No one said it wasn't fair. The politicians would have barely killed the deal out of other idiotic concerns.

Keep spreading that lie, maybe it will become true by repeating it more.

You are arguing against things that I haven't come close to advocating it. Supporting a slave revolt is a totally justifiable position. Although it might not be the smartest.

I didn't know a person could work on land for more than their lifetime, but cool story bro.

The $6 Billion it's going to have to include a lot of indirect costs, including CSA expenses and destruction in the South.

The end result of the economic discussion will likely be that even in the worst case scenario (which the Civil War ended up being) it was still cheaper to go to war than to go with paid emancipation, from the perspectives of abolitionists and slaves versus slaveholders, let alone the ex ante considerations.

But this is pretty secondary to the insanity being defended.

Maybe you should take that complaint up with the guy who wrote these posts:

Your assumptions are incorrect.

$2.3B in expenditures for the North.
Add another $3.3B in pensions for soldiers (just Union).

$5.6B in union monetary costs, not even accounting for deaths and injuries to soldiers.

Neither of these posts say what you claim.

Interesting. I'd heard $6 Billion as a total figure before, but I didn't check. Feel free to provide a citation. Note that even in this case, it's not clear that war was the more expensive solution, especially ex ante, as you seem to think is obvious.

As far as what you're posts say, we can all read them. As I said before, you're free to repudiate them, but you've chosen not to.

People didn't have jobs, money, homes, and food in the 30's.

Would they have been better off enslaved, beaten and humiliated, their women and daughters and sons raped at will? Is that what you're saying?

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/us20.cfm

In B4 Confederate propaganda!

Well, that chart was very well documented...also note that I edited that post to remark "even in this case, it's not clear that war was the more expensive solution, especially ex ante, as you seem to think is obvious."

Edited to add: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/ransom.civil.war.us arrives at some difficult figures, and includes actual citations.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the money and blood of non-slaveowners. It is the slaveowners just compensation and natural manure (BS).

btw, TC, the "state" did not create slavery. Private actors brought slavery to American soil. Slavery was prevalent in America long before 1789 and the legal framework to support it, when state governance of the colonies here was very weak (British or otherwise). It looks like the first slaves arrived in SC in 1526, and Natives were enslaved as well.

None of this was legal under state or colonial law at the time.

And lol the state created slavery. Why do you think Southern plantation owners wanted to revolt from England in 1776 in the first place? Do you really think immensely rich plantation owners really cared that much about tax stamps and tea? Do you really think that is was all about "taxation without representation", especially for immensely wealthy Southern plantation owners, including Washington, Jefferson and Madison? Somersett's Case

Not only that, but in a war that did not include ending slavery as a war aim.

This is quite like saying that the US was attacked by the Mexicans at the start of the Mexican-American War. It is technically true but loltastic. Lincoln was trying to maneuver the South into firing the first shot and would have for certain still fought the war even if they had refused to oblige him.

But I guess none of that should be surprising from someone who thinks that the US fought WWII as a reaction to the Holocaust.

FWIW this is pretty close to my view. If Lincoln was actually primarily concerned about ending slavery then the approach he should have taken was to allow the South to secede, stop enforcing the FSA and make it legal/provide support for radical abolitionists to wage a sort of militant underground railroad to end slavery.

And of course, nobody in power was particularly interested in ending slavery for the sake of ending slavery. The northern capitalists believed they could exploit workers more efficiently through the wage system, while the southern capitalists believed they could exploit workers more efficiently through the slavery system. As so eloquently argued in Cannibals All. The very last thing that any of them wanted was to have a black ex-slave state, like Haiti, on the mainland. That's why the Civil War "had" to be fought.

FYP.

The CSA was first to conscript soldiers to defend slavery in 1862. The Union followed a year later.

And:

So, if the CSA never conscripts, they are never able to defend slavery, and there is no war.

Ah yes, no possible way this is considered an act of war by South Carolina. It's far more peaceful than trying to hold onto federal property!

I certainly wasn't arguing that the CSA was acting in a morally acceptable fashion.

lol of course it is an act of war. What makes you think I was saying otherwise?

As a side note, it's so crazy when you're reading a thread and Wookie breaks out the broom for some housecleaning and sweeps stuff around. It was blowing my mind trying to figure out what the hell was going on. I was reading, had a bunch of pages left, and then, bam, end of thread. I clicked here and there, closed 2+2, rebooted, blah blah lol.

I guess it's just like when someone breaks out the broom or vacuum cleaner when you're in the same room and trying to read or something. Hella confusing.

And searching a thread for various words seems to be difficult to impossible after a thread merge/topic sweep, unless I'm doing it wrong.

And after he did all that the south would have attacked the north...

This, essentially:

It sounded to me like you were scolding Lincoln for dancing around war but then encouraging him to actually promote war.

No, Lincoln tricked the Southerners. He was a crafty one.

No. I was making fun of Fly for saying that it is historically significant that the South fired the first shot. At that point given the attitudes of both sides war was completely inevitable and Lincoln was simply trying to goad the South into firing the first shot for propaganda purposes.