GrowlTowel said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Slavery was in decline and would have ended almost completely with the industrialization of agriculture.

The CSA was comprised of states that believed each had the right to their own individual destinies. As such, several of the member states would have eventually become independent nations or have sought admission back into the US as the US continued to amass military, industrial, financial, and political power.

---

Slavery would not have ended on its own. I see (not a southerner) the southern states similarly to how I see the current Israeli leadership.

I'll explain.

Sometimes, you get a feedback loop that reinforces your actions regardless of all the contradictory evidence. The Confederacy believed was right and justified by God. They were willing to send your children off to die for it. If I'm willing to send your kids off to die so I can own people, then I must make sure the best death isn't in vain.

The only other option would have been a Confederacy where no one would do trade with.

---

Agreed. Thee trots out the old trope that the Civil War wasn't about slavery when any credible historian or academic clearly states it was about slavery and not states rights.

---

Makes you wonder then . . . why do so many want to make the Civil War about slavery when there were so many other factors in play?

And on the flip, why do so many want to make the Civil War about states rights when slavery was a critical component of states rights.

I wager there is a middle area between the two camps where the actual truth lies.

---

I trust the articles of succession from every state more than I trust the Daughters of the Confederacy 60 years later.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Slavery was in decline and would have ended almost completely with the industrialization of agriculture.

The CSA was comprised of states that believed each had the right to their own individual destinies. As such, several of the member states would have eventually become independent nations or have sought admission back into the US as the US continued to amass military, industrial, financial, and political power.

---

Slavery would not have ended on its own. I see (not a southerner) the southern states similarly to how I see the current Israeli leadership.

I'll explain.

Sometimes, you get a feedback loop that reinforces your actions regardless of all the contradictory evidence. The Confederacy believed was right and justified by God. They were willing to send your children off to die for it. If I'm willing to send your kids off to die so I can own people, then I must make sure the best death isn't in vain.

The only other option would have been a Confederacy where no one would do trade with.

---

Agreed. Thee trots out the old trope that the Civil War wasn't about slavery when any credible historian or academic clearly states it was about slavery and not states rights.

---

Makes you wonder then . . . why do so many want to make the Civil War about slavery when there were so many other factors in play?

And on the flip, why do so many want to make the Civil War about states rights when slavery was a critical component of states rights.

I wager there is a middle area between the two camps where the actual truth lies.

---

Tariffs could be negotiated.
Slavery could not.
The northern states believed in states rights and they refused to enforce federal law. The southern states argued for the power of the federal government and its responsibility to enforce federal law.
The northern states did not care because the law the southerners wanted to be enforced was the fugitive slave act. The southern states decided to attempt to leave the union because a man running on the ticket of an abolitionist party was elected president. Some will argue that the Republican Party was not an abolitionist party, merely an anti-expansion of slavery party. However, the south saw them as an abolitionist party, and, to be fair, the south was pretty much right on that.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

All the economic arguments in the world cannot erase the central fact the defenders of the CSA's long-term survival keep avoiding: human beings do not willingly remain slaves forever.

---

Which is why the logical assumption is they would have moved away from Slavery over the coming years.

(just like all the South American and Latin American States that had slavery)

The assumption on the other side is that the CSA would have just kept on with slavery long into the 20th century...without giving us a practical reason for why that would have happened.

Just some version of "CSA evil...so CSA would have kept on doing evil things like Slavery forever"
Well, they could. There would simply be too many states to hold together under one centralized government. The states might instead form their own confederationsregional alliances that would be far less binding than the present United States. Rather than one powerful national union, North America could have developed into several separate confederations, loosely connected but politically independent.

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Slavery was in decline and would have ended almost completely with the industrialization of agriculture.

The CSA was comprised of states that believed each had the right to their own individual destinies. As such, several of the member states would have eventually become independent nations or have sought admission back into the US as the US continued to amass military, industrial, financial, and political power.

---

Slavery would not have ended on its own. I see (not a southerner) the southern states similarly to how I see the current Israeli leadership.

I'll explain.

Sometimes, you get a feedback loop that reinforces your actions regardless of all the contradictory evidence. The Confederacy believed was right and justified by God. They were willing to send your children off to die for it. If I'm willing to send your kids off to die so I can own people, then I must make sure the best death isn't in vain.

The only other option would have been a Confederacy where no one would do trade with.

---

Agreed. Thee trots out the old trope that the Civil War wasn't about slavery when any credible historian or academic clearly states it was about slavery and not states rights.

---

Makes you wonder then . . . why do so many want to make the Civil War about slavery when there were so many other factors in play?

And on the flip, why do so many want to make the Civil War about states rights when slavery was a critical component of states rights.

I wager there is a middle area between the two camps where the actual truth lies.

---

I trust the articles of succession from every state more than I trust the Daughters of the Confederacy 60 years later.

---

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.
It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

Thee University said:

---

I'll start by acknowledging that the slavery issue was a portion of the Civil War taking place but far from being the primary issue. Here is my question that I ponder often:

What would our country look like today if the South had won?

Would Richmond be the capital? Atlanta?
How many states would there be today?
Would there be a two party system?
Which countries would have come calling? Which countries would have pulled away?
World War 1 influence? WWII influence? Would there have been a Vietnam?
Would Lincoln have been assassinated?
International trade? Boom or bust?
What would our crime rate look like?
Would prisons be as large & numerous?
Would we have allowed immigration to be a major factor?
What would slavery look like? Would it even be an issue?

