Was it worth it?

[damYankee]

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.

And the millions of previously enslaved!

 

[damYankee]

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.

I think the only thing that would have prevented the CW would have been an aggressive act by a foreign power.
I totally agree with you on the FSA, there were millions of Northern Americans and a few Southerners as well who had no horse in the race until they were forced by federal law to become slave hunters under threat of arrest.

 

[wausaubob]

I think the only thing that would have prevented the CW would have been an aggressive act by a foreign power.
I totally agree with you on the FSA, there were millions of Northern Americans and a few Southerners as well who had no horse in the race until they were forced by federal law to become slave hunters under threat of arrest.

Suddenly every sheriff and every mayor had to have a pro or con position on slavery.

 

[archieclement]

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.

Indeed whether you agree with them or not, they obviously thought their actions were justified and worth the risk or consequences.

 

[archieclement]

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!)

I certainly have not blamed just the north at every opportunity.

Indeed actually what I've said all along is failure to reach a compromise, is actually a failure by both sides, not just one or the other. So I don't blame one side over the other as I see it as rather a tragedy all around.

But to look at one action, without considering the prior history leading to it would be folly.

As well you must have some fuzzy math. As in 1860 there was 33 states. Of whom only 15 were slave which wouldn't be a majority at all.

There may been a Democrat majority, but it would never been somehow just southern. People seem to wish to gloss over there was always actually northern democratic support

 

[wausaubob]

I certainly have not blamed just the north at every opportunity.

Indeed actually what I've said all along is failure to reach a compromise, is actually a failure by both sides, not just one or the other. So I don't blame one side over the other as I see it as rather a tragedy all around.

But to look at one action, without considering the prior history leading to it would be folly.

As well you must have some fuzzy math. As in 1860 there was 33 states. Of whom only 15 were slave which wouldn't be a majority at all.

There may been a Democrat majority, but it would never been somehow just southern. People seem to wish to gloss over there was always actually northern democratic support

Your regard action is comparable to Fisher Hill in September 1864. Be aware of Crook and Rickett. They may gain your left flank.

 

[archieclement]

Your regard action is comparable to Fisher Hill in September 1864. Be aware of Crook and Rickett. They may gain your left flank.

It's certainly absurd when one has stated the south shouldn't have seceded repeatedly over the years, some suggest that is blaming the north somehow exclusively

Some apparently make up what they wish to hear, or are certainly applying spin.........

I could use a more modern comparison that would seem certainly comparable, but forum frowns on era comparison.

 

[wausaubob]

It's certainly absurd when one has stated the south shouldn't have seceded repeatedly over the years, some suggest that is blaming the north somehow exclusively

Some apparently make up what they wish to hear, or are certainly applying spin.........

I could use a more modern comparison that would seem certainly comparable, but forum frowns on era comparison.

OK, but don't look to Andrew Johnson or David Farragut or Winfield Scott for reinforcements. It would have been hard to get Samuel Lee to agree with the secessionist movement.
The changes were coming, and the revolutionary result of the Civil War probably saved billions in military expenditures and prevented countless incursions, any one of which could have exploded into all out war.

 

[wausaubob]

Another way out would have been to free all the slaves after 1787 and improve their lives. That might have allowed the population to grow faster, and might have made the southern areas more attractive to white immigrants.

 

[wausaubob]

In the 1860 president election Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas together received 60% of the votes. I suspect those voters wanted to preserve the union, preserve democracy, and to have the contentious issues resolved through negotiation in a representative democracy. Preserving democracy probably made the cost worthwhile.

 

[JerryD]

In the 1860 president election Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas together received 60% of the votes. I suspect those voters wanted to preserve the union, preserve democracy, and to have the contentious issues resolved through negotiation in a representative democracy. Preserving democracy probably made the cost worthwhile.

