Was it worth it?

[wausaubob]

How could the answer be, Yes, all the bloodshed and money spent was worth the benefits that flowed from the surrender at Appomattox and reunification?
Frist the technical basis for transforming life in the US already existed before the Civil War. The telegraph system was rapidly consolidating before the Civil War and the railroad network in the northern states was boosted by the war. Very little that happened during the Civil War disturbed these two physical changes that created the continental nation.
The US grew before, during, and after the Civil War, based on voluntary immigration and foreign investment. Cotton production was an important factor. But separating the cotton revenue from the California Gold Rush, the railroad boom, and the sudden increase in immigration from Ireland and the German states seems to me to be impossible.
Did the Civil War increase immigration and foreign investment above the level that would have happened anyway? There's no way to tell. All that can be detected is that by 1863 immigration picked up. And from 1865 to 1874 it accelerated. Its difficult to imagine that level of immigration continuing if the US had been locked into an arms race with a nation maintaining slavery. The military expenses would have been a drag on the US and the Confederacy. One, or both nations would have needed to maintain conscription.
It seems improbable that foreign and domestic investment in infrastructure would have equaled the amount in real history if the US had agreed to a period or of separation. It would have taken many years for the railroad to climb the ridges in California and cross the empty regions of Wyoming and Utah. Peace made acceleration of that important communication link expeditious.
All that I can really detect is that when slavery was abolished Missouri benefitted from the population boom that swept over Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Missouri. Texas benefitted from the abolition of slavery at first. But in the 1870s explosive growth occurred in Texas, even before oil exploration began. After the Civil War, Texas demonstrated that cotton production did not require slavery. Instead railroads and a deep water port cut the cost of marketing cotton and made it competitive.
Different commentators will have different opinions. As always proceed carefully under the watchful eye of @bdtex and our other gracious moderators.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

In response to 'Was it worth it?'

Wondering. With all those transportation, economic, social and immigration trends happening, how long would the 'peculiar institution' have likely lasted following this period (i.e. '61 - '65), if its abolition was not precipitated by the occurrence of the armed conflict.

 

[Saint Jude]

IMO, slavery would have died out without the Civil War, but I think it took the war to kill the notion of secession.

 

[wausaubob]

In response to 'Was it worth it?'

Wondering. With all those transportation, economic, social and immigration trends happening, how long would the 'peculiar institution' have likely lasted following this period (i.e. '61 - '65), if its abolition was not precipitated by the occurrence of the armed conflict.

The pace of railroad technology advance was going to make the nation physically much smaller. I don't think very much chattel slavery would have remained after the 1880 reapportionment. The institution was falling behind demographically. But @major bill takes the opposite view.

 

[dlofting]

If I recall correctly Eric Foner posited that slavery could have continued until the 1930's if the Civil War had not ended it. One person's opinion but he did believe that the Civil War was necessary even though it caused a lot of misery.

 

[wausaubob]

If I recall correctly Eric Foner posited that slavery could have continued until the 1930's if the Civil War had not ended it. One person's opinion but he did believe that the Civil War was necessary even though it caused a lot of misery.

Except that even in the real world, the amount of cotton produced in Texas was going to lead to a steady decline in the price, even as cotton faded in other parts of the world.
The main issue is that it was not a choice between war and peace. The real choice was between war in 1860, and military preparation and many other wars over the coming decades. I think people of that time thought the two nations could not live in peace. That is what Lincoln was summarizing when he said in a divorce the man and woman can move away and never see each other again. The US and the Confederacy could not go live on separate continents.

 

[wausaubob]

As a result of the Civil War the New York financial markets became dominant. The railroads accelerated the physical unification of the United States and much of that was due to accelerating the pace of railroad management during the Civil War. The competitive politics of what became the Midwest became the dominant swing area that controlled politics. Both New England and the Deep South lost power.

 

[jackt62]

Its difficult to imagine that level of immigration continuing if the US had been locked into an arms race with a nation maintaining slavery.

On a higher level, Lincoln's call for a "new birth of freedom" was a tremendous stimulus to national movements in Europe, South America and probably everywhere else. The success of the United States in vanquishing a determined slave-based rebellion demonstrated to the world that the visionary ideals conferred by the American founding fathers could in fact be implemented and would prevail. I cannot but believe that the destruction of slavery and the decisive union of a nation based on the ideals of the Declaration of Independence gave hope and inspiration to millions of people throughout the world, either to fight for those ideals in their own countries, or to immigrate to the land that inspired these hopes. And millions upon millions did immigrate to the United States in the decades following the Civil War including those of my own family.

 

[wausaubob]

On a higher level, Lincoln's call for a "new birth of freedom" was a tremendous stimulus to national movements in Europe, South America and probably everywhere else. The success of the United States in vanquishing a determined slave-based rebellion demonstrated to the world that the visionary ideals conferred by the American founding fathers could in fact be implemented and would prevail. I cannot but believe that the destruction of slavery and the decisive union of a nation based on the ideals of the Declaration of Independence gave hope and inspiration to millions of people throughout the world, either to fight for those ideals in their own countries, or to immigrate to the land that inspired these hopes. And millions upon millions did immigrate to the United States in the decades following the Civil War including those of my own family.