---

Not 2 parties, but 2 nations.
Lincoln would not be assassinated.
Slavery would have ceased by around 1920.
Nobody would want to immigrate to southern states. Northern state immigration would be limited to mainly European immigrants as the Southern States would block immigration from Central America and Mexico to the Northern States.
Before WW2 we would likely have been enemies in a war again.
Crime is crime, it would be similar unless the Confederacy became a totalitarian state.
Southern prisons would likely be larger. Northern states prisons smaller.
Somewhere after WW2 the North and South would reconcile with the slavery issue eliminated.

Forest Bueller III said:

---

Thee University said:

---

I'll start by acknowledging that the slavery issue was a portion of the Civil War taking place but far from being the primary issue. Here is my question that I ponder often:

What would our country look like today if the South had won?

Would Richmond be the capital? Atlanta?
How many states would there be today?
Would there be a two party system?
Which countries would have come calling? Which countries would have pulled away?
World War 1 influence? WWII influence? Would there have been a Vietnam?
Would Lincoln have been assassinated?
International trade? Boom or bust?
What would our crime rate look like?
Would prisons be as large & numerous?
Would we have allowed immigration to be a major factor?
What would slavery look like? Would it even be an issue?

---

Not 2 parties, but 2 nations.
Lincoln would not be assassinated.
Slavery would have ceased by around 1920.
Nobody would want to immigrate to southern states. Northern state immigration would be limited to mainly European immigrants as the Southern States would block immigration from Central America and Mexico to the Northern States.
Before WW2 we would likely have been enemies in a war again.
Crime is crime, it would be similar unless the Confederacy became a totalitarian state.
Southern prisons would likely be larger. Northern states prisons smaller.
Somewhere after WW2 the North and South would reconcile with the slavery issue eliminated.

---

Good post, and I will respond with my opinions.

"Not 2 parties, but 2 nations."

Certainly there would be no Republican Party in the CSA, nor Democrats anymore in the USA. But since elections would go on in both nations, new parties would emerge in both. The Union would likely see the formation of a party hot to avenge the loss.


"Lincoln would not be assassinated."

Assuming the South won early, this is true. Lincoln would certainly lose in 1864 to his challenger, most likely McClennan, despite the General's clear limits.


"Slavery would have ceased by around 1920."

Slavery still exists today in some parts of the world, so that's not a sure thing. I suspect the Democrats would do something like their current practice, which would be to create an underclass of blacks who were technically 'free' but with only limited rights and no citizenship. That would continue as long as the CSA continued in its original spirit.


"Nobody would want to immigrate to southern states. Northern state immigration would be limited to mainly European immigrants as the Southern States would block immigration from Central America and Mexico to the Northern States."

I believe the CSA would attract wealthy investors from Europe, and would create a class system where the rich lived far better than the poor. Ordinary workers would steer clear of the CSA, and industrial progress would see the CSA struggle to maintain order. The North would invite immigrants as it doubled down on expanding territories and new states to keep its advantage against the South in a possible second war.


"Before WW2 we would likely have been enemies in a war again."

The CSA would certainly see elements of revolt before 1930, and would likely blame the USA on it rather than make substantive changes, so yes.


"Crime is crime, it would be similar unless the Confederacy became a totalitarian state."

Both the CSA and USA would suffer from crime, but in different ways. The North would industrialize even faster than it did in our timeline, but that means the urban problems would also be larger, especially since the CSA would certainly provoke instability as a means to keep the North worried about problems besides the CSA.

The CSA most likely would take on fascist policies because of a need to have central control and to put down uprisings. A smaller, rural population would mean less ordinary crime, but there would be more financial crimes.




Southern prisons would likely be larger. Northern states prisons smaller."


Vice versa. The urban populations would mean more criminals for the North, and the South would be more likely to execute convicted criminals as a signal.


"Somewhere after WW2 the North and South would reconcile with the slavery issue eliminated."

Nope. Several European nations were hoping for the US to lose its opportunity to become a continental hegemon. England, Russia and France would all have made deals with a new CSA, in part to gain some control of North American territory and in part to keep North and South divided.

This absolutely would be the European practice a century later.

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

All the economic arguments in the world cannot erase the central fact the defenders of the CSA's long-term survival keep avoiding: human beings do not willingly remain slaves forever.

---

Well, they could. There would simply be too many states to hold together under one centralized government. The states might instead form their own confederationsregional alliances that would be far less binding than the present United States. Rather than one powerful national union, North America could have developed into several separate confederations, loosely connected but politically independent.

---

---

An endless series of secession movements is certainly possible

That possibility can not be discounted

The Civil War was fought over a variety of issues dividing the country: political, economic, social, cultural, etc. The country was divided on sectional lines and the clearest, greatest, and most obvious focus of that division was slavery. But it was not the only issue.

D. C. Bear said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Slavery was in decline and would have ended almost completely with the industrialization of agriculture.

The CSA was comprised of states that believed each had the right to their own individual destinies. As such, several of the member states would have eventually become independent nations or have sought admission back into the US as the US continued to amass military, industrial, financial, and political power.

---

Slavery would not have ended on its own. I see (not a southerner) the southern states similarly to how I see the current Israeli leadership.

I'll explain.

Sometimes, you get a feedback loop that reinforces your actions regardless of all the contradictory evidence. The Confederacy believed was right and justified by God. They were willing to send your children off to die for it. If I'm willing to send your kids off to die so I can own people, then I must make sure the best death isn't in vain.

