Was it worth it?

[jackt62]

Who do we think would be the unifying Democratic standard bearer in 1864?

That would have been almost impossible. The Democratic party was split between the so-called "Peace" Democrats, who favored an end to the war by negotiated settlement and the "War" Democrats who favored some sort of continuation of the war. The party platform was influenced by the peace faction but nominated McClellan, a war democrat as its presidential candidate. To take advantage of this split and draw off Democratic Party voters who would not normally vote for a Republican, in 1864 Lincoln actually ran under the banner of the "National Union."

 

[wausaubob]

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

That is off topic and not a correct description of the issue that existed in 1787.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

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.

Cleburne is near the TOP of my list of favorite Civil War generals.

 

[Pork Chop Phil]

Likewise: an Irishman , wanted to be a doctor, served in the British army as an NCO, fought as a leader of first rate American fighters…. What's not to like ?

 

[Hammons]

Does the south survive without slavery? If so what is the transition that maintains it economy?

 

[atlantis]

Does the south survive without slavery? If so what is the transition that maintains it economy?

I think it would have survived, Gov't ownership of key enterprises and the use of conscription/impressed labor could have maintained the economy.

 

[Hammons]

I think it would have survived, Gov't ownership of key enterprises and the use of conscription/impressed labor could have maintained the economy.

So post war cociety

 

[Pork Chop Phil]

Was the " Peculiar Institution " sufficiently adaptable to expand into areas of agriculture apart from King Cotton, tobacco and rice ? Do we caricature the South too much as hidebound in traditional ways: stereotypical archaic agrarianism ? There were sharp minds in the South ; the war itself revealed ingenuity and resourcefulness, and wonders of improvisation. Edmund Ruffin showed himself to be a genius of sorts, in his understanding of soil science and its application. Is it plausible to think that the southern slaveocracy might have flourished if it had expanded and adapted to different conditions and turned its " human property " to account ? Viewed in that light, one can argue that the war prevented a monstrous outcome.

 

[wausaubob]

Was the " Peculiar Institution " sufficiently adaptable to expand into areas of agriculture apart from King Cotton, tobacco and rice ? Do we caricature the South too much as hidebound in traditional ways: stereotypical archaic agrarianism ? There were sharp minds in the South ; the war itself revealed ingenuity and resourcefulness, and wonders of improvisation. Edmund Ruffin showed himself to be a genius of sorts, in his understanding of soil science and its application. Is it plausible to think that the southern slaveocracy might have flourished if it had expanded and adapted to different conditions and turned its " human property " to account ? Viewed in that light, one can argue that the war prevented a monstrous outcome.

That is a slavery issue. On this blog slavery issues have their own place and are usually moderated. If you want another slavery discussion please start a new thread elsewhere.

 

[Pork Chop Phil]

So the dispute over the expansion of slavery into the expanding United States has no place in this discussion ? A bit like Hamlet without the Prince, wouldn't you say ? Am I out of line ? If so, then I must apologise and accept your censure.

 

[BCS1973]

So the dispute over the expansion of slavery into the expanding United States has no place in this discussion ? A bit like Hamlet without the Prince, wouldn't you say ? Am I out of line ? If so, then I must apologise and accept your censure.

Deep diving in to slavery expansion is probably not for this thread. It is a much discussed issue on this forum, just in moderated areas. On occasion we get a bit rowdy when discussing those issues The Slavery Talk and Secession Talk sections of the forum are two popular places.

 

[Pork Chop Phil]

Rest assured that I intend to exhibit maximum respect for the code of conduct of this forum. My larger point, which I hope I can articulate without stepping out of line, is the notion that we have subscribed too easily to the view that the South was essentially archaic and was bound to fail in its attempt to stem the northern juggernaut. I attended a lecture delivered by an American scholar who wanted to demonstrate how there was a significant cohort of pro slavery proponents in California before and during the war, who were keen to show that slavery could flourish there, too. I wanted to discuss whether the agrarian skills of southern planters and their slaves were sufficient to adapt to pastures new, so to speak. And, in the wider sense, whether the warfare exhibited by the Confederacy, revealed skills and even genius in terms of improvisation and technique. If the answers to both these questions are in the affirmative, then we might well decide that the war was worth its staggering cost, because the future of what became the mightiest power on earth was NOT decided by the dangerous talents of people the likes of Calhoun, Stephens, Toombs, Ruffin and Cobb, and their admirable warriors such as Lee, Cleburne and others.

 

[wausaubob]

Rest assured that I intend to exhibit maximum respect for the code of conduct of this forum. My larger point, which I hope I can articulate without stepping out of line, is the notion that we have subscribed too easily to the view that the South was essentially archaic and was bound to fail in its attempt to stem the northern juggernaut. I attended a lecture delivered by an American scholar who wanted to demonstrate how there was a significant cohort of pro slavery proponents in California before and during the war, who were keen to show that slavery could flourish there, too. I wanted to discuss whether the agrarian skills of southern planters and their slaves were sufficient to adapt to pastures new, so to speak. And, in the wider sense, whether the warfare exhibited by the Confederacy, revealed skills and even genius in terms of improvisation and technique. If the answers to both these questions are in the affirmative, then we might well decide that the war was worth its staggering cost, because the future of what became the mightiest power on earth was NOT decided by the dangerous talents of people the likes of Calhoun, Stephens, Toombs, Ruffin and Cobb, and their admirable warriors such as Lee, Cleburne and others.

