Was it worth it?

[wausaubob]

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.

Interesting, but a different subject.

 

[wausaubob]

The suggestion of compromise is interesting. But were any of the bargains that are called compromises solutions? One man's compromise is another man's appeasement. Appeasement doesn't have a good track record. If newly elected President Lincoln had surrendered the platform on which he ran, he would not have been renominated and a different Republican would have been elected, probably with even more EC votes.

 

[DanSBHawk]

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.

Not necessarily. Some hotheads would risk a war because they foolishly think it's going to be easy. If they really weighed the risks of war in a rational manner, they'd realize that a peaceful political process would be the smart way to go.

War should be a last resort, after exhausting all other means. Not letting emotions cause the war by going off half-cocked.

 

[archieclement]

Not necessarily. Some hotheads would risk a war because they foolishly think it's going to be easy. If they really weighed the risks of war in a rational manner, they'd realize that a peaceful political process would be the smart way to go.

War should be a last resort, after exhausting all other means. Not letting emotions cause the war by going off half-cocked.

Any country should seek compromise before alienating 1/3rd of it to the point of breaking away. Certainly if wishing to claim it's based on consent.

Regardless of political views, in fact either party could seek compromise to address the others concerns. War is from a failure of both parties. Certainly prior to this, there had always been compromise in admitting territories, had there not been? Lincolns stance was what actually prevented compromise. It seems a bit surreal to not actually acknowledge that.

 

[Desolu64]

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.

While morally speaking might doesn't make right, legally it basically does. If you have the power to forcibly overthrow your government or throw off the control of a foreign power, then while you've still violated the laws of the old government/country, it becomes moot because you're now the new law/authority. If you don't have enough power to do this, then legally you're a criminal even though you may well be in the right morally.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Any country should seek compromise before alienating 1/3rd of it to the point of breaking away. Certainly if wishing to claim it's based on consent.

Regardless of political views, in fact either party could seek compromise to address the others concerns. War is from a failure of both parties. Certainly prior to this, there had always been compromise in admitting territories, had there not been? Lincolns stance was what actually prevented compromise. It seems a bit surreal to not actually acknowledge that.

It seems a bit surreal to not acknowledge that there were many compromises. Didn't settle anything. If the south wanted to leave, it should have pursued a peaceful political way of doing it. Instead they chose war.

 

[damYankee]

Any country should seek compromise before alienating 1/3rd of it to the point of breaking away. Certainly if wishing to claim it's based on consent.

Regardless of political views, in fact either party could seek compromise to address the others concerns. War is from a failure of both parties. Certainly prior to this, there had always been compromise in admitting territories, had there not been? Lincolns stance was what actually prevented compromise. It seems a bit surreal to not actually acknowledge that.

The Union didn't alienate anyone, but a great majority of the citizens of the states that seceded did so, voted under duress and physical threats by pro-secessionist thugs.
According to your logic nations have no right to protect or defend their sovereignty from internal threats.
Any group of despots could form a confederation within the borders of any nation and declare a new nation with-in existing established nations with out regard to national and international agreement and obligations.

 

[wausaubob]

There were much worse outcomes for the Confederate states. Lets not get into the historical examples.
With respect to coercion, we could recite the ancient rules of warfare. Lets not do that.
The Confederates were protected by the Constitution and the Lieber code. The Confederates were granted parole and then amnesty. Complaining about coercion is sad. Civilization depends on coercion.

 

[wausaubob]

Opinions are good, but the thread is devoid of evidence that the men in the original 7 secessionist states were going to agree to limit the geographical spread and the duration of slavery unless forced to do so. Either force or economic isolation imposed by Britain as soon as the British had alternative sources for cotton was going to apply the coercion required.
I cannot distinguish what is being labelled compromise from appeasement.

 

[Trooper "D"]

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.

