Was the civil war worth it all

LowDown said:

The OP opines that the slaves would have been freed anyway, so your comment about him not caring about them is a careless slander.

Given the level of misrepresentation you've already brought to the discussion I'm not inclined to believe you.



Mind reading usually just betrays one's own secret thoughts and attitudes.

Click to expand...

It was not slander at all. To claim he believed that eventually slaves would have been freed anyway decades later - as if time stands still and if there would be no more slaves breed by rape and seized imported over the next decades - if slavery ever stopped at all - is not the irrelevancy as he asserts in silence.

There would be no different than if I claimed WWII was not worth it because eventually Nazism would have failed, ultimately all nations would have regained their freedom and ultimately the killing of Jews would eventually stop... with all that happening within a few decades and no more than 1 or 2 more generations - and - because I speculate all that - I claim WWII was an unnecessary waste of lives and resources.

Such is absurd and declares enslaving nations, people and genocide doesn't really matter much if you believe that will not continue for all eternity - as if when you are confident that within only half a century more or so it will end. Slavery is the ultimate evil. The number to suffer and die as slaves in his model? 4,000,000. Now many more imported, enslaved, and enslaved from birth within his time frame? 2-4,000,000 more - for which he shrugs his shoulders at all that... not even worth consideration to him. They were just cattle.

How many decades are you willing for you, your children and all your relative now and born being slaves with no legal protections whatsoever?

The OP is well known for bigotries. Raging that people with HIV/AIDS should not only be allowed to die, but deserve to die. Raging incessantly against people with religious bigotries... etc. The consistencies of the OP and the history is relevant - and to claim otherwise is to claim a person cannot claim the KKK is a racist organization by looking to it's history. The OPer has a history on this forum. So his OP trivializing blacks in slavery and that entire generation, an entire next generation born, and all those also seized in African all are just ... well, NOTHING. He ONLY counts white people who died in war. Not the millions dying in slavery.

At least those who died in war died as free men - and they were in war at least as the result of a Democratic Republic. Not one slave voted to be a slave. Not to be born as a slave. Not to be worked as a slave. Not to be beaten, whipped, raped, inpregnated and murdered as a slave. Not to be captures and pressed into slavery. Not to die as a slave.

Eynon said:

that is a real possibility.

Click to expand...

It seems rather clear the Confederacy as a nation would have sided with Germany. Although slavery ended in the South via the Civil War, widespread total bigotry against non-white, non-Christians certainly overwhelmingly dominated Southern society in the 1930s.

sawyerloggingon said:

IMO if the south had been allowed the right of secession slavery would have been abolished there very early in the 20th century anyway and what we would have now is two independent nations where we now have just the USA. I'm sure we would have been very close allies and quite possibly even become one nation again so I have to wonder if the civil war was really worth the carnage.

"The approximately 10,455 military engagements, some devastating to human life and some nearly bloodless, plus naval clashes, accidents, suicides, sicknesses, murders, and executions resulted in total casualties of 1,094,453 during the Civil War. The Federals lost 110,100 killed in action and mortally wounded, and another 224,580 to disease. The Confederates lost approximately 94,000 as a result of battle and another 164,000 to disease. Even if one survived a wound, any projectile that hit bone in either an arm or a leg almost invariably necessitated amputation. The best estimate of Federal army personnel wounded is 275,175; naval personnel wounded, 2,226. Surviving Confederate records indicate 194,026 wounded.
In dollars and cents, the U.S. government estimated Jan. 1863 that the war was costing $2.5 million daily. A final official estimate in 1879 totaled $6,190,000,000. The Confederacy spent perhaps $2,099,808,707. By 1906 another $3.3 billion already had been spent by the U.S. government on Northerners' pensions and other veterans' benefits for former Federal soldiers. Southern states and private philanthropy provided benefits to the Confederate veterans. The amount spent on benefits eventually well exceeded the war's original cost.
Inflation affected both Northern and Southern assets but hit those of the Confederacy harder. Northern currency fluctuated in value, and at its lowest point $2.59 in Federal paper money equaled $1 in gold. The Confederate currency so declined in purchasing power that eventually $60-$70 equaled a gold dollar.
The physical devastation, almost all of it in the South, was enormous: burned or plundered homes, pillaged countryside, untold losses in crops and farm animals, ruined buildings and bridges, devastated college campuses, and neglected roads all left the South in ruins."

