Favorite American President?

[Perinquus]

Secondly, my idea is not punitive, and it does not grind the South into the dirt; those are adjectives you invented. The worst damage done to the southern masses would have been ideological and while undoubtably a few diehards would have fought on a small-scale insurgency doomed to failure and some more hard feelings are certainly worth preventing 100 years of black oppression.

You proposed "massive land redistribution", and you believe this would not be percieved as punitive?

[Axis Kast]

Let me begin by suggesting that while most Southerners probably did not consider themselves to be fighting to preserve the institution of slavery per se, that’s exactly what did occur.

The average yeoman farmer would have been much more concerned with the imbalance of Southern representation in federal government and the danger of unilaterally imposed tarrifs from the North than with the prospect of enforced manumission. However, neither of these problems would ever have arisen had the institution of slavery – or at least organized discrimination and dehumanization – existed, so reducing the value of a black man to three-fifths that of a white man, and leaving the South electorally disadvantaged. Put simply, had they not opted for the plantation society that could only be supported by an abundance of cheap labor, the Southerners would not have found themselves in such a bind.

We've had presidents who refused to bully other nations, the last being Carter, they have all had many problems because of it. From a pragmatic standpoint bullying should only be done when it has a realistic chance of working. TR managed to consistently do that, Lincoln opted to "bully" an opponent who most anyone at the time knew would not be cowed.

Lincoln “bullied” nobody. The first of the Southern States succeeded within days of Lincoln’s election. The man hadn’t even been inaugurated. Their original bone of contention was that this former lawyer from Illinois had won without actually having been on the ballot in any Southern state south of Kentucky. Any subsequent warnings Lincoln made in relation to states thought susceptible to succession were only to be expected under the circumstances. As President, his obligation was to preserve the Union as it had been before the rebellion.

Nationalism in that period was tied to uniting people of a common culture and heritage under one nation. The best examples of it would be German nationalism, Italian nationalism, and Slavic nationalism. The idea was that the Danes should not rule Germans (as a war was fought to prevent in Holstein) or that the Slavs should not be ruled by a German ruler (as a large independence/terrorist movement fought for). The 19th century notion of nationalism would have no effect between the CSA and Union. There were no repressed national minorities (aside from the Irish, blacks, natives, etc.) that the common folk and rulers of one country would fight to "liberate".

The history of Italian unification tells us that you have no argument. Movements intending to unify nebulous agglomerations of “peoples” supposed to possess the same cultural mores and existing on roughly contiguous frontiers did not necessarily rely on the existence of repressive forces. Italian unification as pursued by the House of Savoy was one such process. While there were Italians languishing under Austrian rule, those in Tuscany, Parma, and Lombardy were not under the boot of a foreign occupier. Rather, they did not yet lie under Piedmontese rule. Had the Confederacy achieved its independence, history actually tells us that Washington could be expected to look South with the hungry grin of an eager shark.

If you really must have a reason in the form of a coherent ideology, try collective belief in Manifest Destiny. The literature on that subject never speaks of two nations; only one.

Furthermore, had the Confederate States made good on their succession, it is quite possible that Great Britain would have milked the situation as best it could, very probably suborning Richmond, which, after the 1870s, could not have survived without copious help from a foreign power, as its slave economy would have collapsed for failure to profitably compete with the India trade. London would likely have used the South to hand diplomatic reverses to the North wherever possible, especially in Latin America, where Southerners tended to make up the bulk of the filibusters. For that reason alone those in power in the United States would have reason to dismantle the Confederacy at earliest opportunity.

As far as taking their grass. Please. The US turned annexing the whole of Mexico. The US turned down voluntary annexation of the Dominican Republic only shortly after this. Frankly the US has very rarely gone to war for territorial agrandization and never has managed to do so against a well armed and organized foe. Frankly why would the Union and the CSA be more likely to fight wars of territorial aggrandization than the USA was with Canada?

Canada was a dominion of the British crown. The Queen’s military potential was superior to that of the United States in 1860. The Union would ever look down on the Confederacy as eminently weaker, however. And before you complain that there wouldn’t have been enough Canadians to forestall an American invasion, do recall that the British fleet was mighty by comparison with the U.S. Navy throughout the nineteenth century. Even in the 1880s there were South American nations with more potent battleships than our own.

Both sides are among the most well endowed territories in the world. Exactly which raw materials would they not both have in sufficient quanity? Exactly which raw materials could they not readily acquire through trade?

People liked to say that about Russia, too. They made no bones about pilfering the property of their neighbors even so.

