Was it worth it?

[JerryD]

That reasoning is compelling to support any notion that slavery was not simply going to disappear overnight in the requisite number of those slave states.

Nevertheless, personally, still found it difficult to fathom how an anachronistic slave labor system could continue into the modern era of the 20th. century in such a leading industrialized and enlightened society, like the US.

But your argument remains sound and plausible.

I tend to agree re: its hard to imagine slavery continuing into the 20th Century, but I think its worthwhile looking at Brazil and how it abolished slavery. Slavery was ultimately abolished in Brazil in 1888, but it did not have the Federalism and a Constitution that protected slavery like we had in the US. So all it took was passage by a democratic majority and consent of the sovereign. And in fact, the government was overthrown the following year in a military coup that most blame on the anger of the large plantation owners over abolitionism. So even in 1889 there were significant pockets of support for slavery in a fairly modern agrarian society, much like the US south was at the time.

If a democratic majority could abolish slavery in this country, I do think it likely would have been outlawed sometime in the 1860's or 1870's, much like what happened in Brazil. But the Constitutional protections in the US create an impediment that abolitionists in Brazil did not have. That is why I think 1890 is probably about the earliest it could have been abolished, and likely some time after that, given how long getting Constitutional amendments through the entire process usually takes.

 

[JerryD]

Do you know any slaves to have a credible discussion with concerning different ways slavery could ended?

I seriously doubt many would objected to a peaceful ending, or one that resulted in better conditions or rights.

Haven't seen accounts of slaves who were peacefully and voluntary emancipated, objecting to the peaceful method. Don't think some desire for a bloody war as the only method, was ever preferred by very many people of any race.

Are you serious? Personally, if I was enslaved, I'd prefer my enslavers be killed violently and hopefully at my own hand. I tend to think slaves just wanted freedom now, rather than a peaceful process that would free them over generations or some other process that kept them enslaved a single day longer. Now I suppose some weak willed people are all forgive and forget about being enslaved and having their masters get free use of their wives and daughters and the right to sell their children away from them, and I guess you may be in that group. But most any self-respecting man would object, violently if possible.

 

[wausaubob]

As well the way it was done through civil war, besides immense loss of life, debt and destruction. It wasn't thought out at all, just a series of knee jerk reactions that left blacks mostly in poverty, and still in quasi slavery with share cropping for decades. Which really was impossible with leaving most previous slave states in poverty to this day. That the poorest US states today is dominated by former Confederate states is certainly a rather lasting negative legacy.

As well i don't see how one couldn't think forcing abolition on states against their wishes wouldnt create lasting resentment........with the blacks themselves the easiest targets to take it out on.

The outcome with respect to slavery had the problems you cite. But subsequent history in the world even worse humanitarian outcomes were possible and even probable.
The act of secession by the original seven secessionist states was a desperate act. But it wasn't the first nor the last desperate of that secessionist year. There is abundant evidence the people in those 7 states were going to resort to desperate acts to preserve their power.

 

[LCYingling3rd]

"Was it worth it?"

I am confused. The preservation of the Union alone was "worth it."

I know many of you keep copies of the Constitution on you, in your car, or accessible to you. Good. How many of you also keep a copy of George Washington's personal letter to the President of Congress dated September 17, 1787, as well? I do. He wrote it as the President of the Constitutional Convention. He might have an idea of what the framers were thinking during their four months in Philadelphia.

Avalon Project - Letter of the President of the Federal Convention Transmitting the Constitution

This line should clarify - should say it all - should confirm that it was worth it!

"In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence."

Come on people! "...the greatest interest of every true American..." Don't we have any True Americans anymore?

All the talk of economics and slavery has nothing to do with the War being worth it to me. "...in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence..." The preservation of Union alone was certainly worth it!

It is clear that the best we can ever say about the 13th Amendment and the abolition of slavery is that it was the happiest, most amazing, and wonderful unintended consequence of the war that preserved the Union!!! So yes, that was good, but it is somewhat moot because white America through African Americans, the former slaves and their descendants, under the bus surely in 1876 with the Rutherford Hayes "deal," but certainly in 1896 with the "Plessy v. Ferguson" Supreme Court ruling. The Confederacy didn't do that; the United States government was responsible for those things. I think we all can agree that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's 1963 speech at the Lincoln Memorial was a Civil War Centennial speech saying quite clearly that there was unfinished business when it comes to race in America.

I am a Union man. I can say I attend the "Church of Lincoln" I certainly understand that the initial seven States that seceded, seceded to protect the institution of slavery and create a new nation where slavery was perpetual and unchallenged in any way. That is if the leaders of secession are to be taken at their word. However, it is also glaringly clear that total abolition of slavery, as enacted by the 13th Amendment, was NEVER a prewar cause of Lincoln's or the United States government.

But the preservation of the Union,,, as revered by George Washington and every true American .... was a prewar cause!! And one that was worth every sacrifice and every ounce of blood shed for it!!!

Sorry.... I just needed to comment about the war being "worth it." It was, if you didn't already know.

You can go back to talking about what you were talking about...

 

[Cavalier]

My grandmother's uncle died as a pow in the Civil War. If you asked her why he went to war she would have told you, as she told me, "to preserve the union". He died 10 years before she was born but I presume she got this from her mother, who got it from him. If they were correct It would appear he thought it was worth it.

John

 

[Nathan Stuart]

The preservation of the Union alone was "worth it."

Agree. First and foremost, thought it was always about the 'preservation of the Union', that the war was fought.

The 'abolition of slavery' was a developing secondary reason that came to the fore of Northern political will during the period of the CW.

 

[Kearny The Magnificent]

Preserving the Union of States under our Constitution, ending the blight that was slavery, and ending the economic division of the country all are worthy enough outcomes for me to say firmly "yes". Compromises had been attempted and moved which postponed hostilities only kicked the can down the road. 1861 became the year when there would be no more compromising; any well-meaning agent of peace unfortunately was out of sync with reality.

Everyone from Lincoln down to the privates buried in unknown graves paid for the victory with their lives. I respect all of their sacrifices as well as the families who had their time with loved ones cut short. So many did not get to live in the outcome they helped create. Wars are truly awful. Thankfully we haven't had a Civil War ever since. By saying yes, I do understand the full weight of what I've endorsed.

 

[archieclement]

Though it's a little puzzling if going to the preservation of the Union.....that war was not the only course. Peaceful compromise such as Crittenden Compromise were alternatives to a negative legacy for 150 years of a Civil War.

So trying to switch to union preservation over the slavery issue is problematic. If its not solely on slavery, there would certainly been political options to actually avoid war and preserve the Union.

 

[archieclement]

Really? So you think there were no, as in ZERO freeman living in the US?
Sounds like a topic for another thread. But there were many.

Free Blacks, 1619–1860 | Encyclopedia.com

Free Blacks, 1619–1860 In 1860 some half a million free people of African descent resided in the United States. Source for information on Free Blacks, 1619–1860: Encyclopedia of African-American Culture and History dictionary.

www.encyclopedia.com

In 1860 some half a million free people of African descent resided in the United States. Known alternately as free Negroes, free blacks, free people of color, or simply freepeople (to distinguish them from post–Civil War freedpeople), they composed less than 2 percent of the nation's population and about 9 percent of all black people. Although the free black population grew in the centuries before the universal emancipation that accompanied the Civil War, it generally increased far more slowly than either the white or the slave population, so that it was a shrinking proportion of American society.

No actually I noted there certainly were free blacks, many if not most who were peacefully emancipated. So they certainly knew war was not the only possibility.

Certainly northern states had waited till it was no longer critical to emancipate and prohibited it themselves. So were other countries around the world. Neither had felt some need to divide the populace into war pursuing the agenda prior to ACW.

 

[CWdiaryPA]

At first encountering the question just now, immediate gut response is YES. I can't help but think that reaction is absurd, however. Edit to say international (such as it was) pressure would have kicked in well before the turn of the century. Shining City on Whose Hill? Supposed to be all men created equal? Hypocrisy of slavery in America wouldn't fly past a certain point. Not that it ever should have had wings. Last, the enslaved were rebelling more & more, right? Their growing agency would have been a big factor as well.

 

[JerryD]

Though it's a little puzzling if going to the preservation of the Union.....that war was not the only course. Peaceful compromise such as Crittenden Compromise were alternatives to a negative legacy for 150 years of a Civil War.

So trying to switch to union preservation over the slavery issue is problematic. If its not solely on slavery, there would certainly been political options to actually avoid war and preserve the Union.

