I think Lincoln actually got the whole picture. He understood that the South would still become the enemy of the North if it seceded, and he would have no legal authority over it. If ending slavery was integral to saving the republic, his only option was to refuse to accept the southern secession. An independent Confederate republic woul…
I think Lincoln actually got the whole picture. He understood that the South would still become the enemy of the North if it seceded, and he would have no legal authority over it. If ending slavery was integral to saving the republic, his only option was to refuse to accept the southern secession. An independent Confederate republic would have challenged the remnant union aggressively for western territories, possibly ending up at war in any event. The legacy of such a conflict could very well have come to mean that those of us who grew up in western states would experience a completely different reality than the one we have known. By keeping the South part of the republic, Lincoln just might have given me the opportunity to learn about the legacy of slavery in a light that never would have been lit in a pro-Confederacy culture, for which I am very grateful.
One counterpoint: I suspect that had the South been enabled to secede, it would have been quite inferior. economically, to the North, and the North would likely have won almost all battles for the West. People work harder for themselves, starting businesses, inventing new ways of doing things, etc., than they do for others. And see Susan Knox' comment directly above yours.
Yes. It's also why, so long as the North maintained its focus on victory, the South could never win. Other than cotton, the rest of the southern economy wa 15% of what the equivalent sector was in the North.
Thanks David. I knew I was opening a speculative can of worms. You are probably right in the main, but settling the west would have been a messier picture. One thing would have been very different for me personally. My grandfather went to Montana from Texas on a cattle drive. He met my grandmother there and settled down. Without a definitive end to the Civil War, it’s possible that doesn’t happen. And then there’s the 20th century wars in Europe. It’s easy to imagine the Confederacy staying out of the first and aligning itself with the Axis powers in the second. Does the Normandy invasion happen without southerners in large numbers? I’m not well enough read here to go farther on this, topic but I can’t imagine a hostile southern neighbor would have left the US to develop as it did but just without the South.
I think Lincoln actually got the whole picture. He understood that the South would still become the enemy of the North if it seceded, and he would have no legal authority over it. If ending slavery was integral to saving the republic, his only option was to refuse to accept the southern secession. An independent Confederate republic would have challenged the remnant union aggressively for western territories, possibly ending up at war in any event. The legacy of such a conflict could very well have come to mean that those of us who grew up in western states would experience a completely different reality than the one we have known. By keeping the South part of the republic, Lincoln just might have given me the opportunity to learn about the legacy of slavery in a light that never would have been lit in a pro-Confederacy culture, for which I am very grateful.
Very interesting points.
One counterpoint: I suspect that had the South been enabled to secede, it would have been quite inferior. economically, to the North, and the North would likely have won almost all battles for the West. People work harder for themselves, starting businesses, inventing new ways of doing things, etc., than they do for others. And see Susan Knox' comment directly above yours.
Yes. It's also why, so long as the North maintained its focus on victory, the South could never win. Other than cotton, the rest of the southern economy wa 15% of what the equivalent sector was in the North.
Thanks David. I knew I was opening a speculative can of worms. You are probably right in the main, but settling the west would have been a messier picture. One thing would have been very different for me personally. My grandfather went to Montana from Texas on a cattle drive. He met my grandmother there and settled down. Without a definitive end to the Civil War, it’s possible that doesn’t happen. And then there’s the 20th century wars in Europe. It’s easy to imagine the Confederacy staying out of the first and aligning itself with the Axis powers in the second. Does the Normandy invasion happen without southerners in large numbers? I’m not well enough read here to go farther on this, topic but I can’t imagine a hostile southern neighbor would have left the US to develop as it did but just without the South.