Why did the North fight the civil war?

[BobTheCoward]

The Confederate states were seen as traitors who attacked first and who were trying to destroy the union. You can read such sentiments in letters from Northern soldiers around the start of the war.

Is there a more fitting punishment for traitors than to be forever severed from the​ tree of liberty that is the union?

 

[Belz...]

But a bunch of slave owning Southerners feel like the Union's appendix to me. The body as a whole is better with them excised.

29% of the population in the seceding states isn't exactly appendix-level.

Is there a more fitting punishment for traitors than to be forever severed from the​ tree of liberty that is the union?

You've already been given plenty of reasons why they didn't want to just let them leave.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Internally, there is no longer a Union as any state can throw a tantrum and leave.

This might be my sticking point as this concept of union I have trouble understanding. Why do you want states to be part of the union when they lack the positive qualities of loyalty and fortitude? By wanting to leave, they are clearly a bunch of dead weight holding us back, and we are better without them.

 

[TraneWreck]

This might be my sticking point as this concept of union I have trouble understanding. Why do you want states to be part of the union when they lack the positive qualities of loyalty and fortitude? By wanting to leave, they are clearly a bunch of dead weight holding us back, and we are better without them.

Because there is no "us."

This is why we only spent 10 years as a Confederacy. It failed, so we created a Constitution. Allowing states to secede would mean going back to a system that already failed.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Because there is no "us."

This is why we only spent 10 years as a Confederacy. It failed, so we created a Constitution. Allowing states to secede would mean going back to a system that already failed.

Wouldn't even just two states left in the union, be the union, with a stronger bond?

I am talking US Constitution and full federalism, but with the dead weight permitted to leave. That is different from the confederation.

 

[Spindrift]

Wouldn't even just two states left in the union, be the union, with a stronger bond?

I am talking US Constitution and full federalism, but with the dead weight permitted to leave. That is different from the confederation.

Show that the south was 'dead weight'.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Show that the south was 'dead weight'.

They wanted out. If you are not in this with me, you are holding me back.

 

[Spindrift]

They wanted out. If you are not in this with me, you are holding me back.

Wanting out doesn't make the south dead weight. Lots of valuable crops are produced there.

Why should the US give up the land just because some of the people who live there are disgruntled?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Wanting out doesn't make the south dead weight. Lots of valuable crops are produced there.

Why should the US give up the land just because some of the people who live there are disgruntled?

To strengthen the union by honing it down to the loyal cohort.

 

[Belz...]

To strengthen the union by honing it down to the loyal cohort.

Yes, you've said that over and over. We understand your point. OUR point is that there were OTHER considerations.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yes, you've said that over and over. We understand your point. OUR point is that there were OTHER considerations.

And as someone who has no idea why the union got bigger rather than smaller, I'm asking what about the human condition made those more powerful considerations.

 

[Spindrift]

To strengthen the union by honing it down to the loyal cohort.

Why would breaking up the union, strengthen it? The North would lose a major source of raw materials and a market for their goods.

ETA: And when does the honing it down stop? One country for every 3 or 4 people?

 

[Belz...]

And as someone who has no idea why the union got bigger rather than smaller, I'm asking what about the human condition made those more powerful considerations.

...what?

 

[BobTheCoward]

...what?

I obviously know your views won out. I'm asking why people have those views on what is valuable and why they won out.

 

[TraneWreck]

Wouldn't even just two states left in the union, be the union, with a stronger bond?

You would have strong bonds and what, exactly?

If you were starting from scratch in the 21st century, could that model generate a fairly quality standard of living? Depending on where you are, probably.

Was that sort of arrangement at all plausible or desirable to the people of mid-19th century America? Obviously not.

I'm confused at what you're trying to say. As a matter of history, you have been given your answers. Because you don't agree with the decisions of people in the 1860's does not change what those decisions were and what drove them.

If you want to make an argument that tiny states are cool, go ahead and do it, but that has little bearing on the question you asked.

I am talking US Constitution and full federalism, but with the dead weight permitted to leave. That is different from the confederation.

Functionally it isn't. If you're permitted to leave, the federal government can't function.

It barely works for the EU, and that entity is more like a confederacy than our federal government.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You would have strong bonds and what, exactly?

If you were starting from scratch in the 21st century, could that model generate a fairly quality standard of living? Depending on where you are, probably.

Was that sort of arrangement at all plausible or desirable to the people of mid-19th century America? Obviously not.

I'm confused at what you're trying to say. As a matter of history, you have been given your answers. Because you don't agree with the decisions of people in the 1860's does not change what those decisions were and what drove them.

If you want to make an argument that tiny states are cool, go ahead and do it, but that has little bearing on the question you asked.



Functionally it isn't. If you're permitted to leave, the federal government can't function.

It barely works for the EU, and that entity is more like a confederacy than our federal government.

I'm not saying I disagree with the decisions people made. I'm asking why they valued the the things that led them to make those decisions.

 

[TraneWreck]

I'm not saying I disagree with the decisions people made. I'm asking why they valued the the things that led them to make those decisions.

And this seems like it's been answered 20x by various posters.

What would you accept as a satisfactory response?

 

[Belz...]

I obviously know your views won out.

My views? I think you have me confused with someone else.

I'm asking why people have those views on what is valuable and why they won out.

That's been explained already.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I'm not saying I disagree with the decisions people made. I'm asking why they valued the the things that led them to make those decisions.

They liked wearing cotton clothing. They can't grow cotton in New York. They liked eating peaches. They can't grow peaches in New York. They liked other things that were produced in the south that they could not produce locally.

Those values seem a bit quaint now that we have relatively easy cross border trade, but in their time it was important to have a country large enough to be largely self sufficient. Especially if your major trading partners were across the Atlantic, not across the English channel.

They just didn't like competing with slave owners. I think TraneWreck gives the north a bit more credit than I would with regard to wanting to abolish slavery. It wasn't the moral outrage that won the day, it was the unfair competition. They had to pay the Irish and other working classes up north, but the south was getting free labor and it tipped the tables unfairly. In many ways.

 

[BobTheCoward]

And this seems like it's been answered 20x by various posters.

What would you accept as a satisfactory response?

It has not actually been explained. So, they were concerned about competition expanding west. Why do they want to expand west? Why do they value that?