Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Why secession won't work.

Threaded View

  1. #1
    Senior Member grouch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,131

    Why secession won't work.

    Too many people talk about seccession as a panacea. Had the South won during the civil war, they wouldn't have been able to make a go of it. Yes, they had a lot of land, yes there was a lot of sympathy and lastly, the citizenry was dedicated.

    What would have happened a few years down the road? First off, slavery was on it's way out because of mechanism. The cotton gin did more to abolish the basis of slavery than anything else. Less slaves could do more work but the slaves had to be educated enough to work and maintain the machines. However, it was often illegal to educate slaves lest they figure out how to escape. Secondly, while there was plenty of land, making it profitable would be difficult. The south would have continued using slaves as a work force but now there would be a highly industrialized neighbor to the north and any reciprocal agreements to return run away slaves would be voided. There would be a very positive force to inspire slaves to run away or possibly revolt. Third, that same industrial neighbor would out compete the south at every turn.

    A research paper written in Alabama circa 1980 did a historical study of what would have happened if the south won. As soon as 6 and no later than 20 years would have passed before former union states began trying to secceed and return to the U.S.A. Economic pressure as well as mounting debt would make the bad old days seem pretty good in retrospect.

    Consider, Quebec is in Canada, an English country, but is mostly French in history. Quebecois have been wanting to separate from the rest of Canada since before the American revolution. Why haven't they? Money. Let's say they get a separation bill through parliament. They will now be their own country. Fine. Except, they will have to assume their portion of the Canadian debt. They would have to form their own currency and economic system. They would no longer have free travel through Canada and no longer have the same laws they enjoy that gives them economic protections and language protection. Dual language laws would probably be repealed in both the old and new country. Quebec would go all French. Thus isolating themselves from their Canadian and American neighbors. They would then have to trade with French speaking countries. France of course but France has an attitude and may not be receptive to French Canadians since the language has drifted a bit. Then there is the economic power house of Haiti. French Guyana and a few other places that are former french colonies that may not want much to do with them.

    The south would have been in a similar state and most of the C.S.A. would rejoin the U.S.A. in a few years. Mainly due to economic factors. The U.S. economy is strong due in part to the fact that the U.S. has never defaulted on it's debts. The south was bankrupt, which was the main reason Lee had to surrender. He could no longer fight a war without resources. Yes Sherman was a brutal field commander, his march to the sea did more damage than most of the previous fighting combined. He targeted the southern economy. Just like the American submarines did in WW2. While Japanese subs attacked Allied warships, the bigger the better, Allied submarines attacked Japanese shipping. Japan had a lot of fuel oil when the war ended. It couldn't get it where it was needed because all the ships were on the bottom of the ocean. The same went for food, raw materials, soldiers and all the othe requirments of war.

    When you look at the south today, it is the result of economic growth with the northern states. The carpet baggers after the Civil war would not have happened if Lincoln hadn't been murdered. He was pushing the pendulum for an honorable peace but with his death, vindictiveness was the rule.

    Seccession would hurt the south a lot more than it would the north. Would the gulf coast have been able to rebuild as well as it has without northern help? How about the oil leak from an exploded drilling platform? Simply maintaining the Mississippi river through the south would be more than the south could afford. Mark Twain wrote once that only Uncle Sam could evfen afford the river, much less improve it.
    Last edited by grouch; 05-04-2010 at 10:07 PM. Reason: I kant spel wurth a durn.
    Honk if you love Jesus.

    Text if you want to meet him.

Similar Threads

  1. Is secession the answer?
    By Eric in forum Secession Talk
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-10-2010, 05:48 AM
  2. Secession Is In the Air
    By Eric in forum Secession Talk
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-09-2010, 05:49 AM
  3. Vermont's secession movement
    By Eric in forum What happened to our liberty?
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-01-2010, 03:34 PM
  4. A Case For Secession?
    By Eric in forum What happened to our liberty?
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-17-2009, 03:44 PM
  5. Secession and nullification
    By Eric in forum What happened to our liberty?
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-01-2009, 06:32 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •