Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid: A More Radical American Civil War

[Daztur]

What counts as a "clear majority?" 50% plus one?

There was . . . let's see, one state where the slave population exceeded the free population: South Carolina (301,302 free versus 402,406 slave). I don't have time to go digging into an age demographic breakdown, but let us assume it holds true for the voting age male population. Of course, South Carolina did not put secession to a plebiscatary vote: it was adopted by a special convention called for the purpose.

There were a few other states where the opposition to secession was strong enough that a vote by African-Americans, if it were possible, could probably give that opposition a majority. That assumes that all, or virtually, *would* vote thusly, which might be an assumption that needs to be unpacked with some care.

But I think that we have concede the possibility that, even with universal suffrage to all adult males over 21 (the most common cutoff age in 1860), and putting the question to a popular referendum, it is quite possible that we would have several southern states still finding a majority for secession.

Of course, note that we are not talking about another important non-enfranchised population cohort: adult women, of any race. Not that they had the vote in any northern states either...

Well of course there were also white unionist minorities, often very significant ones even if many people who opposed seccession initially fought for the slavers later, I think they're enough that when you add in slaves there wouldn't have been even a bare majority for secession anywhere.

As far as peace later on, as I've said before in this thread often the best hope for black freedom after the war would be moving west with Federal support. There were a lot of black cowboys etc. historically just increase that enough to get a lot of Western black majority communities due to low population bases.

Of course that'd fuck over Native Americans horribly and you'd probably have a lot of black majoritiy areas ignored for development purposes but it might be the easiest way to get a lot of ex-slaves out from under the boot of racism.

 

[Athelstane]

Well of course there were also white unionist minorities, often very significant ones even if many people who opposed seccession initially fought for the slavers later, I think they're enough that when you add in slaves there wouldn't have been even a bare majority for secession anywhere.

Well, as I said, it likely *would* tip the balance in at least two or three states (I'd have to look hard at the numbers) - Virginia is probably one.

It's an interesting idea, moving freedmen to the West. Probably not feasible with *all* of them, but it might be one part of the puzzle.

 

[Starfox5]

It doesn't matter how democratic it was, if you support secession in the one case when it was done solely to keep slavery going, you support slavery. So, can we please drop this fucked-up "I'm no supporter of slavery, but I like the CSA" drivel? I'm really fed up with reading more "Lost Cause 2.0" shit.

 

[Gentleman Johnny]

It doesn't matter how democratic it was, if you support secession in the one case when it was done solely to keep slavery going, you support slavery. So, can we please drop this fucked-up "I'm no supporter of slavery, but I like the CSA" drivel? I'm really fed up with reading more "Lost Cause 2.0" shit.

That simply isn't true. The concept of secession has absolutely nothing to do with slavery. Of course the CSA used it to preserve slavery, but that doesn't mean that secession is a synonym for slavery. As was mentioned previously, there have been plenty of secessionist movements beyond the CSA. Supporting secession does not mean supporting slavery. I mentioned that I sympathized with the CSA because I support the idea of secession. That doesn't mean that I support their cause or slavery. It simply means that I agree with one of their arguments. I also would have sympathized with a New England secession like some wanted in the early 1800s. This isn't the "Lost Cause 2.0." No one is glorifying the Confederacy. Slavery is wrong, period. No one is debating that.

 

[Starfox5]

That simply isn't true. The concept of secession has absolutely nothing to do with slavery. Of course the CSA used it to preserve slavery, but that doesn't mean that secession is a synonym for slavery. As was mentioned previously, there have been plenty of secessionist movements beyond the CSA. Supporting secession does not mean supporting slavery. I mentioned that I sympathized with the CSA because I support the idea of secession. That doesn't mean that I support their cause or slavery. It simply means that I agree with one of their arguments. I also would have sympathized with a New England secession like some wanted in the early 1800s. This isn't the "Lost Cause 2.0." No one is glorifying the Confederacy. Slavery is wrong, period. No one is debating that.

I said if you support secession in the case of the CSA, you support slavery. If you sympathise with the CSA, you sympathise with slavery because the CSA was all about slavery and nothing else. If you don't support slavery, you don't support the CSA. Simple as that.

 

[Joriz Castillo]

I said if you support secession in the case of the CSA, you support slavery. If you sympathise with the CSA, you sympathise with slavery because the CSA was all about slavery and nothing else. If you don't support slavery, you don't support the CSA. Simple as that.

You are thinking only in absolutes. Some people sympathize with the CSA but don't support slavery at all. Everyone's opinion lay in different shades of grey.

 

[Steelers94]

That simply isn't true. The concept of secession has absolutely nothing to do with slavery. Of course the CSA used it to preserve slavery, but that doesn't mean that secession is a synonym for slavery. As was mentioned previously, there have been plenty of secessionist movements beyond the CSA. Supporting secession does not mean supporting slavery. I mentioned that I sympathized with the CSA because I support the idea of secession. That doesn't mean that I support their cause or slavery. It simply means that I agree with one of their arguments. I also would have sympathized with a New England secession like some wanted in the early 1800s. This isn't the "Lost Cause 2.0." No one is glorifying the Confederacy. Slavery is wrong, period. No one is debating that.

