Was it worth it?

[The Ninth Ohio]

I have no opinion particularly one way or the other. There certainly was a huge cost and negatives that went with it as well, so see it rather hard to weigh. As well such a determination would assume their was no possible alternatives, which i think is rather false.

The arguments are amusing though, as some that say it was worth it......will turn around to condemn Mexican or Indian wars......which provided argueably far more upside for far less cost

Wait, are you comparing making war on the seceding south to the Mexican and Indian wars? You have a very unique perspective. But hey, at least we know you're just being honest.

Congrats I guess. Moving on.

 

[major bill]

It was inevitable that, in a system that awards electoral votes to states based on population, slave states would be on a forever downward spiral. Most European immigrants had zero interest in living down south prior to the civil war, and little changed after it in that regard.

So no, I don't think European immigrants would be any more inclined to move to southern states in a second half of the 19th century where their chances for low wage jobs were nil because slavery was still legal. And a civil war 50 years later would likely have cost much more in the way of lives and fortunes.

Which is why the slave economy states at some point would have probably demanded a political system where the Northern states would forfeit their right to vote in elections. The Northern states would have had to understand that to save the union they would not get to participate in electing congressmen, senators, or presidents. The United State would still have a democracy, but not one based on universal suffrage.

 

[archieclement]

Wait, are you comparing making war on the seceding south to the Mexican and Indian wars? You have a very unique perspective. But hey, at least we know you're just being honest.

Congrats I guess. Moving on.

So your going to judge a wars worth or upside, without comparing it to others cost and upside? Certainly would think would weigh cost and lasting negatives.

Indeed a unique perspective, congrats i guess.......moving on.

 

[Desolu64]

I am not claiming any moral high ground when I say criminal if you lose, I am merely stating the way the world works. If you don't like it, feel free to deposit your complaint in the Suggestion box located in your trash can.

And its beyond silly to claim unless someone is convicted, they are not a criminal. Lots of criminals get away with crimes and do not get punished. If someone slashed your tires and you could not prove who did it, someone is still a criminal who did it. Booth was never convicted of shooting Lincoln. Does that mean he is not a criminal? Any rational person would say no. Feel free to disagree. I know you want to.

And honestly, I find this whole debate rather silly. If you're convinced your actions are morally justified you shouldn't care if legally you're a criminal or not. Legally, Rosa Parks was a criminal.

 

[JerryD]

And honestly, I find this whole debate rather silly. If you're convinced your actions are morally justified you shouldn't care if legally you're a criminal or not. Legally, Rosa Parks was a criminal.

I know! I have relatives that fought for the CSA. Who really cares what their legal status was? They did what they did for their own reasons.

But to be honest, I am always amused when folks like Archie makes these kinds of arguments. It shows to everyone else on this forum the mental gymnastics and flights of fancy they have go through to defend something that, quite frankly, doesn't need defending. I thought it was a given that the rebels were engaged in rebellion. Given how ridiculous his claims are, I doubt he is convincing anyone.

 

[JerryD]

There had been compromises before to expand and protect slavery. Even if a compromise was possible in 1860, then a compromise in 1870 would be needed, another compromise in 1880 to expand and protect slavery, and another in 1890, perhaps again in 1900. The issue is at some point the federal government attempting to expanding and protecting slavery might not be able to save the slave base economic system. What could the federal government do in 1920 as a compromise that would protect and expand slavery? The advance in weapons by 1920 would have made a 1920 Civil War very destructive.

I still have no idea what this "compromise" was supposed to look like, but I think the rise of the Republican party was symptomatic of the northern electorate tiring of having to coddle the slaveholders who were a tiny minority but who wielded outsized political power. They had been screaming like chicken little that the sky was falling unless some concession to slavery was made by the majority who opposed it. I think by 1860 people were saying "Enough! No more compromises." And while the GOP did get a minority in 1860 in the Presidential election, clearly the trend was that it was growing and hostility to slavery was only going to continue to grow.

Personally, I think one of the greatest mistakes the south made was imposing the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 on the north. Very few slaves were ever recovered from the north, but the abuses under the Act committed in northern states inflamed the population who could see first hand how egregious the slaveholders were and how overreaching they were. When slavery was out of sight and out of mind in the south, it was one thing. But seeing the FSA in action in northern states incensed people and help drive northern opinion against the institution.

So I agree, even if some compromise could have been agreed to in 1860, I don't think the northern electorate would have stood for one by 1870.

 

[wausaubob]

Write about the gains and losses after the Civil War, or blog about an alternative way to avoid the war. Otherwise I am going to bring @bdtex around.

 

[CWdiaryPA]

OK you can call anyone you wish criminal you want......it certainly is ridiculous. As your argument is anyone you suspect is criminal......absent any actual finding other then your opinion.


