Was it worth it?

[wausaubob]

There was a huge benefit in intermixing the US, Canadian and British populations, in both people, money and technology, which was made possible by the rapid elimination of the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the quick abolition of slavery. That intermixing became one of the strong elements of rapid growth. Peace between the three countries was very beneficial for each.

 

[JerryD]

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.

LOL...I knew that was going to be how you saw it. So predictable. No, you have it all wrong, again. Lincoln was not willing to be extorted by people who were not willing to compromise. Caving to extortion demands is not compromising. If someone says, pay me a million dollars or I will kill your family, and you refuse, is your family's death a result of you refusing to compromise? By your logic, I guess yes. Rational people see it otherwise.

 

[wausaubob]

LOL...I knew that was going to be how you saw it. So predictable. No, you have it all wrong, again. Lincoln was not willing to be extorted by people who were not willing to compromise. Caving to extortion demands is not compromising. If someone says, pay me a million dollars or I will kill your family, and you refuse, is your family's death a result of you refusing to compromise? By your logic, I guess yes. Rational people see it otherwise.

The initial compromise in 1787 probably led to the Civil War. The problem only became larger.

 

[wausaubob]

Had the two sections remained united, even in peace, white people would have left the south. Even in peace, people in the south would have eventually wanted churches, schools, state fairs, concerts and the products of the publishing industry. Even in peace cotton production in the west, especially in Texas was going to decrease the price of cotton in the world. And even in peace, since slavery repelled voluntary immigration, the international immigration stream was going to be directed towards jobs in the northern cities and farms in the Midwest.
Without immigration and without outside investment from the rest of the US the south became locked into cotton and the rest of the US moved onto to other productive areas.

 

[BCS1973]

....In saying this, have seen it argued that 19th​. century factory wage-earning workers were exploited like agricultural slave labour. But thought there was one big difference between these two labor systems – the 'freedom of movement' of workers.

Freedom of movement to a point. I would agree with you that slavery ends before the 1940's, but at what point. In the early days of "Mill Towns" and Mining communities, there often wasn't much of a place to go without a total upheaval in your life, granted the opportunity existed if one could get ahead financially and do it. Even by the 1960's living conditions in some mining communities was quite primitive. I believe even into the late 60's Duke Power was providing housing to workers in KY and WV that had no running water. Personally, I suspect that once the company town and company store economic model took effect, slave holding isn't economically comparable.

 

[archieclement]

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.

No that's quite false.

Under the Crittenden Compromise even if an amendment had been added to protect slavery. In the future, once there was overwhelming majority to abolish as there had been in northern states when they had abolished, it could been amended or repealed again.

 

[JerryD]

No that's quite false.

Under the Crittenden Compromise even if an amendment had been added to protect slavery. In the future, once there was overwhelming majority to abolish as there had been in northern states when they had abolished, it could been amended again.

I tend to agree with you on that one, but to be fair, that is what the amendment purported to do. There is one clause in the Constitution that says it cannot be amended by a subsequent amendment (Article 5 about the makeup of the Senate) and legal scholars have debated whether that is effective or not. Most think no, but its never been adjudicated. Also, even if it was effective, there is an argument that a clause in the original Constitution that was key to the compromises made to create it in the first place would be treated differently than a later amendment.

All that being said, I'd say the weight of legal argument agrees with you that any such declaration in an Amendment that it cannot be repealed or amended is merely declaratory and has no legal weight, and that it could be repealed or amended by a subsequent validly approved amendment,.

 

[archieclement]

LOL...I knew that was going to be how you saw it. So predictable. No, you have it all wrong, again. Lincoln was not willing to be extorted by people who were not willing to compromise. Caving to extortion demands is not compromising. If someone says, pay me a million dollars or I will kill your family, and you refuse, is your family's death a result of you refusing to compromise? By your logic, I guess yes. Rational people see it otherwise.

No your so predictable. As it certainly takes two sides compromise. If you wish to assert Lincoln was unwilling to compromise, it would certainly make him as responsible for any failure.

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

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.

And let's not forget the ingrained "honor culture" that existed in the south at that time, something that has been discussed on many threads. The media of the day was blaring the idea that Southern honor was being besmirched by the Yankees and that, to a Southerner, was intolerable.

The only way to defend your honor was by the shedding of blood in a duel. I do think many in the South looked on the conflict like a necessary duel to defend honor.

The OP question can be read two ways. If I read it as "Was it worth it to the South" the answer is no. Not even close. Regardless of how much the tide was inevitably turning against slavery, the weakly prepared Southern elites that brought on the war in an effort to preserve their status and wealth only succeeded in destroying in a short 4 years everything they and almost everyone else in the South held dear. And that wasn't the Yankees fault - they brought that destruction on themselves.

 

[JerryD]

No your so predictable.

