Was it worth it?

[YankeeDoodle]

I am a staunch believer in the Union but I wonder was it worth it to fight a war to save the union? By that I mean ,what is the gain of fighting to bring the south back into the union? Isnt it obvious the south did not want to be part of the union?..that they preferred an aristocracy over democracy? that they wanted the freedom to enslave? and they hated free states? and have resisted the modern era since then?

I freely admit the North is and was very racist but we dont build statues to those that try to destroy what we consider our nation..but even today Southerners sing the praises of those that tried to destroy this nation..

I would like to think of us as one nation but when I see the flag of disunion flying even today ..150 years later, I wonder what was gained by all this fighting..If they still feel this way maybe it was a mistake to force them back.

I hate to ask but in view of history since then did those union men die in vain?

Please tell me I am wrong that there is something I just dont get I look forward to hearing your thoughts...especially if you're from the south..

 

[brass napoleon]

I am a staunch believer in the Union but I wonder was it worth it to fight a war to save the union? By that I mean ,what is the gain of fighting to bring the south back into the union? Isnt it obvious the south did not want to be part of the union?..that they preferred an aristocracy over democracy? that they wanted the freedom to enslave? and they hated free states? and have resisted the modern era since then?

I freely admit the North is and was very racist but we dont build statues to those that try to destroy what we consider our nation..but even today Southerners sing the praises of those that tried to destroy this nation..

I would like to think of us as one nation but when I see the flag of disunion flying even today ..150 years later, I wonder what was gained by all this fighting..If they still feel this way maybe it was a mistake to force them back.

I hate to ask but in view of history since then did those union men die in vain?

Please tell me I am wrong that there is something I just dont get I look forward to hearing your thoughts...especially if you're from the south..

Well, I'm not from the South, but here's my answer anyways. No, it's not obvious that "the South" didn't want to be part of the Union. In fact, it would appear that prior to the bombardment of Fort Sumter, most Southerners preferred to stay in the Union. That's exactly why the majority of Southern secession conventions steadfastly refused to put the secession vote to a popular referendum. The movement to take the South out of the Union was precipitated and led by a minority. And it's a much, much smaller minority today who continue the talk about disunion. But they're a dying breed, and it very much seems to me like their last shriek.

Yes, it was worth it. The alternative was the Balkanization of North America, and I don't think anybody would want that. (Not to mention the perpetuation of slavery for God knows how long.)

 

[southern blue]

Yes, it was worth it. The alternative was the Balkanization of North America, and I don't think anybody would want that. (Not to mention the perpetuation of slavery for God knows how long.)

I think eventually there would be a slave uprising. Oppress people for too long and bad stuff happens.

 

[John Hartwell]

A minority view, I'm sure:

Personally, I'm not all that troubled by the secession itself, the "treason," (a subjective thing at best) or the breakup of the Union. I think it would have been very unfortunate, a really bad idea, but not worth all the bloodshed and destruction that transpired. And, if that's all the war was all about, I would have done all I could to avoid it.

BUT, I stand fast with the minority of Radical Abolitionists, who believed, as I still do, that the destruction of slavery was very much worth the price it cost. Union would have been at best a secondary motivation for me -- as ending slavery was for the vast majority of northerners. In the end, it all came together.

The ending of slavery was the only redeeming factor of the whole bloody idiocy.

jno

 

[major bill]

Yes I think it was worth it. I am not sure a peaceful breakup was possible and a war between the two sides would have happen at some point. I would not be concerned that the two sides would have fought a war as some future point as opposed to an earlier war except that when you add in the continued enslavement of millions of people in to the mix, then a war delayed several years would not be worth the wait. I do believe that if the war was delayed for 5 to 20 years that the war might have been less bloody, but is continued slavery worth the lower casualty rate?

 

[Specster]

It is a close question, enduring all that death and destruction, and I feel that, within 50 years, slavery would have ended and the country would have been reunited, without the war. How many 1st world countries allowed institutional slavery in 1900?

I think the synergy between the north and south, and the fruits of manifest destiny, is so apparent and easily recognizable that to divert from that union only cost both sides economically and militarily among other important issues. And I think I understand that some slave owners were harsh. But many were not and the "slaves" (I dont know what to call these people without being insulting), were content. Many scholars have made the arguement that northern immigrant/factory workers were as bad or worse off than the slaves. I revert to one arguement which makes sense to me: When you own a car, you take care of it. When you rent a car, you beat the **** out of it, because it costs you nothing to do so. This was the state of many share croppers and factory workers.

On the other hand freedom is not a cheap commodity - and I think it was less so in the 1800s then in the years beyond. Freedom can, and often does, make all the difference in the world.

I think it is all too common to judge peoples actions in terms of todays values. I dont want to sound like a broken record but Presentism is a big issue, in my estimation, when considering these issues. I will not judge 1860s actions by 2010 morality......it is folly, pure and simple.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Isnt it obvious the south did not want to be part of the union?

