Was it worth it?

[brass napoleon]

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?

Agreed. The "father of secession" surely didn't believe that all people have the right to determine their government:

"It is useless to disguise the fact, that in some portions of the State there is disapprobation towards our action; and, I venture to tell the gentleman from Tuscaloosa, that when that Ordinance shall be passed, even if it be by the meagre majority of one, it will represent the fullness, and the power, and the majesty of the sovereign people of Alabama. When it shall be the supreme organic law of the people of Alabama, the State upon that question will know no majority or minority among her people, but will expect and demand, and secure unlimited and unquestioned obedience to that Ordinance... Men, who shall, after the passage of this Ordinance, dissolving the union of Alabama with the other States of this Confederacy, dare array themselves against the State, will then become the enemies of the State. There is a law of Treason, defining treason against the State; and, those who shall dare oppose the action of Alabama, when she assumes her independence of the Union, will become traitors--rebels against its authority, and will be dealt with as such."

- William L. Yancey, Alabama secession convention, January 9, 1861

Source: http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/smithwr/smith.html​

 

[unionblue]

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.

huskerblitz,

And yet, here you and I are, living in a nation determined by those who thought it was worth it.

I agree with almost all of your above post, to include that "a people have the right to determine their government."

To me, its just the arrogance of some of those people determining what kind of government they think I deserve without my own, personal, input.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[ForeverFree]

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..

The historian Gary Gallagher has made the point that back in the 1860s, the notion of preserving the Union was this powerful force that we of today simply do not and perhaps can not comprehend. But I think that misses the point of the motivations of Union men.

I think that Union men were fighting not just for the "goodness" of the Union, but also, against the "badness" of the secessionists. To many Union people, secessionists were "bad guys" who annulled an election they didn't like, seized American property to which they had no right, engaged in an armed attack on American property, and were thusly a military, economic, and geo-political threat to the United States. The defense of American interests, rights, honor, and future necessitated a war against the secessionist aggressors, in the minds of Union men.

This statement will almost certainly lead to pages of posts where forum members will discuss the notion of the "first shot," Lincoln's alleged manipulation of the Confederates at Sumter, etc, etc. That's one of the things we do on this forum: argue a lot over the Ft Sumter thing. But the main point is that the firing on Sumter represented to many Union men that America had been attacked. And when one's country is attacked, one can either fight or flee.

So, the question is: when the country is attacked, is it right and good to fight to defend it? That is the issue as seen by Union men of the day.

- Alan

 

[huskerblitz]

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?

By 'people' I'm referring to the people of an area. Given the size of the US in the 1860s and specifically that of those that rebelled I think is a sizable group that can determine their own government.

And I'm not sure exactly what you mean by your last statement. Are you saying a people who are governed by a government they no longer wish to have count less than those that feel they should be governed?

huskerblitz,
To me, its just the arrogance of some of those people determining what kind of government they think I deserve without my own, personal, input.

On the day of your birth the government you lived under was already established and has continued to the present day. The same is true of me. But at no time have I've been asked about its acceptability. They have pretty much told me this is the system I get. Darn arrogant Founders anyway!

 

[Specster]

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​

I am going out the door but I will respond with scholar who have made this arguement for well over 100 years. Yes, the real slaves lacked freedom but they had value and were usually treated well -at least kept health. Wage slqaves were expendable. You didnt have to worry about their safety. If they died u really lost nothing and there were others ready to take their place.

One can be in a state of slavery even if there are no bars and chains.

Got to run. will respond to your question.

 

[brass napoleon]

I am going out the door but I will respond with scholar who have made this arguement for well over 100 years. Yes, the real slaves lacked freedom but they had value and were usually treated well -at least kept health. Wage slqaves were expendable. You didnt have to worry about their safety. If they died u really lost nothing and there were others ready to take their place.

One can be in a state of slavery even if there are no bars and chains.