It remains however absent a trial and conviction they are not legally. Which is rather the point of a criminal finding .

I can certainly distinguish between opinion of guilt, whether mine or yours, and actual record of finding, or lack of any actual finding.

You're making a distinction without a difference. It's a phantom distinction. When I start going in this direction it usually helps if I pour water over my head. That tends to snap me out of it.

 

[wausaubob]

Texas was a secessionist state. It did not experience economic depravation after the Civil War. Missouri had permitted slavery until January 1865, although it never became a dominant part of the social fabric there. It experienced rapid growth during the war decade and thereafter. Much of what happened in the deep south cotton belt probably was caused by cotton production not being enough to pay the bills, and by Texas producing great mountains of cotton.

 

[wausaubob]

I still have no idea what this "compromise" was supposed to look like, but I think the rise of the Republican party was symptomatic of the northern electorate tiring of having to coddle the slaveholders who were a tiny minority but who wielded outsized political power. They had been screaming like chicken little that the sky was falling unless some concession to slavery was made by the majority who opposed it. I think by 1860 people were saying "Enough! No more compromises." And while the GOP did get a minority in 1860 in the Presidential election, clearly the trend was that it was growing and hostility to slavery was only going to continue to grow.

Personally, I think one of the greatest mistakes the south made was imposing the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 on the north. Very few slaves were ever recovered from the north, but the abuses under the Act committed in northern states inflamed the population who could see first hand how egregious the slaveholders were and how overreaching they were. When slavery was out of sight and out of mind in the south, it was one thing. But seeing the FSA in action in northern states incensed people and help drive northern opinion against the institution.

So I agree, even if some compromise could have been agreed to in 1860, I don't think the northern electorate would have stood for one by 1870.

The FSA injected the issue of slavery into every political contest in the paid labor states.

 

[wausaubob]

Which southern people would have agreed that the Civil War was not worth it? Some states that had previously been thought of as southern became part of the Mid Atlantic economy, or Midwestern states. For example, did people in Baltimore think it had not been worth it when the capital in DC was maintained and the B and O railroad was repaired? How about people in Kentucky and Tennessee who had served in the US army and found they had opportunities everywhere in the US? Did they regret the war? We could call on @leftyhunter to expound on how many people throughout what had been considered the south never joined the Confederacy and instead either joined the US armed services, or resistance movements in the Confederacy. Those people probably thought it had been worth it. I'll conjecture that the vast majority of formerly enslaved people thought it had been worth it.
Broadening the question to include the millions of people who came over from Europe from 1863 to 1874, did they think the Civil War had been worth it?

 

[CWdiaryPA]

Several founders actually were slave owners.
It's not exactly clear who was opposed.
View attachment 569844

The Slaves. The Slaves were opposed.

 

[wausaubob]

Wiki can't do everything for us, but the numbers on reapportionment are available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment
With the 3/5ths compromise in place, elections would have been determined in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and Illinois. And Virginia would have developed very pronounced third party tendencies.

 

[leftyhunter]

Which southern people would have agreed that the Civil War was not worth it? Some states that had previously been thought of as southern became part of the Mid Atlantic economy, or Midwestern states. For example, did people in Baltimore think it had not been worth it when the capital in DC was maintained and the B and O railroad was repaired? How about people in Kentucky and Tennessee who had served in the US army and found they had opportunities everywhere in the US? Did they regret the war? We could call on @leftyhunter to expound on how many people throughout what had been considered the south never joined the Confederacy and instead either joined the US armed services, or resistance movements in the Confederacy. Those people probably thought it had been worth it. I'll conjecture that the vast majority of formerly enslaved people thought it had been worth it.
Broadening the question to include the millions of people who came over from Europe from 1863 to 1874, did they think the Civil War had been worth it?

For many Unionists the ACW resulted in them being harassed or persecuted post ACW so they had to leave the South. By the same token many former Confederate guerrillas moved to Montana as early as 1864. Of course not being enslaved was a net positive for African Americans but quasi slavery in the form of convict leasing existed until the 1940s.
In the very long term long after those who lived during the ACW were already dead from old age the ACW the ACW eventually led to civil rights for all.
Immigrants most likely didn't really care about the ACW it wasn't their fight. Most immigrants didn't settle in the South until well into the 20th Century.
For many African Americans life didn't dramatically change in their life time post ACW if they stayed in the South.
Leftyhunter

 

[G Low]

The Slaves. The Slaves were opposed.

True but they had no vote in the matter.

 

[damYankee]

I have no opinion particularly one way or the other. There certainly was a huge cost and negatives that went with it as well, so see it rather hard to weigh. As well such a determination would assume their was no possible alternatives, which i think is rather false.

