The Debate Thread

[Agamemnon]

Also, Barry, the fact that they abolished it without war just proves that the ACW was not about slavery.

[Barry Goldwater]

What? That's...really not a rebuttal at all. British slaveowners didn't launch an armed rebellion upon abolition, you know - unlike their Southern counterparts - albeit because the government compensated them.

[Agamemnon]

And the feds tried to compensate the CSA too, and many wanted to accept, and in fact the war would have been averted if the war was about slavery. But because it was not about slavery, they did not accept.

[Barry Goldwater]

And the feds tried to compensate the CSA too, and many wanted to accept, and in fact the war would have been averted if the war was about slavery. But because it was not about slavery, they did not accept.

Yeah, like the faux-aristocratic slavocrats would've accepted a sum of money they could spend in one lifetime instead of keeping a lifetime money-making machine (which also gave them an edge in politics via the 3/5ths compromise) they could pass on to their kids. There's a reason they were so violently opposed to Lincoln even though he didn't even want to abolish slavery at the start - he wanted to limit it, preventing it from spreading to new states and thus undercutting the disproportionate influence slaveowners had on the government.

[Agamemnon]

If not for their influence of slaves, they would have been crushed by northern-controlled congress. Remember, the US has more people than the CS, and thus the 3/5 compromise DOES NOT help them in this situation, in fact if slavery was abolished and the 3/5 compromise nullified, southerners would have a greater influence on congress.

[Barry Goldwater]

If not for their influence of slaves, they would have been crushed by northern-controlled congress.

Sorry, but that's the way a democracy works - rule of the majority and all that. And the South could've retained some power in Washington through methods other than the 3/5ths compromise, like say extra seats in Congress or something. It'd still be disproportionate, but at least it's morally tolerable and doesn't irrevocably bind the political future of the South to slavery.

Remember, the US has more people than the CS, and thus the 3/5 compromise DOES NOT help them in this situation, in fact if slavery was abolished and the 3/5 compromise nullified, southerners would have a greater influence on congress.

What? How? Only Southern slaves were counted and they always 'voted' the same way as their masters.

[Agamemnon]

But if they abolished it themselves, and ditched the 3/5 compromise, it would have given them more seats...

Which brings me to your other point. More peeps=more representation, thus meaning that if instead of 3/5 of blacks 5/5 were counted, the south would do better in congress. Thus making no sense for them to secede due to "not having representation without slavery".

[Barry Goldwater]

But if they abolished it themselves, and ditched the 3/5 compromise, it would have given them more seats...

Huh? How? Please explain.

Which brings me to your other point. More peeps=more representation, thus meaning that if instead of 3/5 of blacks 5/5 were counted, the south would do better in congress. Thus making no sense for them to secede due to "not having representation without slavery".

Except for the slight issue that blacks were effectively disenfranchised until much later, even after abolition. Hell, if the Southerners play their cards right they may be able to officially disenfranchise blacks even with an early abolition as part of some twisted political deal.

[Agamemnon]

But then they would lose seats...
It is to the southern advantage to have more peeps, because then they would have more power.

[Barry Goldwater]

But then they would lose seats...

Wait, what? Who's lose seats from what? Who are we talking about right now? OK, I'm confused now, lol.

It is to the southern advantage to have more peeps, because then they would have more power.

Well duh. But somehow I doubt Southerners who worked so damn hard to disenfranchise blacks in all but name would take kindly to them getting to vote independently, for their own interests.

[Agamemnon]

And you think that ordinary northerners would want to give them the vote? If they didn't want women voting, why would they want blacks voting? Anyways, though, you're forgetting the whole debate. If the war had been about slavery, the border states would have also seceded (especially missouri) and the north would have had far fewer volunteers, because most northerners didn't give a dang about slavery.

[Barry Goldwater]

And you think that ordinary northerners would want to give them the vote? If they didn't want women voting, why would they want blacks voting?

Would've come sooner, and in fact blacks were indeed given the vote after the ACW - there were even black congressmen and senators. It's just that Southerners decided to disenfranchise them through a campaign of terror, for which a much harsher Reconstruction would've been needed to stomp on them. (in fact, I'd support it since it'd potentially butterfly the 60's altogether)

Anyways, though, you're forgetting the whole debate. If the war had been about slavery, the border states would have also seceded (especially missouri) and the north would have had far fewer volunteers, because most northerners didn't give a dang about slavery.

Not really, slavery in the border states wasn't nearly as prevalent or vital to their economy as the rest of the South. From the 1860 census:

Missouri: 1,067,352 free, 114,965 slaves
Kentucky: 930,223 free, 225,490 slaves
Maryland: 599,846 free, 87,188 slaves
Delaware: 110,420 free, 1,798 slaves

With such a comparatively low population of slaves, it would've served the border states' interests to align with the North instead.

And I didn't say the war was entirely about slavery, though it most certainly was a big issue behind it and later became the driving cause of the Northern effort (alongside Unionism). Secession and Fort Sumter, of course, were the lit match on the powder keg.

[Dave Strider]

The United States had no right to keep the South from seceding, though. Secession was a Constitutional right.

[Barry Goldwater]

The United States had no right to keep the South from seceding, though. Secession was a Constitutional right.

Nobody else recognized it as a nation, and combined with military defeat it means its secession lacked legitimacy. Remember, no foreign recognition + military defeat (no matter how long it took) = 0 legitimacy; actions (and bullets) are gonna count a lot more than words in a case as serious as secession, especially when it was done for such horrible and selfish reasons.

[Dave Strider]

The only problem is that most of it's first battles were victories.

[Barry Goldwater]

The only problem is that most of it's first battles were victories.

You can win as many battles as you like, none of it will matter if you can't win the war.

['Gunny]

Fred, My house is seceding from the United States of America. no one recognizes me though, does my country exist?

EDIT: Fred, Germany won most battles in the beginning of ww2, but that doesnt mean a damn thing after they lose the war.

[Dave Strider]

You can win as many battles as you like, none of it will matter if you can't win the war.

There was a quote I once heard; "There's only one battle that matters if you win it; The last one."

And the Confederacy came very close several times to winning the war.

Fred, My house is seceding from the United States of America. no one recognizes me though, does my country exist?

No, that's because it's one house. That has no chance of being a nation, but the Confederacy did.

EDIT: Fred, Germany won most battles in the beginning of ww2, but that doesnt mean a damn thing after they lose the war.

Yes it does, it means that the victors paid a heavy price to achieve victory.

[Agamemnon]

In my opinion, it is a seperate country. Especially given how screwed up the US currently is, you have my support.

[Barry Goldwater]

There was a quote I once heard; "There's only one battle that matters if you win it; The last one."

And the Confederacy came very close several times to winning the war.

'Very close' isn't close enough, sorry. Wars like the ACW are always win or lose, coming in second just means you're a first-place loser.