The only other option would have been a Confederacy where no one would do trade with.

---

Agreed. Thee trots out the old trope that the Civil War wasn't about slavery when any credible historian or academic clearly states it was about slavery and not states rights.

---

Makes you wonder then . . . why do so many want to make the Civil War about slavery when there were so many other factors in play?

And on the flip, why do so many want to make the Civil War about states rights when slavery was a critical component of states rights.

I wager there is a middle area between the two camps where the actual truth lies.

---

Tariffs could be negotiated.
Slavery could not.
The northern states believed in states rights and they refused to enforce federal law. The southern states argued for the power of the federal government and its responsibility to enforce federal law.
The northern states did not care because the law the southerners wanted to be enforced was the fugitive slave act. The southern states decided to attempt to leave the union because a man running on the ticket of an abolitionist party was elected president. Some will argue that the Republican Party was not an abolitionist party, merely an anti-expansion of slavery party. However, the south saw them as an abolitionist party, and, to be fair, the south was pretty much right on that.

---

The Republican Party was not an abolitionist party in 1860 or even 1861 nor was Lincoln an abolitionist. The nation and the leader became that as the war progressed.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Slavery was in decline and would have ended almost completely with the industrialization of agriculture.

The CSA was comprised of states that believed each had the right to their own individual destinies. As such, several of the member states would have eventually become independent nations or have sought admission back into the US as the US continued to amass military, industrial, financial, and political power.

---

Slavery would not have ended on its own. I see (not a southerner) the southern states similarly to how I see the current Israeli leadership.

I'll explain.

Sometimes, you get a feedback loop that reinforces your actions regardless of all the contradictory evidence. The Confederacy believed was right and justified by God. They were willing to send your children off to die for it. If I'm willing to send your kids off to die so I can own people, then I must make sure the best death isn't in vain.

The only other option would have been a Confederacy where no one would do trade with.

---

Agreed. Thee trots out the old trope that the Civil War wasn't about slavery when any credible historian or academic clearly states it was about slavery and not states rights.

---

Makes you wonder then . . . why do so many want to make the Civil War about slavery when there were so many other factors in play?

And on the flip, why do so many want to make the Civil War about states rights when slavery was a critical component of states rights.

I wager there is a middle area between the two camps where the actual truth lies.

---

A morality tale is easier to sell than a complicated matter involving high level Constitutional arguments as well as geopolitical concerns.....

historian said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Slavery was in decline and would have ended almost completely with the industrialization of agriculture.

The CSA was comprised of states that believed each had the right to their own individual destinies. As such, several of the member states would have eventually become independent nations or have sought admission back into the US as the US continued to amass military, industrial, financial, and political power.

---

Slavery would not have ended on its own. I see (not a southerner) the southern states similarly to how I see the current Israeli leadership.

I'll explain.

Sometimes, you get a feedback loop that reinforces your actions regardless of all the contradictory evidence. The Confederacy believed was right and justified by God. They were willing to send your children off to die for it. If I'm willing to send your kids off to die so I can own people, then I must make sure the best death isn't in vain.

The only other option would have been a Confederacy where no one would do trade with.

---

Agreed. Thee trots out the old trope that the Civil War wasn't about slavery when any credible historian or academic clearly states it was about slavery and not states rights.

---

Makes you wonder then . . . why do so many want to make the Civil War about slavery when there were so many other factors in play?

And on the flip, why do so many want to make the Civil War about states rights when slavery was a critical component of states rights.

I wager there is a middle area between the two camps where the actual truth lies.

---

Tariffs could be negotiated.
Slavery could not.
The northern states believed in states rights and they refused to enforce federal law. The southern states argued for the power of the federal government and its responsibility to enforce federal law.
The northern states did not care because the law the southerners wanted to be enforced was the fugitive slave act. The southern states decided to attempt to leave the union because a man running on the ticket of an abolitionist party was elected president. Some will argue that the Republican Party was not an abolitionist party, merely an anti-expansion of slavery party. However, the south saw them as an abolitionist party, and, to be fair, the south was pretty much right on that.

---

The Republican Party was not an abolitionist party in 1860 or even 1861 nor was Lincoln an abolitionist. The nation and the leader became that as the war progressed.

---

Bingo

The GOP was a free-soil party....the party wanted no slaves (or Black people in general) allowed in the territories...its was not an Abolitionist party.

"for Abolitionist was synonymous with thief. Between a band of men who stole horses and a band of men who stole negroes, the popular mind made small distinctions in the degrees of guilt. They were regarded as robbers, disturbers of the peace, the instigators of arson, murder, poisoning, rape; and, in addition to all these crimes, traditors to the government under which they lived, and enemies to the Union which gave us as a people liberty and strength." -Abraham Lincoln (The Life of Abraham Lincoln, By Ward Lamon)

"Neither I nor, any other Republican, so far as I know, proposes any interference with slavery in any State. What we demand is, that slavery shall not be extended or permitted in any territory outside of slave States"-Salmon P. Chase (R-OH)

"I make no war upon the South nor upon slavery in the South. I have no squeamish sensitiveness upon the subject of slavery, nor morbid sympathy for the slave. I plead the cause of the rights of white freemen."-David Wilmot

"The negro question as we understand it, is a white
man's question, the question of the right of free white laborers to the soil of the territories...We object to Sambo. We don't want him about. We insist that he shall not be forced upon us."
-John Greiner (R-OH)

"I, for one, am very much disposed to favor the colonization of such free negroes as are willing to go, in Central America...I want nothing to do, either with the free negro or the slave negro." -Sen. Trumbull (R-IL), 13th Amendment Author 8/7/1858, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate during the war & political ally of President Lincoln

"We...are the white man's party...We are for free white men, & for making white labor respectable & honorable, which it can never be when negro labor is brought into competition with it."
-Sen. Trumbull (Republican-IL, 13th Amendment Author)

[The real purpose for barring the expansion of slavery was to provide more land for the white settlers, not to improve the living conditions of savage subordinates. Armed with this idea of the isolation of slavery for the benefit of the white man Lincoln and his party billed themselves as "the only white mans party in the country." The National Era reported that many Americans opposed slavery. The reason that slavery was so strongly opposed by so many whites was due to its negative effects on free labor. There was little to no consideration for the well being or equality of the Negro (Fonner, Free, 265).]

"That the unoccupied territory of the United States and such as they may hereafter acquire shall be reserved for the white race, a think cannot be except by the exclusion of slavery." -Horace Greeley, on the Republican Party platform, 1856

"The South holds that the African is fit to live here as a slave. Our Republican Government denies that he is fit to live here at all"-Horatio Seymour (Gov of NY)

Redbrickbear said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Slavery was in decline and would have ended almost completely with the industrialization of agriculture.

The CSA was comprised of states that believed each had the right to their own individual destinies. As such, several of the member states would have eventually become independent nations or have sought admission back into the US as the US continued to amass military, industrial, financial, and political power.

---

Slavery would not have ended on its own. I see (not a southerner) the southern states similarly to how I see the current Israeli leadership.

I'll explain.

Sometimes, you get a feedback loop that reinforces your actions regardless of all the contradictory evidence. The Confederacy believed was right and justified by God. They were willing to send your children off to die for it. If I'm willing to send your kids off to die so I can own people, then I must make sure the best death isn't in vain.

The only other option would have been a Confederacy where no one would do trade with.

---

Agreed. Thee trots out the old trope that the Civil War wasn't about slavery when any credible historian or academic clearly states it was about slavery and not states rights.

---

Makes you wonder then . . . why do so many want to make the Civil War about slavery when there were so many other factors in play?

And on the flip, why do so many want to make the Civil War about states rights when slavery was a critical component of states rights.

I wager there is a middle area between the two camps where the actual truth lies.

---

A morality tale is easier to sell than a complicated matter involving high level Constitutional arguments as well as geopolitical concerns.....

---

From the Cornerstone Speech.

"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. 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. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal."

Why should we doubt the vice president of the Confederacy when he says that slavery is what split the union?

As an aside, even those who formed the confederacy recognized that Thomas Jefferson and other others in his day opposed slavery. It is, therefore, absurd that we have so many on the left who argue that the United States was founded upon the idea that slavery should be preserved.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Slavery was in decline and would have ended almost completely with the industrialization of agriculture.

The CSA was comprised of states that believed each had the right to their own individual destinies. As such, several of the member states would have eventually become independent nations or have sought admission back into the US as the US continued to amass military, industrial, financial, and political power.

---

Slavery would not have ended on its own. I see (not a southerner) the southern states similarly to how I see the current Israeli leadership.

I'll explain.

Sometimes, you get a feedback loop that reinforces your actions regardless of all the contradictory evidence. The Confederacy believed was right and justified by God. They were willing to send your children off to die for it. If I'm willing to send your kids off to die so I can own people, then I must make sure the best death isn't in vain.

The only other option would have been a Confederacy where no one would do trade with.

---

Agreed. Thee trots out the old trope that the Civil War wasn't about slavery when any credible historian or academic clearly states it was about slavery and not states rights.

---

Makes you wonder then . . . why do so many want to make the Civil War about slavery when there were so many other factors in play?

And on the flip, why do so many want to make the Civil War about states rights when slavery was a critical component of states rights.

I wager there is a middle area between the two camps where the actual truth lies.

---

A morality tale is easier to sell than a complicated matter involving high level Constitutional arguments as well as geopolitical concerns.....

---

From the Cornerstone Speech.

"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. 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. The prevailing id

Why should we doubt the vice president of the Confederacy when he says that slavery is what split the union?

---

Its interesting that the "Cornerstone" speech has become a focal point post 1990s

No doubt the Southern upper class was of course highly attached to a slave system and slave society.

But this speech as a historical focal point is very interesting...

[The speech was delivered extemporaneously on March 21, 1861, at the Athenaeum in Savannah, Georgia. Because it was not a written text, its dissemination relied entirely on media recording and subsequent historical anthologies]

Stephens himself maintained later he was not quoted correctly. Based on on a single reporter who was not identified by name.

[A reporter identified in historical printings simply by the initial "G." took shorthand notes during the event... "Your reporter begs to state that the above is not a perfect report, but only such a sketch of the address of Mr. Stephens as embraces, in his judgment, the most important points presented by the orator." ]

Does not mean Stephens did not in fact say essentially that exact thing. But also interesting he never gave the same speech in his official capacity as Vice President or to the Confederate Congress.

Also, interesting that Stephens himself had been a political ally of Abraham Lincoln...and was not a great supporter of secession to being with...
[Following Abraham Lincoln's election, Stephens gave a famous speech to the Georgia legislature arguing against secession. He stated that Lincoln's election alone was not a constitutional justification for breaking up the Union.

Alexander H. Stephens was initially strongly opposed to secession, making him one of the most prominent Unionists in the South prior to the war. However, his stance shifted out of loyalty to his home state of Georgia once the state officially chose to secede.]

