slavery than even inhabited the state! -- and when there was a do-over the free soilers won.

The people said no when SC fired on federal property, Ft. Sumter, and started the war. They had effectively started the shooting war in 1850. People still hoped it could be contained. But clearly with secession and Ft. Sumter it was certain that it could not be.

Pretty sure GW was talking about how $20 is 4x $5...

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Zorral,

Um, how is a war for independence from an existing central government, not for control of that government, a war to expand legal slavery to all of the US?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Zorral,

Um, how is a war for independence from an existing central government, not for control of that government, a war to expand legal slavery to all of the US?

Zorral is contextualizing the war in the antebellum political struggles over slavery, during which the South favored territorial expansionism, the expansion of slavery into new territories, and a diminishing of the distinction between slave and free states by implicating the North in protecting slavery through the Fugitive Slave Act/the Dred Scott decision. Though the Civil War interrupted expansion, talk of conquering the Caribbean and even further South to create even more slave states- and protect slavery in perpetuity- was not uncommon. Had the South won the Civil War this may have come to pass, and there would likely have been continual conflicts over slavery in North America until the issue was settled. Contemporary figures grasped this- "a house divided against itself cannot stand," in Lincoln's words.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

That's fair.

My point was only that the American Civil War was not a fight for control of the existing national government of the US. The hypocrisy of the South's wailing over the "Fugitive Slave Act" has always frustrated me. It boils down to "we want States to be sovereign except when it allows Slaves to gain their freedom". Black tounge hypocrisy.

[Shryke]

OAR,

That's fair.

My point was only that the American Civil War was not a fight for control of the existing national government of the US. The hypocrisy of the South's wailing over the "Fugitive Slave Act" has always frustrated me. It boils down to "we want States to be sovereign except when it allows Slaves to gain their freedom". Black tounge hypocrisy.

That hypocrisy is exactly why it was a fight for control of the national government. It's only when they lost (when Lincoln was eleceted) that they decided to start a civil war.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

But, once they attempted secession they gave up on attempting to control the US as a whole. The American Civil War was the National Government seeking to prevent the secession of indivudual States from the US. It was not the seceeding States seeking to force the National Government to be pro-slavery.

[Shryke]

Shryke,

But, once they attempted secession they gave up on attempting to control the US as a whole. The American Civil War was the National Government seeking to prevent the secession of indivudual States from the US. It was not the seceeding States seeking to force the National Government to be pro-slavery.

No, it was their backup plan to that. It was still exactly the same people and political movement.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

Yes. But no longer seeking to control the National Government. In fact I think their lack of control is why they attempted to take their slaves and run. They feared the lack of political power more than anything else.

[Zorral]

Shryke,

But, once they attempted secession they gave up on attempting to control the US as a whole. The American Civil War was the National Government seeking to prevent the secession of indivudual States from the US. It was not the seceeding States seeking to force the National Government to be pro-slavery.

That's not so. The very first thing Texas did was mount an invasion of the New Mexico Territory with objective of going through there to take over California. Note. California was already state . . . a free soil state. The New Mexico territory included both what we now know as New Mexico and Arizona -- and belonged to the federal government, not the secessionists.

The thing is, Texas had tried to take over by force New Mexico before and failed abysmally because their invasion plan was idiotic. They did again with the same results.

Before leaving D.C. but after secession, Varina Davis told her dressmaker that she expected to be back by Christmas, and sitting in the White House.

So there's so much proof that proves otherwise. This was a war for expansion, not to keep our slaves safely corraled. Without more territory to expand into their slave economy collapses. Read the legislative debates of both states and in the House and senate for decades prior to secession. Read the newspapers of the time, particularly the Charleston Mercury, owned by the Barnwell Rhett family -- Barnwell Rhett was the cornerstone of southern secession. In fact, by many counts as far as states such as South Carolina and Mississippi were concerned, they'd already seceded by the end of 1850. The problem was Virginia, who was not having it, not yet. It took firing on Ft. Sumter by the South Carolinians, to prove to Virigina once and for all they were serious about secession. Virginia could either stay in the Union -- and no longer be able to sell her slaves south (according to the CSA constitution) or join the CSA and continue living comfortably from the sale of overstock slaves as she'd been doing for generations. Virginia voted then for secession, because without a place to sell her slaves, the big aristos of the state would have been up the proverbial creek -- that was their only source of cash.

[Shryke]

Shryke,

Yes. But no longer seeking to control the National Government. In fact I think their lack of control is why they attempted to take their slaves and run. They feared the lack of political power more than anything else.

No longer seeknig to control the national government only because they failed at it.