Well, I would reckon that virtually all of us here are expendable at our places of work. So you're saying that we'd all be better off slaves? That freedom is dangerous and just encourages the rich to exploit us? That if they owned us, it would be to our benefit? Again, I have to point out how closely your line of thought comports with the antebellum slavery advocate George Fitzhugh:

"The socialists stumbled on the true issue, but do not seem yet fully aware of the nature of their discovery. Liberty was the evil, liberty the disease under which society was suffering. It must be restricted, competition be arrested, the strong be restrained from, instead of encouraged to oppress the weak - in order to restore society to a healthy state. To them we are indebted for our argument against free trade. We have extended it and explained its application. They demonstrated that social free trade was an evil, because it incited the rich and strong to oppress the weak, poor and ignorant."

- George Fitzhugh

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

Got to run. will respond to your question.

Looking forward to it. Perhaps George Fitzhugh is one of those scholars.

 

[brass napoleon]

By 'people' I'm referring to the people of an area. Given the size of the US in the 1860s and specifically that of those that rebelled I think is a sizable group that can determine their own government.

But how big an area? And who gets to decide? Is it right that William L. Yancey, the "father of secession", could decide that Alabama could rebel from the United States, but the northern counties of Alabama couldn't rebel from Alabama? Who gave HIM that authority?

If my township decides to rebel, is that a big enough area? And if you say No, then I have to ask what right you have to make that decision for us?

 

[kevikens]

I have thought about, even anguished over your question, especially when I taught it to young people, and it has always troubled me. Those 625,000 dead were not old folks in the rest home who died but mostly young men. many of whom would never marry and leave offspring behind them. An awful cost. But to answer the question is to ask another. What is the worth of the survival of your country? I would have done everything I could have in 1861 to have prevented the outbreak of the war. I'd have left slavery in place and have seen it extended to the isthmus of Panama if I had to. I'd have sold Ft. Sumter to the state of South Carolina for one dollar. I'd have appointed Jefferson Davis as Secretary of State. I would have compensated every slave owner whose slaves made it to the North. I would have blessed the Crittenden Compromise. To have prevented the Civil War I would have done virtually any thing, but one. Once the South determined to break up the Union, to wreck the USA, I would then have paid any price to preserve it. I do not think that my conclusion is very much different from that of most Northern young men, those who would pay the price of that war in their own blood. They are the ones who had to answer your question of whether or not it was worth it. I think they answered it for you.

 

[brass napoleon]

I have thought about, even anguished over your question, especially when I taught it to young people, and it has always troubled me. Those 625,000 dead were not old folks in the rest home who died but mostly young men. many of whom would never marry and leave offspring behind them. An awful cost. But to answer the question is to ask another. What is the worth of the survival of your country? I would have done everything I could have in 1861 to have prevented the outbreak of the war. I'd have left slavery in place and have seen it extended to the isthmus of Panama if I had to. I'd have sold Ft. Sumter to the state of South Carolina for one dollar. I'd have appointed Jefferson Davis as Secretary of State. I would have compensated every slave owner whose slaves made it to the North. I would have blessed the Crittenden Compromise. To have prevented the Civil War I would have done virtually any thing, but one. Once the South determined to break up the Union, to wreck the USA, I would then have paid any price to preserve it. I do not think that my conclusion is very much different from that of most Northern young men, those who would pay the price of that war in their own blood. They are the ones who had to answer your question of whether or not it was worth it. I think they answered it for you.

Well said. I myself would have done differently (although who can really know what their values and opinions would have been if they lived back then?), but I applaud your honest, thoughtful and insightful answer.

 

[Sons of Liberty]

Fort Sumter completely obliterated any chance of resolving the issue in any other way than what happened. The whole discussion kind a went down the old pot after that.

 

[Specster]

Well, I would reckon that virtually all of us here are expendable at our places of work. So you're saying that we'd all be better off slaves? That freedom is dangerous and just encourages the rich to exploit us? That if they owned us, it would be to our benefit? Again, I have to point out how closely your line of thought comports with the antebellum slavery advocate George Fitzhugh:

"The socialists stumbled on the true issue, but do not seem yet fully aware of the nature of their discovery. Liberty was the evil, liberty the disease under which society was suffering. It must be restricted, competition be arrested, the strong be restrained from, instead of encouraged to oppress the weak - in order to restore society to a healthy state. To them we are indebted for our argument against free trade. We have extended it and explained its application. They demonstrated that social free trade was an evil, because it incited the rich and strong to oppress the weak, poor and ignorant."