Well, that was the whole point Lincoln was making in the Gettysburg Address. As he saw it, the war was about whether governments of the people, by the people and for the people could long endure. If people would split off into factions every time they didnt like an election result, then democracy could not survive. Lincoln thought nothing less than the survival of democratic government was at stake. If the CSA was permitted to split, then soon the US would be split into countless numbers of mini-states, each one of which could be further split anytime people did not like an election result.

 

[Library Lady]

I do have relatives who fought for the CSA, and I respect their service. In fact, I grew up being a huge southern sympathizer. But as I learned more about the war as an adult I came to realize my relatives were sheep led to slaughter by leaders who were lying to them and were acting irrationally. If southern leaders had just sat down and looked at the situation with a cooler head after Lincoln won, they would have realized things were not as bad as they feared. Yes, they had lost an election, but mostly due to their own internal divisions. There was every expectation that if they got their act together with northern Dems who were sympathetic towards their issues, they could get the Presidency back in 4 years. In the meantime you had a closely split House and a Supreme Court led by Taney that had just recently issued Dred Scott and said slaves could be brought into the territories.

You all know I like to read alternative history. I like this scenario, but I have questions.

Who do we think would be the unifying Democratic standard bearer in 1864? By this time Douglas is dead and things he championed like the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Freeport Doctrine had been some of the reasons for the breakup of the Democratic Party. Obviously (I think) McClellan is not a choice (as he was in real life).

Do we think reinstating the Missouri Compromise at the original baseline or some other could be accomplished? To be honest, who really wants to go through "Bleeding Kansas" with every new state?

What exactly do we do with the Fugitive Slave Act to make sure alleged runaways get due process, especially when the recently deceased Chief Justice had declared that Blacks had no rights whites need respect? Who becomes the next Chief Justice (in real life it was Salmon Chase)?

If Lincoln is not "pushy" in regard to emancipation (never mind full abolition) and accomplishes other things that are good for the country, are we sure he wouldn't be reelected? Are we counting on the Republican party breaking up over go slow (gradual and perhaps compensated emancipation) vs. go fast (full abolition)?

 

[damYankee]

I certainly have not blamed just the north at every opportunity.

Indeed actually what I've said all along is failure to reach a compromise, is actually a failure by both sides, not just one or the other. So I don't blame one side over the other as I see it as rather a tragedy all around.

But to look at one action, without considering the prior history leading to it would be folly.

As well you must have some fuzzy math. As in 1860 there was 33 states. Of whom only 15 were slave which wouldn't be a majority at all.

There may been a Democrat majority, but it would never been somehow just southern. People seem to wish to gloss over there was always actually northern democratic support

Each state has how many senators?
2
That is what is called a voting block.

 

[JerryD]

You all know I like to read alternative history. I like this scenario, but I have questions.

Who do we think would be the unifying Democratic standard bearer in 1864? By this time Douglas is dead and things he championed like the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Freeport Doctrine had been some of the reasons for the breakup of the Democratic Party. Obviously (I think) McClellan is not a choice (as he was in real life).

Do we think reinstating the Missouri Compromise at the original baseline or some other could be accomplished? To be honest, who really wants to go through "Bleeding Kansas" with every new state?

What exactly do we do with the Fugitive Slave Act to make sure alleged runaways get due process, especially when the recently deceased Chief Justice had declared that Blacks had no rights whites need respect? Who becomes the next Chief Justice (in real life it was Salmon Chase)?

If Lincoln is not "pushy" in regard to emancipation (never mind full abolition) and accomplishes other things that are good for the country, are we sure he wouldn't be reelected? Are we counting on the Republican party breaking up over go slow (gradual and perhaps compensated emancipation) vs. go fast (full abolition)?

Are we assuming in your scenario no war? If so, then Butler and Breckinridge are a viable options. Butler actually ran in 1860 as a pro-slavery Democrat.

 

[JerryD]

Thinking about the original question of Was it worth it?, I was thinking getting Lincoln's thoughts might be helpful. Here is the full text of his Second Inaugural Address, given about a month before the surrender. In it, you can see him making the case the war was fought to preserve the US, but that also talks about the judgement of God against the US for the scourge of slavery, and implies that who are we to question God's punishment for the offense of slavery. Clearly, Lincoln thought the war, and its effects were worth it all.

