Was War Necessary After Secession?

[tamaroa]

1866 perhaps there might be a smidgin of truth. But a lot of what everybody is saying on this board is based solely on one precept: that southerners are inherently an evil people without the willingness to learn and change.

That I think is doing them a great disservice. We saw southerner's attitudes already changing then. All my life, I have been taught that slavery was dying out anyway. There was an increase in guilt by southerners resulting in increased manumission. There are numerous quotes from Robert E. Lee on down indicating that slavery was not a just or moral institution. In addition in northern schools, I went to Admiral Farragut Academy, named after a UNION war hero, I was taught that slavery's existence depended on a one crop economy and that farming methods were changing resulting in a change where multiple crops were grown on the same farm relative to the type of nutrients that the crops both deposited and withdrew from the soil. These factors combined to reduce the need/desire for slavery.

Now how could the current crop of revisionists take these same facts and twist them into a perverted theory that if there had been no war or if the south won, there would still be slavery today? I am going to Barnes And Nobles today Neil and order the book you suggested.
As of this moment, I don't believe for a minute that slavery would have survived into the 20th century. We (southerners included) are too enlightened a people to allow that to happen. Look where slavery is today around the world and compare those country's values and mores to ours. :-)

Humpf!!!

TTFN

Bill

[eopfrank]

Bill,
you are right. Slavery wouldn't have lasted much longer than it did in this country. Who ever thinks that it would have gone into the twentieth century is living in a dream world. If the war was never fought, it would have died within twenty years... ( probably even regardless if slavery expanded west). Lincoln just wanted to get the ball rolling quicker rather than later- which is why he wanted to the west to be of without slavery. It would have eventually died in the states where it already existed. But the Southern leaders, as Lincoln said, would rather make war than let the nation live. It was all about politics- which is why the war had to be fought and which is why the South could never have won(because even though it was about states' rights to choose the legality of such personal property, their cause was not as just as the North's was for victory).

-Frank

[unionblue]

Bill & Frank,

Count me in on that dream world, Frank, but I do think I have a few facts that permit that dream to endure a bit. Bill, I do not go with the idea that 1 percent of Southerners were evil. I suggest mainly that they had a way of life that made them money and a good living and was not considered evil or illegal, in their own opinions, so why should they change?

The idea that slavery was on its last legs, on its way out, would not survive, etc., has recently been countered, in my view, by the facts presented by the book Time on the Cross. The book first hit the market in the 1970's and further information supporting its conclusions come out again in the 1980's. While true the traditional view that many of us held about slavery being on its last legs in the middle 19th century is still around, it is being challenged by new information and statistics on the institution of slavery.

Research is fun, isn't it?

Unionblue

[tamaroa]

Neil, the book came in the mail yesterday. I jumped it ahead of several others but have to finish "Jefferson Davis, American" and also "Shut up and Sing" by Laura Ingraham first. I'm about half way through both of them. I browsed through "Time on The Cross" quickly". I will try to read it with an unbiased mind, but I already don't like the fact that it appears to be strictly based on mathematics and economics. As we all know emotion, pyschology, guilt all play a role in a country's affairs. For them not to consider that in the equation is wrong.

Since I just skimmed it and now have to go back and read it in detail, I cannot fully comment on it, but in the beginning they mention 10 factors that indicate slavery was still profitable on the eve of the Civil War, etc. That I have no arguement with. What bothers me is that these guys APPEAR not to take the human element into account. Their economic and mathematical theories about the viability of slavery cannot and do not take into account the fact that their was an awakening in the South of the innate wrongness of slavery and that a social conscience of its evil nature was beginning to emerge. Left alone, I believe that slavery would have ended maybe a decade or two later. But one thing is certain, I am always confused about the underlying motives of our 19th century predecessors. Why would we go to war and kill 620k of our own countrymen to free one race and then go out west and attempt to purge another? I'd like to see these guy's economic interpretation of that!

YMOS,

Bill

[thea_447]

Bill has brought up some very interesting thoughts in his last few posts. And I particularly liked the Humpf!!! Words can express feelings so well, can't they?

Neil, this site is going to boil your grits but I mention it as it suggests new reading material. Naturally I know you are not interested in Adams or the Kennedys but the others might be something we should all look into.

As for The Strange Career of Jim Crow, I highly recommend that you read this. I got my copy at Amazon as a used book or either at Goldenbough. I never buy anything new anymore.

Here's the site I suggest; Neil, you can disregard what the man has to say about the tariff as I know you don't believe this was a cause of the war, while I will beat that drum until we're all stone dead. <grin>

Genesis of the Civil War
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/civilwar.html

[unionblue]

Thea,

I actually like grits myself, and enjoy them with butter. As for Mr. Rockwell and his fact denial page, I have had many occasions to read it before and I always come away with the same feeling of amusement. And you are 100% about my believing that the tariff caused the war. I would rather go with the theory of sun spots as it carries more weight with me and makes more sense.

