Was it worth it?

[wausaubob]

We may be reaching the end.

 

[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.

From what I further read relating to Henry repeaters.

Only about 14,000 rifles were ever produced in the period from 1860 to 1866. Slightly more than 10,000 were used in the CW: 1,731 were purchased by the Union army; the balance being purchased privately by individual Union soldiers.

Such low production and uptake numbers also means there would be little chance of Confederates picking up many of these weapons on battlefields.

 

[JerryD]

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.

Just a few quibbles. I said the abolitionists were a tiny but vocal minority. I dont think they were a large presence at all, unless you are talking about in the imaginations of the slaveholders. Also not sure who you are referring to by "Black Republicans". That is an epithet that was thrown around by the fire eaters before the war when they tried to portray Lincoln and the Republicans as abolitionists, which they weren't.

I also disagree that abolitionism was an extreme position. There was a worldwide movement of abolitionism under way for the past few decades and the US was one of the last industrial nations on earth that still had slavery . Advocating for something that had already been pretty universally adopted worldwide can hardly be called extremism. So while it was a minority position, I have a hard time viewing it as extremist. Now, don't get me wrong, you had some abolitionist like John Brown who were extreme, but he learned his craft in Bleeding Kansas where you had blood thirsty extremists on both sides.

 

[JerryD]

Your question, at least the way I read it, is pretty focused on the Union side of the ledger. Maybe this should be another thread, but I think a more interesting question is, was secession worth it? I'd love to know the thoughts of some members on that. The south had been per capita the richest section of the country, and after the war it was an economic backwater for a century or more. It went to war to defend slavery, and the irony of ironies is that while slavery was perfectly safe during peacetime, the war to protect slavery created the exact condition for abolishing it. So was secession worth it? And if not and if, as I would argue, it was a horrendous decision, why do some folks take such pride in it? Its like celebrating your drunken car accident that took out your family and made you lose the family farm.

 

[Desolu64]

So was secession worth it? And if not and if, as I would argue, it was a horrendous decision, why do some folks take such pride in it? Its like celebrating your drunken car accident that took out your family and made you lose the family farm.

I'm not qualified to answer that question since I'm not someone with those leanings. But a couple of observations:

It seems like although some people do take pride in secession itself, many more are proud of the military service of their Confederate ancestors. One can respect and even admire them (well, at least many people can) for their bravery and sacrifice without thinking secession or the Confederate cause itself was good.

Among those who take pride in secession itself, perhaps it's sort of a psychological defense mechanism--if they admit secession was a bad idea, it'll be like saying all that death, suffering and destruction was for nothing.

 

[wausaubob]

Your question, at least the way I read it, is pretty focused on the Union side of the ledger. Maybe this should be another thread, but I think a more interesting question is, was secession worth it? I'd love to know the thoughts of some members on that. The south had been per capita the richest section of the country, and after the war it was an economic backwater for a century or more. It went to war to defend slavery, and the irony of ironies is that while slavery was perfectly safe during peacetime, the war to protect slavery created the exact condition for abolishing it. So was secession worth it? And if not and if, as I would argue, it was a horrendous decision, why do some folks take such pride in it? Its like celebrating your drunken car accident that took out your family and made you lose the family farm.

Were they rich? Or did they maintain conspicuous consumption while floating on a sea of debt?

 

[Trooper "D"]

Your question, at least the way I read it, is pretty focused on the Union side of the ledger. Maybe this should be another thread, but I think a more interesting question is, was secession worth it? I'd love to know the thoughts of some members on that. The south had been per capita the richest section of the country, and after the war it was an economic backwater for a century or more. It went to war to defend slavery, and the irony of ironies is that while slavery was perfectly safe during peacetime, the war to protect slavery created the exact condition for abolishing it. So was secession worth it? And if not and if, as I would argue, it was a horrendous decision, why do some folks take such pride in it? Its like celebrating your drunken car accident that took out your family and made you lose the family farm.

My earlier posting agrees with you and I am on the "other side". It went to war over secession. Yes the Constitutions of those states all mention slavery, slavery was legal in the US. It was a recognized economic institution ingrained since before the Revolution. Had they the foresight to see the IR in the US I think they would have done things differently. But that didn't happen on either side. Hotheads and extremists bellowed for their own convictions and it brought the whole country along into war. It wasn't worth it for anybody. The Founding Father's ideals died in 1865 and the central control has only gotten worse. On the same turn as the irony of slavery ending sooner because of that war, it is also ironic that so much unconstitutionality was necessary to avoid and carry out the war that the US ceased being what it had been.

 

[DanSBHawk]

I think trying to separate the cause of secession from the cause of the war is a fools game. Both secession and the war were initiated by the south in the interest of slavery. Slavery was the cause of both secession and the war. They can't logically be isolated from each other.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Was it worth it? That's a question for the south. The US was responding to a rebellion. Any nation is going to respond to a rebellion if it has any self-respect or legitimacy.

 

[Desolu64]

I think trying to separate the cause of secession from the cause of the war is a fools game. Both secession and the war were initiated by the south in the interest of slavery. Slavery was the cause of both secession and the war. They can't logically be isolated from each other.

