A curiosity about the South, for people who live here

[tyrannosaurus vex]

People in The South were idiots.  Not surprising really, given their idea of a strategy was "threatening, then direct military attack on a nation with more money, greater population and greater industrial output" than they had.

Obviously anyone who thought that was a good idea probably really thought they could get away with seceding with no consequences, either.  Sure, nice in theory, but ignores the practicality of the situation, which is those with more guns gets to make the rules.  Also ignores the history of the USA directly after founding, with The Whisky Rebellion, Shays Rebellion etc

The South's military mistake wasn't in thinking they could defeat the North in a full war. They underestimated the North's resolve to fight at all. The South thought the war would amount to a few skirmishes and the North would eventually give up and just let the South go without much of a fight. This was actually likely until late in 1862 since the North failed to win a single major victory in the first part of the war, and the public was quickly losing any real desire to fight. That's when the North suddenly decided to say the war was about "slavery," and the rest is history. The South was full of idiots, but so was the North, for buying the false justification. Even the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to Confederate States where Lincoln had no power at the time.

[E.O.T.]

People in The South were idiots.  Not surprising really, given their idea of a strategy was "threatening, then direct military attack on a nation with more money, greater population and greater industrial output" than they had.

Obviously anyone who thought that was a good idea probably really thought they could get away with seceding with no consequences, either.  Sure, nice in theory, but ignores the practicality of the situation, which is those with more guns gets to make the rules.  Also ignores the history of the USA directly after founding, with The Whisky Rebellion, Shays Rebellion etc

ARE YOU

          drunk, as you said you'd be? cause this is one of the few truly bone headed things i've ever read by you. especially the first part

[Cain]

The North had the industrial output, the money and the population.  "Will" is easy enough to conjure up, once a war is started, those tangibles are far more critical for success.  The South may have thought they could force concessions with a limited campaign, but, clearly, they were wrong.  Once you start a war, when it finishes is not up to you anymore.

The North had twenty million white citizens.  The South had six.  The North had much more immigration, and could rely on black troops as well, a choice the South did not make until the very end of the war.  The North had over 110,000 manufacturing establishments, the South only 18,000.  The entire South only produced 36,700 tons of pig iron - Pennsylvania alone produced 580,000 tons. New York State's economy was as large as Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi combined. 

This meant the South was outnumbered, could not rely on its economic strength for protracted campaigns, its railway system could not be maintained and it could not produce as many weapons as the North.  Land, cotton and slaves are not a great basis for an economy, so international banks were not willing to lend.  European powers had no interest in supporting yet another competitor in the cotton market, and were more concerned about events in Europe anyway. 

The South could never overrun the North, not with such imbalances.  Their only viable strategy was to drag out the war as to show to the North that it should abandon its claims to try and coerce the South - over slavery, or secession - and let them tire of war.  But that meant, unavoidably, a long-term conflict, which, as mentioned above, played to the Union's strengths. 

[Cain]

People in The South were idiots.  Not surprising really, given their idea of a strategy was "threatening, then direct military attack on a nation with more money, greater population and greater industrial output" than they had.

Obviously anyone who thought that was a good idea probably really thought they could get away with seceding with no consequences, either.  Sure, nice in theory, but ignores the practicality of the situation, which is those with more guns gets to make the rules.  Also ignores the history of the USA directly after founding, with The Whisky Rebellion, Shays Rebellion etc

ARE YOU

          drunk, as you said you'd be? cause this is one of the few truly bone headed things i've ever read by you. especially the first part

SORRY AM I

                 not typing slow enough?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I am really surprised how many people here actually believe that the Civil War was about slavery. And Thanksgiving was about indians and pilgrims cooperating and sitting down to dinner together.

Sorry guys, but although there are valid perspectives on either side, Vex has done his homework. The war wasn't about great justice, it was about keeping the union together for economic reasons.

I am not arguing why the North fought to keep the South, but rather why the South chose to secede.

There were two somewhat separate motivations in play.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

The North had the industrial output, the money and the population.  "Will" is easy enough to conjure up, once a war is started, those tangibles are far more critical for success.  The South may have thought they could force concessions with a limited campaign, but, clearly, they were wrong.  Once you start a war, when it finishes is not up to you anymore.

The North had twenty million white citizens.  The South had six.  The North had much more immigration, and could rely on black troops as well, a choice the South did not make until the very end of the war.  The North had over 110,000 manufacturing establishments, the South only 18,000.  The entire South only produced 36,700 tons of pig iron - Pennsylvania alone produced 580,000 tons. New York State's economy was as large as Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi combined. 

This meant the South was outnumbered, could not rely on its economic strength for protracted campaigns, its railway system could not be maintained and it could not produce as many weapons as the North.  Land, cotton and slaves are not a great basis for an economy, so international banks were not willing to lend.  European powers had no interest in supporting yet another competitor in the cotton market, and were more concerned about events in Europe anyway. 