LOL, so creative.... I can hear the kids on the school ground now "I know you are, but what am I?" LOL...

As it certainly takes two sides compromise. If you wish to assert Lincoln was unwilling to compromise, it would certainly make him as responsible for any failure.

And actually as far as some bizarre exhortation claim. Maintaining the status quo that had existed and the country had been founded on seems a stretch as unreasonable demand.

No, the demand was, give us what we want or we will rebel. That is not maintaining the status quo. In Lincoln's eyes, and I would argue most people's eyes, that is threatening an illegal act if they don't get what they want. Again, they lost the election based on this very point. Elections in democracies are supposed to have consequences. But the seceding states had a hissy fit over losing the election and decided to go rogue. "What we can't get by legal means, we will get by illegal ones, unless you 'compromise'."

And by the way, you seem to be confused about who started the war. Every history of the war says the war started when the CSA opened fire on Fort Sumter. So its very clear Lincoln did not start a war. He merely responded to a war started by others.

And it seems you do not understand what they were demanding. It was not to protect slavery where it existed. That was not even an issue (although the fire eaters in the south liked to pretend it was, and lied to their constituents that Lincoln was an abolitionist). The issue was slavery in the territories. So it had nothing to do with the "status quo that had existed". You sound like one of those fire eaters trying to convince folks that Lincoln was coming for the slaves and was bent on abolitionism.

So tell us what compromise the South was offering? NOT to rebel? LOL.... You have an interesting idea of what compromise means. Lincoln went to war because (1) the CSA started a war and he finished it, and (2) he was enforcing the law. Its ridiculous to claim that you need to compromise with criminals and traitors. I think people are expected to follow the law and not start a war engage in war against your country.

 

[archieclement]

LOL, so creative.... I can hear the kids on the school ground now "I know you are, but what am I?" LOL...


No, the demand was, give us what we want or we will rebel. That is not maintaining the status quo. In Lincoln's eyes, and I would argue most people's eyes, that is threatening an illegal act if they don't get what they want. Again, they lost the election based on this very point. Elections in democracies are supposed to have consequences. But the seceding states had a hissy fit over losing the election and decided to go rogue. "What we can't get by legal means, we will get by illegal ones, unless you 'compromise'."

And by the way, you seem to be confused about who started the war. Every history of the war says the war started when the CSA opened fire on Fort Sumter. So its very clear Lincoln did not start a war. He merely responded to a war started by others.

And it seems you do not understand what they were demanding. It was not to protect slavery where it existed. That was not even an issue (although the fire eaters in the south liked to pretend it was, and lied to their constituents that Lincoln was an abolitionist). The issue was slavery in the territories. So it had nothing to do with the "status quo that had existed". You sound like one of those fire eaters trying to convince folks that Lincoln was coming for the slaves and was bent on abolitionism.

So tell us what compromise the South was offering? NOT to rebel? LOL.... You have an interesting idea of what compromise means. Lincoln went to war because (1) the CSA started a war and he finished it, and (2) he was enforcing the law. Its ridiculous to claim that you need to compromise with criminals and traitors. I think people are expected to follow the law and not start a war engage in war against your country.

Indeed you are.

Certainly there was time for compromise before Fort Sumter, so that's moot. Unless you advocate compromise only after Fort Sumter. Perhaps that is your position, it's not mine as I would think before would been better time to compromise.

As well as to some unreasonable position. The south wanted to maintain the US as was and was founded.....not exactly extreme.

Lincoln was the one pushing ending slavery in the territories in an effort to deny south future representation, making abolition more likely in future. That would the bit more extreme position. As well considering his platform went against the Supreme Court who allready signaled Congress had no authority to do so, nor have ever seen it claimed such conditions to territories belonged to executive branch alone.

But continue your school yard antics if you wish. Reality was slavery was legal nationally at the time. Protected nationally by FSL, and court had indeed signaled to the territories. That we don't agree today doesn't change conditions in 1850s-1861.

 

[major bill]

There was a possibility compromise in the 1860 election. Douglas pushed Popular Sovereignty where the people of each territory would decide if they wanted slavery. The Southerners found this completely unacceptable and walked out of the Democratic Convention. It was slavery. In every territory, regardless of what the people in the territory wanted, or else. The American people decided that slavery in every territory was not acceptable. Lincoln won the election.

 

[JerryD]

Indeed you are.

Certainly there was time for compromise before Fort Sumter, so that's moot. Unless you advocate compromise only after Fort Sumter. Perhaps that is your position, it's not mine as I would think before would been better time to compromise.

As well as to some unreasonable position. The south wanted to maintain the US as was and was founded.....not exactly extreme.

Lincoln was the one pushing ending slavery in the territories in an effort to deny south future representation, making abolition more likely in future. That would the bit more extreme position. As well considering his platform went against the Supreme Court who allready signaled Congress had no authority to do so, nor have ever seen it claimed such conditions to territories belonged to executive branch alone.