Cost Of The American Civil War

Click to expand...

The Civil War was worth it.

And if it wasn't worth, the answer was for the South to have given up on slavery, not for the North to have allowed the Union to dissolve over it.

joko104 said:

There would be no different than if I claimed WWII was not worth it because eventually Nazism would have failed, ultimately all nations would have regained their freedom and ultimately the killing of Jews would eventually stop... with all that happening within a few decades and no more than 1 or 2 more generations - and - because I speculate all that - I claim WWII was an unnecessary waste of lives and resources.

Click to expand...

I'll go there...so the premise is that the US stays out of Europe during WW2? ok so then:
-Red Army still wins.
-Hilter still winds up in a ditch on fire.
-The longer war weakens the Soviets even more.
-The weaker Soviet Union stays out of Asia.
-US focuses more on Pacific.
-Soviet puppet states of France and Holland are not allowed to re-occupy their Asian possessions.
-Nationalists defeat Communists in China.
-Korea is unified under an American backed government.
-No Korea War, No Great-leap Forward, No Vietnam War, no Cambodian Kill Fields.
-Millions of lives are saved.
-backpacking across the recently liberalized european continent is cheaper.

Irrelevance. It was never a question of merit.

Capitalism would not be denied.

joko104 said:

It seems rather clear the Confederacy as a nation would have sided with Germany. Although slavery ended in the South via the Civil War, widespread total bigotry against non-white, non-Christians certainly overwhelmingly dominated Southern society in the 1930s.

Click to expand...

German Empire was probably a lot less bigoted than the British or French Empires. They really didn't pick up da master-race thing until after WW1.

If that Civil War was worth it, then certainly other issues will arise that will justify another civil war.

ThePlayDrive said:

It was worth it given that civil war seemed to be what was required to end slavery.

If they could have ended slavery without having war that would have been preferable, but the South decided to act like a little bitch. Obviously, I would prefer that over 600,000 people not had to die over some bull****.

*Anybody who's planning on responding to me with some revisionist "but the war wasn't even about slavery" nonsense can move on. Most, if not all, of seceding states listed slavery as their primary concerns and all of the "other" reasons people give for the South wanting to secede from economics to states rights were based in slavery as well.

**Anybody who's planning on responding to me with some "but the South tried to resolve their differences peacefully, the North got us into this" nonsense can move on too. The South wanted to keep its slaves and it also wanted to secede which isn't permissible, so the North had to shut that **** down. And for those who had to do a double take, you read it right: secession wasn't permissible. Read Texas v. White for more information and if you've got a problem with that, take it up with the Supreme Court.

Click to expand...

Abraham Lincoln Said the following: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

Also when Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves, it only applied to the Southern states. Missouri, Kentucky, Deleware and Maryland, slave holding states that remained in the Union were exempted from it.

sawyerloggingon said:

IMO if the south had been allowed the right of secession slavery would have been abolished there very early in the 20th century anyway and what we would have now is two independent nations where we now have just the USA. I'm sure we would have been very close allies and quite possibly even become one nation again so I have to wonder if the civil war was really worth the carnage...

Click to expand...

It was worth it when considering the basic human rights of those viewed as only three fifths of a person. To put in my two cents on the event, it could have been avoided, had the issue of slavery been addressed during the writing of the Constitution, but instead, they pushed the issue to the side and compromised until compromise was no longer an option. The situation was poorly handled by both the abolishionists and the southern states, making war unavoidable.

Overall, I think the only option available is to separate the US into two separate federations. The rift is too deep, and neither north, nor south will ever get along. We are two entirely different cultures who are forced to put up with each other's ****. That's not a healthy relationship.

lulz

It's almost amusing that anyone should still believe it was about freeing slaves.

Christ.