The South could never overrun the North, not with such imbalances.  Their only viable strategy was to drag out the war as to show to the North that it should abandon its claims to try and coerce the South - over slavery, or secession - and let them tire of war.  But that meant, unavoidably, a long-term conflict, which, as mentioned above, played to the Union's strengths. 

This, and they were waiting for help from Britain and France, which never came. In part, probably, because of their stupid insistence on slavery as an economic basis (if they'd have kept slavery as punishment as we have it today, it probably would have been OK). In the end, I think you're right that the South did it wrong, maybe because they were stupid or maybe just because they let their emotions get the best of them on a tragic scale (which could also be described as 'stupid'). Either way the end result was that Americans can no longer argue for secession, states' rights, or limited federal government without being immediately cast as racists and "ignorant Southerners," regardless of how valid or important those arguments might be. The Civil War stopped slavery - that's obviously a good thing. But it also dealt a deathblow to very important parts of the domestic political discussion regarding the balance between local power and centralized power.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I am really surprised how many people here actually believe that the Civil War was about slavery. And Thanksgiving was about indians and pilgrims cooperating and sitting down to dinner together.

Sorry guys, but although there are valid perspectives on either side, Vex has done his homework. The war wasn't about great justice, it was about keeping the union together for economic reasons.

I am not arguing why the North fought to keep the South, but rather why the South chose to secede.

There were two somewhat separate motivations in play.

The South seceded because they were afraid slavery was going to be abolished for them. You're right about that. All I'm saying is that the timing was unfortunate, in that Slavery was the hot-button issue of the day instead of something less awful, like a tax or something. As a result all discussion of states' rights is now forever married to racism and slavery, even when it crops up for entirely different reasons (California's environmental standards, for example).

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The North had the industrial output, the money and the population.  "Will" is easy enough to conjure up, once a war is started, those tangibles are far more critical for success.  The South may have thought they could force concessions with a limited campaign, but, clearly, they were wrong.  Once you start a war, when it finishes is not up to you anymore.

The North had twenty million white citizens.  The South had six.  The North had much more immigration, and could rely on black troops as well, a choice the South did not make until the very end of the war.  The North had over 110,000 manufacturing establishments, the South only 18,000.  The entire South only produced 36,700 tons of pig iron - Pennsylvania alone produced 580,000 tons. New York State's economy was as large as Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi combined. 

This meant the South was outnumbered, could not rely on its economic strength for protracted campaigns, its railway system could not be maintained and it could not produce as many weapons as the North.  Land, cotton and slaves are not a great basis for an economy, so international banks were not willing to lend.  European powers had no interest in supporting yet another competitor in the cotton market, and were more concerned about events in Europe anyway. 

The South could never overrun the North, not with such imbalances.  Their only viable strategy was to drag out the war as to show to the North that it should abandon its claims to try and coerce the South - over slavery, or secession - and let them tire of war.  But that meant, unavoidably, a long-term conflict, which, as mentioned above, played to the Union's strengths. 

This, and they were waiting for help from Britain and France, which never came. In part, probably, because of their stupid insistence on slavery as an economic basis (if they'd have kept slavery as punishment as we have it today, it probably would have been OK). In the end, I think you're right that the South did it wrong, maybe because they were stupid or maybe just because they let their emotions get the best of them on a tragic scale (which could also be described as 'stupid'). Either way the end result was that Americans can no longer argue for secession, states' rights, or limited federal government without being immediately cast as racists and "ignorant Southerners," regardless of how valid or important those arguments might be. The Civil War stopped slavery - that's obviously a good thing. But it also dealt a deathblow to very important parts of the domestic political discussion regarding the balance between local power and centralized power.

Which has prevented us from turning into what used to be Yugoslavia.

Just saying.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The South seceded because they were afraid slavery was going to be abolished for them. You're right about that. All I'm saying is that the timing was unfortunate, in that Slavery was the hot-button issue of the day instead of something less awful, like a tax or something. As a result all discussion of states' rights is now forever married to racism and slavery, even when it crops up for entirely different reasons (California's environmental standards, for example).

Well, there was also the Smoot/Hawley tariff, which was designed to allow the North to dominate the South economically as well as politically. 

And to be honest, when I hear "states' rights" now, I think of people trying to dictate what women can do with their own bodies, not racism, etc.

[Cain]

That part of the discussion is probably also damaged, in a large part, because a lot of people who do talk about those things to tend to be somewhat racist.

I know it's not everyone, and you know it's not everyone.  But you have to admit, phrases like "state rights" certainly are used as codewords by mouth-breathers with a...complicated view of non-whites with disturbing frequency.  That tendency certainly doesn't help matters any.

I still say that, in the long run, any state with sufficient power and resources to fight a secession will, sooner or later, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of their cause.  Therefore, the question shouldn't be "is secession a moral right" but "do we have a sufficient latent military threat and economic power to affect a secession, or are we simply going to be getting people killed for no good reason?"  Of course, the reason for secession may already be that "people getting killed for no good reason", in which case you probably have little to lose.  On the other hand, maybe it's not. 