I haven't had a chance to get to the library yet to check out the book, The Strange Career of Jim Crow, but a promise is a promise, and to both you and Bill, I promise to check it out this weekend and get back to you on it.

Now, Bill, as to your comments above about the book, Time on the Cross, about it being all facts and economics and NOT taking into account the passions and emotion, etc. this very style is what has attracted me to the book in the first place.

How many times have all of us argued about the references, books, authors we have used in our debates? That in some way, they view the subject of the Civil War with their OWN views, skewed opinions, and biases? More times than I can count, and that is only with me and Thea countering back and forth over Lew Rockwell!

The advantage I see with Time on the Cross and its follow-up work, Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery, is that it is given WITHOUT opinion or basis. Most of the information presented in the book is facts and figures from the US census of the time. Slave prices, cotton prices, railroad mileage, using source documents. Economic figures concerning the expansion of cotton markets and land use for its growth after the war are not opinions, simply facts and figures.

It also points to one thing that is fairly constant about Americans; our love of money. Even old Tourqerville in his travels in America long before the war, made the comment on just how obsessed 'we' are about money, making it, creating it, accumulating it, etc. This is where I choke on the idea that such a money-making institution was going to 'die out' because of some moral attainment by slave-owners. Why the heck should they feel pressured or bad about having slaves make them money? Make them wealthy? Make them a business success? Especially after telling everyone who thought them evil and depraved or morally wrong to own slaves to take a hike? Doesn't wash with me, Bill.

Anyway, I'll give you time to go over it when you have more time and you have completed your other books in the reading hopper, and I'll get the Jim Crow book and compare notes with you and Thea.

Until that time,
Unionblue
PS Thea, you have been in my thoughts recently and I would like to ask how is your health doing of late. I remember you in my prayers and hope you are doing better.

[thea_447]

This is a bit off topic but I found it interesting. And it's a follow-up to the mention of The Strange Career of Jim Crow.

"When We Were Colored"
Articles, biographies and commentaries on progress during segregation.
http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/1000

Thanks Neil, for asking about my health. I have my ups and downs.
At the moment I'm taking blood tests every week trying to get my white blood cells and platelets to come back up so I won't be so tired.

My back problems continue and doctors are just waiting for me to decide what I want to do. (What I want is a nice Thanksgiving and a pleasant Christmas. I'm doing everything I can do to make those two wishes come true.)

I truly do appreciate your prayers. And I want you to know that I in turn pray for each of you when I hear of any affliction that besets any one of us. I hope your gout is not giving you fits.

Till we meet again,

[unionblue]

Thea,

I hope you get that pleasant Thanksgiving and Christmas. If ever two wishes deserved to be granted, those are THE two!

Any more information concerning what you are going to do about your back? If I am being too nosey, just tell me, but I cannot get you out of my thoughts the last week or so and I am concerned. Now, I don't go for the idea foreboding and stuff like that and I cannot see into the future (wouldn't want to if I could!) but I can't shake a feeling of concern for you of late.

As for your Lew Rockwell site, I would think if you wanted to have a good laugh and forget any kind of physical pain, a quick read of that site would do it! (Grin) And thanks for the site above. I will get back to you after this weekend on Jim Crow.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Bill,

On reviewing your post above, October 18, 2003 - 10:13am, I too have some disagreements with your conclusions about some things.

I do not feel there was any kind of mass movement or popular expression given by the South as a whole, that the institution of slavery was evil. Or as you state above, an 'increase in guilt' of owning slaves or living in a slave-dominated society.

I also am curious where you get the idea that the number of manumissions had increased, due to this increased guilt. I am also of the opinion that slavery was not a one crop institution, i.e. cotton, but could be used in many other areas with efficiency and a good profit margin for the slave owner, sugar, rice, etc.

I will go along that the institution was mainly used for agriculture, but please remember that slaves with skills were hired out to others. I will also agree that Southerners who owned slaves more than likely did not think themselves evil and that they also more than likely treated their property well.

I also have problems with the idea the South was going to let slaves out from under that system when for the last 30 to 40 years they had defended the institution to the hilt in the press, in Congress and in the courts. It seems to me that the rhetoric had not died down one bit right up until the war, would you not agree?

Just thought I would toss this into the mix, Bill old friend. And let you know that I have ordered the book The Strange Career of Jim Crow from my library and expect it soon.

Until that time,
Unionblue

[hawglips]

There was no reason for war. It was tragically unnecessary.

Hal