No, you are wrong. The war was fought, at least initially, to preserve the Union and Lincoln had no intent to try to abolish slavery. That was the irrational fear of the hotheads in the south. As I have noted above, it was going to take a Constitutional Amendment to abolish slavery, and that was not going to happen anytime soon. Where Lincoln would not compromise on, though, was a commitment to permit the expansion of slavery into the territories. He ran on that, and was elected on that platform. The war came essentially because the slaveholders could not abide by the results of a free and fair election. They insisted on getting their way despite losing the election. If elections were not going to have consequences, then you might as well stop having elections. They were not looking to compromise, they were insisting on getting their way despite losing the election.

 

[archieclement]

No, you are wrong. The war was fought, at least initially, to preserve the Union and Lincoln had no intent to try to abolish slavery. That was the irrational fear of the hotheads in the south. As I have noted above, it was going to take a Constitutional Amendment to abolish slavery, and that was not going to happen anytime soon. Where Lincoln would not compromise on, though, was a commitment to permit the expansion of slavery into the territories. He ran on that, and was elected on that platform. The war came essentially because the slaveholders could not abide by the results of a free and fair election. They insisted on getting their way despite losing the election. If elections were not going to have consequences, then you might as well stop having elections. They were not looking to compromise, they were insisting on getting their way despite losing the election.

Then by your own statement Lincoln was as responsible for war if unwilling to compromise in a effort to avoid it.

The ACW resulted from two sides thinking the other would blink before it became a war. Otherwise both sides would sought a peaceful compromise. Don't think either side considered the cost or consequences of a lasting negative legacy. Certainly don't think either was putting much thought on how to end slavery while limiting consequences for the slaves. Instead it became rather series of kneejerk efforts or responses.

That there had been no real effort to abolish slavery nationally prewar, would suggest they realized there was no way to avoid lasting negative legacies, other then following the northern model, and wait for it to die a natural death.

 

[wausaubob]

No, you are wrong. The war was fought, at least initially, to preserve the Union and Lincoln had no intent to try to abolish slavery. That was the irrational fear of the hotheads in the south. As I have noted above, it was going to take a Constitutional Amendment to abolish slavery, and that was not going to happen anytime soon. Where Lincoln would not compromise on, though, was a commitment to permit the expansion of slavery into the territories. He ran on that, and was elected on that platform. The war came essentially because the slaveholders could not abide by the results of a free and fair election. They insisted on getting their way despite losing the election. If elections were not going to have consequences, then you might as well stop having elections. They were not looking to compromise, they were insisting on getting their way despite losing the election.

The US was created by violence and war and violence was endemic.
We don't consider it harmful because much of it was directed at the declining indigenous population and the fledgling Mexican state.
But the amount of American on American violence everywhere from the halls of Congress to duels in California was enormous. The idea that the division between the two societies could be solved peacefully does not seem supported by evidence. The paid labor states were modernizing and growing at a fantastic rate. The cotton areas had made fantastic fortunes for a few families as an agricultural colony of Europe (with an imported colonial population). One section or the other had to become dominant in order for there to be peace, in my view.
Thanks for the great comments. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

[wausaubob]

The northern states had become a different nation by 1861. The secessionists were right about that. And with telegraphs and railroads, widespread literacy and a publishing boom, the paid labor section and section permitting slavery could not live side by side and pretend that could run different labor systems.
I don't think there were any compromises that were effective. The paid labor states were only buying time until they were ready.

 

[wausaubob]

Then by your own statement Lincoln was as responsible for war if unwilling to compromise in a effort to avoid it.

The ACW resulted from two sides thinking the other would blink before it became a war. Otherwise both sides would sought a peaceful compromise. Don't think either side considered the cost or consequences of a lasting negative legacy. Certainly don't think either was putting much thought on how to end slavery while limiting consequences for the slaves. Instead it became rather series of kneejerk efforts or responses.

That there had been no real effort to abolish slavery nationally prewar, would suggest they realized there was no way to avoid lasting negative legacies, other then following the northern model, and wait for it to die a natural death.

Both sides thought that war was OK. Nobody anticipated four years of war and 800,000 casualties.

 

[damYankee]

Do you know any slaves to have a credible discussion with concerning different ways slavery could ended?

I seriously doubt many would objected to a peaceful ending, or one that resulted in better conditions or rights.

Haven't seen accounts of slaves who were peacefully and voluntary emancipated, objecting to the peaceful method. Don't think some desire for a bloody war as the only method, was ever preferred by very many people of any race.