No, dumbass, because the CSA never was just slaves and cotton. There was extensive animal husbandry throughout the south, mineral deposits abounded, and plenty of territory which could be industrialized. Frankly the reason they had slaves and cotton was not because they lacked other options, but because it made them friggen rich, sufficiently wealthy that they could import most anything cheaper than it could be made domesticly.

Actually, given the competition posed by India, the slave economy was poised to fall in upon itself by the mid-1870s. Considering the sordid state of its manufacturing prior to that time, it would not have been able to complete the necessary economic revolution without an external source of capital (i.e. British and French).

Yeah like fifty-four forty or fight? Or the border dispute in the Aroostook valley? Or the Alaskan border dispute? The fate of the San Juan Archipeligo?

Or the fate of the Mexican government that tried to quell open rebellions in Texas?

Or the fate of the Spaniards in the Philippines.

Furthermore, you forget that there was shooting over the Aroostook. As I have already pointed out, Washington feared the British Empire. It would not have feared the Confederacy to the same degree, not with stupendously more manpower, vastly superior industry, and a greater abundance of resources.

Oklahoma goes to whomever wants it, being a net drag on whichever country is stuck with it (Oklahoma was were the US dumped natives which allegedly had treaty rights - niether population really wanted it).

Actually, the South aggressively courted what are popularly referred to as the “Five Civilized Tribes” in Oklahoma, and wooed them with promises of internal self-rule. It also invaded New Mexico and propped up a short-lived territorial government in Arizona, pending statehood at the end of the war.

Furthermore, many throughout the South furthermore favored filibusters such as William Walker, who would presumably have run afoul of Federal agendas in Latin America by agitating on behalf of Southern interests.

[HemlockGrey]

You proposed "massive land redistribution", and you believe this would not be percieved as punitive?

Land redistribution which would have solely affected the rich plantation owners. No doubt they would percieve it as punitive, and perhaps they would delude the masses into believing it so for a little while, but that doesn't make it into some scheme to "grind the South into dirt".

[tharkûn]

The history of Italian unification tells us that you have no argument. Movements intending to unify nebulous agglomerations of “peoples” supposed to possess the same cultural mores and existing on roughly contiguous frontiers did not necessarily rely on the existence of repressive forces. Italian unification as pursued by the House of Savoy was one such process. While there were Italians languishing under Austrian rule, those in Tuscany, Parma, and Lombardy were not under the boot of a foreign occupier. Rather, they did not yet lie under Piedmontese rule. Had the Confederacy achieved its independence, history actually tells us that Washington could be expected to look South with the hungry grin of an eager shark.

The Italians agitated for the return of Venetia and did in fact join the Prussians against Austria to unify Venetia with the Italian kingdom.

In any event Italian unification preceded the House of Savoy, notably Murat attempted to unify Italy under Naples and di Santarosa lead a failed revolt to the same effect. The House of Savoy were not the first nor the last to ride a popular movement to territorial aggrandization.

Frankly 19th century nationalism was inapplicable to America, both nations were immigrant nations with no clear demarcations such as "Italian, German, etc."

If you really must have a reason in the form of a coherent ideology, try collective belief in Manifest Destiny. The literature on that subject never speaks of two nations; only one.

Yet when presented with the oppurtunity to annex Mexico in total, and congressions debated exactly that, there was little support for reducing the states in North America from four to three.

Furthermore, had the Confederate States made good on their succession, it is quite possible that Great Britain would have milked the situation as best it could, very probably suborning Richmond, which, after the 1870s, could not have survived without copious help from a foreign power, as its slave economy would have collapsed for failure to profitably compete with the India trade. London would likely have used the South to hand diplomatic reverses to the North wherever possible, especially in Latin America, where Southerners tended to make up the bulk of the filibusters. For that reason alone those in power in the United States would have reason to dismantle the Confederacy at earliest opportunity.

Assuming British subbornation, why exactly would the Union agress against an alliance of the CSA and the British Empire? The dangers of dismantling the confederacy under British protection would deter Washington from attempting.

Canada was a dominion of the British crown. The Queen’s military potential was superior to that of the United States in 1860. The Union would ever look down on the Confederacy as eminently weaker, however. And before you complain that there wouldn’t have been enough Canadians to forestall an American invasion, do recall that the British fleet was mighty by comparison with the U.S. Navy throughout the nineteenth century. Even in the 1880s there were South American nations with more potent battleships than our own.