Its Lincoln of course writing to his political friend Alexander Stephens and informing him (so that he can reassure his fellow Georgia political leaders) that slavery is in no danger from his administration.

Stephens does just that and argues against secession and for the basic normalcy of a Lincoln Presidency to the Georgia Legislature.

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"It is very doubtful whether Davis, Toombs, Orr, and Benjamin, had they agreed with Stephens, could have prevented secession, for had they not headed the movement, the people would have found other leaders."--James F. Rhodes (Northern Pulitzer Prize Winning Historian)

"Should Georgia determine to go out of the Union, I speak for one, though my views might not agree with them, whatever the result may be, I shall bow to the will of her people."-Alexander Stephens 11/14/186

The GOP was an anti slavery party but not for immediate abolition because of politics. They were realists who understood in 1856 (when the party was established) that the American people would not support abolition. Congress had trouble passing any laws that had any negative impact on slavery. That only changed after the bloody battles of 1861-1862.

Instead they wanted to stop slavery from expending out west. No new slave states or territories. They actually had considerable success: Texas was the last slave state when we entered the US in 1845. Also, no new slave territories were established after the GOP was founded in 1856. Part of the thinking was the belief that absent expansion, growth would start shrinking and eventually disappear naturally. Another important part of their thinking was the strong belief that abolition was unconstitutional.

Americans had a very strong belief in property rights and no real experience with socialism. Modern Americans have lived with Social Security & the Great Society all our lives. For good or ill, we have all experienced socialism. We have come to accept that govt will steal from us and give it to others.

historian said:

---

The GOP was an anti slavery party but not for immediate abolition because of politics. They were realists who understood in 1856 (when the party was established) that the American people would not support abolition. Congress had trouble passing any laws that had any negative impact on slavery. That only changed after the bloody battles of 1861-1862.

---

Agree, and I am not even sure after 1862 how much the North even coalesced around the idea of ending slavery....as late as the Hampton Road peace conference Lincoln was floating the idea that slavery could be preserved if the South would quickly take back up its seats in the Senate.

"We denounce the assertion that slavery is the cause of our present troubles, as a libel upon the framers of our constitution & repugnant to the facts of our National history."-Indiana General Assembly, 3/7/1863

[...At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederates that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced.

Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War.
Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union, they might be able to prevent its ratification.

After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation".

Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress. Reportedly, Seward disagreed with Lincoln about the price; Lincoln responded that the North had been complicit in the slave trade.] -Johnson, "Lincoln's Solution to the Problem of Peace Terms" (1968), pp. 582-583.

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Slavery was in decline and would have ended almost completely with the industrialization of agriculture.

The CSA was comprised of states that believed each had the right to their own individual destinies. As such, several of the member states would have eventually become independent nations or have sought admission back into the US as the US continued to amass military, industrial, financial, and political power.

---

Slavery would not have ended on its own. I see (not a southerner) the southern states similarly to how I see the current Israeli leadership.

I'll explain.

Sometimes, you get a feedback loop that reinforces your actions regardless of all the contradictory evidence. The Confederacy believed was right and justified by God. They were willing to send your children off to die for it. If I'm willing to send your kids off to die so I can own people, then I must make sure the best death isn't in vain.

The only other option would have been a Confederacy where no one would do trade with.

---

Agreed. Thee trots out the old trope that the Civil War wasn't about slavery when any credible historian or academic clearly states it was about slavery and not states rights.

---

Makes you wonder then . . . why do so many want to make the Civil War about slavery when there were so many other factors in play?

And on the flip, why do so many want to make the Civil War about states rights when slavery was a critical component of states rights.

I wager there is a middle area between the two camps where the actual truth lies.

---

A morality tale is easier to sell than a complicated matter involving high level Constitutional arguments as well as geopolitical concerns.....

---

From the Cornerstone Speech.

"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. 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. The prevailing id

Why should we doubt the vice president of the Confederacy when he says that slavery is what split the union?

---

Its interesting that the "Cornerstone" speech has become a focal point post 1990s

No doubt the Southern upper class was of course highly attached to a slave system and slave society.

But this speech as a historical focal point is very interesting...

[The speech was delivered extemporaneously on March 21, 1861, at the Athenaeum in Savannah, Georgia. Because it was not a written text, its dissemination relied entirely on media recording and subsequent historical anthologies]

Stephens himself maintained later he was not quoted correctly. Based on on a single reporter who was not identified by name.

[A reporter identified in historical printings simply by the initial "G." took shorthand notes during the event... "Your reporter begs to state that the above is not a perfect report, but only such a sketch of the address of Mr. Stephens as embraces, in his judgment, the most important points presented by the orator." ]

Does not mean Stephens did not in fact say essentially that exact thing. But also interesting he never gave the same speech in his official capacity as Vice President or to the Confederate Congress.

Also, interesting that Stephens himself had been a political ally of Abraham Lincoln...and was not a great supporter of secession to being with...
[Following Abraham Lincoln's election, Stephens gave a famous speech to the Georgia legislature arguing against secession. He stated that Lincoln's election alone was not a constitutional justification for breaking up the Union.

Alexander H. Stephens was initially strongly opposed to secession, making him one of the most prominent Unionists in the South prior to the war. However, his stance shifted out of loyalty to his home state of Georgia once the state officially chose to secede.]

Its Lincoln of course writing to his political friend Alexander Stephens and informing him (so that he can reassure his fellow Georgia political leaders) that slavery is in no danger from his administration.

