1860 Presidential Election

[SPC]

If expansionism was essential for the survival of slavery (as I do concur that it was), then would not the whole Confederate project be doomed from the outset, lacking the access to new territory that came with leaving the Union?

First off, an independent Confederacy would have been free to filibuster in Mexico and Central America for new territory.  The4y might have been able to get Cuba, and northern Mexico was certainly obtainable.

But more importantly, the faster growth of the North compared to the South is what would have doomed slavery had the South remained in the Union.  But an independent Confederacy would have been much more stable with respect to slavery since the sectional pressures wouldn't have applied.  Slavery in an independent South would likely have lasted until at least when Brazil abolished it in 1889 and I could easily see it lasting until at least The Great War, assuming that the USA and CSA ended up fighting each other in it.

Given that the Confederate economy was vastly weaker than that of the United States (as evidenced by the outcome of the Civil War in spite of having better generals), I would think that even expansionism into Mexico and Cuba would be more difficult than that encountered by the IRL United States circa 1898. Unfortunately, slavery would likely have continued for a substantial period of time past 1865, but the fact that the Confederacy would undoubtedly remain an international pariah for doing so even with its most amicable international partners, in addition to the geographic limitations of plantation farming would have doomed the practice in due course.

In any event, one does not make these choices in a vacuum. While chattel slavery is an incontrovertible evil, was the death of 600,000 Americans, the impoverishment of many more, and the fundamental alteration of the American system of government that came as a result the appropriate price to pay for an expedited abolition to the practice? While I do expect to be slandered as a racist for merely asking such a question, surely any reasonable person would have such a point at which mass death outweighs Southern chattel slavery in their subjective scale of evil. Would extermination of the entire human race be an appropriate price to pay to ensure the freedom of Southern slaves?

Lincoln then, Lincoln now.

I must say that I find it incredible that out of the many libertarian critiques of Lincoln's handling of the Civil War I've seen on here almost none of them mention the extremely classist draft that was implemented.  To my mind that seems about the only real moral failing of the Union North, though the Confederate South obviously did the same thing with a lot more horrendous side flavors to choose from.  Rather, we hear about "those poor northern newspaper owners!" and how the protectionist trade policy of the North was "just too mean for producers man!"

My omission of the draft in listing my opposition to Lincoln was not intended to signal agreement with that policy; I did not intend to make an exhaustive list of every policy implemented by Lincoln that I disagree with. Rather, public opposition to forced labor seems to substantially diminish when the laborers must don a military uniform, and the imposition of a military draft is contradictory in spirit to the commission of a crusade to abolish involuntary servitude.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And your outright dismissal of concern for the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights on the basis that publishers are not working class does not illustrate prejudice? In any event, are you seriously criticizing my argument for an accidental omission of one of the faults of the Lincoln regime, rather than on the substance of what was mentioned? Are you next going to criticize me for failing to mention the Union Army's horrific conduct toward the Indians? (or do their civil liberties not count either, because they are not blacks or working-class Irish?)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I did not mention protectionism in my critique, although that is another of Lincoln's faults in my view. I failed to mention it because I concede that seven of the Confederate states did secede in order to protect their "peculiar institution." Lincoln did cite the collection of federal taxes as a reason for invading the South, but that seems more a proximal cause rather than an ultimate cause, hence why I did not bother to cite it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Given that the Confederate economy was vastly weaker than that of the United States (as evidenced by the outcome of the Civil War in spite of having better generals), I would think that even expansionism into Mexico and Cuba would be more difficult than that encountered by the IRL United States circa 1898. Unfortunately, slavery would likely have continued for a substantial period of time past 1865, but the fact that the Confederacy would undoubtedly remain an international pariah for doing so even with its most amicable international partners, in addition to the geographic limitations of plantation farming would have doomed the practice in due course.

While plantation farming was the most common use for slave labor in the Americas, it was far from the only use.  Nor was the Southern economy weak, rather it was non-industrial.  So long as there was no blockade (and the idea that Mexico could blockade the Confederacy is very fanciful), the South would have been able to obtain its arms on the world market.

[SPC]

Given that the Confederate economy was vastly weaker than that of the United States (as evidenced by the outcome of the Civil War in spite of having better generals), I would think that even expansionism into Mexico and Cuba would be more difficult than that encountered by the IRL United States circa 1898. Unfortunately, slavery would likely have continued for a substantial period of time past 1865, but the fact that the Confederacy would undoubtedly remain an international pariah for doing so even with its most amicable international partners, in addition to the geographic limitations of plantation farming would have doomed the practice in due course.

While plantation farming was the most common use for slave labor in the Americas, it was far from the only use.  Nor was the Southern economy weak, rather it was non-industrial.  So long as there was no blockade (and the idea that Mexico could blockade the Confederacy is very fanciful), the South would have been able to obtain its arms on the world market.

Is your reasoning that Britain and France would have been less reluctant to supply arms to a nation still practicing slavery if the United States was not at war with it?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Given that the Confederate economy was vastly weaker than that of the United States (as evidenced by the outcome of the Civil War in spite of having better generals), I would think that even expansionism into Mexico and Cuba would be more difficult than that encountered by the IRL United States circa 1898. Unfortunately, slavery would likely have continued for a substantial period of time past 1865, but the fact that the Confederacy would undoubtedly remain an international pariah for doing so even with its most amicable international partners, in addition to the geographic limitations of plantation farming would have doomed the practice in due course.

While plantation farming was the most common use for slave labor in the Americas, it was far from the only use.  Nor was the Southern economy weak, rather it was non-industrial.  So long as there was no blockade (and the idea that Mexico could blockade the Confederacy is very fanciful), the South would have been able to obtain its arms on the world market.

Is your reasoning that Britain and France would have been less reluctant to supply arms to a nation still practicing slavery if the United States was not at war with it?

Yes.  They certainly had no compunctions about selling stuff to the USA or to Brazil while they were countries slavery was present,  For that matter, they were quite willing to sell to the CSA, but were unwilling to do anything about the blockade between two belligerent powers.

[bore]

Given that the Confederate economy was vastly weaker than that of the United States (as evidenced by the outcome of the Civil War in spite of having better generals), I would think that even expansionism into Mexico and Cuba would be more difficult than that encountered by the IRL United States circa 1898. Unfortunately, slavery would likely have continued for a substantial period of time past 1865, but the fact that the Confederacy would undoubtedly remain an international pariah for doing so even with its most amicable international partners, in addition to the geographic limitations of plantation farming would have doomed the practice in due course.

It's far from clear that the Confederacy had the better generals. Sure some northern generals where woeful, but so were some northern ones. It's not difficult to make the case that Grant was the best general of the war.

It's borderline relevant, so I'm going to plug my essay on the subject.

[nolesfan2011]

I previously thought Douglas would be the best option here, but looking at the election again, it appears that Bell may be preferable.

Bell

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Lincoln then, Lincoln now, Lincoln forever.