States Rights - was the South justified in the American Civil War?

Britain and France were interested in a divided States, but not excessively so. The Emancipation Declaration after Antietam made it so that there was no good reason left to get involved... after the British had spent a good part of their foreign policy removing the slave trade, it was hard to back the South.

I'm not sure slavery would have dissolved in 20 years. I do think that it would have disappeared in time, but in what manner I don't know, and whether it would have left such a legacy as it does today in the US? Probably, in one form or another. Entrenched ideas about the superiority of the whites don't disappear so quickly.

IF the Confederates had taken Washington, I'm not sure what would have happened... any change in the North's policy would have happened via the 1862 and 1864 elections. 1862 showed some resentment to the war's length, but 1864 was pretty much a an outright win for the National Union Party, though the popular vote was 55/45 over the Democrats. The Dem's couldn't even agree on a policy about the war (their Candidate, McClellan didn't even believe his party's overall policy of peace). The South's aims in 1863 was to cause enough turmoil to cause the North to want peace, rather than "win", but by 1864, that was a forlorn hope. The war was over, just people continued to die.

Quote: TheCesspit

Not to strip of them their rights.

Rigths simply are. That's why we call them inalienable. But people can, and often do, violate other people's rights. they also sometimes strip entire groups of their rights. This altter can be done with justification, as when convicted criminals are stripped of many fo their rights. But when done without a moral justification, as was the case in the South, it's abhorrent, uncivilized behavior. Certainly it's not tyranny to force a group of people to recognize and respect the rights of other people.

Quote:

However, the war wasn't fought to "free the slaves" not initially.

True. Also true, not many in the North had any sympathy for black people in the country. And many abolitionists were against slavery because the South's "Peculiar Institution" kept black people around. There are ugly sides to eveything.

Quote:

They went to preserve the unity of the states. I'm trying not to fall into some sort of "Lost Cause" mentality here, but it's always strike me that if the United States was a Union of States, surely some or all of those states could remove themselves if they so decided to?

Read again what I said in my first post. They can, morally, only when they have no other resort.

Say Obama, or any other president, decided to dissolve Congress and rule by decree. In that case secession, or revolution, would be wholly justified. Secession due to expanding the welfare state is not. Secession in order to maintain people as property, is even worse.

Quote:

It happened in Czechoslovakia, for instance.

I'm not clear on what happened in Czechoslovakia. But secession due to "ethnic" or cultural differences also strikes me as unreasonable. Look at Yugoslavia, or rather Serbia, Mcedonia, Kosovo, Bosnia, et al.

Quote: TheCesspit

Britain and France were interested in a divided States, but not excessively so. The Emancipation Declaration after Antietam made it so that there was no good reason left to get involved... after the British had spent a good part of their foreign policy removing the slave trade, it was hard to back the South.

The Emancipation proclamation was Lincoln's attempt to take the moral high ground. It was successful.

Quote:

I'm not sure slavery would have dissolved in 20 years. I do think that it would have disappeared in time, but in what manner I don't know, and whether it would have left such a legacy as it does today in the US? Probably, in one form or another. Entrenched ideas about the superiority of the whites don't disappear so quickly.

As you might guess, one fertile field for Alternate History, both in academmia and fiction, is the US Civil War. I've read Turtledove's written one long series about it. He imagines mannumition being imposed, by diplomatic pressure mostly, byr Britain and France on the CSA. In another of his novels, which mixes AH with SF, he has a President Robert E. Lee, succeeding Jefferson Davis, push for gradual abolition due to what direction he sees the world turning to (with some help).

But there's no need to guess. Brazil also kept slaves. Look up how that ended.

Here's a more interesting counterfacual: what if Lee had commanded the Army of the Potomac?

Quote: Nareed

Here's a more interesting counterfacual: what if Lee had commanded the Army of the Potomac?

The South would have lost it's Eastern wing at the battle of Antietam, Chancellorsville would have never have happened, Gettysburg would not have happened and Richmond would have fallen in 1862/1863.

McClellan left his forces uncommitted at Antietam and Hooker at Chancellorsville. Lee would not have made the same mistake, not with that wealth of forces. With a fall in the East, Vicksburg probably falls earlier than it did, but not by much, but the drive to the sea is not needed and the Rebels give up by end of 1863, Lincoln gets re-elected after bringing peace, but the South is probably more of political force than it was after the war. The Reconstruction is a different affair, and Johnson and Grant

Lee was a Confederate as he believed in protecting his state against the North's aggression. This is why he surrendered at the Appotomax Court House, and didn't keep a guerilla war fighting.