I would say that slavery was the root cause of the war--it was what led to the secession of the Southern states and the creation of the Confederacy. This, in turn, was the immediate cause of the war.

 

[DanSBHawk]

I would say that slavery was the root cause of the war--it was what led to the secession of the Southern states and the creation of the Confederacy. This, in turn, was the immediate cause of the war.

As Beauregard wrote, "We appealed to arms for the settlement of those two vexed questions of Secession and Slavery." He didn't try to separate the two.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

I think trying to separate the cause of secession from the cause of the war is a fools game. Both secession and the war were initiated by the south in the interest of slavery. Slavery was the cause of both secession and the war. They can't logically be isolated from each other.

Like that explanation - the two were inexorably intertwined.

I explain the distinction as: 'secession' was the primary (surface) cause of the CW; 'slavery' was the fundamental (underlying) cause of the CW.

Also. Thought the CW tested (and defined the limits of) the doctrine of 'states' rights' (sovereignty).

 

[major bill]

Wars kill and wound many, destroy things, and cost money. This is the nature of wars. One can ask if any war was worth it. Every war the United State was in during the 19th and 20th Centuries could have been avoided by compromised. Still we had World War One, World War Two, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. One can say all the above wars were not "Worth it". All were fought because the nations could not compromise. However in all the above wars the Americans of that period believed fighting that war was worth it. It appear both sides during the Civil War believed it was worth fighting during the Civil War. I am not sure we modern folk can disagree with them any more than we can disagree with American attitudes in any of the other 19th and 20th Century wars.

 

[Desolu64]

we had World War One, World War Two, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. One can say all the above wars were not "Worth it". All were fought because the nations could not compromise. However in all the above wars the Americans of that period believed fighting that war was worth it.

While Americans overwhelmingly supported WWII, the others mentioned had considerably more dissent--particularly Vietnam.

 

[major bill]

While Americans overwhelmingly supported WWII, the others mentioned had considerably more dissent--particularly Vietnam.

In 1939 many Americans did not support going to war. This changed when we could not compromise with Japan over their demands and the Battle of Pearl Harbor occurred. Even after Pear Harbor the US could have negated and reached a comprise with Japan.

We should avoid more modern topics, but all wars could be avoidable by compromise. Still wars were fought. I was just trying to point out that people in the North and South fought rather than reach a compromise. This is perhaps the nature of people from various eras.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Wars kill and wound many, destroy things, and cost money. This is the nature of wars.

Wasn't it Forrest that said, 'War means fighting, and fighting means killing'.

Still we had World War One, World War Two, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. One can say all the above wars were not "Worth it".

Thought all those 20th. century wars involved disputes over unjust territorial expansion, and occurred where dialogue had broken down as a means of avoiding/resolving the physical conflict.

 

[major bill]

Wasn't it Forrest that said, 'War means fighting, and fighting means killing'.

Thought all those 20th. century wars involved disputes over unjust territorial expansion, and occurred where dialogue had broken down as a means of avoiding/resolving the physical conflict.

We somehow expect people of the Civil War to being more noble than Americans in 1917 or 1941. We want to ignore the negative side of Americans in 1861 but look at the short comings of American wars of the 20th Century. Everyone cares about why Civil War soldiers fought but few question why World War One and World War Two soldiers fought.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

We somehow expect people of the Civil War to being more noble than Americans in 1917 or 1941. We want to ignore the negative side of Americans in 1861 but look at the short comings of American wars of the 20th Century.

Thought those are fair observations. Suppose combatants were exposed to many more varieties and intensities of scrutiny as wars became more modern.

As these forums all come under the umbrella of 'Civilwartalk' perhaps those other wars mentioned are best discussed/commentated in other dedicated subject forums (if any).

 

[JerryD]

Were they rich? Or did they maintain conspicuous consumption while floating on a sea of debt?

I think a little of both, to be honest.

 

[JerryD]

I'm not qualified to answer that question since I'm not someone with those leanings. But a couple of observations:

It seems like although some people do take pride in secession itself, many more are proud of the military service of their Confederate ancestors. One can respect and even admire them (well, at least many people can) for their bravery and sacrifice without thinking secession or the Confederate cause itself was good.

Among those who take pride in secession itself, perhaps it's sort of a psychological defense mechanism--if they admit secession was a bad idea, it'll be like saying all that death, suffering and destruction was for nothing.

I do have relatives who fought for the CSA, and I respect their service. In fact, I grew up being a huge southern sympathizer. But as I learned more about the war as an adult I came to realize my relatives were sheep led to slaughter by leaders who were lying to them and were acting irrationally. If southern leaders had just sat down and looked at the situation with a cooler head after Lincoln won, they would have realized things were not as bad as they feared. Yes, they had lost an election, but mostly due to their own internal divisions. There was every expectation that if they got their act together with northern Dems who were sympathetic towards their issues, they could get the Presidency back in 4 years. In the meantime you had a closely split House and a Supreme Court led by Taney that had just recently issued Dred Scott and said slaves could be brought into the territories.