If the Synagogue of Satan Private City of London banking-investment, and similar Banking in France to weaponize South and marched the genocide of white Christain men mass-murdering the best of each side,
like French Rev, and later WWI. Satanic minions controlled key people by usury debt enslavement, bribes, etc. Freemasons, Proto-Zionist, Illuminati, .. coordinated both side rulers to send our fathers, brothers, sons, uncles, .. and Generals exposed the White Christians to needless slaughter like the minions in Soviet Russia drove unarmed men into fortified German Machine guns .. and like the Genocide of 10 millions of White Christian Uranian families.
You have problems with this concept because you are likely Christian raised, not like the Demonic Howling dead-rotting hearts of Zionists from Synagogue of Satan - look closely at evil the nurtured and grew for many hundreds of Years .. or did you excused them - they suddenly went mass-murdering insane, like Germany did and Zionists were not connected to Germany's sudden insanity .. really, the Satanic Zionist minions didn't do Nutting!
Slavery? Britian Freed more slaves around the world by emanate domaining, paying the mostly Jewish slave owner to release them. Showing the Way. North and Free States remain together until that slave purchased debt paid, than GreatSatan enslavement and like today the Synagogue of Satan, Zionist Branch continues our white Christian Genocide.
This is all premised on the idea that what the seceding states wanted was independence from the US. To me it seems more likely that what they wanted was to control the US, using secession as a tool to get this control. Look at the Crittenden "compromise".
Secession and nullification had by 1860 a long history of use as pressure tactics to gain power within the Union's internal politics. Of course secession, logically and if carried out in practice to its full theoretical intent, would be independence, a breaking away from the sovereign nation, the United States. But, because the Constitution split Solomon's baby, squared the circle, and otherwise tolerated categorical contradictions, it left each state as a sovereign, at least theoretically free to assert their separate sovereignties in order to get the Union to give in to their demands. Art IV, sec 4 was taken by many to mean that states had the right to get around the Supremacy Clause at the level of enforcement of a federal law the state disagreed with. Every state had a claim to independent authority even without formally leaving the Union in order to come out from under federal law.
Southern secession, specifically the Nashville Convention, was clearly just a pressure tactic in 1850. There was pretty clearly no popular consensus at all to actually go for Southern independence. Precisely for this reason, moderate centrist Southern politicians of the day, like Jefferson Davis, were big supporters of secession. Secession certainly seemed to work as a pressure tactic in 1850, as it led to a "compromise" that won all sorts of concessions that seemed out of reach without use of that tactic. Of course the tactic, holding the full territorial extent of the US hostage to the will of a section of states threatening independence, worked because of the ambition of the people in all of the states to have a bigger, stronger nation, the desired destiny of the US.
Well, in 1860, that secession might lead to actual Southern independence seemed a very real threat, so Davis and other "moderates" like his future vice-president, were very much against it in the aftermath of the election. Davis and Stephens lost the internal political struggle in the Deep South, and so went along with secession, but both they and the fire-eaters agreed that they should lead the Confederacy precisely because there was an elite consensus that secession not proceed to the actual split with the Union into full independence that the people seemed to want, but that it should instead continue to be used as a pressure tactic to get the North to come to its senses and agree to the Crittenden "Compromise". Basically, the South would graciously consent to drop the secession thing and resume its rightful place at the helm of the Union, in exchange for the North conceding every point of disagreement over slavery, and sealing its submission into an effective eternity by embodying its surrender in amendments to the Constitution.
Aside from the Crittenden nonsense, all sorts of details of events between the election and the capture of Sumter, and even beyond, are incomprehensible unless you understand the strange dual logic of people, by no means all of them in the South, on this question of state sovereignty. The seceded states had taken that action in order to be independent of any control by Lincoln and the rest of the Black Republicans, and so expected the rights of free nation of the earth, but at the same time also expected the federal govt to accord them the full rights of states of the Union that they had notionally renounced.