As stated in the post you quoted the CSA seceded solely to keep their slaves. You can not sympathize with their secession without ignoring the fact your supporting a movement that solely happend so humans could keep other humans in chains and do evil upon them. There is no "other argument" for their secession, zero, zip, zilch. If slavery didn't exist in the south they would never have tried to secede at all, you literally just have to read any of the declarations by the states that left to see that. What about the cornerstone speech by the Confederate VP? You know the one that laid bare the truth so bluntly to all who could read. You can not sympathize with the CSA without sympathizing with slavery, it is an impossibility and one that people should know by now.

 

[Gentleman Johnny]

As stated in the post you quoted the CSA seceded solely to keep their slaves. You can not sympathize with their secession without ignoring the fact your supporting a movement that solely happend so humans could keep other humans in chains and do evil upon them. There is no "other argument" for their secession, zero, zip, zilch. If slavery didn't exist in the south they would never have tried to secede at all, you literally just have to read any of the declarations by the states that left to see that. What about the cornerstone speech by the Confederate VP? You know the one that laid bare the truth so bluntly to all who could read. You can not sympathize with the CSA without sympathizing with slavery, it is an impossibility and one that people should know by now.

You people don't read well, do you? Did I ever say I supported the CSA? No. I didn't. Sympathizing with something does not mean supporting it. I might sympathize with a murderer who killed the man who killed his wife, but that doesn't mean I support his decision to commit murder.

Once again, the argument for secession has nothing to do with slavery. The argument I'm talking about is the argument made between the CSA and USA regarding the legality of secession in America. I agree with the CSA point of view that secession is legal. That doesn't mean that I support the CSA, slavery or anything else about them. It just means that I think they got one thing right.

 

[Starfox5]

You are thinking only in absolutes. Some people sympathize with the CSA but don't support slavery at all. Everyone's opinion lay in different shades of grey.

You cannot sympathise with the CSA and not sympathise with slavery because the CSA was all about slavery and nothing else. It's not shades of grey or any other bullshit racists like to claim.

 

[Rhaegar I]

That simply isn't true. The concept of secession has absolutely nothing to do with slavery. Of course the CSA used it to preserve slavery, but that doesn't mean that secession is a synonym for slavery. As was mentioned previously, there have been plenty of secessionist movements beyond the CSA. Supporting secession does not mean supporting slavery. I mentioned that I sympathized with the CSA because I support the idea of secession. That doesn't mean that I support their cause or slavery. It simply means that I agree with one of their arguments. I also would have sympathized with a New England secession like some wanted in the early 1800s. This isn't the "Lost Cause 2.0." No one is glorifying the Confederacy. Slavery is wrong, period. No one is debating that.

Here's a thought: every secessionist movement is going to have its own particular set of circumstances that led to the movement. And depending on the exact circumstances, some of those movements could be very sympathetic, others not so much. The CSA, whose founding documents explicitly cite slavery (specifically the possibility it wouldn't be expanded in the territories or even be forcibly ended where it did exist) as the reason why they're seceding, is not one of those sympathetic movements.

They weren't seceding because of liberty, it was to keep other people in chains. It wasn't because they were so persecuted politically, they had a disproportionate amount of influence in the government for decades and were outraged they might lose even some of that influence. It wasn't done in the name of the common man, it was in the name of uber-rich plantation owners who lived and acted like an American aristocracy. And secession was hardly popularly supported, a large number of people were against seceding and some states outright gerrymandered the secession convention to silence the anti-seceding people in favor of the fire-eaters.

The Confederacy isn't Tibet, Scotland, or Catalonia. There is nothing the least bit sympathetic about the Confederate secession movement. To say you sympathize with them just because they seceded is ignoring the reality why they seceded in the first place, a combination of extreme racism, extreme greed, and throwing a tantrum over not having a president 110% agreeable to them.

 

[Steelers94]

You people don't read well, do you? Did I ever say I supported the CSA? No. I didn't. Sympathizing with something does not mean supporting it. I might sympathize with a murderer who killed the man who killed his wife, but that doesn't mean I support his decision to commit murder.

Once again, the argument for secession has nothing to do with slavery. The argument I'm talking about is the argument made between the CSA and USA regarding the legality of secession in America. I agree with the CSA point of view that secession is legal. That doesn't mean that I support the CSA, slavery or anything else about them. It just means that I think they got one thing right.

Then I suggest you find another secession movement to sympathize with. It never was legal in the US before the war as the previous handling of rebellions should have proved. Also for all their bluster about being able to secede they themselves made it illegal for any state to secede in their constitution. Just another layer of hypocrisy from the southern traitors.

 

[Gentleman Johnny]

Then I suggest you find another secession movement to sympathize with. It never was legal in the US before the war as the previous handling of rebellions should have proved. Also for all their bluster about being able to secede they themselves made it illegal for any state to secede in their constitution. Just another layer of hypocrisy from the southern traitors.

