Was it worth it?

[Pork Chop Phil]

Winston Churchill put a very positive gloss on It:


" …the noblest and least avoidable of all the great mass conflicts of which till then there was record."

Noble ? Well , Winston was an incurable romantic, and many British people seek inspiration in the story of your Civil War. I know, because I'm one of them !

Least avoidable ? That's a pregnant phrase. It certainly doesn't imply inevitability. It does suggest that it was almost bound to happen, in which case , arguably, it was better fought sooner rather than later, before the advent of rapid firing artillery and automatic firepower became ubiquitous.

The war left a uniquely foul legacy, in so far as the abolition of Slavery left the racial codes not only still extant, but rendered more enthused with bitterness on account of the enormous demographic and material damage suffered by the white population.

On the other hand , as Shelby Foote said, before it was " These United States are.." , after it was " The United States is.. It made US into an IS".

Germany and Italy forged consolidations of their countries at about the same time: perhaps this was a paradigm of sorts that Americans also benefited from as a result of their ordeal.

If I had to make up my mind, I would say that it was worth the result, but I'd be wobbling a lot.

 

[Pork Chop Phil]

That should be infused , not enthused, with bitterness. Apologies.

 

[JerryD]

Winston Churchill put a very positive gloss on It:


" …the noblest and least avoidable of all the great mass conflicts of which till then there was record."

Noble ? Well , Winston was an incurable romantic, and many British people seek inspiration in the story of your Civil War. I know, because I'm one of them !

Least avoidable ? That's a pregnant phrase. It certainly doesn't imply inevitability. It does suggest that it was almost bound to happen, in which case , arguably, it was better fought sooner rather than later, before the advent of rapid firing artillery and automatic firepower became ubiquitous.

The war left a uniquely foul legacy, in so far as the abolition of Slavery left the racial codes not only still extant, but rendered more enthused with bitterness on account of the enormous demographic and material damage suffered by the white population.

On the other hand , as Shelby Foote said, before it was " These United States are.." , after it was " The United States is.. It made US into an IS".

Germany and Italy forged consolidations of their countries at about the same time: perhaps this was a paradigm of sorts that Americans also benefited from as a result of their ordeal.

If I had to make up my mind, I would say that it was worth the result, but I'd be wobbling a lot.

Great post. IMO, the war was unavoidable only because southern leaders were determined to act aggressively about even the slightest threat to slavery. Sadly for them, they were fighting to maintain a labor system that was archaic and destined to be replaced by paid labor, but they did not see it that way.

The alternative to war was for southern leaders to sit back and watch as northern majorities that were growing more and more hostile to slavery did what they could short of abolition to make slavery more and more uneconomic. The probably would have weakened or repealed the Fugitive Slave Act, and passed legislation to prohibit the interstate transfer of slaves, for example. They may even try to abolish slavery via birth, like they did in Brazil. And of course you would have seen Justices appointed to the Supreme Court that were open to regulating slavery and you would have seen more free states admitted and no more slave states admitted to the Union. And to avoid war southern leaders would have had to sit back and accept as these changes occurred and accepted that slavery was ultimately on its way out. In short, to avoid war southern leaders would have had to accept that the democratic process and economic reality would eventually grind slavery out of existence. But southern leaders just could not accept that and that is why their defense of slavery become more and more shrill as time went on. The went from the view that slavery was an unfortunate reality (Jefferson's famous quote about slavery being riding a tiger; dangerous, but difficult to stop), to slavery being a positive good and demanding a nationwide slave code. They became so shrill that they were willing to destroy the US and go to war to defend an institution that the rest of the world was abandoning. Shortsighted to say the least.

Does anyone really think southern leaders were prepared to negotiate a slow but steady end to the slavery system? I dont think so, and thus for that reason, the war was probably unavoidable. It didnt have to be if people would have faced up to the reality of what was happening not only in the US, but around the world, but I dont think that was possible given the amount of wealth people were trying to protect.

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

I think the CW improved the United States of America by making it stronger. Despite becoming a republic in 1789, the US in 1860 was still struggling with a needed transformation from an emphasis on states rights to a strong central government.