Brazil was the last western country to ban slavery in 1865. The tech improvements in farming were making it less viable. Slaves need to be other, fed, housed,and on big farms watched. If you need less labor due to machines doing the work then at some point it becomes cheaper to hire casual labor. Add in social pressure and I still say slavery would have died in 30 more years. Surly by 1900 at the latest.

I don't but that there was a "white supremacy" movement to keep slavery. It is just that aves were accepted as property. They even recorded emancipation papers with their county. If anything it was more of an accepted caste system. White Supremecy movements really didn't happen until post ww2. Before that the term "white supremacist" wasn't really used the way it is now.

1888 was Brazil's date for Slavery ending completely, 1865 was the US of A (just looked it up but 1865 looked wrong, for obvious reasons with that date).

I disagree about white supremacy, even if the words weren't used in that way, there was a body of Southern Democrats who believed quite clearly that that black people were not subject to the rules like "all men were created equal". Douglas and Lincoln debated on this before the Civil War. After the civil war, with the reconstruction and more shortly afterwards we see the rise of the KKK, and many other movements to try keep the ex-slaves out of office, out of the towns and out of the social systems. These were, in part, motivated by a white superiority. The Jim Crow laws that got passed to keep blacks and whites segregated were effectively white supremacy in action in the 1870's onwards.

After all, accepting that another person IS property rather than an independent person is a rather dominant situation to be in. "An accepted caste system" feels like a bit of a way of white washing the whole situation. Besides, if we look at other caste systems, such as the Indian one, it's obvious that there's a sense of superiority and supremacy embedded between the top castes and the 'Untouchables', the latter who were/are denigned services and service due to their birth.

The South's wealth was ruined by the freeing of the slaves... so much "wealth" had been tied up in the slave owners living property that once they were free the economy in the South was set back decades. I would agree, by 1900 slavery might have been abolished, but it would still have been by government laws, rather than a economic movement. There would have been hold outs to the last.

But going back to the original question, it's not about the morality of the cause or causes, or if slavery was the cause, reason or cassus belli of the ACW. It's about the ability for states or regions to cede from a greater whole, wherein there was a previous agreement to join. Should the US have allowed a get out clause for the states? Could it happen today? What if the cause had been flip flopped and there was a state that wanted to ban slavery, but wasn't allowed to within the US federal laws, and wished to have no part? What if the North had been in the minority (politically) and tried to cede from the South?

Quote: TheCesspit

But going back to the original question, it's not about the morality of the cause or causes, or if slavery was the cause, reason or cassus belli of the ACW. It's about the ability for states or regions to cede from a greater whole, wherein there was a previous agreement to join.

I think I've answered that.

Quote:

Could it happen today?

No. Not unless things get much worse and a movement grows towards that end.

The thing is the US isn't as clearly divided along geographical lines as it used to be. There are no major policy differences between North and South, or for that matter between East and South or any other combination thereof. Also cultural differences are less sharp than they once were. Mass media and, lately, the internet have seen to that. Therefore any deep-seated disatisfaction would emerge as revolution rather than secession.

But, consider the latest organized group of deeply disatisfied people created a political movement and worked to influence Congress and state governments. That's what I mean by having other avenues to seek redress of grievances. That a clean-cut movement for small government and lower taxes got hijacked by the religious right,a nd missrepresented in the press, is a different matter.

Quote:

What if the North had been in the minority (politically) and tried to cede from the South?

The whole North? that woudl have been something indeed. More like expelling the South. I suppose they'd ahve had the numbers and productive capacity to make it stick, if they'd found good commanders.

BTW secession is rather common in the US, actually. It's not unheard of that a suburb or some other type of municipality will secede from a larger entity. Of course, this is more of an adminsitrative matter, and the resulting entity stays within the state and country.

I entered the brazil date wrong. Using iPhone during a break. Thought was 1885. You are correct.

Quote: AZDuffman

I entered the brazil date wrong. Using iPhone during a break. Thought was 1885. You are correct.

No worries... I figured there was some sort weird technology issue given what else you typed in there. Looks like Brazil phase out slavery, with various groups being emancipated over the course of about 16 years.

There is some activity in post WWII.

1948: UN Article 4 of the Declaration of Human Rights bans slavery globally.
1952: Qatar abolishes slavery.
1959: Slavery in Tibet is abolished by China after the Dalai Lama flees.
1960: Niger abolishes slavery (though it was not made illegal until 2003).
1962: Saudi Arabia abolishes slavery.
1962: Yemen abolishes slavery.
1963: United Arab Emirates abolishes slavery.
1970: Oman abolishes slavery.
1981: Mauritania abolishes slavery.
2007: Mauritania makes it illegal to own slaves.
2012: A CNN report describes Mauritania as "Slavery's Last Stronghold".