Was it worth it?

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

That's your view. But I don't think the wage laborers and the family farmers were going to tolerate slavery as soon as they had power to restrict and eliminate it. I don't think the economics of cotton was favorable in the long run.

It is just my opinion, but I think slavery would have died by about the 1920's at the latest.

 

[wausaubob]

To use a football analogy, like the current New England Patriots, the US needed to start over in 1860. A revolutionary war was sufficient to create that new birth of freedom from the past, and the evidence points to there being no other way.

 

[damYankee]

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.

Fredrick Douglass, from Maryland, was an escaped slave.

 

[damYankee]

There are many aspects of this topic that are a mix of irony and slapstick comedy,
Honor?
Every war has a measure that element. To suggest that the South had more "honor" than them Yankee dogs is pure ignorance. Both sides were defending their perception of "honor," or "pride."
The Ottoman Empire had been capturing sailors from the US and other nations to enslave them for a long time.
What was the first international military operation of our fledgling nation?
As president, Thomas Jefferson, who also owned slaves, committed US Naval and Marine forces in war to free those who have been enslaved by the Ottoman pirates.
So somewhere under the "Honor" of being a Southerner and a slave owner, there was a primal instinct to be repulsed by the idea of having "our people being enslaved" by force.
So the question that must be asked is, if whites were subject to slavery in the US Colonies and later after our Revolution, would there be that much "Honor, Pride, Outrage and Opposition" to ending slavery?
That's a trick question, because early in the colonies some slaves were white, and there was little or no opposition to abolishing that institution.
So why the opposition abolishing the enslavement of Africans and their descendants?
Honor?
Sounds like a Monty Python skit,

 

[wausaubob]

The British empire abolished slavery, and continued its world wide dominance for over 80 years. The New England states and the Mid-Atlantic states abolished slavery. Their populations largely filled up the US, aided by voluntary immigration from Europe. Slavery was abolished by state action in Missouri, and by federal action in Texas. The people came first to those two states, and the railroads predictably followed. Abolishing slavery liberated the economy of most areas that accomplished it. The old cotton south was one of the exceptions.
That calls to mind a quote from the fictional Rhett Butler: "This is what comes of living in the past."

 

[Desert Kid]

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

I often say this to people who downplay the war's role in Southern history, or numbnuts who say things like "[XYZ] lasted longer than the Confederacy." because none of those things involved an industrial war that killed three quarters of a million people and left 11-12 states of the US in shambles for the next century.

 

[wausaubob]

If the southern areas had wanted a gradual emancipation they could have enacted a New Jersey/New York type of plan, with a date certain after which those born would be free. Those areas could have ended inherited slave status at any time. The evidence is that the abolitionists, even Charles Sumner, would have accepted that. It never happened.

 

[archieclement]

Fredrick Douglass, from Maryland, was an escaped slave.

Which is not a free black in the United States during the period, he become a free black in US when abolishionists purchased his freedom......he then was no longer simply an illegal fugitive in the US..

 

[archieclement]

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).

If one believes there is no inherit right to revolution by the people, we are an outlaw nation as the colonies should never broke from British empire. But history has judged revolution is not inheritly bad.

In reality what the ACW actually showed or demonstrated was we were no longer a volunteer Union of willing states, but a militarily coerced one. Because we are rather widely successfully reconstructed and reconciled today, we may not wish to admit it was military coercion, but in reality it was little else.

 

[wausaubob]

I often say this to people who downplay the war's role in Southern history, or numbnuts who say things like "[XYZ] lasted longer than the Confederacy." because none of those things involved an industrial war that killed three quarters of a million people and left 11-12 states of the US in shambles for the next century.

Probably. People think the uniforms and patriotic songs are great. That lasts until people are dying from dysentery and Confederates see gunboats that can outrange any artillery the Confederates had.
I watched a Youtube segment on the few Henry's rifles that were deployed by US soldiers. The Confederates quickly learned to identify the noise they made and avoid them.
The further speculation I would offer is that the US probably had to continue to war to complete victory after July 1863 to prevent an even greater demographic catastrophe. I think Grant observed during the war, that if the prisoner exchange protocols continued, the war would continue until every white man 18-35 years old in the south had become a casualty. Much worse outcomes were possible. @Rhea Cole cites an example that occurred in South America.