My favorite gem in this genre occurred after Major Anderson withdrew the small garrison of Ft. Moultrie to Sumter itself, Senators Davis and Hunter stormed over to the WH to confront Buchannan with righteous indignation over this gross betrayal of seceded SC's rights as a state of the Union. Under Art IV, sec 4, federal troops were only in SC at the sufferance of that sovereign state, which was involved at the time of Anderson's action, in negotiations with the Buchanan administration over precisely this point, the federal response to SC withdrawing its consent to have any Union troops in its territory, when that federal action, undertaken for the completely illegitimate purpose of making the garrison of Moultrie less vulnerable to being detained by the armed forces of SC. The sheer effrontery! They weren't able to get Buchanan to call off the Star of the West mission, but he did pretty much make sure it didn't succeed.
Consider the context of this episode. The fact that Lincoln had made clear in his first inaugural address that his administration would treat an armed attack on Sumter as an act of war, has tended to obscure the over a dozen seizures of US military facilities int the South that preceded that inauguration, that the North did not choose to treat as acts of war. Over half the US Army at the time was at some point in all of these seizures made captive by the seceded state's (mainly Texas's) militias, yet, actions that would have been treated as clear acts of war if committed by any of the independent nations of the earth, were passed off as merely assertions of these states' Art IV, sec 4 rights. So, while Texas had the sovereign right as a state of the Union to expel federal troops it no longer wanted on its territory, it absolutely did not face any responsibility as an independent sovereign to accept the war with the US that would normally follow such an action by any other sort of sovereign on the earth.
Today we are so inclined to see this reasoning as specious nonsense that the fact of its wide acceptance, even among people in the North who did not believe that secession was legitimate, is obscured. The Insurrection Act was widely felt to not apply to state govts and their office-holders. Should a state face armed mobs of people preventing the enforcement of the laws, it certainly could and should apply to the federal govt for any help it needed to restore order. But, if a state instead considered armed mobs that went so far as to besiege and capture federal military installations to actually be in the right, well, the federal govt had no right to intervene, because Art IV, sec 4 said it needed an invitation by the state's govt to enter the state with federal armed forces. That the seceded states lived in a sort of fantasyland limbo, suspended between actual independence and still being states of the Union, wasn't nonsense only current in those seceded states, and the Confederacy that they soon formed to protect their fantasyland continued this double logic.
Look at what they called this war that the usurper Lincoln assailed them with just for asserting their just rights. Even at the time it was called by many a civil war. Those wars are wars over control of the one govt that is to be imposed on the whole nation, and never are wars of independence. Some at the time in the South actually proposed calling it the War of Southern Independence, or the Second War of Independence. Stonewall Jackson himself favored this name, and nothing carried greater weight in the South than miliary success. Despite that, the name was not at all favored by those steeped in the theory of secession and more socially astute within this group than Jackson. The Confederacy was not, in the minds of its high govt officials, engaged in a revolution or war of independence from the Union. Instead it represented the true interpretation of the founding principles of that Union. This was instead a War Between The States, between the Northern states and their usurpations aimed at denying the Southern states their rights within the Union, and the states that had banded together to protect their rights, without prejudice to the rights of those Northern states. This confederacy they made adopted the US Constitution almost verbatim as it own governing document, because of course it represented the true Union. The only differences were pretty much the inclusion of those Crittenden amendments.
Finally, this ambition lasted even after the Usurper had forced them into a war to defend their fantasyland seceded status by force, to win a peace that would see a repentant North accept the justice of their cause, and graciously let the South end the secession on the basis of passing all the Crittenden amendments. McClellan and the Ds were expected to win the 1864 election, and while it is often thought that the result would have been that the US would have allowed the Confederacy to become an actual independent power, they left that ambiguous. Much of their nonsense verbiage can be interpreted as fitting in with the Southern fantasyland, of the seceded states rejoining the Union based on hefty concessions by the North, the Crittenden amendments for example.
