Secession: an academic discussion

[jamil]

The long and short of the American Civil War is that it was fought over slavery and a lot of things were missed by the leadership of both sides of the issue which resulted in the terrible conflict. What was a slave in 1850? To abolitionists a slave was a human being in amoral bondage.To slave owners a slave was an asset, a piece of agricultural machinery.

For a moment lets go back to that time when the bad decisions are being made. The big money in the southern states knows that most of the slaves are owned by a smaller group of the population so not everybody is getting the benefits. In the event of secession it's going to be a hard sell to small farmers in the south to take the bad that's coming just to keep the rich guys rich or make them richer. The leadership changes the narrative from the slavery question to one of states rights first, slavery as a secondary issue. Southern economic leadership has now linked the two issues and the next move should be to separate them again. A federal plan to bring economic development to the southern states, turn that cotton into clothes in factories in Dixie, rather than sell it to Europe. Abolish slavery and provide some compensation for the loss to their owners. That's an expensive move and on the surface would seem to reward an amoral activity but you have to compare it to what's coming with secession.

Everybody loses in the civil war, and they are all Americans. American leadership is supposed to look out for the general welfare of the people it represents and this was a colossal failure. Winfield Scott advised that imposing abolition on the southern states would be long, costly and bloody, he was the best military mind in the US of the time. What was the better decision?

When we consider secession I think it's best to know why and what it's worth. We were all Americans back in the 1850s, just like today.

This. There was no righteous side in the civil war.

 

[jamil]

I suspect harboring would be a federal offense.

But nullification.

 

[BigRed]

Let them separate.

 

[jamil]

Let them separate.

Not practical. They’re not going to do it. Now what?

 

[cobber]

Coronal mass ejection followed by natural selection would resolve all these issues.

 

[NKBJ]

Could be time to break out those Earth changes maps.

 

[BigRed]

Not practical. They’re not going to do it. Now what?

Time will tell.

I expect there to be some measure of secession and/or reorganization towards decentralization within the next 20 years.

 

[NKBJ]

The long and short of the American Civil War is that it was fought over slavery and a lot of things were missed by the leadership of both sides of the issue which resulted in the terrible conflict. What was a slave in 1850? To abolitionists a slave was a human being in amoral bondage.To slave owners a slave was an asset, a piece of agricultural machinery.

For a moment lets go back to that time when the bad decisions are being made. The big money in the southern states knows that most of the slaves are owned by a smaller group of the population so not everybody is getting the benefits. In the event of secession it's going to be a hard sell to small farmers in the south to take the bad that's coming just to keep the rich guys rich or make them richer. The leadership changes the narrative from the slavery question to one of states rights first, slavery as a secondary issue. Southern economic leadership has now linked the two issues and the next move should be to separate them again. A federal plan to bring economic development to the southern states, turn that cotton into clothes in factories in Dixie, rather than sell it to Europe. Abolish slavery and provide some compensation for the loss to their owners. That's an expensive move and on the surface would seem to reward an amoral activity but you have to compare it to what's coming with secession.

Everybody loses in the civil war, and they are all Americans. American leadership is supposed to look out for the general welfare of the people it represents and this was a colossal failure. Winfield Scott advised that imposing abolition on the southern states would be long, costly and bloody, he was the best military mind in the US of the time. What was the better decision?

When we consider secession I think it's best to know why and what it's worth. We were all Americans back in the 1850s, just like today.

Divide and conquer was the strategy then as now. Operatives here working for foreign powers created the internal splintering and radicalization of Americans in the 1800's and they are doing it in the 2000's basically using the same methods.
How this turns out depends upon whether or not Americans let themselves be fooled again. I think they will.

 

[jamil]

Divide and conquer was the strategy then as now. Operatives here working for foreign powers created the internal splintering and radicalization of Americans in the 1800's and they are doing it in the 2000's basically using the same methods.
How this turns out depends upon whether or not Americans let themselves be fooled again. I think they will.

Not everything needs to be a grand conspiracy. It’s true enough that England and France had an interest in stoking the embers into flames over here. But there was plenty of fuel for it over here. Foreign involvement was not pivotal.