- George Fitzhugh

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

Looking forward to it. Perhaps George Fitzhugh is one of those scholars.

No I cannot say I agree with Mr. Fitzhugh, no matter how much that disappoints you. I was thinking more along the lines, in no particular order: Jensen, Marx, Proudhon, Engals, Foner and Cicero.

And I did not say we would all be better off as slaves, at least I know I would not. I am talking about conditions in 1860 and before. You want to explain peoples actions, again and again, in terms of present day values.

If people are dependant on the state for food clothing and shelter, and that will BE removed if they dont comport to certain behaviors, are they not "slaves".

You want to minimize what working conditions were like in the North circa 1850. I lived in a small town where, on rough average 25 men died each year fishing....and some years during that era it was as high as 40 men. Is that inconsequential for a small town? Today that towns pop. is about 20,000....it was never a big town.

Mining deaths during this era were very high per capita as were factory deaths. Children were dieing in factories with no consequence for the owner. Why do you always want to single out 1 segament of society as having all the evils thrown upon them?

I know many of my Irish friends who had grand relatives who recalled the signs in business windows (INNA) - Irish Need Not apply....(we will not hire you). Why does that not trouble you? Do you think these immigants had a choice, once they got here? Railroad work: how many people died building railroad lines? Share croppers? How was their existance?

You want to see there was no "overseer", no "escape Posy". They had a fairly efficient overseer...exposure and stavation.

Lastly, if you are going to make a point DO YOU HAVE TO SHOUT IT IN BOLD?

 

[cash]

It was worth it for two reasons:

1. The men in blue literally saved our country and our republican form of government.

"Be this as it may, in every free & deliberating society there must, from the nature of man, be opposite parties & violent dissensions & discords; and one of these, for the most part, must prevail over the other for a longer or shorter time. Perhaps this party division is necessary to induce each to watch & delate to the people the proceedings of the other. But if on a temporary superiority of the one party, the other is to resort to a scission of the Union, no federal government can ever exist. If to rid ourselves of the present rule of Massachusets [sic] & Connecticut we break the Union, will the evil stop there? Suppose the N. England States alone cut off, will our natures be changed? are we not men still to the south of that, & with all the passions of men? Immediately we shall see a Pennsylvania & a Virginia party arise in the residuary confederacy, and the public mind will be distracted with the same party spirit. What a game, too, will the one party have in their hands by eternally threatening the other that unless they do so & so, they will join their Northern neighbors. If we reduce our Union to Virginia & N. Carolina, immediately the conflict will be established between the representatives of these two States, and they will end by breaking into their simple units. Seeing, therefore, that an association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry, seeing that we must have somebody to quarrel with, I had rather keep our New England associates for that purpose than to see our bickerings transferred to others." [Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 4 Jun 1798]

2. As a result of the war, slavery, a stain on the entire nation, was eradicated.

 

[Sons of Liberty]

Men did their duties as they perceived them without ever having the luxury of questioning if it was worth it or not. When people find themselves in a storm they do what they must to survive and make it to the other side. No flowery, patriotic words can ever replace cherished loved ones or move back the hands of time, but I believe that men who laid down their own lives must have thought it to be "worth it".

 

[huskerblitz]

But how big an area? And who gets to decide? Is it right that William L. Yancey, the "father of secession", could decide that Alabama could rebel from the United States, but the northern counties of Alabama couldn't rebel from Alabama? Who gave HIM that authority?

If my township decides to rebel, is that a big enough area? And if you say No, then I have to ask what right you have to make that decision for us?

I can't answer how big of an area is large enough. Not sure anyone can. But the Southern states attempted it and failed. Some of those in the same region who opposed opted to fight for the Union to ensure it wasn't successful. If the Southern states had won the war that would have confirmed their authority to do so.

