Successful Southern secession through passive resistance?

I suspect Brazil outlawed slavery in large part because everyone else had given it up and it was starting to look really bad. If you have a relatively powerful slave-holding Confederacy around as an ally there's less reason to do it, especially if the Confederacy can make the transition to industrial slavery (i.e. slaves working in factories).

I don't think it's a sure bet slavery is gone before the turn of the century. It may take a war to finally end slavery if the Confederacy's identity is tied up in it.

The thing is that Brazil also abolished slavery because it was ruled by an autocracy able to push through abolition, albeit at the cost of its continued ability to both exist and have a monopoly on political power. This factor does not exist in the Confederacy, and due to the nature of the CS constitution and the inevitable chaos caused by Northern war policy no matter how the CSA wins is even less likely to do so do.

And the equivalent of the fall of the monarchy in the USA is a US reconquest when a Confederate Pancho Villa expy starts raiding the southern US border.
 
In other words it was about slavery.

I meant *the war* wasn't started over slavery, but rather over the indivisibility of the union (of course the South seceded over slavery, but that needn't automatically result in war). That the rump Union went to war over the injustice of slavery (rather than that being tacked-on later) is the popular revisionism I'm pointing out.
 
I meant *the war* wasn't started over slavery, but rather over the indivisibility of the union (of course the South seceded over slavery, but that needn't automatically result in war). That the rump Union went to war over the injustice of slavery (rather than that being tacked-on later) is the popular revisionism I'm pointing out.

The war was started over the slavery-loving secessionists attacking the US.

The history I've read tends to emphasis that it was a later thing, not sure where the "the Union went to war over the injustice of slavery" thing is from.
 
I meant *the war* wasn't started over slavery, but rather over the indivisibility of the union (of course the South seceded over slavery, but that needn't automatically result in war). That the rump Union went to war over the injustice of slavery (rather than that being tacked-on later) is the popular revisionism I'm pointing out.

It was almost inevitable that secession would eventually lead to war. Any government that allows regions to leave on a whim is on very shaky ground. After it is established as legitimate you would find states often leaving if they didn't get their way. For a country's long term survival you it can't allow portions of it to leave on a whim everytime someone doesn't get their way.
 
It was almost inevitable that secession would eventually lead to war. Any government that allows regions to leave on a whim is on very shaky ground. After it is established as legitimate you would find states often leaving if they didn't get their way. For a country's long term survival you it can't allow portions of it to leave on a whim everytime someone doesn't get their way.

Secession was a long time in the making, and the divisions were very deep (i.e. this was hardly a whim). And the South was pretty far removed from the rest of the country socially, economically, and geographically. Plenty of countries have allowed themselves to come apart more-or-less-peacefully over much much less.

Plus the USA claimed to be a democracy (for white men) and a free federation of sovereign states: it's pretty hypocritical to then force states to stay in a federation they want to leave, and for a large parts of the country to endure a federal government they didn't elect and don't support.

What other federal countries present themselves as indissoluble pacts-to-the-death?
 
I meant *the war* wasn't started over slavery, but rather over the indivisibility of the union (of course the South seceded over slavery, but that needn't automatically result in war). That the rump Union went to war over the injustice of slavery (rather than that being tacked-on later) is the popular revisionism I'm pointing out.

It's one of Hollywood history, not real history. The real history books do note that the Union did not initially go to war over slavery though they tend to gloss over the Union slave states as one obvious reason why this was not immediately so.

Secession was a long time in the making, and the divisions were very deep (i.e. this was hardly a whim). And the South was pretty far removed from the rest of the country socially, economically, and geographically. Plenty of countries have allowed themselves to come apart more-or-less-peacefully over much much less.

Plus the USA claimed to be a democracy (for white men) and a free federation of sovereign states: it's pretty hypocritical to then force states to stay in a federation they want to leave, and for a large parts of the country to endure a federal government they didn't elect and don't support.

What other federal countries present themselves as indissoluble pacts-to-the-death?

The divisions even in the states that seceded right out of the starting gate were quite severe. Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama all had instances of armed revolt against CS military and economic policies, Georgia had a political cabal of professional Starscreams, South Carolina had its own such cabal clustered around Rhett, Florida was a state whose population was too miniscule at the time to matter much, so there was no unanimous support for the Confederacy in any of them, and the reality of Confederate rule turned a thin majority into a hostile anti-Confederate minority that was tilting to majority as the war went on.

And this is the original seven, not even counting the divisions in Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina or the four slave states that never seceded.
 
Secession was a long time in the making, and the divisions were very deep (i.e. this was hardly a whim). And the South was pretty far removed from the rest of the country socially, economically, and geographically. Plenty of countries have allowed themselves to come apart more-or-less-peacefully over much much less.

Plus the USA claimed to be a democracy (for white men) and a free federation of sovereign states: it's pretty hypocritical to then force states to stay in a federation they want to leave, and for a large parts of the country to endure a federal government they didn't elect and don't support.

No, the US claimed to be one nation. That's the problem.

And its only democracy if you voted for the people in power? That's a weird theory.
 
No, the US claimed to be one nation. That's the problem.

And its only democracy if you voted for the people in power? That's a weird theory.

And, in fact, the US has never been a democracy. Not all citizens have had an equal voice. Children, for example, are not allowed to vote. Women have not always been allowed to do so. Other groups at times have been disenfranchised, for good or bad. What we are is a republic.

/nitpick. :)
 
And, in fact, the US has never been a democracy. Not all citizens have had an equal voice. Children, for example, are not allowed to vote. Women have not always been allowed to do so. Other groups at times have been disenfranchised, for good or bad. What we are is a republic.

/nitpick. :)

Well, if we can use the term "democracy" for Athens's oligarchy, I think we can call the US a democracy for purposes of discussion.

But I bow to the nitpick, because the Siblinghood of Nitpickers code obligates me to acknowledge your point on this one.
 
And, in fact, the US has never been a democracy. Not all citizens have had an equal voice. Children, for example, are not allowed to vote. Women have not always been allowed to do so. Other groups at times have been disenfranchised, for good or bad. What we are is a republic.

/nitpick. :)

Where does this "we're not a democracy we're a republic!" line from from? I've heard that many times from Americans, when of course the two exist on different axis (the US is of course both, but could just as easily be one or the other or neither).
 
Where does this "we're not a democracy we're a republic!" line from from? I've heard that many times from Americans, when of course the two exist on different axis (the US is of course both, but could just as easily be one or the other or neither).

The literal definition of a Democracy would mean all adult citizens voting on all issues. Perhaps possible in the early days of an ancient city-state, but quite impossible for a continent-spanning power comprising tens and hundreds of millions of people. Hence, to govern as democratically as possible, you have a republic with elected representatives to cast votes (theoretically:rolleyes:) for their constituents. The longer a truly democratic republic survives, the more ingrained the democratic spirit becomes in a people, and less the prone to the corruptions of republics in their infancy.:( The history of whole continents can be measured by their failure to establish a democratic tradition, despite awarding themselves the title of "republic".:mad:
 
Last edited:
Top