# How could the civil war have been avoided? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 29, 2013, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484 "2013-08-29T08:40:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/261 "2013-09-04T14:03:57Z")
The reason I have challenged the notion that slavery does not require significant approval and support from the “powers that be” is because I believe it is related to the old canard that, in general, slaves in the South meekly accepted their own servitude. They did not, in general, just accept it, and the powers that be in the South had to use continual and persistent brutality, with the local and state governments’ approval and material/legal support, to maintain such a large population of slaves in bondage. Note that I’m not accusing anyone of believing or promoting that old canard- I just believe that this notion that slavery happened without much government involvement is related to this old and false idea. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/262 "2013-09-04T14:05:27Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This is exactly my point- with the qualifier that slavery can’t exist **on a large scale** unless the “powers that be” support it. Yup. The debate appears to be about the existence of formal government support. In some places, the de jure government is either powerless or complicit, and de facto, the powers that be support slavery either directly or indirectly, by looking the other way. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/263 "2013-09-04T14:21:28Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > You have misunderstood his point. Lincoln’s “goal to begin with” was the preservation of the Union, not the abolition of slavery. > > It is true that Lincoln eventually took the steps necessary to abolish slavery in the U.S., but that was not his initial goal. > > I don’t think that admiring Lincoln should be limited to his initial intentions, of course, and I think the preservation of the Union was Good Thing, but **WillFarnaby** ’s point was that failing to seek abolition from the outset argues against admiration. _:::shrug:::_ I think you’re giving WillFarnaby too much credit and are finding more coherence in his position than he put into it. Most people are going to judge Lincoln’s actions as a whole. Lincoln did free the slaves via the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment - these are his actions and it is for them, that we admire Lincoln. Saying we can’t admire Lincoln for freeing slaves in 1863 and 1865 because he hadn’t freed slaves in 1861 or 1850 or 1820 seems pretty foolish. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/264 "2013-09-04T14:52:00Z")
No, WillFarnaby’s position is consistent. Lincoln is evil because the South should have had the right to secede. Lincoln’s actions are evil because he “caused” a war and abused his power in doing so. (Some of his actions were overthrown (Habeas Corpus suspension) while others were legal but simply do not set well with pro-secession advocates, of course.) People who admire Lincoln are blind to his abuses. Here is an example: people admire him for ending slavery, but that was just an accident because it is not what he set out to do. There is little that I agree with in that position, but it is coherent. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/265 "2013-09-04T15:00:57Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I don’t actually see where the cite disagreed with it, please actually clarify what you’re saying on that. It mentions that some forms of non-free labor, but specifically it never mentions complete slavery, could be considered labor. It seemed like to me it was differentiating between paid unfree labor and chattel slaves who work for no wage. Which to me at least, pretty clearly reinforced what I was saying. I pointed it out in post 216, but here it is again: In your cite, under “civil (legal) status,” it lists “forced labor.” Forced labor hotlinks to [this page on unfree labor.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labour). On that page are two significant quotes: “The archetypical and best-known form of unfree labor is chattel slavery.” And: “[Forced labor] is defined by the International Labor Organization as all involuntary work or service extracted under the menace of a penalty.” So, unless you’ve got another cite up your sleeve, you still appear to be alone in your, shall we say, “peculiar” definition of the word “labor.” ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/266 "2013-09-04T15:34:19Z")
I’m not really following what you’re saying, here. The article says > [@](#): > > civil (legal) status: the worker could for example be a free citizen, an indentured labourer, the subject of forced labour (including some prison or army labour); a worker could be assigned by the political authorities to a task, they could be a semi-slave or a serf bound to the land who is hired out part of the time. So the labour might be performed on a more or less voluntary basis, or on a more or less involuntary basis, in which there are many gradations. Why would they mention serfs, “semi-slaves”, prison or army labour and not just mention actual slavery if that was what they intended? I’m just using wikipedia here, and primarily this is the definition I’m going with: > [@](#): > > Wage labour (or wage labor in American English) is the socioeconomic relationship between a worker and an employer, where the worker sells their labour under a formal or informal employment contract.[1] These transactions usually occur in a labour market where wages are market determined.[2] In exchange for the wages paid, the work product generally becomes the undifferentiated property of the employer, except for special cases such as the vesting of intellectual property patents in the United States where patent rights are usually vested in the original personal inventor. A wage labourer is a person whose primary means of income is from the selling of his or her labour in this way. So let’s clear up right now, that is the definition of labor I am going with. You seem confused on a few points: 1. That I was linking to Wikipedia as authoritative support for my position. I was not doing so, that’s _my_ definition of labor, I linked to a wikipedia article as a matter of convenience, so one could read it instead of me having to type out my definition of labor when the article mostly covered it. If parts of that article disagree with my definition, then you’d find me in disagreement with those parts of that article. I was not using that article as an “authoritative source”, because it is a wikipedia article in the first place. 