But continue your school yard antics if you wish. Reality was slavery was legal nationally at the time. Protected nationally by FSL, and court had indeed signaled to the territories. That we don't agree today doesn't change conditions in 1850s-1861.

I note you fail to mention the compromise the south was offering. Not surprised, since it was none. What compromise do you see? I suspect you will continue to dodge this question.

 

[wausaubob]

No that's quite false.

Under the Crittenden Compromise even if an amendment had been added to protect slavery. In the future, once there was overwhelming majority to abolish as there had been in northern states when they had abolished, it could been amended or repealed again.

That is correct. I don't think the secessionists were deceived.

 

[uaskme]

Here is a good "cite". Constitution was built on compromise. How many compromises were made on slavery? Constitution

was also rewritten after the war. Some just too lazy to study what the attitudes were during this period. Northern ism is full of present ism.

 

[archieclement]

I note you fail to mention the compromise the south was offering. Not surprised, since it was none. What compromise do you see? I suspect you will continue to dodge this question.

Indeed, as certainly i would not consider maintaining existing law and policy today as requiring compromise. Would you?

The reality is the constitution and prior policy was in the south favor, as was Courts signaling.

Certainly Lincoln being elected with less then 40% of the vote did not represent some mandate for such a major shift.

I would agree the south overreacted and should never have seceded as I believe Lincoln would been powerless to have implemented any such change. But that said, it strikes me bizarre to take a position that Lincoln himself should not been willing to try to reach a compromise to descalate the situation and avert which increasingly was looking like what occurred, war. Which turned out the bloodiest in history.

 

[wausaubob]

Much of what happened in the south after the Civil War was likely to have happened even without the war.
People moved to Missouri and Texas in very large numbers. Slavery had been weak in Missouri even though it had been permitted there. It was abolished early there and rapid population growth followed.
Texas was mostly undeveloped in 1860. Slavery as a % of the population was strong there. But when the war ended, in the 1860s and 1870s southern people moved there, renewing the highly mobile trends that had existed before the Civil War. A few people from the south headed out to the Pacific coast. More formerly enslaved people crossed the Ohio river and took their chances in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois.
Here's the data if you need a sleep aid: https://depts.washington.edu/moving1/migrationhistory-states.shtml

 

[wausaubob]

There was a possibility compromise in the 1860 election. Douglas pushed Popular Sovereignty where the people of each territory would decide if they wanted slavery. The Southerners found this completely unacceptable and walked out of the Democratic Convention. It was slavery. In every territory, regardless of what the people in the territory wanted, or else. The American people decided that slavery in every territory was not acceptable. Lincoln won the election.

For reasons that stretched back hundreds of years, expantionist ideas such as you suggest were going to continue until the met an opposing force. The slave economy was similar to all the empires in that regard. It wasn't new.

 

[JerryD]

Indeed, as certainly i would not consider maintaining existing law and policy today as requiring compromise. Would you?

The reality is the constitution and prior policy was in the south favor, as was Courts signaling.

Certainly Lincoln being elected with less then 40% of the vote did not represent some mandate for such a major shift.

I would agree the south overreacted and should never have seceded as I believe Lincoln would been powerless to have implemented any such change. But that said, it strikes me bizarre to take a position that Lincoln himself should not been willing to try to reach a compromise to descalate the situation and avert which increasingly was looking like what occurred, war. Which turned out the bloodiest in history.

That is because you fail to understand how Lincoln viewed the situation. The analogy I gave you at first is correct. Lincoln viewed secession as an illegal threat. So no, you don't compromise with criminals. Remember, the first seven states seceded before Lincoln even took office, so he walked into a situation where criminals had already committed the crime and some were saying "if we only accede to their demands, they will stop violating the law".

You may disagree with Lincoln's view, but history has proved him correct. The Supreme Court has ruled secession was illegal, and that resolves the issue (that is, if you believe in the rule of law).

 

[wausaubob]

Indeed, as certainly i would not consider maintaining existing law and policy today as requiring compromise. Would you?

The reality is the constitution and prior policy was in the south favor, as was Courts signaling.

Certainly Lincoln being elected with less then 40% of the vote did not represent some mandate for such a major shift.

I would agree the south overreacted and should never have seceded as I believe Lincoln would been powerless to have implemented any such change. But that said, it strikes me bizarre to take a position that Lincoln himself should not been willing to try to reach a compromise to descalate the situation and avert which increasingly was looking like what occurred, war. Which turned out the bloodiest in history.The

The pace of change was going to accelerate after 1862 and after 1872. The 1860 census results and the effect on apportionment were known by the close of 1860. The mechanisms for constitutional change and legislative were transparent. Fighting to preserve an era in economic development in which the cotton south had the advantage was doomed to fail. The war accelerated change, it didn't stop it.