And if you are unfamiliar with this speech, or have not read it before, I highly recommend it. Its one of the great orations in US history, and the last paragraph in particular presents Lincoln's view for Reconstruction. In my tours of the Smithsonian I mention this clause and how he speaks of "malice towards none" after a war that had so much killing and hatred, and how this reflects what a truly great man he was. Only a truly great man could lead a country though such a bitter war and then put emotion away and seek to take care of his former enemies, and his widow, and his orphan, and to achieve "a just and lasting peace".

"Fellow-Countrymen:

"At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of this great conflict which is of primary concern to the nation as a whole, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

"On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.

"One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Winston Churchill put a very positive gloss on It:


" …the noblest and least avoidable of all the great mass conflicts of which till then there was record."

Noble ? Well , Winston was an incurable romantic, and many British people seek inspiration in the story of your Civil War. I know, because I'm one of them !

Least avoidable ? That's a pregnant phrase. It certainly doesn't imply inevitability. It does suggest that it was almost bound to happen, in which case , arguably, it was better fought sooner rather than later, before the advent of rapid firing artillery and automatic firepower became ubiquitous.

The war left a uniquely foul legacy, in so far as the abolition of Slavery left the racial codes not only still extant, but rendered more enthused with bitterness on account of the enormous demographic and material damage suffered by the white population.

On the other hand , as Shelby Foote said, before it was " These United States are.." , after it was " The United States is.. It made US into an IS".

Germany and Italy forged consolidations of their countries at about the same time: perhaps this was a paradigm of sorts that Americans also benefited from as a result of their ordeal.

If I had to make up my mind, I would say that it was worth the result, but I'd be wobbling a lot.

One thing you wrote stands out: 'On the other hand , as Shelby Foote said, before it was " These United States are.." , after it was " The United States is.. It made US into an IS".' THAT is the only thing that in some ways makes the Civil War almost a negative - it destroyed states' rights permanently, and gave the federal government almost complete power and control of the people on a forever basis.

 

[Pork Chop Phil]

Thinking from the emotions rather than the intellect, I reflect on the quality and character of so much first rate manhood that was squandered at a time when the American people were in the flower of potential. For some reason, I keep thinking about Patrick Roynane Cleburne: what a fine fellow; what a talented leader of men ! What better exemplar could there be of courage, devotion and selflessness. Imagine what such a person might have bestowed on the world if he'd applied those attributes to a nation that remained at peace. All very cliched, I know, but heartfelt all the same. Viewed from that standpoint, how could it have been worth it ? British people still feel this acutely about 1914-18.

 

[wausaubob]

One thing you wrote stands out: 'On the other hand , as Shelby Foote said, before it was " These United States are.." , after it was " The United States is.. It made US into an IS".' THAT is the only thing that in some ways makes the Civil War almost a negative - it destroyed states' rights permanently, and gave the federal government almost complete power and control of the people on a forever basis.

The telegraph and the railroads were going to make that happen, and had already begun to make that change when the war started. For instance every major town and every capital in the northern US states, and the border states too, knew about the shelling of Fort Sumpter in a few days. The regiments began arriving in Washinton in a few weeks.

 

[wausaubob]

The deep south Democrats had control of the southern portion of the Democratic party. And the southern Democrats could control the entire party if they could find a few northern Democrats to help them. When Stephen A. Douglas was not willing to unequivicably support the expansion of slavery, the alliance broke down. The deep south Democrates were not willing to accept the loss of power.
The nation that existed in 1860 was fundamentally physically different than the nation that existed in 1787. When communication moved at the speed of electricity, and all weather transportation at 15-20 mph spread across the northern areas the tools to run a continental nation existed.

 

[genbeau]

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

The constitution never would have been agreed to by most states if slavery had not been sanctioned.