It is obvious that a segment of the southern population did not want to be part of the union; but not all of it.
By whom and how should it be decided what country and what government?

In every war the question could be asked -- is the loss of live worth it to stop someone from doing something/something from happening? And if not, what are the alternatives? I agree with Major Bill -- if war was avoided in 1861, could it still have been avoided in 1871 or 1881 or 1891? So did the war that happened keep there from being further wars?

 

[NedBaldwin]

.... I revert to one arguement which makes sense to me: When you own a car, you take care of it. When you rent a car, you beat the **** out of it, because it costs you nothing to do so...

Curious. I have seen many who behave the exact opposite. A rental car has to be returned and its condition inspected. If there is a ding or a scratch you will go many rounds with insurance claims people (been there done that, its not fun).

 

[brass napoleon]

Many scholars have made the arguement that northern immigrant/factory workers were as bad or worse off than the slaves.

I'd be curious to know what "scholars" have made that argument. Immigrants CHOSE to come to this country. How many people CHOSE slavery? How many factory workers had their children sold away from them, or were themselves sold away from their spouses? How many patrollers and "Fugitive Factory Worker Laws" were employed to prevent factory workers from escaping from the North into the South?

This argument that free market capitalism is worse than slavery seems strange to me, but there's nothing new about it:

"Slavery relieves our slaves of these cares altogether, and slavery is a form, and the very best form, of socialism. In fact, the ordinary wages of common labor are insufficient to keep up separate domestic establshments for each of the poor, and association or starvation is in many cases inevitable. In free society, as well in Europe as in America, this is the accepted theory, and various schemes have been resorted to, all without success, to cure the evil. The association of labor properly carried out under a comman head or ruler, would render labor more efficient, relieve the laborer of many of the cares of household affairs, and protect and support him in sickness and old age, besides preventing the too great reduction of wages by redundancy of labor and free competition. Slavery attains all these results. What else will?"

George Fitzhugh, Sociology for the South, or the Failure of Free Society

Source: <http://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/fitzhughsoc/fitzhugh.html​

 

[Lost Cause]

It is obvious that a segment of the southern population did not want to be part of the union; but not all of it.
By whom and how should it be decided what country and what government?

In every war the question could be asked -- is the loss of live worth it to stop someone from doing something/something from happening? And if not, what are the alternatives? I agree with Major Bill -- if war was avoided in 1861, could it still have been avoided in 1871 or 1881 or 1891? So did the war that happened keep there from being further wars?

This argument has been made when referencing the events leading up to Fort Sumter. If war had been delayed in 1861 would have taken place at a later time? Perhaps. Delaying war is a good idea, especially when thousands of lives were at stake. The problem with a future delaying of the Civil War, however,was a likely extension of slavery. It took a war to officially end it in the US.

 

[brass napoleon]

This argument has been made when referencing the events leading up to Fort Sumter. If war had been delayed in 1861 would have taken place at a later time? Perhaps. Delaying war is a good idea, especially when thousands of lives were at stake. The problem with a future delaying of the Civil War, however,was a likely extension of slavery. It took a war to officially end it in the US.

Indeed. But let's remember this too. Americans had spent the prior 80 years delaying civil war. In the process the problem had only grown much, much bigger, animosity had only grown much, much deeper, and weaponry had only grown much, much deadlier.

 

[major bill]

This is why I believe war between a Confederate States of America was almost a certainty. The southern States seceded over the belief by both sides that for slavery to survive it had to keep expanding. Although the Confederacy could have expanded into Mexico, Cuba or South American, the lack of a navy would make expansion in to United State Territories the quickest and easiest route. The United States might have given up Arizona and New Mexico without going to war, but if Maryland seceded then Washington D. C. would have to be sacrificed and I have doubts the Union would have agreed to do this. Also the Confederacy had their eyes on southern California, Colorado,, parts of southern Illinois and southern Ohio. I am not sure the Union could give up these areas without a war.

 

[Albert Sailhorst]

".....that they (the South) preferred an aristocracy over democracy"....

I must have missed the part about the Confederate government with a King and Principalities/States...

 

[brass napoleon]

".....that they (the South) preferred an aristocracy over democracy"....

I must have missed the part about the Confederate government with a King and Principalities/States...