Immigration at the usual level restarted as soon as the EP went into practice. Potential immigrants in Britain and on the continent apparently liked what they saw in the ambitions of the US.

On a higher level, Lincoln's call for a "new birth of freedom" was a tremendous stimulus to national movements in Europe, South America and probably everywhere else. The success of the United States in vanquishing a determined slave-based rebellion demonstrated to the world that the visionary ideals conferred by the American founding fathers could in fact be implemented and would prevail. I cannot but believe that the destruction of slavery and the decisive union of a nation based on the ideals of the Declaration of Independence gave hope and inspiration to millions of people throughout the world, either to fight for those ideals in their own countries, or to immigrate to the land that inspired these hopes. And millions upon millions did immigrate to the United States in the decades following the Civil War including those of my own family.

No other method of abolishing slavery would have taken slavery out of Missouri and Texas in the way the Civil War did.
The people that came over were Europe's loss and America's gain. Even by 1880 is showed.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Taking a big picture look at it.

Cannot see how slavery would have lasted much longer than the 1860s, given international political and moral trends (Britain and Europe effectively abolished it in the first half of the 19th. century) and thought slave labor had largely become commercially unviable for labor-intensive crops (during the period of industrialization and mechanization that occurred in the second half of the 19th. century).

Of course the elimination of slavery as a component of a systematic functioning society was a different matter to expunging its acceptance from the minds of some traditionalists that belonged to those predominantly agrarian-based societies where it occurred.

In my view, the abolition of slavery was inevitable (with or without CW), sooner rather than later, following the 1860s.

 

[wausaubob]

If you think there was another way, then you think John Kenneth Galbraith was wrong:

 

[Mint Julep]

A senseless war that was not worth the loss of human life.

 

[damYankee]

War always appears senseless in retrospect because the outcome seems obvious even preordained in the aftermath.
Hindsight doesn't come easy.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Perhaps a 'sense of worth' can be gleaned (especially for those in blue who fought and died in the CW), after reading the text of Lincoln's purported letter written to Mrs. Bixby expressing his condolences for the loss of her five sons in the conflict, to preserve the Union and instill freedom.

This was the letter read out by the commanding officer in the early office scene from the movie, 'Saving Private Ryan' and is included in the link below:-

President Lincoln, Mrs Bixby, Spielberg and the Truth

In the context of the U.S. Presidential election, the Principal tells the story of a former President’s relation to fake news, and wonders how such representations matter.

www.britishschoolmilan.com

Despite the historical inaccuracies surrounding this document, thought it still espouses a powerful sentiment.

 

[major bill]

In response to 'Was it worth it?'

Wondering. With all those transportation, economic, social and immigration trends happening, how long would the 'peculiar institution' have likely lasted following this period (i.e. '61 - '65), if its abolition was not precipitated by the occurrence of the armed conflict.

My prediction is based on the mechanization of agriculture. So I believe slaver would have lasted until the late 1940s to the late 1950s. Even this is dependent on how well enslaved labor performed in manufacturing operation. If slaves made good factory workers, I would predict the 1960 to 1970s.

 

[Desolu64]

Perhaps a 'sense of worth' can be gleaned (especially for those in blue who fought and died in the CW), after reading the text of Lincoln's purported letter written to Mrs. Bixby expressing his condolences for the loss of her five sons in the conflict, to preserve the Union and instill freedom.

This was the letter read out by the commanding officer in the early office scene from the movie, 'Saving Private Ryan' and is included in the link below:-

President Lincoln, Mrs Bixby, Spielberg and the Truth

In the context of the U.S. Presidential election, the Principal tells the story of a former President’s relation to fake news, and wonders how such representations matter.

www.britishschoolmilan.com

Despite the historical inaccuracies surrounding this document, thought it still espouses a powerful sentiment.

In E.B. Long's The Civil War Day By Day: An Almanac, 1861-1865, he said something similar to this article--only two of her five sons had been killed in battle (still a devastating loss of course). According to Long, two other sons deserted and one was honorably discharged.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

My prediction is based on the mechanization of agriculture. So I believe slaver would have lasted until the late 1940s to the late 1950s. Even this is dependent on how well enslaved labor performed in manufacturing operation. If slaves made good factory workers, I would predict the 1960 to 1970s.

That's an interesting extended prediction period.

In the next 100 years after the CW, there was rapid economic and labor-saving technological changes across industries and markets, as well as dramatic shifts in societal attitudes that led to progressive social movements. All this resulted in a restructuring of society and changes in the social script and culture. During this period, two world wars were also successfully fought to free and liberate oppressed and exploited peoples elsewhere.

In the wake of such societal transformation, it's difficult to comprehend (or even imagine) how an outdated originally agrarian slave labor system based on archaic values could have continued in any developed 20th​. century country, like the U.S., especially when all other industrialized nations had abolished slavery within their boundaries in the preceding century.