My thoughts on what would have happened if we had let the South secede was a best case scenario and of course there were a hundred different ways things could have played out but we know exactly what happened when the North chose to fight a war rather than let the South secede and it was horrific. The one thing that can't be denied though is that the South would have in very short order been shamed into abandoning slavery and when it did so on its own it would have been a far less brutal process. The KKK was founded because the South lost and the lynchings and murders that followed were a direct result of forcing abolition on a culture that was not ready for it. To me this is evidence that if the war was fought to end slavery as so many are so adamant about it was fought for nothing and created as many bad results as good in that regard. Sometimes patience really is a virtue and the North could have embargoed the South and urged other countries to do so too instead of launching one of the most bloody wars in history.

sawyerloggingon said:

My thoughts on what would have happened if we had let the South secede was a best case scenario and of course there were a hundred different ways things could have played out but we know exactly what happened when the North chose to fight a war rather than let the South secede and it was horrific. The one thing that can't be denied though is that the South would have in very short order been shamed into abandoning slavery and when it did so on its own it would have been a far less brutal process. The KKK was founded because the South lost and the lynchings and murders that followed were a direct result of forcing abolition on a culture that was not ready for it. To me this is evidence that if the war was fought to end slavery as so many are so adamant about it was fought for nothing and created as many bad results as good in that regard. Sometimes patience really is a virtue and the North could have embargoed the South and urged other countries to do so too instead of launching one of the most bloody wars in history.

Click to expand...

I read a book back in my high schools days in the early 60's entitled, "If the South had won the Civil War," by Mac Kinlay Kantor who won the Pulitzer Prize for his other book, "Andersonville." I just received another copy of it and will re-read it again. If I remember it right, Kantor had Texas seceding from the victorious CSA due to financial difficulties. But later on the three countries of the U.S. the CSA and Texas would re-unite.

I am usually not into these what if books, but threads like this one and having read it once, I am going to read it again.

Perotista said:

Abraham Lincoln Said the following: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

Also when Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves, it only applied to the Southern states. Missouri, Kentucky, Deleware and Maryland, slave holding states that remained in the Union were exempted from it.

Click to expand...

I knew I forgot something on my original post.

***Anybody's who planning on responding to me by referencing that overused quote by Lincoln that they think demonstrates that the civil war wasn't about slavery can move on. First, I find it funny that, while most of us acknowledge that politicians say things that are inauthentic for political purposes, the people who use that quote by Lincoln treat it like its veracity is unquestionable. Second, I find it funny the people who reference that quote conveniently ignore all the other quotes in which Lincoln expressed clear opposition to slavery. Funny how they only choose the quote that fits their revisionist agenda. Third, nothing Lincoln said changes the fact the Civil War was about slavery no matter how hard you revisionists try.

ThePlayDrive said:

I knew I forgot something on my original post.

***Anybody's who planning on responding to me by referencing that overused quote by Lincoln that they think demonstrates that the civil war wasn't about slavery can move on. First, I find it funny that, while most of us acknowledge that politicians say things that are inauthentic for political purposes, the people who use that quote by Lincoln treat it like its veracity is unquestionable. Second, I find it funny the people who reference that quote conveniently ignore all the other quotes in which Lincoln expressed clear opposition to slavery. Funny how they only choose the quote that fits their revisionist agenda. Third, nothing Lincoln said changes the fact the Civil War was about slavery no matter how hard you revisionists try.

Click to expand...

So basically you are saying, you wanted to post your thought and didn't want anyone to respond to them. So be it.

Perotista said:

I read a book back in my high schools days in the early 60's entitled, "If the South had won the Civil War," by Mac Kinlay Kantor who won the Pulitzer Prize for his other book, "Andersonville." I just received another copy of it and will re-read it again. If I remember it right, Kantor had Texas seceding from the victorious CSA due to financial difficulties. But later on the three countries of the U.S. the CSA and Texas would re-unite.

I am usually not into these what if books, but threads like this one and having read it once, I am going to read it again.

Click to expand...

That really sounds interesting, think I'll read it too.

sawyerloggingon said:

My thoughts on what would have happened if we had let the South secede was a best case scenario and of course there were a hundred different ways things could have played out but we know exactly what happened when the North chose to fight a war rather than let the South secede and it was horrific. The one thing that can't be denied though is that the South would have in very short order been shamed into abandoning slavery and when it did so on its own it would have been a far less brutal process. The KKK was founded because the South lost and the lynchings and murders that followed were a direct result of forcing abolition on a culture that was not ready for it. To me this is evidence that if the war was fought to end slavery as so many are so adamant about it was fought for nothing and created as many bad results as good in that regard. Sometimes patience really is a virtue and the North could have embargoed the South and urged other countries to do so too instead of launching one of the most bloody wars in history.