 

[Desert Kid]

Probably. People think the uniforms and patriotic songs are great. That lasts until people are dying from dysentery and Confederates see gunboats that can outrange any artillery the Confederates had.
I watched a Yourube segment on the few Henry's rifles that were deployed by US soldiers. The Confederates quickly learned to identify the noise they made and avoid them.
The further speculation I would offer is that the US probably had to continue to war to complete victory after July 1863 to prevent an even greater demographic catastrophe. I think Grant observed during the war, that if the prisoner exchange protocols continued, the war would continue until every white man 18-35 years old in the south had become a casualty. Much worse outcomes were possible. @Rhea Cole cites an example that occurred in South America.

A demographic collapse would have been...yeah, try not to think about that.

 

[wausaubob]

The belligerent that had magazine rifles, rifled artillery, abundant cavalry, and limitless quartermaster supplies was capable of much more coercion, including death in battle. It was a miracle that it didn't end that way.

 

[Desert Kid]

The belligerent that had magazine rifles, rifled artillery, abundant cavalry, and limitless quartermaster supplies was capable of much more coercion, including death in battle. It was a miracle that it didn't end that way.

How many Henry Repeaters did the CSA have access to? Very few I'd imagine. The Wikipedia (I know, unreliable!) entry lists the Confederate troops using them sparingly.

 

[JerryD]

If one believes there is no inherit right to revolution by the people, we are an outlaw nation as the colonies should never broke from British empire. But history has judged revolution is not inheritly bad.

In reality what the ACW actually showed or demonstrated was we were no longer a volunteer Union of willing states, but a militarily coerced one. Because we are rather widely successfully reconstructed and reconciled today, we may not wish to admit it was military coercion, but in reality it was little else.

Here we go down this rathole again. Bottom line, revolution is legal if you win, illegal if you lose. Since the south are losers, they are traitors. Really just that simple.

Revolution may not be inherently bad, but if you lose, then you are a criminal. There is no legal right to revolt against your government and act like you did nothing wrong when you lose. But I understand why losers try to argue otherwise.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Freedom of movement to a point.

Have seen some commentators describe Northern urban factory/mill workers of that era being described as 'wage slaves' when comparing similarities (and differences) of both sectional labor systems.

 

[atlantis]

Rebellion is only worth it if you win.

 

[wausaubob]

How many Henry Repeaters did the CSA have access to? Very few I'd imagine. The Wikipedia (I know, unreliable!) entry lists the Confederate troops using them sparingly.the

The US did not very many either. The Confederates probably had a few shipped to England or to Halifax, which then came through the blockade with some ammunition. On the US side, there weren't many, but they had a big impact.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

How many Henry Repeaters did the CSA have access to? Very few I'd imagine. The Wikipedia (I know, unreliable!) entry lists the Confederate troops using them sparingly.

Agree. Suspect only a very few, if any, captured on the battlefield. (Recall only very few Henry repeating rifles were ever used by the Union army).

But accessing compatible ammunition would have been an impediment for continual Confederate use of any such weapons.

 

[Desert Kid]

Agree. Suspect only a very few, if any, captured on the battlefield. (Recall only very few Henry repeating rifles were ever used by the Union army).

But accessing compatible ammunition would have been an impediment for continual Confederate use of any such weapons.

Had they won their independence they'd have open access to them. Any future war the CSA would get into would be with lessons learned from Yankee repeater rifles.

 

[archieclement]

Here we go down this rathole again. Bottom line, revolution is legal if you win, illegal if you lose. Since the south are losers, they are traitors. Really just that simple.

Revolution may not be inherently bad, but if you lose, then you are a criminal. There is no legal right to revolt against your government and act like you did nothing wrong when you lose. But I understand why losers try to argue otherwise.

Again except the vast majority were not actually found criminal, nor convicted of anything.

But certainly your criminal if you lose line carries no moral weight, as many regimes around the world and through history have maintained rule through use of brute force.

What would seem a given, even using your logic, is people would not risk a revolution unless they indeed found it warranted. Losing doesn't change they indeed had found it warranted to risk everything, anymore then winning would. That would demonstrate the "Union" had actually failed to maintain the consent of the governed, which is rather behind every revolution.

Little different then expressed previously....

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Certainly whether either a third of states, or numerous colonies reach a point they find risk of secession warranted, it certainly demonstrates a failure to maintain the consent of those parties.........whether one agrees or disagrees with the parties 150 or 250 years later, doesn't change there was certainly a failure to maintain the consent of the governed. Which tends to be at root of revolution, whether successful or put down militarily.