Lincoln didn't really have a choice in March of 1861. Had he failed to move promptly to use coercion to stamp out the fantasyland of secession short of actual independence, the non-seceded slave states would have inevitably fallen for that nonsense, as it would have offered the path of least resistance. Then, the northern states would eventually have agreed to pass the Crittenden amendments to end the crisis, and it would have ended as the McClellan administration would have ended it. The house would no longer have to stand divided, but would instead become all slave. Well, slave-tolerant anyway.
1) regarding Polk, manmifest destiny and the expansion of the US, and Lincoln wanting to preserve the union: Lincoln was outspoken in his opposition to Polk and the mexican war, which argues against attributing a common rationale for Polk and for Lincoln.
2) As noted by others, the south was aggressively expansionist before the civil war: note the southerners trying to take over Nicaragua (the filibusters) and the desire to take over Cuba. A Carribean ring of slave states was their goal. Closer to home, the south was aggressively trying to take over state in the west --vide "bloody Kansas". And the Supreme Court was taking the slave agenda to the north with the Dred Scott decision, with a logical next step being the outlawing of the banning of slavery in northern states. It was not a neutral coexistance of two different regimes which could have passively continued to coexist, there were incresing confrontations initiated by a newly aggressive and expansionist slave regime.
Sure -- we dodged the obvious issue and now have "soft slaves" thanks to Democrats with open borders, urban planning, zero cash bail and sanitary cities. Drugs, sex trafficking and cheap labor exploited by the "bondage" of the shadows. Jim Eagle Crow 2.0 -- too funny and yet very sad.
Better than referring to enslaved people as “contraband” as they did in 1863. Don’t get me wrong, the robber barons did the same thing with legal immigrants.
Interesting counterfactual, and I sometimes wish it had been that way. A couple of points though:
Southern secessionists envisioned a larger slave empire encompassing the Caribbean and parts of Mexico, perhaps parts of Brazil. Re-enslaving Haiti. They may well have succeeded at this, in that they were a militaristic society and were only defeated by an industrialized North, not a factor in their envisioned empire. This would have created a strong state as counterpoint and perhaps enemy of the North
Also, your proposed war between the Nations (North and South), there would not have been an offer for freed slaves to come north. Racism was alive and well in a majority of northerners. And yes, there likely would have been wars in the west, a continuation of "Bloody Kansas".
That said, I would not be sad for a new secession if it could be managed, which is unlikely. Collapse, however, is not at all out of the question.
I have a few thoughts generated by this terrific post that follow.
Since our economy is one based on finance, imagine not having the predatory usurious credit card interest rates enabled by South Dakota and Delaware.
It's not only the South, our westward expansion gave us Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Utah, and Idaho which have sent true crazies to the Senate (excluding Frank Church) from their inception as states.
We have to face the fact that a good proportion of us descend from invading ancestors. Aboriginal inhabitants were exterminated.
Our history is sordid. We owe reparations to African descendants of slaves and Native Americans. Perhaps this is one way to partition our country into parts that make amends for a horrific past and those that refuse.
Interesting point, SOS. If you look at the western migration, it took several paths. One is across the top, why the Great Lakes region and Pac NW has so much in common, even linguistically, with Vermont.
Another migration was from Missouri (wagon trains and Oregon Trail).
But the most interesting one is from the post-CW South through Texas and up the mountains states. That's why Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, etc. have so much in common with the South, why they're all red states.
(I'm not the first one with this idea. Just passing it on.)
If the Synagogue of Satan Private City of London banking-investment, and similar Banking in France to weaponize South and marched the genocide of white Christain men mass-murdering the best of each side,
like French Rev, and later WWI. Satanic minions controlled key people by usury debt enslavement, bribes, etc. Freemasons, Proto-Zionist, Illuminati, .. coordinated both side rulers to send our fathers, brothers, sons, uncles, .. and Generals exposed the White Christians to needless slaughter like the minions in Soviet Russia drove unarmed men into fortified German Machine guns .. and like the Genocide of 10 millions of White Christian Uranian families.