Stephens does just that and argues against secession and for the basic normalcy of a Lincoln Presidency to the Georgia Legislature.

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"It is very doubtful whether Davis, Toombs, Orr, and Benjamin, had they agreed with Stephens, could have prevented secession, for had they not headed the movement, the people would have found other leaders."--James F. Rhodes (Northern Pulitzer Prize Winning Historian)

"Should Georgia determine to go out of the Union, I speak for one, though my views might not agree with them, whatever the result may be, I shall bow to the will of her people."-Alexander Stephens 11/14/186

---

There are many other examples of southern leaders arguing that slavery was the casus belli.
The reason people focus on slavery is that without it the war was unlikely snd with it the war was inevitable.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Slavery was in decline and would have ended almost completely with the industrialization of agriculture.

The CSA was comprised of states that believed each had the right to their own individual destinies. As such, several of the member states would have eventually become independent nations or have sought admission back into the US as the US continued to amass military, industrial, financial, and political power.

---

Slavery would not have ended on its own. I see (not a southerner) the southern states similarly to how I see the current Israeli leadership.

I'll explain.

Sometimes, you get a feedback loop that reinforces your actions regardless of all the contradictory evidence. The Confederacy believed was right and justified by God. They were willing to send your children off to die for it. If I'm willing to send your kids off to die so I can own people, then I must make sure the best death isn't in vain.

The only other option would have been a Confederacy where no one would do trade with.

---

Agreed. Thee trots out the old trope that the Civil War wasn't about slavery when any credible historian or academic clearly states it was about slavery and not states rights.

---

Makes you wonder then . . . why do so many want to make the Civil War about slavery when there were so many other factors in play?

And on the flip, why do so many want to make the Civil War about states rights when slavery was a critical component of states rights.

I wager there is a middle area between the two camps where the actual truth lies.

---

A morality tale is easier to sell than a complicated matter involving high level Constitutional arguments as well as geopolitical concerns.....

---

From the Cornerstone Speech.

"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. 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. The prevailing id

Why should we doubt the vice president of the Confederacy when he says that slavery is what split the union?

---

Its interesting that the "Cornerstone" speech has become a focal point post 1990s

No doubt the Southern upper class was of course highly attached to a slave system and slave society.

But this speech as a historical focal point is very interesting...

[The speech was delivered extemporaneously on March 21, 1861, at the Athenaeum in Savannah, Georgia. Because it was not a written text, its dissemination relied entirely on media recording and subsequent historical anthologies]

Stephens himself maintained later he was not quoted correctly. Based on on a single reporter who was not identified by name.

[A reporter identified in historical printings simply by the initial "G." took shorthand notes during the event... "Your reporter begs to state that the above is not a perfect report, but only such a sketch of the address of Mr. Stephens as embraces, in his judgment, the most important points presented by the orator." ]

Does not mean Stephens did not in fact say essentially that exact thing. But also interesting he never gave the same speech in his official capacity as Vice President or to the Confederate Congress.

Also, interesting that Stephens himself had been a political ally of Abraham Lincoln...and was not a great supporter of secession to being with...
[Following Abraham Lincoln's election, Stephens gave a famous speech to the Georgia legislature arguing against secession. He stated that Lincoln's election alone was not a constitutional justification for breaking up the Union.

Alexander H. Stephens was initially strongly opposed to secession, making him one of the most prominent Unionists in the South prior to the war. However, his stance shifted out of loyalty to his home state of Georgia once the state officially chose to secede.]

Its Lincoln of course writing to his political friend Alexander Stephens and informing him (so that he can reassure his fellow Georgia political leaders) that slavery is in no danger from his administration.

Stephens does just that and argues against secession and for the basic normalcy of a Lincoln Presidency to the Georgia Legislature.

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"It is very doubtful whether Davis, Toombs, Orr, and Benjamin, had they agreed with Stephens, could have prevented secession, for had they not headed the movement, the people would have found other leaders."--James F. Rhodes (Northern Pulitzer Prize Winning Historian)

"Should Georgia determine to go out of the Union, I speak for one, though my views might not agree with them, whatever the result may be, I shall bow to the will of her people."-Alexander Stephens 11/14/186

---

There are many other examples of southern leaders arguing that slavery was the casus belli.
The reason people focus on slavery is that without it the war was unlikely snd with it the war was inevitable.

---

I am not sure there are in fact many Southern leaders arguing that slavery is the Casus Belli (the cause of war)

I see many who argued slavery was the cause of secession....but not the cause of war.

We can go back to Stephens for more quotes

["Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession; out of it rose the breach of compact,
for instance, on the part of several Northern States in refusing to comply with Constitutional obligations as to rendition of fugitives from service.