An aristocracy doesn't require a King. But it certainly was what the Confederacy was striving for:

"The South is now in the formation of a Slave Republic. This, perhaps, is not admitted generally. There are many contented to believe that the South as a geographical section is in mere assertion of its independence; that, it is instinct with no especial truth--pregnant of no distinct social nature; that for some unaccountable reason the two sections have become opposed to each other; that for reasons equally insufficient, there is disagreement between the peoples that direct them; and that from no overrulling necessity, no impossibility of co-existence, but as mere matter of policy, it has been considered best for the South to strike out for herself and establish an independance of her own. This, I fear, is an inadequate conception of the controversy. The contest is not between the North and South as geographical sections, for between such sections merely there can be no contest; nor between the people of the North and the people of the South, for our relations have been pleasant, and on neutral grounds there is still nothing to estrange us. We eat together, trade together, and practice, yet, in intercourse, with great respect, the courtesies of common life. But the real contest is between the two forms of society which have become established, the one at the North and the other at the South. Society is essentially different from government--as different as is the nut from the bur, or the nervous body of the shell-fish from the bony structure which surrounds it; and within this government two societies had become developed as variant in structure and distinct in form as any two beings in animated nature. The one is a society composed of one race, the other of two races. The one is bound together but by the two great social relations of husband and wife and parent and child; the other by the three relations of husband and wife, and parent and child, and master and slave. The one embodies in its political structure the principle that equality is the right of man; the other that it is the right of equals only. The one embodying the principle that equality is the right of man, expands upon the horizontal plane of pure democracy; the other, embodying the principle that it is not the right of man, but of equals only, has taken to itself the rounded form of a social aristocracy."

- Charleston Mercury, February 13, 1861

Source: http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/secession/secession.html​

 

[Albert Sailhorst]

" social aristocracy."
....yes, as exists in any capitalist economy.....But, as a form of government in the South, no.....
Thanks for your post! I enjoyed it!

 

[brass napoleon]

" social aristocracy."
....yes, as exists in any capitalist economy.....But, as a form of government in the South, no.....
Thanks for your post! I enjoyed it!

But that's not at all what they said. They clearly said that the capitalist economy of the North took the "horizontal plane of pure democracy" (boo) while the "slave republic" of the South took the "rounded form of a social aristocracy" (yay).

See also the quote from George Fitzhugh, in post #9.

 

[JerseyBart]

I am a staunch believer in the Union but I wonder was it worth it to fight a war to save the union? By that I mean ,what is the gain of fighting to bring the south back into the union? Isnt it obvious the south did not want to be part of the union?..that they preferred an aristocracy over democracy? that they wanted the freedom to enslave? and they hated free states? and have resisted the modern era since then?

I freely admit the North is and was very racist but we dont build statues to those that try to destroy what we consider our nation..but even today Southerners sing the praises of those that tried to destroy this nation..

I would like to think of us as one nation but when I see the flag of disunion flying even today ..150 years later, I wonder what was gained by all this fighting..If they still feel this way maybe it was a mistake to force them back.

I hate to ask but in view of history since then did those union men die in vain?

Please tell me I am wrong that there is something I just dont get I look forward to hearing your thoughts...especially if you're from the south..

Had the United States allowed the south violently leave, taking whatever wasn't nailed down and imprisoning her soldiers, it would be open season for other countries to attack an obviously weak country and govt. That, and the south started a war.

 

[huskerblitz]

A minority view, I'm sure:

Personally, I'm not all that troubled by the secession itself, the "treason," (a subjective thing at best) or the breakup of the Union. I think it would have been very unfortunate, a really bad idea, but not worth all the bloodshed and destruction that transpired. And, if that's all the war was all about, I would have done all I could to avoid it.

BUT, I stand fast with the minority of Radical Abolitionists, who believed, as I still do, that the destruction of slavery was very much worth the price it cost. Union would have been at best a secondary motivation for me -- as ending slavery was for the vast majority of northerners. In the end, it all came together.

The ending of slavery was the only redeeming factor of the whole bloody idiocy.

jno

I tend to agree. I'm not all that bothered about the secession movement of the 1860s. I wasn't alive then and if, as brass said a 'balkanization' of America had happened I wouldn't have known much else. So it's a wash. I firmly believe that a people have the right to determine their government. The Southern states felt that way and attempted to achieve it.

And while I support the idea of self-determination, the issue of slavery is what keeps me from standing behind the South's motive for wanting to leave. The institution needed to end and it did, after the death of hundreds of thousands...both black and white. And that is why I view myself as being in the middle in terms of the Civil War.

But I cannot say it was worth it. It wasn't my life to lay on the line and won't pretend to be in a position to judge the worth of those lives that it did ultimately cost.

 

[Vicksburger]

"Was it worth it?" I answer this with the words carved on the Texas memorial at Vicksburg: "For these men believed in something. They counted life a light thing to lay down in the faith they bore. They were terrible in battle. They were generous in victory. They rose from defeat to fight again, and while they lived, they were formidable."

 

[NedBaldwin]

... I firmly believe that a people have the right to determine their government. ....

To me, that sounds all nice and good in theory, but then I try to understand what it means in practice -- which people? which government? Do the people of the United States as a whole have a right to determine their government or just the people of each state separately? What about the people of each county? Why do some people count more than other people?