If slavery had not been part of the question, would you ave supported the Cofederacy in 1860 or not?

Question

Assuming that slavery had not been legal or illegal in 1860 (NOT AN ISSUE] and tte disagreement between the north and south had been something else (suggestions invited), if you had been either a young person in 1860 or, say, 60 years old, born in Ky, Md, Mo or another border state, which way would have you have gone, when you finally had to answere the question, and why?

Answer 1

Absolutely yes because I was and am a strong supporter of States Rights, one of the major issues in the Civil War. Further, at that time, I would have favored the control of the rich lands of the West by an agrarian rather than an industrial economy.

Chow!!

Answer 2

I do not believe that there would have been a conflict resulting in secession and all-out war had slavery been outlawed at the time of the ratification of the US Constitution. While the main cause of the war was the issue of State's Rights, the topic which sparked the debate was slavery. No slavery, no war. I firmly believe that.

But I also firmly believe in the concept of State's Rights; that is, the right of each State to govern themselves without interference or setting of rules by a Federalized government. This is the type of government that our Founding Fathers had in mind in 1776, and this type of government died with the Confederacy at Appomattox on April 9, 1865.

So to answer the question: even though I don't believe a war would have taken place if slavery were taken out of the equation, if such were the case I would go with my native state, that being Virginia, and would support secession.

You see, I and others have long made the comparision between the act of secession on the part of the Southern states and the acts of the Colonists when they issued the Declaration of Independence and declared themselves separate from Britain. And there have long been people that say it's not the same thing.

But if you remove slavery from the equation, it is EXACTLY the same thing! The colonies revolted against England because they felt they were being unfairly governed by the Crown; the Southern states seceded from the Union because they felt they were being unfairly governed by the President and Congress.

I'd go with my home state and support secession.

Answer 3

Any "confederation", and even that "electoral college" decrease the potential of the "North American" country to the point that a fragment union would have been such as:

1. economic disaster
2. the weaker states, "South" subject to foreign influences
3. the South could have never competed with the ever expanding union and would have soon fallen into an agrarian country with few resources versus the economic and industrial might of the Union.
4. Once the West was settled, the South would have been assimilated in one way or another.
5. As the transcontinental railroad would soon be finished: the South would have virtually no value as even agriculture and the South would get few immigrants looking for the "American dream".

Answer 4

Slavery was the soul of the Confederacy back in the 1860's. When the states who made up the Confederacy receded from the union they did it for the main purpose of having slaves.

Therefore, if slavery hadn't been an issue you wouldn't have a choice since there would be no Confederate army or any states receded from the union.

Answer 5

As a matter of fact, I was born in Mo.

Slavery was never the issue. It was States Rights. Specifically the Right of a state to withdraw from its agreement with the Union. I would have supported it. Any agreement maybe abrogated as natural right of the involved parties. This is supported after the war in the Reclaimation Act wherein, with the exception of Texas, all States of the Confederacy were considered conquered territory. Texas was not included because it joined the Union by Treaty. To rejoin, it had to give up that right, but still retained the right to break into five states if it so desired.

Answer 6

If there had been no slavery, there would have been no issue between the North and the South - at least no issue that would have led to the Civil War. It was all about the complete and inexplicable confliction between what we were originally given to believe was self-evident - that all men were created equal - and the determination of some, for nothing but material greed, to enslave a certain faction of their fellow humans.
I am eternally glad that I did not live at that time because - not inevitably, but highly probably, I would have been indoctrinated from childhood (had i lived in the South) to accept the enslavement of those whose skins were darker than mine, as "natural, logical, and the will of God" I can't think of any concept more idiotic, irrational, ignorant, vile and aggregious, and I wouldn't have wanted to be either one of those who thought that way - or at least used those arguments to support slavery - or, on the other side, one of the southerners who rejected that argument, but helpless to do anything about it. Many southerners who were vehemently opposed to the immorality of slavery, of course, did dedicate themselves to fighting it every way they could, and paid a terrible price in terms of the toll it took on their lives and their safety. It has to be a very agonizing choice, to either sacrifice oneself fully to what one believes is a terrible injustice that must be confronted and fought against; or to simply get on with one's comfortable life, and turn a blind eye. Not having lived in that period, I thankfully will never know whether I would have been strong enough to go in the one direction - or weak and self-serving enough to go in the other. But it is certainly uncomfortable food for thought, what I might do today if an issue arose, so absolutely polarizing that it would be just about impossible to keep from coming down on one side or the other - in which a person had to be for, or against something. One direction was the more politically acceptable, but I felt was totally wrong; and the other course I believed was the one and only right, honorable, and morally valid path. The problem of the latter was that if I took that path I would be spurned and rejected by the more powerful faction of society, and although I believed that this course was vital to the long term future of humanity, I would never be around to benefit from it. Also, by taking that path, I would be destroying all hopes of a happy and comfortable passage through this life that I had in the here and now.
Many many people who lived in the time of the Civil War - and who were dealing with the issue before that war - were faced with that exact same dilemma - go with the flow, and live physically comfortable but morally conflicted inside; or give up everything and fight on the "right side" at a terrible price to themselves, their own lives and the lives of those they loved.
Perhaps, one way or another, we all are dealing with a milder form of that kind of dilemma in our own heads, but are lucky enough to never need to make that choice.

Answer 7

Nope -- part of the issue was whether a state could secede from the Union. The preservation of the Union was one of the main reasons that many supporters of slavery ended up supporting the Union.

Answer 8

Well, if I were born in a southern state, my loyalties would have probably been with my state (point of interest - Lee was against slavery, and sympathized with the Union, but chose to fight for the confederacy because he was from Virginia and wanted to protect her interests. Lincoln even offered command of the Union army to him).

But, looking at it historically, with slavery removed from the equation, I would have to choose to side with the northern states to protect the Constitution and preserve the nation.

Answer 9

I don't think it would have been an issue worth fighting over were it not for slavery.

Slavery was the spark that set off the powderkeg.

You aren't going to get young men and old to die for their state because they don't have a favorable balance of trade. Or because they suddenly can't lock in the presidential election anymore.

We would have seen a civil war in 2000 had a cultural divide and political frustration been enough to set off a war. We didn't.

Ergo, slavery was a necessary (but not the only) ingredient to start the civil war.

Answer 10

If states rights were the issue why did Jefferson Davis attempt to abolish state rights within the CSU?

Without the issue of slavery there would have been NO CIVIL WAR!!!

It has been said time and again that this generation cannot read.