You have problems with this concept because you are likely Christian raised, not like the Demonic Howling dead-rotting hearts of Zionists from Synagogue of Satan - look closely at evil the nurtured and grew for many hundreds of Years .. or did you excused them - they suddenly went mass-murdering insane, like Germany did and Zionists were not connected to Germany's sudden insanity .. really, the Satanic Zionist minions didn't do Nutting!
Slavery? Britian Freed more slaves around the world by emanate domaining, paying the mostly Jewish slave owner to release them. Showing the Way. North and Free States remain together until that slave purchased debt paid, than GreatSatan enslavement and like today the Synagogue of Satan, Zionist Branch continues our white Christian Genocide.
Seems clear, doesn't it?
This is all premised on the idea that what the seceding states wanted was independence from the US. To me it seems more likely that what they wanted was to control the US, using secession as a tool to get this control. Look at the Crittenden "compromise".
Interesting, Glen. Expand?
Thomas
Secession and nullification had by 1860 a long history of use as pressure tactics to gain power within the Union's internal politics. Of course secession, logically and if carried out in practice to its full theoretical intent, would be independence, a breaking away from the sovereign nation, the United States. But, because the Constitution split Solomon's baby, squared the circle, and otherwise tolerated categorical contradictions, it left each state as a sovereign, at least theoretically free to assert their separate sovereignties in order to get the Union to give in to their demands. Art IV, sec 4 was taken by many to mean that states had the right to get around the Supremacy Clause at the level of enforcement of a federal law the state disagreed with. Every state had a claim to independent authority even without formally leaving the Union in order to come out from under federal law.
Southern secession, specifically the Nashville Convention, was clearly just a pressure tactic in 1850. There was pretty clearly no popular consensus at all to actually go for Southern independence. Precisely for this reason, moderate centrist Southern politicians of the day, like Jefferson Davis, were big supporters of secession. Secession certainly seemed to work as a pressure tactic in 1850, as it led to a "compromise" that won all sorts of concessions that seemed out of reach without use of that tactic. Of course the tactic, holding the full territorial extent of the US hostage to the will of a section of states threatening independence, worked because of the ambition of the people in all of the states to have a bigger, stronger nation, the desired destiny of the US.
Well, in 1860, that secession might lead to actual Southern independence seemed a very real threat, so Davis and other "moderates" like his future vice-president, were very much against it in the aftermath of the election. Davis and Stephens lost the internal political struggle in the Deep South, and so went along with secession, but both they and the fire-eaters agreed that they should lead the Confederacy precisely because there was an elite consensus that secession not proceed to the actual split with the Union into full independence that the people seemed to want, but that it should instead continue to be used as a pressure tactic to get the North to come to its senses and agree to the Crittenden "Compromise". Basically, the South would graciously consent to drop the secession thing and resume its rightful place at the helm of the Union, in exchange for the North conceding every point of disagreement over slavery, and sealing its submission into an effective eternity by embodying its surrender in amendments to the Constitution.
Aside from the Crittenden nonsense, all sorts of details of events between the election and the capture of Sumter, and even beyond, are incomprehensible unless you understand the strange dual logic of people, by no means all of them in the South, on this question of state sovereignty. The seceded states had taken that action in order to be independent of any control by Lincoln and the rest of the Black Republicans, and so expected the rights of free nation of the earth, but at the same time also expected the federal govt to accord them the full rights of states of the Union that they had notionally renounced.
