Necessary Evil

[gem]

How many people here think the civil war was a necessary evil?

 

[Jake Patterson]

I do not feel the issue of slavery would have been resolved any other way.

 

[Bonny Blue Flag]

The unstoppable force meeting the immovable object.

Not enough people in high places were willing to take legal means to avoid war.

Too many hot heads and those with something to prove kept emotions stirred up.

There was no alternative left.

Necessary vs no other option? Both. Necessary because the arguments on both sides were firm. The only way to stop and redirect the thinking was to get the full and undivided attention of the whole conntry on a 'life or death" level of thinking. No matter who would win, this particular argument would be moot.

No alternative because both sides had backed themselves into the war corner and neither could get out without admitting some form of defeat.

--BBF

 

[Crazy Delawares]

As Lincoln said, 'til every drop of blood drawn by the bondsman's lash was paid for in blood spilled on the battlefield.

 

[diane]

I believe the Founders thought civil war was only postponed. They were trying to get the country off to a start but the issue of slavery was always there. The only way to keep the revolution from going the way most revolutions go - internal - was to mealy-mouth the Constitution and gag Congress for a couple decades. When the Missouri Compromise was done, Jefferson said it was the end of the Union. Civil War was inevitable from that point on.

 

[KeyserSoze]

I think it was an unavoidable evil.

 

[Rebtracker]

How many people here think the civil war was a necessary evil?

I believe slavery was the necessary evil... and eventually would've died on its own. Most other countries that had slavery figured out a way to get rid of it without going to war. Our country's leaders really goofed...

 

[OpnCoronet]

Is not the question itself based on the implicit assumption that all wars are, necessarily, evil?( if all wars are not necessarily evil, then the question is moot, because a war could be necessary, yet not evil)
I am not convinced that because the effects of a war may have evil effects, is an argument that, by that fact alone, a particular war was, necessarily, evil

 

[Yankeedave]

Legal means of ending the peculiar institution wouldn't make near the money a good war would.

 

[gem]

Is not the question itself based on the implicit assumption that all wars are, necessarily, evil?( if all wars are not necessarily evil, then the question is moot, because a war could be necessary, yet not evil)
I am not convinced that because the effects of a war may have evil effects, is an argument that, by that fact alone, a particular war was, necessarily, evil

Perhaps one could make the arguement that any and all wars are evil. However, in my question I was referring to the civil war only. The reason i referred to it as evil was because the number of lives lost and the fact that it was the only solution America was able to come up with to keep the Union together.

What you could say is implicit in my question is the fact that slavery was only able to end by war. Of course Jefferson refered to slavery as the necessary evil and thats the phrasing i used in my question.

 

[OpnCoronet]

The point is though, does 'evil beget evil', i.e., can war be used to eliminate an evil, if it(war) is evil, itself?


P.S. this is a philosophical point, not really relevent to the study of the History of the CW on this particulaar board.

 

[Greg Taylor]

The point is though, does 'evil beget evil', i.e., can war be used to eliminate an evil, if it(war) is evil, itself?


P.S. this is a philosophical point, not really relevent to the study of the History of the CW on this particulaar board.

Sometimes evil is a matter of degree. In WWII, much of what was done by the Allies may be considered "evil" such as the fire bombing of Dresden. I suppose if we simply let Hitler continue unabated Dresden would not have been fire bombed, however the Holocaust, the extermination of Gypsies and of the mentally ill would have continued unabated too. Perhaps the phrase "the lesser of 2 evils" can somehow be applied here.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Most other countries that had slavery figured out a way to get rid of it without going to war.

Most other countries didn't have a significant part of their country willing to launch an bloody and protracted rebellion to protect slavery.

 

[Rebtracker]

Most other countries didn't have a significant part of their country willing to launch an bloody and protracted rebellion to protect slavery.

Suze, I still think our leaders failed big time. North and South.

 

[gem]

Suze, I still think our leaders failed big time. North and South.

I think both sided genuinely believed that they were right. I don't see the south would have accepted anything less than the the continuation of slavery with at minimum a so called equilbrium in a balance in numbers between free and slave states.

Thus, how would a political solution have been possible.

 

[Rebtracker]

Thus, how would a political solution have been possible.

I don't know.... maybe smarter leadership?

 

[lakertaker]

At the time, it may have made some sense. However, in hind sight it's probably hard to say any war was necessary.

 

[AUG]

.

 

[gem]

its easy for us to say as we can sit here and know that the US can exist without slavery. However, at the time millions of people were convinced that they could not exist without slavery. Thus, when a school of thought is so engrained into people's minds it can be difficult if not impossible to change.

If you look at the first race Lincoln won the nation was totally divided. In some of the southern states he was not even on the ballot.