Was it worth it?

[damYankee]

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

Do the southern states survive today?
Hmmmm.

 

[damYankee]

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.

I think you make a good point, The South did generate wealth, but only for the plantation owners and those industries that supported it.
That was the Achilles heel of the Southern economy. We have this idea that slaves only worked on plantations, when the reality is slaves were rented out to any business that needed labor.
There were a lot of Southerners who "went west" for better opportunities.
I do not see that changing while slavery persisted.

 

[BCS1973]

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.

Perhaps a later secession could have led to a shorter war, but I'm not sure by how much. I'm assuming that the Federal government wouldn't have drastically built it's military between 1861 and 1868, so there still would be a build up time for the combatants. It seems that you and @The Ninth Ohio are angling towards what could be an interesting "what if" thread.

 

[CW Buff]

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

Sharecropping comes to mind. That's assuming they employed slaves in the conflict, and that such would have meant the abolition of slavery rather than just the emancipation of those that fought and their families.

On the issue of viability, I'm not sure how one can deny it, given the United States, a la the American Revolution. I don't think they would have to expand (and such could be a problem, with Britain, and its presence in the Caribbean, and possible application of the Monroe Doctrine by the rump US). They would have to deal with the exhaustion of land due to cotton production, but necessity is the mother of invention. There's also nothing that says they would not deport freedpeople. Such was in the mix in Upper South discussions on emancipation programs.

I'd go even further. I think they could have won the war. In fact I believe those who say they should have won the war. This article summarizes how the CSA could have at least won by not losing (reconstruction on favorable terms; note: I disagree with some of his analysis of the 1864 presidential election). Some quotes from the article:

"No war of independence ever terminated unsuccessfully except where the disparity of force was far greater than it is in this case. Just as England during the [American] revolution had to give up conquering the colonies, so the North will have to give up conquering the South." -- London Times, July 18, 1861 (this one was meant to push the British government toward recognizing the CSA, so that could have been a factor)

"[T]here is no instance in history of a people as numerous as we are inhabiting a country so extensive as ours being subjected if true to themselves." -- Confederate secretary of war George W. Randolph (early in the war)

"No people ever warred for independence with more relative advantages than the Confederates." -- P. G. T. Beauregard, published in the Ann Arbor Democrat, October 31, 1884 (he felt they lost because of Davis, so this opinion could be a matter of bad feelings between the two men)

"There was nothing inevitable about northern victory in the Civil War." -- James McPherson, "Why Did the South Lose the Civil War?," December 7, 1988

 

[wausaubob]

Once the southern areas secede, fighting in Maryland, western Virginia and Missouri seems inevitable. Once the fighting begins, there's little to stop it from escalating.
Too much speculation focuses on weapons and tactical land battles. By 1860 war required bureaucrats to run the quartermaster system, mechanics, and engineers. Mechanical engineers in the steam engine sector, industrial engineers to organize factories and develop systems to run extensive railroads, and civil engineers to build everything from bridges to wagon roads through swamps.
As for the last Mr. Foote, recall what he said in the brief time allowed him to explain his remarks. The paid labor states were turning out marvelous inventions. If they could manufacture sewing machines, they could make magazine rifles. The US had so much manpower that the students at Harvard and Yale never had to volunteer.
The US began to implement the Homestead Act, and it drew applicants even from Europe.
Other publications reviewing the war point out that the county and state fairs across the Midwest went on just as before.
The US by 1870 was producing over 1,000 locomotives per year. I believe the locomotive industry sent over 150 engines just to the Tennessee/Kentucky theater during the war.
The war begins with rifles utilizing minie balls as the most progressive weapon. But it ends with magazine rifles using hard case ammunition. The war begins with brass Napoleons as the most utilitarian artillery piece. But it ends with the US outranging the Confederate artillery with highly accurate 3" ordnance rifles.
The war begins with some sailing ships still part of the US navy. The war ends with numerous completely enclosed ironclads, and US stopped building them when it had enough.
The war ends with the US capturing all the Confederate ports and defeating all the Confederate armies. What evidence is there that the Confederacy could have won?

 

[major bill]

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.

No I do not believe that the two nations could live in perfect harmony. There were just too nany flash points. Still was one bloody war better than 5 or 6 wars over the next 150 years? Hard to say. How bloody and destructive would these 5 or more wars have been? An all out war between the two in the 1940s would have involved much more destructive weapons.