As someone upthread alluded to, many states were attempting to function as little fiefdoms. But there isn't much global strength or security in being a big fish in the little pond. The war not only settled the issue of secession and slavery, it demonstrated the necessity of a strong central government if the US was going to survive on the world stage.

 

[wausaubob]

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.

The compromise that was available was that some states begin to emancipate the slaves by state action, and other actions are agreed to regulate the slave trade and other aspects of the institution. That would have given the states that were emancipating most of the control over what followed. A plan like that might have made the Democrats viable again in the paid labor states. But the other parts of the Republican program had to be addressed too.

 

[wausaubob]

Great post. IMO, the war was unavoidable only because southern leaders were determined to act aggressively about even the slightest threat to slavery. Sadly for them, they were fighting to maintain a labor system that was archaic and destined to be replaced by paid labor, but they did not see it that way.

The alternative to war was for southern leaders to sit back and watch as northern majorities that were growing more and more hostile to slavery did what they could short of abolition to make slavery more and more uneconomic. The probably would have weakened or repealed the Fugitive Slave Act, and passed legislation to prohibit the interstate transfer of slaves, for example. They may even try to abolish slavery via birth, like they did in Brazil. And of course you would have seen Justices appointed to the Supreme Court that were open to regulating slavery and you would have seen more free states admitted and no more slave states admitted to the Union. And to avoid war southern leaders would have had to sit back and accept as these changes occurred and accepted that slavery was ultimately on its way out. In short, to avoid war southern leaders would have had to accept that the democratic process and economic reality would eventually grind slavery out of existence. But southern leaders just could not accept that and that is why their defense of slavery become more and more shrill as time went on. The went from the view that slavery was an unfortunate reality (Jefferson's famous quote about slavery being riding a tiger; dangerous, but difficult to stop), to slavery being a positive good and demanding a nationwide slave code. They became so shrill that they were willing to destroy the US and go to war to defend an institution that the rest of the world was abandoning. Shortsighted to say the least.

Does anyone really think southern leaders were prepared to negotiate a slow but steady end to the slavery system? I dont think so, and thus for that reason, the war was probably unavoidable. It didnt have to be if people would have faced up to the reality of what was happening not only in the US, but around the world, but I dont think that was possible given the amount of wealth people were trying to protect.

X 1,000,

 

[wausaubob]

I think the CW improved the United States of America by making it stronger. Despite becoming a republic in 1789, the US in 1860 was still struggling with a needed transformation from an emphasis on states rights to a strong central government.

As someone upthread alluded to, many states were attempting to function as little fiefdoms. But there isn't much global strength or security in being a big fish in the little pond. The war not only settled the issue of secession and slavery, it demonstrated the necessity of a strong central government if the US was going to survive on the world stage.

Exactly. Japan, Russia, Prussia/Germany, France and Britain: the US could come up to that level, or stay a second rate nation. The US was accelerating in its quest to realize its destiny, and slavery and secession got in the way.

 

[wausaubob]

I think a little of both, to be honest.th

The debt structures were complex and hidden. But the Confederacy confiscated debts owed to US creditors, that probably is a clue to look further. There were two large auctions of enslaved people in Georgia leading up to the war. The Butler auction is slightly known, but there was also a Bond auction in Albany, Georgia.

 

[wausaubob]

Cotton production was soaring, probably because the large operations needed cash to pay their interest. That made the demand for slave labor. But cotton was not unique. When production increased faster than world demand, the backlog of fiber and fabric caused the price of cotton in incrementally decrease. If interest rates also rose as northern banks found new borrowers in the railroads and the cities, there was going to trouble.

 

[Desolu64]

Does anyone really think southern leaders were prepared to negotiate a slow but steady end to the slavery system? I dont think so, and thus for that reason, the war was probably unavoidable. It didnt have to be if people would have faced up to the reality of what was happening not only in the US, but around the world, but I dont think that was possible given the amount of wealth people were trying to protect.

Also, given the fear (without hindsight not entirely unjustified, given the Haitian Revolution, Nat Turner's rebellion, etc.) of what would happen if almost 4 million black people who were slaves were suddenly freed. This isn't an endorsement of racism, it's a reflection on human nature. Slaves made up more than a third of the population of the South, and were an outright majority in South Carolina and Mississippi. To put that into perspective, the slaves were equivalent proportionally in the South to perhaps 120 million Americans in the present U.S. Many had much to avenge, and not everyone who avenges themselves and their loved ones is going to do so in a fair and just way. Having a white skin, many Southern whites undoubtedly thought, could make them an instant target.