No actually I noted there certainly were free blacks, many if not most who were peacefully emancipated. So they certainly knew war was not the only possibility.

Certainly northern states had waited till it was no longer critical to emancipate and prohibited it themselves. So were other countries around the world. Neither had felt some need to divide the populace into war pursuing the agenda prior to ACW.

In some slave states there were avenues for slaves to purchase their freedom. Louisiana having been a French colony had such a system. It changed state to state. As I understand it in Louisiana the slave would require his owner to agree, however, if the owner refused, the slave could petition the court. Owners were overruled in many cases.
After the importation of slaves was banned many states changed the law and made it nearly impossible for slaves to purchase their freedom, but, whites and in many cases, mixed race freeman could buy slaves and free them.
Oddly, James Buchanan would attend auctions for that sole purpose, buy slaves, only to free them. Roger Taney emancipated his own slaves and even provided pensions to those who were too old to work.
Going back to the colonial era, each colony had channels for enslaved and indentured individuals to seek freedom.
The Dutch colony of New Amsterdam which included all of what is now N.Y. state and parts of N.J. had a very different approach to slavery, the colony was operated by the Dutch West India Company, the citizens living in the settlements such as Fort Orange which today is Albany N.Y. and the city of New Amsterdam which of course is now N.Y.C., could not own slaves. There were slaves, but they were owned by the Dutch West India Company! The slaves built and guarded trading post such as Fort Orange which in the mid 1600s was the frontier. All slaves in New Amsterdam could attend school and church and could not only purchase their freedom they could buy property.

That all changed when the British took over the Dutch holdings in 1667.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

The idea that the division between the two societies could be solved peacefully does not seem supported by evidence.

Tend to agree. In other words. The differences/disagreements became so deep-seated, that the only way to settle/resolve such so both parties (i.e. the two societies) could consolidate/unite to move forward in the period ahead, was to resort to the commonly accepted mode of settlement of the era - i.e. armed violence.

In a sense, it can be likened to the microcosm situation of two mutually affronted individuals in deep disagreement who chose armed dueling to settle/resolve their dispute.

 

[wausaubob]

I don't view a compromise as possible after the amount of violence and election fraud that had occurred in territorial Kansas, and once anti-Lecompton Democrats had signaled they had seen enough.

 

[archieclement]

In some slave states there were avenues for slaves to purchase their freedom. Louisiana having been a French colony had such a system. It changed state to state. As I understand it in Louisiana the slave would require his owner to agree, however, if the owner refused, the slave could petition the court. Owners were overruled in many cases.
After the importation of slaves was banned many states changed the law and made it nearly impossible for slaves to purchase their freedom, but, whites and in many cases, mixed race freeman could buy slaves and free them.
Oddly, James Buchanan would attend auctions for that sole purpose, buy slaves, only to free them. Roger Taney emancipated his own slaves and even provided pensions to those who were too old to work.
Going back to the colonial era, each colony had channels for enslaved and indentured individuals to seek freedom.
The Dutch colony of New Amsterdam which included all of what is now N.Y. state and parts of N.J. had a very different approach to slavery, the colony was operated by the Dutch West India Company, the citizens loving in the settlements such as Fort Orange which today is Albany N.Y. and the city of New Amsterdam which of course is now N.Y.C., could not own slaves. There were slaves, but they were owned by the Dutch West India Company! The slaves built and guarded trading post such as Fort Orange which in the mid 1600s was the frontier. All slaves in New Amsterdam could attend school and church and could not only purchase their freedom they could buy property.

That all changed when the British took over the Dutch holdings in 1667.

Indeed owners had voluntarily emancipated slaves, others had allowed slaves to purchase their freedom. As well northern states once slavery was negligible had abolished statewide... .often with compensation or grandfather clauses. Indeed war had not been the only way towards emancipation. As demonstrated there was allready around a half million blacks prewar, rather evenly divided north and south.

As well some number had their freedom purchased by abolishionists. Frederick Douglas was prominent example.

 

[Desolu64]

Peaceful compromise such as Crittenden Compromise were alternatives to a negative legacy for 150 years of a Civil War.

Under the Crittenden Compromise, not only would slavery have been preserved in the South, but it would have been impossible for it to ever be abolished legally. As far as I'm concerned, as awful as the Civil War was, it was far preferable to a "peace" of that nature.