Texans came home to vast herds of cattle left unattended for the war years which created the Cattle Boom or Beef Bonanza. Herds driven to the railheads payed out to the cowboys and utilized the railroad to Chicago which had a new Meat Packing Bonanza. Del Monico's and other steak houses in the East flourished on that packed and rail shipped beef. A steak was affordable to the hungry masses teeming in the cities. At least more than before could afford steak dinners and beef for home cooking. So there is a positive outcome.
I think the one thing that stays constant is the Homestead Act opening vast acres of 'uninhabited' and undeveloped land. That would have got the settlers moving West and clashing with the natives. Gold would still be found causing gold rushes. Silver and other minerals as well.
War or not the Homestead Act would still have had its effect. Immigrants would still have come for cheap labor and cheap land.
I think the war was a monumental waste of men and resources that didn't have to happen. No it was not worth destroying a section of the country and killing off so many people. The economy crashed from war debt. One year Congress completely forgot to allocate money for the military. Hotheads on both sides pushed for secession and then war. Whole country got dragged into WarHell for no real immediate, pressing reason.

 

[JerryD]

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.

I am not claiming any moral high ground when I say criminal if you lose, I am merely stating the way the world works. If you don't like it, feel free to deposit your complaint in the Suggestion box located in your trash can.

And its beyond silly to claim unless someone is convicted, they are not a criminal. Lots of criminals get away with crimes and do not get punished. If someone slashed your tires and you could not prove who did it, someone is still a criminal who did it. Booth was never convicted of shooting Lincoln. Does that mean he is not a criminal? Any rational person would say no. Feel free to disagree. I know you want to.

 

[Trooper "D"]

In response to 'Was it worth it?'

Wondering. With all those transportation, economic, social and immigration trends happening, how long would the 'peculiar institution' have likely lasted following this period (i.e. '61 - '65), if its abolition was not precipitated by the occurrence of the armed conflict.

Well they War was over Secession and not Slavery. Would it not have been better if it took a little longer to realise that Slavery was no longer economically sound and time taken to dismantle the institution peacefully?

 

[JerryD]

It seems a bit surreal to not acknowledge that there were many compromises. Didn't settle anything. If the south wanted to leave, it should have pursued a peaceful political way of doing it. Instead they chose war.

That is what makes this whole discussion so bizarre. The CSA actually started the war, and yet some want to blame the war on Lincoln's decision to enforce the law. It never fails to amaze me with some of the "creative" arguments I see here that fly in the face of common sense and the facts.

 

[JerryD]

Well they War was over Secession and not Slavery. Would it not have been better if it took a little longer to realise that Slavery was no longer economically sound and time taken to dismantle the institution peacefully?

Yes, but the slaveholders were in no mood to act rationally at this time.

And totally agree the war was over secession. This is the nuance most don't get. Secession was about slavery and the war was about secession. But to make an even finer point, the war was actually about the US being attacked. Even Buchanan, who thought the US had no power to force the states to remain in the Union, agreed with the war effort due to the US being attacked.

 

[Trooper "D"]

On a higher level, Lincoln's call for a "new birth of freedom" was a tremendous stimulus to national movements in Europe, South America and probably everywhere else. The success of the United States in vanquishing a determined slave-based rebellion demonstrated to the world that the visionary ideals conferred by the American founding fathers could in fact be implemented and would prevail. I cannot but believe that the destruction of slavery and the decisive union of a nation based on the ideals of the Declaration of Independence gave hope and inspiration to millions of people throughout the world, either to fight for those ideals in their own countries, or to immigrate to the land that inspired these hopes. And millions upon millions did immigrate to the United States in the decades following the Civil War including those of my own family.

Lincoln's new "birth of freedom" dismantled the Founding Father's vision. Washington becoming ever more powerful and the Federal Government being the answer to every issue gave us the All Powerful Centralized Government. How can Federal Tyranny be a vehicle to Individual Rights later on?

 

[Trooper "D"]

Yes, but the slaveholders were in no mood to act rationally at this time.

And totally agree the war was over secession. This is the nuance most don't get. Secession was about slavery and the war was about secession. But to make an even finer point, the war was actually about the US being attacked. Even Buchanan, who thought the US had no power to force the states to remain in the Union, agreed with the war effort due to the US being attacked.

I don't think the abolitionists were in any mood to act rationally either. Ask John Brown. Abolitionists were a fringe extremist group at the time. They didn't want just manumission but instant abolition and that threatened the very lives of the Southerners. Slave uprisings were very bloody before they were suppressed. John Brown pushing for a Negros Uprising was just proof that the extremist abolitionists were willing to force abolition no matter the price. Including wiping out the slave owning class of families to do it.