My favorite gem in this genre occurred after Major Anderson withdrew the small garrison of Ft. Moultrie to Sumter itself, Senators Davis and Hunter stormed over to the WH to confront Buchannan with righteous indignation over this gross betrayal of seceded SC's rights as a state of the Union. Under Art IV, sec 4, federal troops were only in SC at the sufferance of that sovereign state, which was involved at the time of Anderson's action, in negotiations with the Buchanan administration over precisely this point, the federal response to SC withdrawing its consent to have any Union troops in its territory, when that federal action, undertaken for the completely illegitimate purpose of making the garrison of Moultrie less vulnerable to being detained by the armed forces of SC. The sheer effrontery! They weren't able to get Buchanan to call off the Star of the West mission, but he did pretty much make sure it didn't succeed.
Consider the context of this episode. The fact that Lincoln had made clear in his first inaugural address that his administration would treat an armed attack on Sumter as an act of war, has tended to obscure the over a dozen seizures of US military facilities int the South that preceded that inauguration, that the North did not choose to treat as acts of war. Over half the US Army at the time was at some point in all of these seizures made captive by the seceded state's (mainly Texas's) militias, yet, actions that would have been treated as clear acts of war if committed by any of the independent nations of the earth, were passed off as merely assertions of these states' Art IV, sec 4 rights. So, while Texas had the sovereign right as a state of the Union to expel federal troops it no longer wanted on its territory, it absolutely did not face any responsibility as an independent sovereign to accept the war with the US that would normally follow such an action by any other sort of sovereign on the earth.
Today we are so inclined to see this reasoning as specious nonsense that the fact of its wide acceptance, even among people in the North who did not believe that secession was legitimate, is obscured. The Insurrection Act was widely felt to not apply to state govts and their office-holders. Should a state face armed mobs of people preventing the enforcement of the laws, it certainly could and should apply to the federal govt for any help it needed to restore order. But, if a state instead considered armed mobs that went so far as to besiege and capture federal military installations to actually be in the right, well, the federal govt had no right to intervene, because Art IV, sec 4 said it needed an invitation by the state's govt to enter the state with federal armed forces. That the seceded states lived in a sort of fantasyland limbo, suspended between actual independence and still being states of the Union, wasn't nonsense only current in those seceded states, and the Confederacy that they soon formed to protect their fantasyland continued this double logic.
Look at what they called this war that the usurper Lincoln assailed them with just for asserting their just rights. Even at the time it was called by many a civil war. Those wars are wars over control of the one govt that is to be imposed on the whole nation, and never are wars of independence. Some at the time in the South actually proposed calling it the War of Southern Independence, or the Second War of Independence. Stonewall Jackson himself favored this name, and nothing carried greater weight in the South than miliary success. Despite that, the name was not at all favored by those steeped in the theory of secession and more socially astute within this group than Jackson. The Confederacy was not, in the minds of its high govt officials, engaged in a revolution or war of independence from the Union. Instead it represented the true interpretation of the founding principles of that Union. This was instead a War Between The States, between the Northern states and their usurpations aimed at denying the Southern states their rights within the Union, and the states that had banded together to protect their rights, without prejudice to the rights of those Northern states. This confederacy they made adopted the US Constitution almost verbatim as it own governing document, because of course it represented the true Union. The only differences were pretty much the inclusion of those Crittenden amendments.
Finally, this ambition lasted even after the Usurper had forced them into a war to defend their fantasyland seceded status by force, to win a peace that would see a repentant North accept the justice of their cause, and graciously let the South end the secession on the basis of passing all the Crittenden amendments. McClellan and the Ds were expected to win the 1864 election, and while it is often thought that the result would have been that the US would have allowed the Confederacy to become an actual independent power, they left that ambiguous. Much of their nonsense verbiage can be interpreted as fitting in with the Southern fantasyland, of the seceded states rejoining the Union based on hefty concessions by the North, the Crittenden amendments for example.