None of this makes any sense. The previous rebellions weren't about secession. Shays Rebellion was about angry veterans being abused by the corrupt Massachusetts court system while the Whiskey Rebellion was about a whiskey tax people didn't like. So yeah, no secession in either of those. Also, they didn't make it illegal for states to secede in the CSA constitution, so that's not true.

 

[Gentleman Johnny]

Here's a thought: every secessionist movement is going to have its own particular set of circumstances that led to the movement. And depending on the exact circumstances, some of those movements could be very sympathetic, others not so much. The CSA, whose founding documents explicitly cite slavery (specifically the possibility it wouldn't be expanded in the territories or even be forcibly ended where it did exist) as the reason why they're seceding, is not one of those sympathetic movements.

They weren't seceding because of liberty, it was to keep other people in chains. It wasn't because they were so persecuted politically, they had a disproportionate amount of influence in the government for decades and were outraged they might lose even some of that influence. It wasn't done in the name of the common man, it was in the name of uber-rich plantation owners who lived and acted like an American aristocracy. And secession was hardly popularly supported, a large number of people were against seceding and some states outright gerrymandered the secession convention to silence the anti-seceding people in favor of the fire-eaters.

The Confederacy isn't Tibet, Scotland, or Catalonia. There is nothing the least bit sympathetic about the Confederate secession movement. To say you sympathize with them just because they seceded is ignoring the reality why they seceded in the first place, a combination of extreme racism, extreme greed, and throwing a tantrum over not having a president 110% agreeable to them.

You only prove my point that you guys don't read well. I sympathize with the Confederate argument for secession. I'm not saying I sympathize with their cause. I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

 

[Jeff Goldplum]

You only prove my point that you guys don't read well. I sympathize with the Confederate argument for secession. I'm not saying I sympathize with their cause. I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

Their argument for secession was essentially "We want to keep our slaves".

 

[Steelers94]

You only prove my point that you guys don't read well. I sympathize with the Confederate argument for secession. I'm not saying I sympathize with their cause. I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

What argument are you talking about!? There was literally no argument they had other then "we're leaving because we might not get to keep our slaves anymore". That's the whole fucking reason they left. What other reason or argument they had can you have for sympathizing with them beyond them secededing over slavery?

 

[Gentleman Johnny]

Their argument for secession was essentially "We want to keep our slaves".

What argument are you talking about!? There was literally no argument they had other then "we're leaving because we might not get to keep our slaves anymore". That's the whole fucking reason they left. What other reason or argument they had can you have for sympathizing with them beyond them secededing over slavery?

So you guys don't know what you're talking about. Got it. Yes, their reason for seceding was because of slavery. But their legal argument for secession wasn't slavery. That wouldn't make any sense. Do some reading about legal arguments for and against secession in the United States. It's all about the wording of the Constitution and whether or not the Founding Fathers considered the Union "perpetual" and what exactly that means. That is what I'm talking about.

 

[Steelers94]

So you guys don't know what you're talking about. Got it. Yes, their reason for seceding was because of slavery. But their legal argument for secession wasn't slavery. That wouldn't make any sense. Do some reading about legal arguments for and against secession in the United States. It's all about the wording of the Constitution and whether or not the Founding Fathers considered the Union "perpetual" and what exactly that means. That is what I'm talking about.

God damnit that whole point is a lost cause narrative driven in only after the war ended. Read the articles and speeches when the secessions were taking place as they at best only mention those in passing while the main focus is upon keeping slavery intact.

 

[Jeff Goldplum]

So you guys don't know what you're talking about. Got it. Yes, their reason for seceding was because of slavery. But their legal argument for secession wasn't slavery. That wouldn't make any sense. Do some reading about legal arguments for and against secession in the United States. It's all about the wording of the Constitution and whether or not the Founding Fathers considered the Union "perpetual" and what exactly that means. That is what I'm talking about.

Their reason for seceding was slavery. Their legal argument for secession (before the war) was "the federal government does not have the right to take our slaves away". The "Lost Cause" morphed this into "the South had the legal right to secede from the Union".

 

[Gentleman Johnny]

Their reason for seceding was slavery. Their legal argument for secession (before the war) was "the federal government does not have the right to take our slaves away". The "Lost Cause" morphed this into "the South had the legal right to secede from the Union".

No, that makes no sense. Slavery isn't a legal argument for or against secession. It isn't "Lost Cause" to read about legal arguments for secession. It was something they debated back then and still to modern day.

 

[Worffan101]

So you guys don't know what you're talking about. Got it. Yes, their reason for seceding was because of slavery. But their legal argument for secession wasn't slavery. That wouldn't make any sense. Do some reading about legal arguments for and against secession in the United States. It's all about the wording of the Constitution and whether or not the Founding Fathers considered the Union "perpetual" and what exactly that means. That is what I'm talking about.

Dude, the actual South Carolina instrument of secession explicitly states that slavery was the reason. This isn't even some secret hidden knowledge. Any legal fig-leaves were exactly that, fig leaves added in post hoc to justify a secession whose entire purpose was the preservation and expansion of slavery and slave-owner's political dominance.