If you try and break into my house at night but can't kick the door down, I don't say you were just a door-kicker.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Zorral,

I disagree. I believe the confederacy claimed New Mexico and Arizona territory based on the Missouri compromise and as such moved not to invade but to consolidate control of that territory. The Confederate army was defeated by a force from Colorado led by Kit Carson.

The American Civil War was not a war for control of the entire US. If it was why didn't the Confederate Government claim to be the legitimate government of the whole US? Finally, on one believe the CSA that barely held off the US for 5 years ever had the capacity to actually conqure the US that remained after secession.

Jefferson Davis's wife's bragidoccio notwithstanding (not to mention the fact that holding the White House doesn't mean you hold the whole US).

Shryke,

Is the Republican party seeking to conqure the US by offering a candidate for president and thereby controling all three branches of Governement? In other words I don't equate seeking political control of the US with a civil war for control of the US.

[lokisnow]

The American Hitler or the American Jesus, which is better?

such a tough question...

/thread

It's a moot point since the rebels we're defeated.
But if the Confederacy had won do you think it (slavery) would have continued forever?
If all these other nations managed to end slavery in those preceding decades,
it seems slave practice in the South would've been defeated eventually.
We can only hypothesize the ways how, (trade embargo, property compensation as Britian did with the
West Indies plantations),
but civil war was the exeption, not the rule.

This is nonsense, we are lucky the civil war happened before the explosion of the industrial revolution that was rapidly approaching. The south only had to hold on to slavery for another generation and they would then be able to out-compete every other economy and nation on earth by applying slave labor to industrial practices, rather than agrarian practices. Additionally the United States has unique fundamentals that did not apply to those other nations that had ended slavery. Those nations were largely built out and had limited natural resources they were methodically tapping. The United States had like 90% arable land which they were planning to systematically continue to steal from the owners in their expansion westward. and thanks to genocide and germ warfare, tracts of land larger than Europe were largely depopulated and natural resources not yet explored or exploited. This creates a viable scenario in which accessing, tapping and exploiting the potential of the continent via slave labor would be lucrative to a truly unimaginable degree. Southerners would have never given up slave labor because they would be in the advantaged position, and most of the rest of the world would not be able to afford their price undercutting and flooding of the markets. and the first country to agree to trade with them would reap enormous economic advantages that would wear down any trade embargos in a relatively short time. The south maintaining slavery would have likely resulted in the rapid expansion and reintroduction of slavery throughout the world in places that had banned it. It would be the only way for countries to survive, economically.

[Zorral]

Zorral,

I disagree. I believe the confederacy claimed New Mexico and Arizona territory based on the Missouri compromise and as such moved not to invade but to consolidate control of that territory. The Confederate army was defeated by a force from Colorado led by Kit Carson.

The American Civil War was not a war for control of the entire US. If it was why didn't the Confederate Government claim to be the legitimate government of the whole US? Finally, on one believe the CSA that barely held off the US for 5 years ever had the capacity to actually conqure the US that remained after secession.

Jefferson Davis's wife's bragidoccio notwithstanding (not to mention the fact that holding the White House doesn't mean you hold the whole US).

Shryke,

Is the Republican party seeking to conqure the US by offering a candidate for president and thereby controling all three branches of Governement? In other words I don't equate seeking political control of the US with a civil war for control of the US.

You're grasping at straws.

The territory belonged to the U.S. federal government -- just as Ft. Sumter. It was paid for by the federal government as part of the Gadson Purchase as part of a settlement of the Mexican American war. The territory was organized as a territory as part of the Compromise of 1850 by which California was entered into the ranks of the United States.

Texas's claim was as bogus as everything else the CSA claimed during secession, during the war, and then when the war was clearly being lost, the backtracking it did -- sudddenly screaming the war wasn't about slavery at all, despite all the speeches, the CSA constitution and all the state constitutions that begin stating that slavery and its expansion is the keystone of the state and the CSA.

That the Texans were again defeated by anti-slavery forces is still the point, isn't it?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Zorral,

The American Civil war was about preserving the caste system in the South that put planters on top. Their power was reperesented by the number of people they held as Slaves. Without question the war was about slavery. It was simply never a war by the South to conquer non-slave holding States.

[Jaxom 1974]

Zorral,

The American Civil war was about preserving the caste system in the South that put planters on top. Their power was reperesented by the number of people they held as Slaves. Without question the war was about slavery. It was simply never a war by the South to conquer non-slave holding States.

Isn't it a little bit of chicken and the egg though? I agree that the South didn't want to conquer the North in so much as they wanted to add the territory to the Confederacy, but it was necessary to force the acknowledgment of the secession.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Jaxom,

There were invasions of non-seceding states but to attempt to get political concessions not to take territory and hold it.