In saying this, have seen it argued that 19th​. century factory wage-earning workers were exploited like agricultural slave labour. But thought there was one big difference between these two labor systems – the 'freedom of movement' of workers.

 

[JerryD]

Taking a big picture look at it.

Cannot see how slavery would have lasted much longer than the 1860s, given international political and moral trends (Britain and Europe effectively abolished it in the first half of the 19th. century) and thought slave labor had largely become commercially unviable for labor-intensive crops (during the period of industrialization and mechanization that occurred in the second half of the 19th. century).

Of course the elimination of slavery as a component of a systematic functioning society was a different matter to expunging its acceptance from the minds of some traditionalists that belonged to those predominantly agrarian-based societies where it occurred.

In my view, the abolition of slavery was inevitable (with or without CW), sooner rather than later, following the 1860s.

Given that the price of slaves and demand for them was growing, it seems your statement on it not lasting much longer is more wishful thinking than anything else. I mean, in 1861 they went to war to protect slavery and you think in 10 years or so they would have just voluntarily given it up? That makes absolutely no sense. We will never know how long it would have lasted, but clearly in the 1860's the south was clinging ever more tightly to defending slavery (to the extent they went to war to fight for it), so unless foreign military intervention forcibly changed US policy there was nothing that was going to abolish it short of a Constitutional Amendment. The only way to really view this issue is when we think a Constitutional Amendment reasonably could have been passed.

A Constitutional Amendment requires a 3/4ths vote of the states. Since we had 15 slave states in 1860, and if we assume they all vote against any such amendment, then it would have taken 45 free states, for a total of 60 states, to pass any such amendment. Since we currently only have 50, not looking good if the slave states did not voluntarily give up slavery. Now, if we assume that Maryland, Delaware and Kentucky eventually at some time in the 19th Century eventually become free states, that still means 12 votes against, which would require 36 votes for the amendment, which means a total of 48 states. The US admitted its 48th state in 1912.

If one more state, perhaps Missouri, became a free state, then that would leave 11 slave states, and thus needing 33 votes in favor, for a total of 44 states. The US admitted its 44th state in 1890.

Given the reality of the amendment process, I tend to think its unrealistic to think slavery gets abolished before 1890 and that assumes every formerly slave state votes against its former sister slave states, which is not guaranteed by any means. I think it probably lingers into the 20th century. This all assumes that history plays out like it did and I realize that games can be played with breaking up free territories into more than one state, and accelerating admission dates, so maybe we can move up the dates a little. It also assumes the admission of no more slave states, of course. But the above I think is a good framework for considering when slavery might have been abolished.

 

[JerryD]

How could the answer be, Yes, all the bloodshed and money spent was worth the benefits that flowed from the surrender at Appomattox and reunification.
Frist the technical basis for transforming life in the US already existed before the Civil War. The telegraph system was rapidly consolidating before the Civil War and the railroad network in the northern states was boosted by the war. Very little that happened during the Civil War disturbed these two physical changes that created the continental nation.
The US grew before, during, and after the Civil War, based on voluntary immigration and foreign investment. Cotton production was an important factor. But separating the cotton revenue from the California Gold Rush, the railroad boom, and the sudden increase in immigration from Ireland and the German states seems to me to be impossible.
Did the Civil War increase immigration and foreign investment above the level that would have happened anyway? There's no way to tell. All that can be detected is that by 1863 immigration picked up. And from 1865 to 1874 it accelerated. Its difficult to imagine that level of immigration continuing if the US had been locked into an arms race with a nation maintaining slavery. The military expenses would have been a drag on the US and the Confederacy. One, or both nations would have needed to maintain conscription.
It seems improbable that foreign and domestic investment in infrastructure would have equaled the amount in real history if the US had agreed to a period or of separation. It would have taken many years for the railroad to climb the ridges in California and cross the empty regions of Wyoming and Utah. Peace made acceleration of that important communication link expeditious.
All that I can really detect is that when slavery was abolished Missouri benefitted from the population boom that swept over Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Missouri. Texas benefitted from the abolition of slavery at first. But in the 1870s explosive growth occurred in Texas, even before oil exploration began. After the Civil War, Texas demonstrated that cotton production did not require slavery. Instead railroads and a deep water port cut the cost of marketing cotton and made it competitive.
Different commentators will have different opinions. As always proceed carefully under the watchful eye of @bdtex and our other gracious moderators.

One major benefit you are leaving out of your analysis is the US becoming a major world power in the 19th century and after WWII becoming a super power. That likely does not happen if the US just let the southeastern part of the country to walk away.

 

[wausaubob]

One major benefit you are leaving out of your analysis is the US becoming a major world power in the 19th century and after WWII becoming a super power. That likely does not happen if the US just let the southeastern part of the country to walk away.

It seems unlikely that the US would benefit from immigration and foreign investment at the historic level if it was confronted by the Confederacy. The Confederacy would have been a pariah nation practicing an anachronistic labor system. White families would have left the Confederacy as conditions declined.