 

[JerryD]

I don't think the abolitionists were in any mood to act rationally either. Ask John Brown. Abolitionists were a fringe extremist group at the time. They didn't want just manumission but instant abolition and that threatened the very lives of the Southerners. Slave uprisings were very bloody before they were suppressed. John Brown pushing for a Negros Uprising was just proof that the extremist abolitionists were willing to force abolition no matter the price. Including wiping out the slave owning class of families to do it.

John Brown is not indicative of your average abolitionist. In fact, abolitionists were a tiny, but vocal minority in the north in 1860. The GOP, despite what some may claim, did not advocate abolition in its platform. It was advocating preventing slavery in the territories. But you make a good point that people on both sides were pretty dug in. I have yet to see any "compromise" that both sides would have found acceptable. Some people seem to think compromise means the other side gives up everything it believes and the other gets everything it wants. To me, that is not compromise. That is surrender. So anyone who thinks compromise was possible needs to, at a minimum, suggest a compromise that both sides could have accepted.

 

[wausaubob]

Texans came home to vast herds of cattle left unattended for the war years which created the Cattle Boom or Beef Bonanza. Herds driven to the railheads payed out to the cowboys and utilized the railroad to Chicago which had a new Meat Packing Bonanza. Del Monico's and other steak houses in the East flourished on that packed and rail shipped beef. A steak was affordable to the hungry masses teeming in the cities. At least more than before could afford steak dinners and beef for home cooking. So there is a positive outcome.
I think the one thing that stays constant is the Homestead Act opening vast acres of 'uninhabited' and undeveloped land. That would have got the settlers moving West and clashing with the natives. Gold would still be found causing gold rushes. Silver and other minerals as well.
War or not the Homestead Act would still have had its effect. Immigrants would still have come for cheap labor and cheap land.
I think the war was a monumental waste of men and resources that didn't have to happen. No it was not worth destroying a section of the country and killing off so many people. The economy crashed from war debt. One year Congress completely forgot to allocate money for the military. Hotheads on both sides pushed for secession and then war. Whole country got dragged into WarHell for no real immediate, pressing reason.

At least your post is on topic. Thanks.

 

[Trooper "D"]

John Brown is not indicative of your average abolitionist. In fact, abolitionists were a tiny, but vocal minority in the north in 1860. The GOP, despite what some may claim, did not advocate abolition in its platform. It was advocating preventing slavery in the territories. But you make a good point that people on both sides were pretty dug in. I have yet to see any "compromise" that both sides would have found acceptable. Some people seem to think compromise means the other side gives up everything it believes and the other gets everything it wants. To me, that is not compromise. That is surrender. So anyone who thinks compromise was possible needs to, at a minimum, suggest a compromise that both sides could have accepted.

Absolutely about compromise. It reminds me of that Bluegrass Band song that sings, "It could have been so easy..." Obviously it couldnt have been easy because the war happened. Its typical revisionist history putting todays values upon the people back then. It was not easy and it couldn't have been.
I think John Brown was the extreme and extreme put into action. I was putting the view of the Southerners into my thesis. The threat was very real. Nat Turners was in living memory. Virginia executed JB for the threatened uprising not murder. Treason to the Commonwealth of Virginia. How they worked that up I do not know. It was before the war though. Where each state was a little fiefdom of its own.

 

[Trooper "D"]

John Brown is not indicative of your average abolitionist. In fact, abolitionists were a tiny, but vocal minority in the north in 1860. The GOP, despite what some may claim, did not advocate abolition in its platform. It was advocating preventing slavery in the territories. But you make a good point that people on both sides were pretty dug in. I have yet to see any "compromise" that both sides would have found acceptable. Some people seem to think compromise means the other side gives up everything it believes and the other gets everything it wants. To me, that is not compromise. That is surrender. So anyone who thinks compromise was possible needs to, at a minimum, suggest a compromise that both sides could have accepted.

I wasn't equating Abolition with Republican. The Abolitionists were an extreme group with a large presence as you pointed out. The Black Republicans were extremist in their views. They also put the Fear of God into the Slave holding Class.