I admitted that the fathers, both North and South, who framed the old Constitution, while recognizing existing slavery and guaranteeing its continuance under the Constitution so long as the States should severally see fit to tolerate it in their respective limits, were perhaps all opposed to the principle. Jefferson, Madison, Washington, all looked for its early extinction throughout the United States. But, on the subject of slavery (which was with us, or should be, nothing but the proper subordination of the inferior African race to the superior white) great and radical changes had taken place in the realm of thought; many eminent latter-day statesmen, philosophers, and philanthropists held different views from the fathers. The patriotism of the fathers was not questioned, nor their ability and wisdom, but it devolved on the public men and statesmen of each generation to grapple with and solve the problems of their own times." -Alexander H. Stephens, Myrta Lockett Avary 1910 compilation Recollections of Alexander H. Stephens: His Diary Kept When a Prisoner at Fort Warren, Boston Harbor, 1865]

"As for slavery...I would have been willing to give that up for recognition of the other great principle" (Independence)." -A. Stephens, former Vice President of the Confederacy

[The idea set forth by Mr. Greeley in his "American Conflict" and by Senator Sumner in his late eulogy on President Lincoln, that this noble band of warriors was nothing but a set of reckless-spirited rebels, disloyal to the Constitution of the United States and conspiring to overthrow it and to establish on its ruins a Slave Oligarchy, is utterly unfounded. The ruling motive of these armed hosts was to maintain and perpetuate the principles of the Constitution, even out of the Union when they could no longer maintain them in it. I speak of the ideas and sentiments prevailing among our people at the time, and not of the correctness of their judgment as to whether their constitutional rights could or would have been maintained in the Union. What I affirm is, that the Southern people were actuated by no disloyalty to the Constitution, to the principles it contained, or to the form of government thereby established. Nor were the men who met at Montgomery and framed the Confederate States Constitution governed by any such motives as have been ascribed.
When Georgia had seceded against my wish, judgment, and vote, my greatest apprehension was lest liberty be lost in the confusion that might follow. To guard against such an event, I myself, looking to the future, introduced a resolution, which was passed by the seceding convention, instructing Georgia delegates to a proposed Convention in Montgomery of seceding States, to adopt the old Constitution as basis for any new one that might be formed. Such was my admiration of the wisdom of the fathers, such my loyalty and devotion to the principles they had established.
At Montgomery, no delegate from any State evinced in any debate the slightest disinclination to conform strictly to this policy. Even on African slavery in the South, no change from the old was made in the new Constitution save in clearly defining those points on which disputes had arisen all of which points had been decided by the highest judicial tribunals of the old Government as they were now set forth in the fundamental law of the new. The only striking difference between the old Constitution and the new was the immediate and perpetual prohibition of the African slave-trade in the latter, whereas continuance of this traffic for twenty years had been provided for in the former. I speak from memory, -Alexander Stephens]

GrowlTowel said:

---

Makes you wonder then . . . why do so many want to make the Civil War about slavery when there were so many other factors in play?

And on the flip, why do so many want to make the Civil War about states rights when slavery was a critical component of states rights.

I wager there is a middle area between the two camps where the actual truth lies.

---

It is a debate that tends to be rather agenda-driven.

I would say it somewhat this way (though still simplifying a bit). Secession was almost completely about slavery. There's no real doubt about that when you read the secession documents. The South didn't secede to prove it was possible theoretically. They did it because of slavery. The actual war probably was more about whether or not the states had a right to secede, at least originally. Though it was true that many northerners joined the army thinking of it as fighting against slavery.

As someone else noted, though, it's not clear that even Lincoln would have been willing to go to war if the south had not fired the first shot. He might have found a provocation eventually, but I'm not sure it's

TechDawgMc said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Makes you wonder then . . . why do so many want to make the Civil War about slavery when there were so many other factors in play?

And on the flip, why do so many want to make the Civil War about states rights when slavery was a critical component of states rights.

I wager there is a middle area between the two camps where the actual truth lies.

---

As someone else noted, though, it's not clear that even Lincoln would have been willing to go to war if the south had not fired the first shot. He might have found a provocation eventually, but I'm not sure it's

---

He seems to have come to the conclusion fairly early that force would be needed to keep the States in the Union. And he also seems to have misjudged the sentiments of the Southern population....especially in the Upland South...drastically overestimating Union support and feeling that a quick show of force would rapidly bring the States back into the fold and that the regular folks of the South would not support the Southern aristocracy in the move for secession.

That turned out to be a miscalculation.

Using force after Ft. Sumter was what drove out the upper South States...and was a rallying cry for rank & file southerners to come to defense of their State governments against Federal military force.

Lincoln was not a war monger by any means. But he thought quick military action would be all that would be needed to end the crisis.

["The excitement (for secession) is passing away, and I think everything depends on the policy of Mr. Lincoln. As I have already said, any attempt at forceful coercion must be fatal to all hopes of reunion."
-R.K. Call, Gov. of Florida 2/12/1861]

["Once Lincoln called for troops, the secession of VA, NC, TN & AR was so certain that the CSA immediately treated all four as quasi-members. Although all had been fundamentally Unionist in sentiment, the hostility of all to coercion was overwhelming."
-Prof Allan Nevins]

"To hold Fort Sumter was to Lincoln a duty but to the Virginians it savored of coercion; and coercion in this case meant forcing a State which had seceded, back into the Union. If an attempt was made to coerce a State, Virginia would join the Southern Confederacy."-James Rhodes

[General Scott gave President Lincoln the options he saw available to the new administration. He outlined four reasonable scenarios.
His first was what Seward had envisioned since shortly after Lincoln's victory. The Republican Party could embrace the Crittenden Compromise or the Peace Convention proposals and become the great Union Party. This would halt the secession process and prompt return of some seceded states. If this option was rejected, Scott saw the remaining slave states making their way to the Confederacy, leaving Washington literally besieged.
Second, the government could collect custom duties on the high seas, or by act of Congress close the ports in the seceded states and blockade them.
Third, the United States could wage war against the seceded states, a conflict Scott said would last two to three years and require an army of three hundred thousand men. It would result in horrendous casualties and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The Union could prevail, Scott believed, but in addition to the cost in blood and treasure, victory would leave an angry, devastated part of the country, which would necessitate an expensive occupying garrison for decades.
Finally, tell the seceded states, "Wayward sisters, depart in peace!" In his letter, General Scott never made an explicit recommendation, but neither did he hide his opinion. The first option was clearly his choice, as it was surely Seward's. Just as Abraham Lincoln was confronting his own dilemma with Fort Sumter, the Confederate commissioners began arriving in Washington. Among his first acts as president of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis had appointed a delegation to go to Washington "for establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States."- (M & PC, 1:55-56; Cooper, We Have the War Upon Us, 220-221)]