The arguments are amusing though, as some that say it was worth it......will turn around to condemn Mexican or Indian wars......which provided argueably far more upside for far less cost

You are passive aggressive on the topic. You continuously blame the north for the war at every opportunity, and drag every discussion down the "The North made Me Do It" argument.
You said the North alienated the South in one post without any evidence, when pressed you always claim to have no opinion one way or the other but you always defend the Confederation.
You seem to have the misguided historical view the the North was in sole power of everything and the South just tagged along, dragging the Indian Wars and the Mexican Wars into the debate ignoring the fact that the Southern States had always held the majority power in the Senate and the White House and the Supreme Court between 1789 and 1860.
That is what lead to secession, the fear that western expansion with more free states being admitted into the nation would reduce the power of the slave states. (Sorry I didn't finish my thoughts earlier Squirrel!)

 

[JerryD]

The FSA injected the issue of slavery into every political contest in the paid labor states.

My point exactly. And I dont think people understand just how egregious the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was. Southern states took the position that if a slave catcher said someone living peacefully in the north was a slave, then that person got no due diligence. They got no court case to prove they were not. They were just whisked away and sent into slavery with nothing more than the word of a slave catcher. People who had lived in communities and become a part of them were suddenly ripped away create sensations that antagonized audiences up north. And when northern states tried to pass legislation to provide some ability to determine the truth of the matter (Personal Liberty Laws), southern states went crazy and said northern states had no legitimate interest in determining if its citizens were being kidnapped and sold into slavery (so much for states rights, BTW). When northern cities and states saw how unfair this law was and how it was abused, it quickly made many people into abolitionists.

This type of overreach by slave owners (Lecompton and Dred Scott are other examples of this) alienated the north from the interest of slaveholders. In the end the slaveholders were their own worst enemy, in that they could not see how their actions were being perceived in the north. As I said, I think this was a major factor (along with Bleeding Kansas) with the creation and growth of the GOP and the desire to limit the expansion of slavery and to see its eventual demise.

 

[JerryD]

Which southern people would have agreed that the Civil War was not worth it? Some states that had previously been thought of as southern became part of the Mid Atlantic economy, or Midwestern states. For example, did people in Baltimore think it had not been worth it when the capital in DC was maintained and the B and O railroad was repaired? How about people in Kentucky and Tennessee who had served in the US army and found they had opportunities everywhere in the US? Did they regret the war? We could call on @leftyhunter to expound on how many people throughout what had been considered the south never joined the Confederacy and instead either joined the US armed services, or resistance movements in the Confederacy. Those people probably thought it had been worth it. I'll conjecture that the vast majority of formerly enslaved people thought it had been worth it.
Broadening the question to include the millions of people who came over from Europe from 1863 to 1874, did they think the Civil War had been worth it?

Good questions.

Clearly there were a lot of unionists in the south who would have been happy with the result, but they had to live with the ruined economy of the south. How many stayed in the south would be an interesting study.

As for immigrants, historically immigrants did not move to the south while slavery existed, as they knew the labor system was not conducive to their advancement. Free states were perceived to be areas where greater opportunity existed. Post slavery, I have to believe it took some time for this attitude to change, but eventually it did, but I suspect there were still small numbers of immigrants moving to ex-confed states prior to 1874.

 

[wausaubob]

My point exactly. And I dont think people understand just how egregious the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was. Southern states took the position that if a slave catcher said someone living peacefully in the north was a slave, then that person got no due diligence. They got no court case to prove they were not. They were just whisked away and sent into slavery with nothing more than the word of a slave catcher. People who had lived in communities and become a part of them were suddenly ripped away create sensations that antagonized audiences up north. And when northern states tried to pass legislation to provide some ability to determine the truth of the matter (Personal Liberty Laws), southern states went crazy and said northern states had no legitimate interest in determining if its citizens were being kidnapped and sold into slavery (so much for southern states, BTW). When northern cities and states saw how unfair this law was and how it was abused, it quickly made many people into abolitionists.

This type of overreach by slave owners (Lecompton and Dred Scott are other examples of this) alienated the north from the interest of slaveholders. In the end the slaveholders were their own worst enemy, in that they could not see how their actions were being perceived in the north. As I said, I think this was a major factor (along with Bleeding Kansas) with the creation and growth of the GOP and the desire to limit the expansion of slavery and to see its eventual demise.

Which reinforces the opinion that by 1850 there was no compromise available that would solve the problem. The Republicans, and the Constitutional Party, the inheritors of the Whig ideas were probably going to get stronger by 1862, if there had been no war. As @major bill posted, every decade there would have been a new crisis which demanded a new solution, and the paid labor states were getting stronger relative to those states that permitted slavery.

 

[wausaubob]

The winners of the Civil War were New York City, what became the Midwest, and the owners and workers in the railroad industry, including all the domestic vendors. That's a good start in estimating who thought it had been worth it. The whales in the northern Pacific might have been glad there was a Civil War in the US. I don't think they were ever polled.