Of course, one way around this issue would have been a serious gradual emancipation program. But as you said, when people are hysterical enough they're not going to think clearly.

 

[Peace Society]

If you think there was another way, then you think John Kenneth Galbraith was wrong:
View attachment 569655

That was certainly Jeff Davis' attitude, even as the end approached.

 

[G Low]

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.

This is true, we had many German immigrants who weren't too keen about making war on their homeland. Even I had German ancestors.

 

[genbeau]

The founders should not have supported slavery in the constitution. But without it, there would have not have been 13 united colonies.

 

[G Low]

Several founders actually were slave owners.
It's not exactly clear who was opposed.

 

[archieclement]

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.

I wasn't either, but the reality of the criminal claim in ACW, is majority were found guilty or convicted of nothing.

And certainly if a criminal act is viewed warranted, it's seldom prosecuted or results in conviction if it is. Rather the point of a jury of one's peers who can indeed consider circumstances of particular cases.

And arguing to convict someone who is dead is simply rather ridiculous. And would be inheritly unfair as well, as they would be incapable of mounting a defense.

One can have opinion of an act, but to be actually criminal actually requires conviction. No shortage of cases where juries don't share the opinion of others.

 

[archieclement]

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.

Actual events would support they had alienated states into deciding they would be better off no part of the US. As well certainly seems the states had support of populace to secede.

And the "no right to protect or defend their sovereignty from internal threats." is nonsense. However do think to maintain the consent of governed does actually require not alienating large portions such as entire states to point of civil war. To suggest moderation or compromise would been impossible before the point of war would seem rather false, as it been rather easily done several times before.

 

[JerryD]

I wasn't either, but the reality of the criminal claim in ACW, is majority were found guilty or convicted of nothing.

And certainly if a criminal act is viewed warranted, it's seldom prosecuted or results in conviction if it is. Rather the point of a jury of one's peers who can indeed consider circumstances of particular cases.

And arguing to convict someone who is dead is simply rather ridiculous. And would be inheritly unfair as well, as they would be incapable of mounting a defense.

One can have opinion of an act, but to be actually criminal actually requires conviction. No shortage of cases where juries don't share the opinion of others.

Yeah, we have gone round and round on this before. Your argument makes no sense. Your argument assumes every crime is prosecuted and every prosecution makes the right decision, since there can be no crimes unless people are convicted. So since no one was convicted of shooting Lincoln, I guess that was not a crime. Same for Kennedy. Same for any number of murders each year, but I guess since no one was convicted, they must not be murders, right? LOL....

It does not require a conviction for their to be a crime. I am amazed I have to tell this to an adult.

Since everyone else in the world realizes this is ridiculous, not going to waste anymore time arguing this with you. I feel its certain you know how silly your argument is, but you make it anyway. Why? Who knows?

 

[G Low]

Just to put a what if into the question… what if the northern states would have ceded land (forts) within the southern borders.?And then not blockade southern ports, how long would the confederacy have lasted? Instead of war they may have invented the cotton picker.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Yeah, we have gone round and round on this before. Your argument makes no sense. Your argument assumes every crime is prosecuted and every prosecution makes the right decision, since there can be no crimes unless people are convicted. So since no one was convicted of shooting Lincoln, I guess that was not a crime. Same for Kennedy. Same for any number of murders each year, but I guess since no one was convicted, they must not be murders, right? LOL....

It does not require a conviction for their to be a crime. I am amazed I have to tell this to an adult.

Since everyone else in the world realizes this is ridiculous, not going to waste anymore time arguing this with you. I feel its certain you know how silly your argument is, but you make it anyway. Why? Who knows?

Give it up man, you can never win an argument with "TECHNICALLY" Guy.

It's a weird hill to die on, for sure.

 

[wausaubob]

The two candidates that inherited most of Whig policies won about 52% of the votes and most of EC. Seems to me that voters were tired of 8 years of Democratic rule and the legislative gridlock.