There can be no excuse for bad strategy, if your plan is to win.  If you want to make a final stand, go down in a blaze of glory etc, maybe.  But such thinking has never held much appeal for me. 

[tyrannosaurus vex]

The North had the industrial output, the money and the population.  "Will" is easy enough to conjure up, once a war is started, those tangibles are far more critical for success.  The South may have thought they could force concessions with a limited campaign, but, clearly, they were wrong.  Once you start a war, when it finishes is not up to you anymore.

The North had twenty million white citizens.  The South had six.  The North had much more immigration, and could rely on black troops as well, a choice the South did not make until the very end of the war.  The North had over 110,000 manufacturing establishments, the South only 18,000.  The entire South only produced 36,700 tons of pig iron - Pennsylvania alone produced 580,000 tons. New York State's economy was as large as Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi combined. 

This meant the South was outnumbered, could not rely on its economic strength for protracted campaigns, its railway system could not be maintained and it could not produce as many weapons as the North.  Land, cotton and slaves are not a great basis for an economy, so international banks were not willing to lend.  European powers had no interest in supporting yet another competitor in the cotton market, and were more concerned about events in Europe anyway. 

The South could never overrun the North, not with such imbalances.  Their only viable strategy was to drag out the war as to show to the North that it should abandon its claims to try and coerce the South - over slavery, or secession - and let them tire of war.  But that meant, unavoidably, a long-term conflict, which, as mentioned above, played to the Union's strengths. 

This, and they were waiting for help from Britain and France, which never came. In part, probably, because of their stupid insistence on slavery as an economic basis (if they'd have kept slavery as punishment as we have it today, it probably would have been OK). In the end, I think you're right that the South did it wrong, maybe because they were stupid or maybe just because they let their emotions get the best of them on a tragic scale (which could also be described as 'stupid'). Either way the end result was that Americans can no longer argue for secession, states' rights, or limited federal government without being immediately cast as racists and "ignorant Southerners," regardless of how valid or important those arguments might be. The Civil War stopped slavery - that's obviously a good thing. But it also dealt a deathblow to very important parts of the domestic political discussion regarding the balance between local power and centralized power.

Which has prevented us from turning into what used to be Yugoslavia.

Just saying.

The South had failure written all over it. But the IDEA of separatism shouldn't be killed off. Secession as a right should have been enshrined in the Constitution to begin with (instead of just taken for granted as it was by Thomas Jefferson). Not all separatist movements end badly -- you may have heard of a bunch of Awful Secessionists around the Boston area in the 1770s.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

That part of the discussion is probably also damaged, in a large part, because a lot of people who do talk about those things to tend to be somewhat racist.

I know it's not everyone, and you know it's not everyone.  But you have to admit, phrases like "state rights" certainly are used as codewords by mouth-breathers with a...complicated view of non-whites with disturbing frequency.  That tendency certainly doesn't help matters any.

I still say that, in the long run, any state with sufficient power and resources to fight a secession will, sooner or later, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of their cause.  Therefore, the question shouldn't be "is secession a moral right" but "do we have a sufficient latent military threat and economic power to affect a secession, or are we simply going to be getting people killed for no good reason?"  Of course, the reason for secession may already be that "people getting killed for no good reason", in which case you probably have little to lose.  On the other hand, maybe it's not. 

There can be no excuse for bad strategy, if your plan is to win.  If you want to make a final stand, go down in a blaze of glory etc, maybe.  But such thinking has never held much appeal for me. 

Absolutely right about States Rights. It IS discussed mostly by mouthbreathers and racists. But that's a symptom of the problem I'm talking about, not a cause. These idiots use this argument all the time, for all the wrong reasons, and they're the only ones using it because they're the only ones who are socially ALLOWED to use it. If anybody else uses it -- it'll be assumed he's one of THEM.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And to be honest, when I hear "states' rights" now, I think of people trying to dictate what women can do with their own bodies, not racism, etc.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

But the idea is the same...Whenever you hear "state's rights", it means "We want the power to fuck over residents in our states in one manner or another."  I have NEVER seen an exception to this.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

It's not always used for fucking people over. When a policy is popular, it doesn't get painted with the scarlet letter of "States' Rights." See: Same-Sex Marriage, Medical Marijuana, CA environmental regulations, and other policies that take root in individual States without top-down, Federal intervention.

But then, as I've been researching the larger "States' Rights" argument, reading articles, and trying to trace the roots of our institutionalized avoidance of the issue, I've found that we don't really have as much of an aversion to the argument as I thought we did. So it looks like I'm either wrong, or at least less right than I thought I was. America still has the same lively debate between Nationalism and Federalism that we've had for 230 years or so. It's just that the Federalist side has a great difficulty in resorting to their argument's "nuclear option" -- secession -- because going that far immediately conjures uncomfortable connotations that are nearly impossible to outrun.