 

[wausaubob]

The results of the Civil War included a broad peace with the British Empire, which included a non militarized border with what became Canada.
The abolition of slavery accelerated international immigration and foreign investment in the US.
Soon after the war concluded, the French experiment in Mexico ended. Russia sold out the rights to their fur trading stations to the US, not to Britain.
The population of slaves was freed, and though the US could have done more to protect them, the former slaves nonetheless became a permanent part of the US, which was an enormous gain for the growing nation. The alternatives, per @Desert Kid , are too horrible to think about.

 

[wausaubob]

No I do not believe that the two nations could live in perfect harmony. There were just too nany flash points. Still was one bloody war better than 5 or 6 wars over the next 150 years? Hard to say. How bloody and destructive would these 5 or more wars have been? An all out war between the two in the 1940s would have involved much more destructive weapons.

One subsequent war would have been enough. The US advances in communication and transportation were accelerating.
Steam power was revolutionizing naval power. Ships that could fight with no vulnerable rigging that could be damaged were very powerful.
Masonry forts became obsolete early in the war. By January 1865 the US could mass enough fire power to destroy a packed earth fort also.
The way the war progressed demonstrated how futile was the Confederate resistance.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Perhaps a later secession could have led to a shorter war, but I'm not sure by how much. I'm assuming that the Federal government wouldn't have drastically built it's military between 1861 and 1868, so there still would be a build up time for the combatants. It seems that you and @The Ninth Ohio are angling towards what could be an interesting "what if" thread.

I'm not particularly interested in what ifs, I was actually asking not about postwar, but the period between the AWI and ACW. The argument is that the southern states never would have joined the Union in the first place if slavery were not protected. But then the other is that the north and the south diverged at rates where by the later third of the 19th century, a war would have only lasted a few months due to the differences in population and technology.

So my question was simply, was there a point between 1790 and 1860 where the southern states never had a greater chance for a successful gambit toward secession? Was 1861 the zenith of their hopes? Or was it earlier, before international relations, northern immigration and westward expansion began to sour the view on slavery? 1810? 1830? 1850?

I don't know enough about prewar American politics to offer an opinion, but thought it might be a good thought experiment.

 

[wausaubob]

I'm not particularly interested in what ifs, I was actually asking not about postwar, but the period between the AWI and ACW. The argument is that the southern states never would have joined the Union in the first place if slavery were not protected. But then the other is that the north and the south diverged at rates where by the later third of the 19th century, a war would have only lasted a few months due to the differences in population and technology.

So my question was simply, was there a point between 1790 and 1860 where the southern states never had a greater chance for a successful gambit toward secession? Was 1861 the zenith of their hopes? Or was it earlier, before international relations, northern immigration and westward expansion began to sour the view on slavery? 1810? 1830? 1850?

I don't know enough about prewar American politics to offer an opinion, but thought it might be a good thought experiment.

During the Mexican/US war the southern plantation economy needed the help of the northern states. Any secession before the conclusion of that war would have been not in their short term interest. After the imperialistic war against Mexico, which was a shameful episode in US history, the secessionists would have had a good chance. But Clay and Webster were working on delay and old John Calhoun was not healthy enough to lead a secessionist revolt. Cooperative Democrats won the next two presidential elections. IF the time was propitious, the cotton south was not motivated to secede until a Presidential candidate who opposed the extension of slavery was elected without any southern EC votes.
Was the protection of slavery written into the Constitution? Despite Justice Taney and the Dred Scot decision, the Congress even in the confederation era took the power to admit new states, to extinguish the western claims of the original states and to prohibit the extension of slavery into the NW territories. Justine Taney's ruling was not likely to stand for long. The Constitution contained a ban on the import of slaves after 1808. This partially effective restriction was put into effect by legislation.
The 3/5ths compromise may seem like a victory for those states permitting chattel slavery. But if 40% of their population consisted of enslaved people, they were going to be shorted 16% in apportionment. That might not have seemed important in 1787, but when NY and NJ moved to abolish slavery apportionment in the EC and in the House was going to move in favor of the northern states. Pennsylvania had already abolished slavery in 1780. That other states might do the same should have been anticipated.

 

[wausaubob]

When world events moved in favor of Prussia/Germany in 1870-1, and France was temporarily eliminated as a world power, Britain would not have considered intervening in US affairs. During that era, with another reapportionment looming, the northern parties would have been aggressively limiting slavery. Unless the secessionist coalition had realistically evaluated their relative weakness, secession and a brief violent war dominated by armored warships would have resulted. Its possible, but another what if, that if the Republicans had maintained control during the 1860s the US Navy and the Regular Army would have been able to suppress secession without extensive mobilization.