 

[DanF]

The idea that the slaves were mostly content does not fit with the known facts.

Mostly content slaves would not require the passage of the Fugtive slave law, nightly slave patrols, nor would they incite fear among the white population about the potential for slave uprisings.

 

[hanna260]

The idea that the slaves were mostly content does not fit with the known facts.

Mostly content slaves would not require the passage of the Fugtive slave law, nightly slave patrols, nor would they incite fear among the white population about the potential for slave uprisings.

Call me crazy but I don't think a human's natural state is content in slavery. It's just not the way we're wired: stories throughout history have told of incredible measures we as a species have done to try to set ourselves free.

And the way I was taught- many slaves didn't even do the actions above but did try to rebel in every quiet way they could.

 

[brass napoleon]

Call me crazy but I don't think a human's natural state is content in slavery. It's just not the way we're wired: stories throughout history have told of incredible measures we as a species have done to try to set ourselves free.

And the way I was taught- many slaves didn't even do the actions above but did try to rebel in every quiet way they could.

The idea that the slaves were mostly content does not fit with the known facts.

Mostly content slaves would not require the passage of the Fugtive slave law, nightly slave patrols, nor would they incite fear among the white population about the potential for slave uprisings.

Of course. The idea that slaves had it better off than Northern factory workers is slaveholder propaganda and Marxist dogma. It's hard to believe people still fall for it today. Irish immigrated to the Northern states by the 100s of thousands. Slaves risked everything to escape to the Northern states and Canada by the 10s of thousands. Where was the "Fugitive Irish Law", and the patrollers, and the bloodhounds to keep the Irish from escaping their factories? Those Irish may not have had a great life (few people did back in those days). But at least they had the freedom to choose where they would live, where they would work, who they would marry. They got to keep their children. They could get an education. They could read, write, petition, protest, strike and in many cases vote - all to make their lives better - which they did. A slave had no more rights than a farm animal, and absolutely no way of bettering their own life or that of their offspring.

Free market capitalism might not be perfect, but I think most people would take it over slavery any time any day. And those who say they wouldn't - well, it would be interesting to see them put their money where their mouth is.

 

[hanna260]

Where was the "Fugitive Irish Law", and the patrollers, and the bloodhounds to keep the Irish from escaping their factories? Those Irish may not have had a great life (few people did back in those days). But at least they had the freedom to choose where they would live, where they would work, who they would marry. They got to keep their children. They could get an education. They could read, write, petition, protest, strike and in many cases vote - all to make their lives better - which they did. A slave had no more rights than a farm animal, and absolutely no way of bettering their own life or that of their offspring.

Speaking as someone who is half Irish and whose Irish ancestors immigrated to Boston in the late 1800s- early 1900s- I can tell you for certain that their life was harsh. But they made the best of it and were grateful for the opportunities they had here when at home they had none. And most importantly it was theirs, not somebody else's.

 

[brass napoleon]

Speaking as someone who is half Irish and whose Irish ancestors immigrated to Boston in the late 1800s- early 1900s- I can tell you for certain that their life was harsh. But they made the best of it and were grateful for the opportunities they had here when at home they had none. And most importantly it was theirs, not somebody else's.

Exactly. I come from Irish and Scottish immigrants myself. They lived a tough life, but they had an opportunity to make something out of it and they did just that. If anybody had dared to tell them that they would have been better off owned by somebody else than controlling their own destiny - well, let's just say it likely could have got pretty ugly.

 

[Allie]

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.

Which would you rather be, a worker at a factory of your choice, or a slave?

Surely in 2015 we're past the profoundly insulting myth of the content slave? Slaves were slaves. Slave owning states invested a huge effort towards keeping them ignorant of anything other than their current condition - that's the reason they were not allowed to read or to gather with other slaves and talk. There was real terror about slave uprisings. When they had the opportunity, many enslaved people joined the army to fight for their freedom. There were some who apparently really loved their masters, but then there are children who really love parents who horribly abuse them. It's not really fair to expect human beings to spontaneously reject the only situation they have ever known.