The Queen's naval potential was superior, she had no possible way of projecting a force overseas close to that mustered in the civil war (as evidenced by the limited British deployments in Crimea, South Africa, and Iberia). If the US had wanted Canada in the mid 19th century, and was willing to pay the price. Yes the British could have blockaded until the US, but the British will never be able to have enough boots on the ground to overcome the US.

Which goes to the point. Dismembering the CSA is a far more costly and bloody prospect than fighting a "limited" war for the Aroostoock, "upper Oregon", the Aroostook or simply receiving the voluntary annexation of the Domican Republic. However painful it would have been to take Canada, taking the CSA, particularly one allied with the British is going to be far greater.

People liked to say that about Russia, too. They made no bones about pilfering the property of their neighbors even so.

The point is Russia wasn't fighting for raw materials themselves, but rather outright territorial aggrandization or some other cause.

Actually, given the competition posed by India, the slave economy was poised to fall in upon itself by the mid-1870s. Considering the sordid state of its manufacturing prior to that time, it would not have been able to complete the necessary economic revolution without an external source of capital (i.e. British and French).

Yes the cotton economy will collapse, however the point was that in 1860 it was a cotton economy, BY CHOICE. Even with the limited capital availible during the war and during its limited timeframe, there was diversification of the southern economy to a small degree.

Or the fate of the Mexican government that tried to quell open rebellions in Texas?

Please, Texas was an internationally recognized state by the major powers (the US, French, British, and Dutch I know off hand). Mexico had been on the verge of recognizing Texan independence - on the condition that she not unite with the US. The Mexican American war was not a border war, but a humbling of the Mexican Republic (it also settled the long outstanding debt owed by Mexico to American citizens). The point is this wasn't a border clash that spiraled into a general war, it was a war fought over policy.

Or the fate of the Spaniards in the Philippines.

I don't recall that being a border skirmish that grew into a war.

The point is the US has minimal history of territorial aggrandization through war, and only against third-rate powers or worse. A border incident with the CSA would not escalate into general war without their being some other compelling reason for it to do so.

Furthermore, you forget that there was shooting over the Aroostook. As I have already pointed out, Washington feared the British Empire. It would not have feared the Confederacy to the same degree, not with stupendously more manpower, vastly superior industry, and a greater abundance of resources.

You yourself support the thesis that the Confederacy would support the British, I agree. Given that war with the CSA would be far more dangerous than war with the British. However much danger lies in fighting in the Aroostook, there is more in territorial aggrandization in the confederacy.

Actually, the South aggressively courted what are popularly referred to as the “Five Civilized Tribes” in Oklahoma, and wooed them with promises of internal self-rule. It also invaded New Mexico and propped up a short-lived territorial government in Arizona, pending statehood at the end of the war.

Yes I know. The point still is that Oklahoma was worthless territory as long as you were going to respect the natives, neither side would have a burning passion to keep it. New Mexico and Arizona were sparsely inhabited enough that the confederacy could try for that territory, and popularly viewed as worthless enough that the North would not fight over them.

Furthermore, many throughout the South furthermore favored filibusters such as William Walker, who would presumably have run afoul of Federal agendas in Latin America by agitating on behalf of Southern interests.

And that would demand a war why exactly? Filibusters ran afoul of many nations in the time period, for instance Ward enraged western Shanghai merchants and the Royal Navy while filibustering against the Taipings. No threat of war ever developed. I really don't see why acrimony over filibustering makes war inevitable.

[Perinquus]

You proposed "massive land redistribution", and you believe this would not be percieved as punitive?

Land redistribution which would have solely affected the rich plantation owners. No doubt they would percieve it as punitive, and perhaps they would delude the masses into believing it so for a little while, but that doesn't make it into some scheme to "grind the South into dirt".

So what if it affected rich plantation owners? Do you really imagine those same patrician plantation owners would not have done everything in their power to convince plebiean white southerners that they were next? And do you really imagine that those same plebeian white southerners would not have been convinced? Especially since they so willingly followed the leads of those aristocrats before. If southern plantation owners had actually been dispossessed of their lands -- literally had everything, their one and only means of support, their land, taken away, do you imagine for an instant that they would have sat still for that? If so, you are dreaming. Come back from fantasy land. They would have exerted every last shred of influence and power they possessed to persuade other southern whites that this was just the camel's nose under the tent. The rest of the camel would be following along shortly. Before you know it, those damn Yankees will be stealing your land to give to a bunch of uppity niggers! Why, before you know it, those damn niggers will feel so sure of themselves they'll be ogling your sisters, and daughters. And then they'll be raping white women!