"Lincoln would not give way; his inaugural address had clearly stated his determination to maintain the Union & hold its property...he made 3 errors.
First, he temporarily underrated the gravity of the crisis.
Second, he overrated the strength of Union sentiment in the South, as he showed in a futile effort to persuade Sam Houston of Texas to rally the nationalist groups.
And lastly, as David M. Potter says, he misconceived the conditional character of much Southern Unionism." -Prof. Allan Nevins

Back to the USA vs CSA analysis....

The USA was far and above the greater economic power.

Doubtful that a long term CSA could have ever come close to competition level....even a century later the disparity would have been large.


INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE OUTPUT- USA vs CSA

• Manufacturing Output: Union 90% | CSA 10%
• Firearm Production: 32 Union firearms produced for every 1 CSA firearm
• Pig Iron Production: Union out-produced the CSA by 20 to 1
• Leather Goods: Union out-produced the CSA 30 to 1
• Textile Production: Union out-produced the CSA 17 to 1
• Railroad Mileage: Union 71% | CSA 29%
• National Bank Capital: Union 87% | CSA 13%

AGRICULTURAL & LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION

• Cotton (Cash Crop): CSA produced 5 million bales
• Wheat (Food Staple): Union 114M bushels | CSA 31M bushels
• Oats (Food Staple): Union 138M bushels | CSA 20M bushels
• Horses: Union 3.4 million | CSA 1.7 million
• Sheep: Union 14 million | CSA 5 million
• Swine/Cattle: CSA held a slight edge (15.5M swine to Union's 11.3M)
• Mechanization: The Union possessed double the value of farm machinery per acre.

POPULATION #s (1860 Census)

• Total Population: Union ~22.3 Million | CSA ~9.1 Million
• Free Population: Union ~22.0 Million | CSA ~5.5 Million
• Military-Age Men (18-45): Union 3.5 Million | CSA 1.0 Million (Free White Males)
• Total Enlisted Soldiers: Union ~2.1 Million | CSA ~850k-1M

KEY MANPOWER DISPARITIES

• The 40% Deficit: Enslaved people made up nearly 40% of the Southern population. While they maintained the agrarian economy, the Confederacy could not arm them due to fears of rebellion, freezing nearly half their human resources out of combat.
• The Immigration Wave: Roughly 87% of all foreign immigrants settled in the North, continuously replenishing the Union's factory workforce and military lines.
• Societal Strain: To field an army, the Confederacy had to draft roughly 75% of its available white male population. The Union only needed to mobilize less than half of its available men, leaving its domestic economy largely intact.

This is a really interesting subject and something that I had sort of looked into in the past. One of the more interesting takes I read about was apprenticeship vs fuedal systems. And sure slavery was a core reason for the war, the overarching factor, but it goes a bit deeper than that, or has an interesting backstory. Lincoln was very well known for his views on labor - he was pro free apprenticeship style labor, and it conflicted greatly with the South's feudal-style hierarchy view. Now Lincoln was definitely pro free labor, but it didn't start with him, he just believed strongly in the apprenticeship model. (clearly the model started shortly after the industrialization of the North).

Lincoln and the North believed in what I call an apprenticeship model of society:
you start out working for wages, you learn skills, you save money, and eventually you become independent and maybe even hire others. It's a system built on mobility, selfimprovement, and that labor can lead upward.

The South, on the other hand, ran a feudal-style hierarchy:
a small elite owned the land, political power, and enslaved labor. Most people, enslaved workers and even many poor whites, had no real path upward. For many, labor frequently wasn't a progression, it was a permanent status.

So yes, Slavery was a core issue, but underneath it was the core conflict, who gets to grow, and whether America would follow a free labor, mobile workforce model or a feudal one.

And that leads to the power dynamics, by the 1840s to1850s, Northern states were growing far faster than Southern ones. More people = more congress seats = more political power.

Southern leaders realized that if the trends continued, they would be forever outvoted in Congress. The South aristocracy believed slavery had to expand to survive. If new territories became free states, the South would be boxed in politically and economically. And Lincoln's election proved the North could choose the president without them, secession became the obvious choice for the aristocracy.

Lincoln would have avoided the war if he could have, and he'd avoided freeing the slaves if he could have. But once it began, Lincoln believed the war would: end the feudal labor system, establish a national free labor system, create conditions for upward mobility, and transform the U.S. into a society of selfmade men. (He wasn't wrong on that, America became known for exactly those traits).

As a side note, I don't believe for the average Southern citizen, that the war was about the slaves. They didn't own any. The war to them was about the Union invading their state and the Union trying to control or impoverish them.

Last, reparations are a complete afront to the massive loss of "white" lives that were actually paid in blood to free blacks. It's shameful, but the modern entitlement and victim mentality lives supreme these days.

Last Last, the North still had slavery after the civil war. Freeing the Souther slaves was a last ditch effort to weaken the South.