Was War Necessary After Secession?

[thea_447]

Ed,
I looked through these replies and your comments posted on Thursday, December 12, 2002 - 07:41 pm, I believe, almost answer your own question.

In the end, Lincoln set up Ft. Sumter with his warships, etc. and waited for the hot-heads of the South to "start" the war.

I,in my heart, believe that the South wanted to leave the Union in peace. They had no desire to overthrow the Union, just to get out of it. Davis sent envoys that were rejected by Lincoln.

I absolutely do not believe, as Connie Boone stated, that slavery would have continued into the 20th century. I absolutely believe that the tariff situation would have continued to bleed the South dry as the Northern industries required their railroads, etc. and certainly didn't want to pay for it themselves.

What would have happened if the South had been allowed to go in peace is anybody's guess. Personally I think within 5-10 years the two nations would have formed some sort of compromise that would have allowed them to work side by side, but NEVER as a united nation again.

It's horrific hindsight to think of all those lost lives when all that was required was to allow the South to leave the Union.

I do not believe that the Union went to war to free the slaves. This thought came to Lincoln when he needed more bodies on the front lines.

One thing is certain: we are a united nation in name only. Reconstruction of the South killed any hope of unanimity once and for all.

[unionblue]

Thea,

In all reality, slavery DID continue into the 20th century, in a reduced form, by way of segregation, Jim Crow laws, separate water fountains and bathrooms, lynchings, etc.

The 1960's Civil Rights struggle are proof enough for me that in no way would the South get rid of slavery on its own or if it had somehow won the Civil War. If such an attitude toward blacks and their place in society was present in the 60's with the South having lost the war, how much more worse would it have been for blacks if the South had won?

You also know my feelings on the idea that Lincoln 'set-up' the South to fire first at Sumter. Both sides were looking for excuses and both sides seemed to have smart enough counsel to know the consequences of their actions if they fired first, the South included.

Now, my anybody's guess is that in 10 - 15 years, the South would be in a state of perpetual warfare, with the North and amongst itself, with one State bickering with another, even to the point of armed conflict with one another.

I believe many in the South wanted to leave the Union in peace, but knew the chance of that happening was small to none. Or why buy guns before the act and prepare for war? And the South had been told time and time again that peaceful separation was far from likely. The leaders of secession took a chance and lost, much to the woe of the entire nation.

We are a nation, not just in name only, but in our hearts and minds. Reconstruction of the South did not kill the chance of unanimity for the nation. The inability of those to separate from the past and accept change are the ones who held the country back until the 1960's and beyond.

Hope you are feeling well.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[tamaroa]

OUCH!! Neil! For the first time ever, I absolutely totally irrefutably disagree with your statement of October 15, 2003.

Please, please, please read C. Vann Woodward's The Strange Career of Jim Crow. I can assure you having lived in both the north and the south, that the north has nothing to hold its head up about relative to race relations. I spent 7 or 8 years living in SW Virginia. Never once did I see racism or bigotry down there as bad as I see it here on a daily basis.

Reading Woodward was an eye-opening experience for me. The nation as a WHOLE has much to be ashamed about relative to its treatment of the Black. Both the north and the south, the conservative, liberal and populist did anything they could to either disenfranchise the Black or to woo him depending on the era.

After I read that book, I started reading more about Dubois as well as his book The Souls of Black Folk. Northerners and southerners alike should be excoriated for their treatment of the Black man. I believe in all my heart that slavery was on its way out and just needed a push. I think the conflict was inevitable, but it was inevitable for political reasons as well as slavery.

A little off topic but to aim toward your favorite subject, I am reading a really good book about Jefferson Davis now. "Jefferson Davis, American is the title. When Davis was a fledgling politician in the 1840's he was an elector from Mississippi. He campaigned through the state for the Democratic party and one of the topics he hit the most upon was the Tariff. He was afraid the tariff would drag the south down to its knees. He was eventually elected to a term in the House.

The war settled nothing. Goals change, Lincoln wanted to save the Union, he was losing, he injected slavery into the equation, now there was a morale reason for the war, but guess what, there were no plans for what to do with the free Negro!! When the war was over, the North who wound up fighting to free the slave wanted to keep the freed black in the south on his former master's farm paid a wage by his former master. That didn't work out and Blacks started to migrate north. They went to places like Chicago and New York. They were willing to work for less money than the white Irish or German factory worker causing friction in the North.

You know what's funny. I just thought of this, Its kind of analogous to our situation in Iraq. The democrats are whining that the Bush does not have a strategy for what to do after the the war was fought.
Well the Republicans did not have a strategy for what to do after they won the war. As a result people are still p.o.ed to this day. A little simplistic I admit but you know where I'm coming from.

TTFN

Bill

[johan_steele]

I'll have to disagree w/ you Bill. Having lived both in the North (actually the upper midwest) and the South. I have never seen racism as in SC or Mississippi. Ironically, some of the worst racism I have seen has been from the black population towards the Asian.

Yes the US has a lot to be ashamed of, we did bad things... but we also did some pretty ****ed good things. I firmly believe that if the Union had failed to subdue the CSA Slavery would exist yet today there. The attitudes haven't changed all that much in places.

As to President Bush's exit strategy for the War in Iraq... I wouldn't trust the media to tie it's own shoes w/out somehow blaming President Bush for trying to trip them. The Democrats... are still the party of the Copperhead movement.