Again, it doensn't matter if any of that scaremongering had any basis in reality. It doesn't matter that this hysterical picture of blacks was rooted in bigotry instead of reality. There would have been enough southern whites who would have believed it. Especially with southerners being conscious of of the whites slain in Nat Turner's revolt, and the 60,000 whites killed in the aftermath of the 1791 slave revolt in Santo Domingo (in actuality not nearly that many whites even lived in Santo Domingo in 1791, let alone were killed, but racist, scaremongering propaganda blew up the number of whites killed -- which only reinforces my point: perception counts for more than reality in things like this). It doesn't matter that southern fears of blacks were no more realistic than the German fears of the pernicious, conspiring, dirty Jews who betrayed the Fatherland in World War One were. Those fears were just as real, and just as powerful, and just as capable of leading people into violence. Fears of a slave revolt had not been insignificant in the antebellum south. It would not have taken all that much to whip these fears up. You are basing your conclusions on a realistic assessment of the facts of the day, and assuming southern whites would, on the whole, have assessed them as realistically as you are doing. I am basing my conclusions on what the poorly educated, overtly racist whites of the day would have believed, regardless of whether it was realistic or not.

And aside from that, it would have been unconstitutional. You can't simply take people's property without fair compensation. It took long enough to put the U.S. back together as it was. If they had followed your plan, the job still might not be accomplished to this day, assuming that would not have created enough ill will to prevent it from ever being accomplished.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The Confederacy's officers, politicians, and rich deserved to hang on trees from Washington to Richmond. There's no excuse for their disgusting rebellion. Fuck the South.

All Yankees must hang, and the North should be burned to the ground.

...since we're all speaking our minds without forethought today.

Its not my problem that your grandpappy was probably a fucking traitor. You're in the military, what the Confederacy did is unabashedly against constitutional law and constitutes rebellion. They were traitors.

[Civil War Man]

Frankly 19th century nationalism was inapplicable to America, both nations were immigrant nations with no clear demarcations such as "Italian, German, etc."

Well, there were those millions WASP-descended native-born Americans. They were from various lines of British immigrants, but you know what they called themselves? Americans.

As for immigrants, they were largely shunned by the native-born American sections of the population, particularly immigrants from South and Eastern Europe, as well as the Irish.

And if 19th century nationalism didn't apply to America in the 19th century, what the fuck do you think all those people were enlisting for? One of the most common reasons for enlisting in the North was to preserve the integrity of the United States of America, particularly among immigrants, who viewed the USA as their adoptive home. If that is not nationalism, what the fuck is?

Yet when presented with the oppurtunity to annex Mexico in total, and congressions debated exactly that, there was little support for reducing the states in North America from four to three.

Now how is this supposed to refute that Manifest Destiny was a commonly held belief back then? Since we didn't annex all of Mexico in one gulp, we can pretend it never existed?

Assuming British subbornation, why exactly would the Union agress against an alliance of the CSA and the British Empire? The dangers of dismantling the confederacy under British protection would deter Washington from attempting.

Not quite. The British were understandably squeemish about supporting the South because they used slave labor. One of the prerequesites of them aiding the Southern states would definitely be emancipation. And since many of the Deep South states based their entire case for secession on being able to keep their slaves, I wouldn't put it beyond many of them to tell the British to shove it.

Then, of course, there is a little document that is commonly attributed to a certain Virginian (though a Massachusetts man helped write it) called the Monroe Doctrine, which said very plainly "Hey, Europe. Stay the fuck off our continent."

If the US had wanted Canada in the mid 19th century, and was willing to pay the price.

Gee, that's funny. I seem to remember the USA making multiple attempts to take Canada and failing miserably each time. I guess the U.S. Army just lacked the will those times.

Which goes to the point. Dismembering the CSA is a far more costly and bloody prospect than fighting a "limited" war for the Aroostoock, "upper Oregon", the Aroostook or simply receiving the voluntary annexation of the Domican Republic. However painful it would have been to take Canada, taking the CSA, particularly one allied with the British is going to be far greater.

Yeah, fuck the grandkids. Peace in my day.

Yes the cotton economy will collapse, however the point was that in 1860 it was a cotton economy, BY CHOICE. Even with the limited capital availible during the war and during its limited timeframe, there was diversification of the southern economy to a small degree.

Which only came about because the North was starving them of supplies. Oh, and that England didn't give a rat's ass about the Southern plight because they found that their territories in Egypt could produce just as good a cotton without using slaves to get it.