 

[Pork Chop Phil]

Patrick - " If we are to die, let us die like men "- Cleburne is the person I cited as the most admirable example of the calibre of manhood that was squandered in the war. Dying in the ditch, literally, in that grotesque battle in that grotesque war. How could such a loss be worth it ? How remarkable that he, conspicuously, had the vision and courage to advocate enlistment of black soldiers to fight for the Confederacy, with the inducement of their freedom from slavery being the means to turn such a resource to account. Talk about adapting ! A few more Pat Cleburnes, and who knows what….?

 

[wausaubob]

"Dying ain't much of living, boy."

 

[LincolnHarlan]

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.

The Civil War did not create American industrialization, immigration, or technological modernity. Those forces were already in motion. However, the war decisively resolved political questions—sovereignty, slavery, and federal authority—that otherwise might have fragmented, delayed, or violently reshaped those developments. Whether the costs were "worth it" is ultimately a moral judgment rather than a historical fact.

 

[wausaubob]

The Civil War did not create American industrialization, immigration, or technological modernity. Those forces were already in motion. However, the war decisively resolved political questions—sovereignty, slavery, and federal authority—that otherwise might have fragmented, delayed, or violently reshaped those developments. Whether the costs were "worth it" is ultimately a moral judgment rather than a historical fact.

As you wrote, comparing what happened historically to what might have happened if there had been no war is impossible. One of the difficulties is that preventing the war in 1861 doesn't solve the problems that existed.
All we know is Britain, and Germany/Prussia were the major sources of immigration, and people living in Britain, both British citizens and Americans, were major investors in US war debt, and a source of private investment also.
Both nations were supporting the US and the attempt to abolish slavery.
I think that NYC, the railroads, and the vast middle of the country had to fight, as there was no alternative, and those people supporting the US cause had to win in order for technological improvements to create a modern nation.

 

[atlantis]

I'm not particularly interested in what ifs, I was actually asking not about postwar, but the period between the AWI and ACW. The argument is that the southern states never would have joined the Union in the first place if slavery were not protected. But then the other is that the north and the south diverged at rates where by the later third of the 19th century, a war would have only lasted a few months due to the differences in population and technology.

So my question was simply, was there a point between 1790 and 1860 where the southern states never had a greater chance for a successful gambit toward secession? Was 1861 the zenith of their hopes? Or was it earlier, before international relations, northern immigration and westward expansion began to sour the view on slavery? 1810? 1830? 1850?

I don't know enough about prewar American politics to offer an opinion, but thought it might be a good thought experiment.

1850 is the last point I think for unilateral secession to succeed.

 

[Old Soldier]

Civil wars do not always end satisfactorally. Britain's English civil war (1642-49) didn't, neither did Spains's (1936-39), France's less military one (1789 - 1794) - or Russia's (1917-22). Sure, in 400 years time you can look back and draw conclusions, but 160 years is a little ... soon. Yes, some civil wars are called 'revolutions' instead. Same thing - just glorified by the winners. There are often more than just two sides but only one winner. The American Civil War was not a 'revolution' (social class war).

For example:

Britain's English civil war removed the monarch and many of the ruling elite and substituted, imposed, a rather lacklustre administration - The Protectorate - very Puritan and no Parliament to speak of. It lasted until 1660 - ten years of doom and despondancy - until the 'Great Protector' (Cromwell) died and the Prince of Wales returned from Holland to become Charles II - to much general celebration. What is often forgotten is what followed Charles II's death. His brother, James II took over and began imposing an absolute monarchy (no say for the people and peers - like France where he lived during the Protectrate). Thus followed the Glorious Revolution (1688) where the king was deposed and a new Royal family accepted by most peers, then Parliament passed The Bill of Rights(1689) which is basically our constitution. (Magna Carta was really for peers only)

One of the problems with understanding these results is understanding BOTH sides of the conflict. It is hard for a Northerner to understand what the Southerner was thinking, their state of mind and what they were fighting for - and vice versa. The culture and train of thought is still there. That is why a distance of time is necessary - or by someone not involved at all). In the English Civil War it was the non-conformists v the aristocracy and Church and ended with the aristocracy - peers (dukes, earls, etc) - bringing back the monarchy and Church, then keeping them in check. That statement could not be made before, say 1800 as the results of the civil war were still felt by the descendants of those who had fought - or fled.