There really aren’t all that many similarities between the two periods of internal division other than the attributes that typically accompany division within a society. The CW was a divisive period where factions were derived geographically. Here the sides are formed more along ideological lines.

We can’t blame the CW on foreign instigators. The divide was primarily internal. And even now, though China and Russia are both instigating at a level much higher than England and France did leading up to the CW, the divide here is internal. If I were going to blame it on something, rather than a grand foreign conspiracy, I’d blame social media algorithms meant to play on people’s outrage as a business model.

 

[NKBJ]

As always, ignorance is voluntary.

 

[jamil]

As always, ignorance is voluntary.

Ignorance?

I kinda think conspiracies are more delicious to some than to others. Or, Idunnu. Maybe this isn’t the thread for this but you’re welcome to make your case that the cause of the Civil War was primarily foreign instigation.

You’re welcome to make the case that the divide in the US now is primarily foreign instigation. I think it is evident enough that it happened/is happening to some extent. But there isn’t evidence beyond conspiracy sites and the occasional prophecy cult insisting that it is. I tend to prefer that the information I decide to believe is at least verifiable.

 

[Leadeye]

The Civil War was about the practice and legality of slavery in the United States, something that was already abolished in Europe although it continued in various areas of European empires. I've always thought that it was that moral hair splitting that the confederate leadership was counting on to bring an outside player into the war. Leadership dressed up the issue as states rights, or save the union, depending on your side, as the bulk of the people who would have to fight and suffer did not profit from slaves and had no dog in the fight.

 

[BigRed]

Perhaps there should be a separate thread on the war instead of conflating it with the matter of secession,

 

[BigRed]

Nullification.

Missouri House Passes Measure Prohibiting Enforcement Of Federal Gun Laws

The measure passed on party lines, with 103 Republicans voting in favor and 43 Democrats opposing the idea.

news.stlpublicradio.org

 

[Leadeye]

Perhaps there should be a separate thread on the war instead of conflating it with the matter of secession,

I would agree. I know it's hard to as the American Civil War is the big example of secession, but I think that the secession feelings today are from a variety of issues rather than a single one.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The Civil War was about the practice and legality of slavery in the United States, something that was already abolished in Europe although it continued in various areas of European empires. I've always thought that it was that moral hair splitting that the confederate leadership was counting on to bring an outside player into the war. Leadership dressed up the issue as states rights, or save the union, depending on your side, as the bulk of the people who would have to fight and suffer did not profit from slaves and had no dog in the fight.

This is where your trademark pearl of wisdom comes in. Follow the money. By and large the south was more pissed about the protective tariff than slavery.

 

[Leadeye]

John Calhoun took issue with those tariffs and also felt that he had been double dealt by members of congress to gain their passage. The early arguments for nullification like Big Red has written about come from here. This issue over tariffs really is the start of their unhappiness with the government and goes back to the 1830s, by the time we get to the 1850s though the slavery issue has taken center stage.

John Calhoun is an interesting character from history, I've often wondered who influenced him as over time his opinions become more focused on the slavery issue.

It's always about the money and staying in power, following that trail often answers questions that become hard to follow in the muddy water.

 

[jamil]

Perhaps there should be a separate thread on the war instead of conflating it with the matter of secession,

I agree that if we’re going to discuss the civila war specifically, it deserves its own thread. And as I’ve said, there aren’t a lot of similarities beyond the societal stuff that tends to happen in times of great social division. However, if we’re talking about secession, the civil war absolutely is a necessary part of that conversation even though the issues that drove the south to secede are much different from the essence of the divisions we see today.

 

[jamil]

I would agree. I know it's hard to as the American Civil War is the big example of secession, but I think that the secession feelings today are from a variety of issues rather than a single one.

Yes. If we’re talking about the issues, there really isn’t any comparison. If we’re talking about secession itself, for example the eagerness to do it, well, history does have some relevant lessons for us.

 

[jamil]

This is where your trademark pearl of wisdom comes in. Follow the money. By and large the south was more pissed about the protective tariff than slavery.

The tariffs were not the central issue, but were definitely a stark point of division. You look at what the principles of the time on both sides were writing about, it was not the tariffs which consumed the public debate nearly as much as the issues of slavery.