If you want to argue that the limited success the Confederacy enjoyed in Napoleonic land battles demonstrated it was a potentially viable nation, go for it. But most people would argue that without a navy, and without the ability to produce inland steamboats and ocean going steamships, the Confederacy was not physically independent of the US, Britain and France.
Slavery had existed in Missouri for 40 years, yet by 1860 only about 1/11th of Missouri were enslaved people.
New York City abolished slavery gradually in the early part of the 19th century. New York/Brooklyn grew to a population of over 1 million people while Richmond was a small city of about 50,000 people.
The Confederacy could never had endured neighboring a nation that was more populous, that had a larger and more diversified agricultural economy, and was rapidly industrializing.
The rapid changes in the telegraph system and in the railroad network in the paid labor states that occurred between 1844 and 1860 were just the start. The pace of change was going to accelerate.

 

[Pork Chop Phil]

The point I'm grappling with here is that Shelby Foote's insistence that the South never had a chance in that war - that the North effectively fought with one hand tied behind its back and that all it had to do was bring out that other hand - rather tends to make the war seem more of a tragically futile or pointless affair. If, on the other hand, the South possessed the attributes necessary to win its fight - and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that it did, in my opinion- then that war was more worthwhile. Indeed, is it legitimate to suggest that it needed to be fought, in that case ? I wanted to integrate slavery into the equation, since that was a defining difference between the two sides. If the South had the wherewithal to adapt its most notorious institution to expand and generate wealth, then it was going to be better endowed to fight with a chance of winning.

 

[major bill]

Part of the problem with "Was it worth it?" is that while it would be likely that North America would be different than it is today, we can not know how it would look.

Say two peacefully nations living in harmony. Two aggressive nations fighting one war after another for 150 years. Three or four peaceful democracies, each charting thier own destiny. A Balkanized North America with 8 or 10 aggressive nations seizing territory from one another and using ethnic cleansing in the captured territories. A Balkanized area with democracies battling monarchies and military dictatorships.

In some of the above cases an argument could be made it was not worth it, in other examples it would be consider well worth it.

 

[wausaubob]

The point I'm grappling with here is that Shelby Foote's insistence that the South never had a chance in that war - that the North effectively fought with one hand tied behind its back and that all it had to do was bring out that other hand - rather tends to make the war seem more of a tragically futile or pointless affair. If, on the other hand, the South possessed the attributes necessary to win its fight - and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that it did, in my opinion- then that war was more worthwhile. Indeed, is it legitimate to suggest that it needed to be fought, in that case ? I wanted to integrate slavery into the equation, since that was a defining difference between the two sides. If the South had the wherewithal to adapt its most notorious institution to expand and generate wealth, then it was going to be better endowed to fight with a chance of winning.

The late Mr. Foote was correct. Tactics didn't matter very much. Communication at the speed of electricity, supplies moving by steam power over water and over land, and steam power proliferating throughout industry and producing the age of mass production, that is what mattered.

 

[wausaubob]

Part of the problem with "Was it worth it?" is that while it would be likely that North America would be different than it is today, we can not know how it would look.

Say two peacefully nations living in harmony. Two aggressive nations fighting one war after another for 150 years. Three or four peaceful democracies, each charting thier own destiny. A Balkanized North America with 8 or 10 aggressive nations seizing territory from one another and using ethnic cleansing in the captured territories. A Balkanized area with democracies battling monarchies and military dictatorships.

In some of the above cases an argument could be made it was not worth it, in other examples it would be consider well worth it.

Its difficult to conceive of how the two nations, both aggressive and expantionist, could lived side by side for any considerable time.
One nation repelled international and internal immigration and had lost part of its population growth to other parts of the US. The other belligerent was probably the fastest growing modern nation in the world. By 1868 the US could have crushed the Confederacy in 9 months.

 

[Pork Chop Phil]

Its difficult to conceive of how the two nations, both aggressive and expantionist, could lived side by side for any considerable time.
One nation repelled international and internal immigration and had lost part of its population growth to other parts of the US. The other belligerent was probably the fastest growing modern nation in the world. By 1868 the US could have crushed the Confederacy in 9 months.

Which rather works as grist to the mill for my suggestions. What a shame the war wasn't delayed until 1868 ! A quicker, cleaner and cheaper affair, rather than the protracted attritional grind that it was several years earlier.
Then, I suppose, the South felt that it was the " Now or Never@ moment in 1861.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Its difficult to conceive of how the two nations, both aggressive and expantionist, could lived side by side for any considerable time.
One nation repelled international and internal immigration and had lost part of its population growth to other parts of the US. The other belligerent was probably the fastest growing modern nation in the world. By 1868 the US could have crushed the Confederacy in 9 months.

That brings up a related, interesting discussion. Perhaps it's been discussed in another thread before. But I agree with you that the longer the confederacy waited to secede, the larger the gap between north and south would be. So that begs the question, is there any "Goldilocks zone" of secession, far enough removed from both the external threats of the AWI and the internal threats of the ACW, where the south would have been most likely to secede successfully?

 

[wausaubob]

That brings up a related, interesting discussion. Perhaps it's been discussed in another thread before. But I agree with you that the longer the confederacy waited to secede, the larger the gap between north and south would be. So that begs the question, is there any "Goldilocks zone" of secession, far enough removed from both the external threats of the AWI and the internal threats of the ACW, where the south would have been most likely to secede successfully?

Possibly. But every financial crisis in the Confederacy and every time they engaged in expansionist warfare, the US would have embarrassed the Confederacy.
If the Confederacy was independent, I believe the British continue their efforts to find alternative sources for high grade fiber, and eventually the British would succeed. The politics of secession favor New England and the New York banking interests in the US. I don't see those elements as patiently out waiting the Confederacy. That's an excursion into "what if" land and as noted above, its hard to rule out any possibility.