Please, Texas was an internationally recognized state by the major powers (the US, French, British, and Dutch I know off hand). Mexico had been on the verge of recognizing Texan independence - on the condition that she not unite with the US. The Mexican American war was not a border war, but a humbling of the Mexican Republic (it also settled the long outstanding debt owed by Mexico to American citizens). The point is this wasn't a border clash that spiraled into a general war, it was a war fought over policy.

A policy that just happened to be historically linked to a border dispute that took place the previous decade.

I don't recall that being a border skirmish that grew into a war.

It wasn't, really. It was TR overstepping his authority as Assistant Secretary of the Navy and ordering Dewey to take the Philippines because frankly he felt that only taking Cuba wasn't expansionist enough. But hey, that's not aggression, it's only underhanded opportunism.

The point is the US has minimal history of territorial aggrandization through war, and only against third-rate powers or worse.

Which isn't much of a testament to the glory of the US of A. "Look at us, we like to push around countries that are smaller than us."

A border incident with the CSA would not escalate into general war without their being some other compelling reason for it to do so.

Compelling reason, huh? You mean like a deep-seated resentment towards the other side due to the nature and circumstances of the split? It certainly wouldn't have been the first, nor the last, war fought purely out of spite.

Yes I know. The point still is that Oklahoma was worthless territory as long as you were going to respect the natives, neither side would have a burning passion to keep it. New Mexico and Arizona were sparsely inhabited enough that the confederacy could try for that territory, and popularly viewed as worthless enough that the North would not fight over them.

Of course, land in areas like, oh, say, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Korea were considered to be not worth the US's attention until teh ev1l c0mmeez started courting them.

[tharkûn]

Well, there were those millions WASP-descended native-born Americans. They were from various lines of British immigrants, but you know what they called themselves? Americans.

Sure but the point is good old 19th century nationalism is inapplicable. The copperheads came ridiciously close to winning even as the South was getting curb stomped. With better retention of the upper south the copperheads would be the MAJORITY.

One of the most common reasons for enlisting in the North was to preserve the integrity of the United States of America, particularly among immigrants, who viewed the USA as their adoptive home.

As we all know immigrant populations were well represented in the national legislature and presidency, being able to direct the course of the nation during the 19th century

Now how is this supposed to refute that Manifest Destiny was a commonly held belief back then? Since we didn't annex all of Mexico in one gulp, we can pretend it never existed?

What did manifest destiny entail? That the Americans had a God given right to stretch from Atlantic to Pacific. Why is manifest destiny, which allowed the Russians to stay in Alaska, the British in Canada, and the Mexicans in territory that is American today so opposed to the CSA? Hell two of the three opposed the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine and during the civil war the third was a European playground.

Gee, that's funny. I seem to remember the USA making multiple attempts to take Canada and failing miserably each time. I guess the U.S. Army just lacked the will those times.

Heavy artillery and supply lines actually. The US Army in 1860 is a far superior beast to the US Army in 1812.

Which only came about because the North was starving them of supplies. Oh, and that England didn't give a rat's ass about the Southern plight because they found that their territories in Egypt could produce just as good a cotton without using slaves to get it.

You don't think Gladstone would have reached an accomodation with the CSA? Nor that having a client state in the Americas would be useful? Hell look at the efforts the French put into Mexico. If the CSA manages to become a recognized nation it will be enveloped into the machinations of the great powers.

A policy that just happened to be historically linked to a border dispute that took place the previous decade.

No it had to do with the Mexicans not recognizing Texan independence as Santa Anna was a prisoner in Texan custody when he signed the treaty. When Slidell went to Mexico City to settle the alleged border dispute the Mexican government rebuffed even receiving him as they still maintained their claim to Texas in whole.

You mean like a deep-seated resentment towards the other side due to the nature and circumstances of the split? It certainly wouldn't have been the first, nor the last, war fought purely out of spite.

Oh yes the odds that a war will be fought out of spite completely obliterate the need to look at the most bloody conflict ever to occur in American history.

Of course, land in areas like, oh, say, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Korea were considered to be not worth the US's attention until teh ev1l c0mmeez started courting them.

20th century superpower politics are not applicable to 19th century great power politics. There was no domino theory, all the states in the world were great powers, were within the sphere of a great power, or isolated and not of major note. The 19th century was perhaps the least war prone period in human history.

[jegs2]

Its not my problem that your grandpappy was probably a fucking traitor. You're in the military, what the Confederacy did is unabashedly against constitutional law and constitutes rebellion. They were traitors.

As were the founding fathers of the US. Should they also have been hanged for treason against the their rightful British rulers?