Lincoln didn't really have a choice in March of 1861. Had he failed to move promptly to use coercion to stamp out the fantasyland of secession short of actual independence, the non-seceded slave states would have inevitably fallen for that nonsense, as it would have offered the path of least resistance. Then, the northern states would eventually have agreed to pass the Crittenden amendments to end the crisis, and it would have ended as the McClellan administration would have ended it. The house would no longer have to stand divided, but would instead become all slave. Well, slave-tolerant anyway.
1) regarding Polk, manmifest destiny and the expansion of the US, and Lincoln wanting to preserve the union: Lincoln was outspoken in his opposition to Polk and the mexican war, which argues against attributing a common rationale for Polk and for Lincoln.
2) As noted by others, the south was aggressively expansionist before the civil war: note the southerners trying to take over Nicaragua (the filibusters) and the desire to take over Cuba. A Carribean ring of slave states was their goal. Closer to home, the south was aggressively trying to take over state in the west --vide "bloody Kansas". And the Supreme Court was taking the slave agenda to the north with the Dred Scott decision, with a logical next step being the outlawing of the banning of slavery in northern states. It was not a neutral coexistance of two different regimes which could have passively continued to coexist, there were incresing confrontations initiated by a newly aggressive and expansionist slave regime.
Great info as always, JL. It would be fun to do a novel around these ideas.
That's an interesting idea.
Sure -- we dodged the obvious issue and now have "soft slaves" thanks to Democrats with open borders, urban planning, zero cash bail and sanitary cities. Drugs, sex trafficking and cheap labor exploited by the "bondage" of the shadows. Jim Eagle Crow 2.0 -- too funny and yet very sad.
Soft slaves, nice.
Better than referring to enslaved people as “contraband” as they did in 1863. Don’t get me wrong, the robber barons did the same thing with legal immigrants.
Interesting counterfactual, and I sometimes wish it had been that way. A couple of points though:
Southern secessionists envisioned a larger slave empire encompassing the Caribbean and parts of Mexico, perhaps parts of Brazil. Re-enslaving Haiti. They may well have succeeded at this, in that they were a militaristic society and were only defeated by an industrialized North, not a factor in their envisioned empire. This would have created a strong state as counterpoint and perhaps enemy of the North
Also, your proposed war between the Nations (North and South), there would not have been an offer for freed slaves to come north. Racism was alive and well in a majority of northerners. And yes, there likely would have been wars in the west, a continuation of "Bloody Kansas".
That said, I would not be sad for a new secession if it could be managed, which is unlikely. Collapse, however, is not at all out of the question.
Thanks, Randy. Excellent thoughts. Do you know of any alternate history novels of this counterfactual that follow these thoughts?
Watch the mockumentary “C.S.A.” which imagines ‘what if’ the South had won. I believe the director caught quite a backlash over it at some point.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.S.A.:_The_Confederate_States_of_America
I have a few thoughts generated by this terrific post that follow.
Since our economy is one based on finance, imagine not having the predatory usurious credit card interest rates enabled by South Dakota and Delaware.
It's not only the South, our westward expansion gave us Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Utah, and Idaho which have sent true crazies to the Senate (excluding Frank Church) from their inception as states.
We have to face the fact that a good proportion of us descend from invading ancestors. Aboriginal inhabitants were exterminated.
Our history is sordid. We owe reparations to African descendants of slaves and Native Americans. Perhaps this is one way to partition our country into parts that make amends for a horrific past and those that refuse.
Interesting point, SOS. If you look at the western migration, it took several paths. One is across the top, why the Great Lakes region and Pac NW has so much in common, even linguistically, with Vermont.
Another migration was from Missouri (wagon trains and Oregon Trail).
But the most interesting one is from the post-CW South through Texas and up the mountains states. That's why Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, etc. have so much in common with the South, why they're all red states.
(I'm not the first one with this idea. Just passing it on.)
Thanks as always for the comment!
Thomas
whip out your liberal white checkbook -- bish.
My checkbook has no ideological inclination.
Not to be bishy but you and your precious checkbook can join the we don't owe anybody anything federation.