All of the America haters are dieing in Iraq instead of in Newark or Minneapolis. THe war is being fought there and won there if anyone would bother to check w/ the people who are actually over there doing the fighting.

Lincoln wasn't given a chance at an exit strategy... a pathetic actor and pro confederate who lacked the courage to fight on the field of battle was quite adept at murdering a president. The South as a whole paid dearly for his actions. Men less likely to believe in reconcilliation or forgiveness than Lincoln took control of the administration.

As to who would have started the war... as I've said before, if not Ft Sumter then Kentucky, Texas or perhaps East TN.

[tamaroa]

Shane,

Want to see racism, work and live in NYC!! I've been here through many riots including King's assassination, Crown Heights Riots where ****ins did nothing to stop the tensions, etc. It took something like 9/11 for people to start pulling together. Even now, I still hear and see people disparaging one another. In all my years in Virginia, I never saw what I have seen up here. And there is no way in my opinion that slavery would have gone into the 20th century. Russia freed the serfs in 1861, Brazil freed their slaves in the 1880's. Do you really think that we are so much less enlightened then those two countries? The conscience of the country was beginning to awaken before the war even started. It is impossible for me to believe that there would still be slavery in the 20th century.

I'll tell you the same thing I suggested to Neil, read The Strange Career of Jim Crow. Then read some of Dubois. You will see that the southerner did not have a monopoly of racism especially after the war.

Regards,

Bill

[johan_steele]

My experiances have shown me that Virgina is NOT SC or the rest of the deep south. Racism isn't exactly a new thing nor reserved to the US.

Slavery was an integral part of the economy in the South. Almost every civic leader, politician and even many of the clergy owned slaves. With an average value of $600 per slave and many owning several hundered, slavery was an immense investment. What would replace slavery? The cotton gin and other mechanical advancements only made slavery run agriculture more efficient and profitable.

As to whether slavery would have survived into the 20th Century? I don't really see why it wouldn't have w/out the Civil War. There were no real economic incentives and certainly the social incentives were reacted to by Secession. Even when the CSA was lost and all knew it the Confedferate govt balked at arming black men. If desperate needs for men couldn't get the Confederacy to free slaves than I can think of little else that would. (Arm a man & he is no longer a slave.

I admit I have only visited NYC... didn't care for the experiance. NYC is not representative of the rest of the country; no matter what New Yorkers might say.

My opinion on how to deal w/ riots... is rather brutal. But then again I was influenced on that point by a man who had spent 15 years in the Soviet Army and grown up in the Soviet Union. Attempting to reform criminals is folly, remove them from society... permenantly if neccessary is the way to go about it.

Of coarse I have similar views on Treason as well, I don't think I would have been too popular w/ the secesh population in 1865.

[unionblue]

Bill,

Good to hear from you again, my old and dear friend. As to your statement that you totally disagree with my statement of Oct. 15, I do not disagree with your follow-up of Oct. 16, 2003 - 05:43pm.

I agree totally with you the North, just as much as the South, have as much to blame towards having bad attitudes and practices towards blacks, in the 1860's, 1960's and today as well. I have no doubt in your claim that you will see LESS racism in the South than you will at present in the North. Stupidity is not confined to a geographic part of this nation.

I will go to the library ( I promise on my Yankee soul and my General Sherman/Lincoln shrine in my den) and check out the book you suggest, The Strange Career of Jim Crow, by C. Vann Woodward. Honest.

But I, for the present, (as I have been known on this board to step on my foot every once in a while) will maintain that if the South had won the war, slavery would have been around for a long, LONG time.

The idea that such a profitable and successful institution would be voluntarily retired by the men who made money off of it is simply impossible for me to believe at this time. Even with the advent of automation, I feel that custom and habit would have tied blacks to those jobs deemed as too low on the work scale to be done by whites. And the South was all about preserving its culture and way of life, was it not?

But I will get back with you Bill, as soon as I have read the book you suggest, but I have one for you when you get the chance, Time On The Cross, The Economics of American Negro Slavery, by Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman. I would love to hear your views on this one when you get the chance.

Take care and until next time,
Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on October 16, 2003)

[thea_447]

For what it's worth, I still stand by my original statement. And, at Bill's suggestion, I long ago bought and read The Strange Career of Jim Crow.

[unionblue]

Thea,

Until I check out the book Bill recommends, what are your thoughts on the book and your conclusions? I would like to know how you view the book and maybe you could give a brief summary in your own words on its subject matter.

Thanks,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Friends,

I offer a part of a speech by one who would surely know if the South would have continued the institution of slavery after the war.

"Slavery, like all other great systems of wrong, founded in the depths of human selfishness, and existing for ages, has not neglected its own conservation. It has steadily exerted an influence upon all around it favorable to its own continuance. And today it is so strong that it could exist, not only without law, but even against the law. Custom, manners, morals, religion, are all on its side everywhere in the South; and when you add the ignorance and servility of the ex-slave to the intelligence and accustomed authority of the master, you have the conditions, not out of which slavery will again grow, but under which it is impossible for the Federal government to wholly destroy it, unless the Federal government be armed with despotic power, to blot out State authority, and to station a Federal officer at every cross-road. This, of course, cannot be done, and ought not even if it could. The true way and easiest way is to make our government entirely consistent with itself, and give to every loyal citizen the elective franchise, --a right and power which will be ever present, and will form a wall of fire for his protection."

December, 1866, by Frederick Douglass.

You can read the entire speech here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/f...ck/douglas.htm

What do you think of Douglass's view on the subject?

Unionblue