Of those who had fought, only the top leaders were likely to have known the details and philosophy of WHY they were fighting. The regiments and soldiers rarely had any views on the idea apart from loyaly to their leaders or country/state.

 

[atlantis]

Civil wars do not always end satisfactorally. Britain's English civil war (1642-49) didn't, neither did Spains's (1936-39), France's less military one (1789 - 1794) - or Russia's (1917-22). Sure, in 400 years time you can look back and draw conclusions, but 160 years is a little ... soon. Yes, some civil wars are called 'revolutions' instead. Same thing - just glorified by the winners. There are often more than just two sides but only one winner. The American Civil War was not a 'revolution' (social class war).

For example:

Britain's English civil war removed the monarch and many of the ruling elite and substituted, imposed, a rather lacklustre administration - The Protectorate - very Puritan and no Parliament to speak of. It lasted until 1660 - ten years of doom and despondancy - until the 'Great Protector' (Cromwell) died and the Prince of Wales returned from Holland to become Charles II - to much general celebration. What is often forgotten is what followed Charles II's death. His brother, James II took over and began imposing an absolute monarchy (no say for the people and peers - like France where he lived during the Protectrate). Thus followed the Glorious Revolution (1688) where the king was deposed and a new Royal family accepted by most peers, then Parliament passed The Bill of Rights(1689) which is basically our constitution. (Magna Carta was really for peers only)

One of the problems with understanding these results is understanding BOTH sides of the conflict. It is hard for a Northerner to understand what the Southerner was thinking, their state of mind and what they were fighting for - and vice versa. The culture and train of thought is still there. That is why a distance of time is necessary - or by someone not involved at all). In the English Civil War it was the non-conformists v the aristocracy and Church and ended with the aristocracy - peers (dukes, earls, etc) - bringing back the monarchy and Church, then keeping them in check. That statement could not be made before, say 1800 as the results of the civil war were still felt by the descendants of those who had fought - or fled.

Of those who had fought, only the top leaders were likely to have known the details and philosophy of WHY they were fighting. The regiments and soldiers rarely had any views on the idea apart from loyaly to their leaders or country/state.

Prince Rupert best commander of the civil war gets my vote how about you?

 

[wausaubob]

Civil wars do not always end satisfactorally. Britain's English civil war (1642-49) didn't, neither did Spains's (1936-39), France's less military one (1789 - 1794) - or Russia's (1917-22). Sure, in 400 years time you can look back and draw conclusions, but 160 years is a little ... soon. Yes, some civil wars are called 'revolutions' instead. Same thing - just glorified by the winners. There are often more than just two sides but only one winner. The American Civil War was not a 'revolution' (social class war).

For example:

Britain's English civil war removed the monarch and many of the ruling elite and substituted, imposed, a rather lacklustre administration - The Protectorate - very Puritan and no Parliament to speak of. It lasted until 1660 - ten years of doom and despondancy - until the 'Great Protector' (Cromwell) died and the Prince of Wales returned from Holland to become Charles II - to much general celebration. What is often forgotten is what followed Charles II's death. His brother, James II took over and began imposing an absolute monarchy (no say for the people and peers - like France where he lived during the Protectrate). Thus followed the Glorious Revolution (1688) where the king was deposed and a new Royal family accepted by most peers, then Parliament passed The Bill of Rights(1689) which is basically our constitution. (Magna Carta was really for peers only)

One of the problems with understanding these results is understanding BOTH sides of the conflict. It is hard for a Northerner to understand what the Southerner was thinking, their state of mind and what they were fighting for - and vice versa. The culture and train of thought is still there. That is why a distance of time is necessary - or by someone not involved at all). In the English Civil War it was the non-conformists v the aristocracy and Church and ended with the aristocracy - peers (dukes, earls, etc) - bringing back the monarchy and Church, then keeping them in check. That statement could not be made before, say 1800 as the results of the civil war were still felt by the descendants of those who had fought - or fled.

Of those who had fought, only the top leaders were likely to have known the details and philosophy of WHY they were fighting. The regiments and soldiers rarely had any views on the idea apart from loyaly to their leaders or country/state.

King Cotton was dethroned. The oversized power of the deep south Democrats was ruined. Comparing it to deposing a monarch has some merit.

 

[wausaubob]

A new dynasty began. It was the collective railroads. The telegraph became the cabinet. The Republican politicians of the Midwest became the new aristocrats.