Click to expand...

Embargos in the modern time have proven to be so productive and influential.:roll:

I like a movie I have seen recently, "The Confederate States of America." It asks the question, what if the south had won the war. I think it is closer to the reality than many here that have theorized the demise of slavery organically. Things like slavery only get destroyed by necessity, never out of the kindness of the oppressor.

Slateriesling said:

Embargos in the modern time have proven to be so productive and influential.:roll:

I like a movie I have seen recently, "The Confederate States of America." It asks the question, what if the south had won the war. I think it is closer to the reality than many here that have theorized the demise of slavery organically. Things like slavery only get destroyed by necessity, never out of the kindness of the oppressor.

Click to expand...

Hollywood history.:lol:

sawyerloggingon said:

Hollywood history.:lol:

Click to expand...

And quite a funny movie if one can view it in that light.

Face it, we are delving into hypotheticals that are as wide open as can be. What would have happened if the Civil War didn't happen?:roll: Who the hell knows, and any attempt to claim a definitive knowledge is insane. Way to many variables in that can of worms.

Slateriesling said:

And quite a funny movie if one can view it in that light.

Face it, we are delving into hypotheticals that are as wide open as can be. What would have happened if the Civil War didn't happen?:roll: Who the hell knows, and any attempt to claim a definitive knowledge is insane. Way to many variables in that can of worms.

Click to expand...

I'm just saying if you think you are going to get anything but liberal propoganda from Hollywood you are mistaken.

Since the OP is based upon speculating of the future, a war between the North and the South was inevitable - and the lose of life would have been substantially greater and the treatment of slaves worse, with the treatment of the South worse since instead it would have been a conquered nation.

The North was a growing industrial power, with the South committed to agriculture. It is the history of the United States to engage in wars of conquest for land if it believed such a conquest possible in North America. The North would have used worsening treatment of slaves to invade and conquer the South - as a separate nation - for which Southerns would have thereafter be treated as the British treated the Irish in that era.

Eynon said:

I'll go there...so the premise is that the US stays out of Europe during WW2? ok so then:
-Red Army still wins.
-Hilter still winds up in a ditch on fire.
-The longer war weakens the Soviets even more.
-The weaker Soviet Union stays out of Asia.
-US focuses more on Pacific.
-Soviet puppet states of France and Holland are not allowed to re-occupy their Asian possessions.
-Nationalists defeat Communists in China.
-Korea is unified under an American backed government.
-No Korea War, No Great-leap Forward, No Vietnam War, no Cambodian Kill Fields.
-Millions of lives are saved.
-backpacking across the recently liberalized european continent is cheaper.

Click to expand...

Without the USA in the war effort, the UK would have fallen, leaving Russia on a 2 front war with Germany and Japan - both with substantially greater technical abilities. Germany and Japan would have jointly become the 2 nuclear powers of the world.

NoC_T said:

lulz

It's almost amusing that anyone should still believe it was about freeing slaves.

Christ.

Click to expand...

That message is no different than holocaust deniers.
The South declared independent and attacked a Northern Fort specifically believing the free-states would soon gain a majority and outlaw slavery.
To claim the Civil War was not about slavery is so wrong the motive of such a statement certainly is suspect.

joko104 said:

That message is no different than holocaust deniers.

Click to expand...

Apples and oranges, dude.

The South declared independent and attacked a Northern Fort specifically believing the free-states would soon gain a majority and outlaw slavery.
To claim the Civil War was not about slavery is so wrong the motive of such a statement certainly is suspect.

Click to expand...

Well, it was certainly the justification.

Conflicts generally require a pretext.

sawyerloggingon said:

I'm just saying if you think you are going to get anything but liberal propoganda from Hollywood you are mistaken.

Click to expand...

I don't buy into the old "liberal Hollywood media" bull**** anymore. So I guess I am "mistaken."

I have watched plenty of "conservative Hollywood media" films as well and I often enjoy their fantasy as much as the next.

Slateriesling said:

I don't buy into the old "liberal Hollywood media" bull**** anymore. So I guess I am "mistaken."

I have watched plenty of "conservative Hollywood media" films as well and I often enjoy their fantasy as much as the next.

Click to expand...

Nice dog, brah.