2. The author of the article could have simply linked to the article on forced labor as he was using the term in his article and wanted to make his article fully linked with articles using the same term as him. That doesn’t imply one article is endorsing the definition used in another. 3. If someone was implying that slavery was the same as serfdom or conscripted labor by the military it would highly strange to list all those examples out but **not** to list slavery. I am sorry that article linking appears to have so greatly confused you in Wikipedia, if you aren’t comfortable with that medium, simply refer to my quoted definition above. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/267 "2013-09-04T16:52:17Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > 1. That I was linking to Wikipedia as authoritative support for my position. That does seem to be the problem, then, as I was looking for some evidence that anyone, any where on Earth, agreed with your definition of “labor.” I understand how _you’re_ using the term, but your definition is, frankly, ridiculous. Arguing that slaves should be counted as farm equipment because they didn’t get paid makes as much sense as saying that cattle should be counted as farmland, because they poop so much. ---
**Author:** ![Habeed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a587f6/32.png) [@Habeed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Habeed)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/268 "2013-09-04T19:43:04Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > If the US starts doing that, and buying up all the slaves, the price of slaves goes through the roof. It becomes the ultimate seller’s market. It seems reasonable that if you were trying to conduct a fair slave-buyback, you would consult auction records for the local slave market of the area in question, and calculate what the average price for a slave of a given age and condition. Sort of a “blue-book value”. Moreover, there would have been experts at the time who would have known what the approximate value was. You’d then correct for currency inflation, and offer fair prices. I’m aware, of course, that in real life this rarely happens. The government offers pennies on the dollar for “eminent domain” takeovers, the insurance company is always out to screw you if your house is destroyed, etc etc etc. However, it is possible to compute a fair and honest price for each slave, if intelligent and fair people were to go about it in a rigorous manner. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/269 "2013-09-04T20:03:49Z")
Part of the problem is the practical realities of raising plantation crops (mainly cotton, but also sugar cane, etc.) in a semi-tropical environment. Economic factors dictate that large-scale planters will be able to out-compete small farmers when it comes to cash crops. Meaning that the people who actually tend and harvest the crops will be laborers working for a boss. No one who had any choice did stoop labor in Alabama in the August sun for the pittance a land owner would pay them. So this pretty much required a captive labor force of either slaves or sharecroppers. That really didn’t change until harvesting cotton was finally mechanized in the 1940s. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/270 "2013-09-04T20:33:24Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > I’m aware, of course, that in real life this rarely happens. The government offers pennies on the dollar for “eminent domain” takeovers… Where do you get this idea? Owners do not receive pennies on the dollar, that’s nonsense, they receive market value. The problem is that many owners value their property at higher than market value, this is obvious because otherwise they’d sell. So even when a property owner gets market value or higher they’re still unhappy because they wanted their property more than the money. ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/271 "2013-09-04T20:38:36Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This is exactly my point- with the qualifier that slavery can’t exist **on a large scale** unless the “powers that be” support it. That’s what the Northern abolitionists would say, in magniloquent oratory. One of my favorites: _Let not any persuade us, Mr. Chairman, that the question of slavery is no business of ours, but belongs entirely to the South. Northern opinion, the weight of Northern power, is the real slave-holder of America. Their presence in the Union is the Carolinians’ charter of safety,–the dread of the Northern bayonet is their real police. Without it the whole South were but the deck of a larger “Creole,” and the physical strength of the bondman, as on board that vessel, would sweep the oppressor from his presence. This very fact, that our hands rivet the fetters of the slave, binds us to raise our voice the more earnestly on his side. That Union which takes from him the power of physical resistance is bound to exert for him all the weight of a correct public opinion, --to stir in his behalf all the depths of the heart of humanity. Every lover of peace, every one who hates bloodshed, must rejoice that it is in the power of Northern opinion to say to slavery, cease,–and it ceases; that the Northern Church can break every yoke and bid the oppressed go free, at her pleasure._ - Wendell Phillips, 1842 ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/272 "2013-09-04T21:25:34Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > That does seem to be the problem, then, as I was looking for some evidence that anyone, any where on Earth, agreed with your definition of “labor.” I understand how _you’re_ using the term, but your definition is, frankly, ridiculous. Arguing that slaves should be counted as farm equipment because they didn’t get paid makes as much sense as saying that cattle should be counted as farmland, because they poop so much. The article itself, from the paragraph I quoted has several cites to actual published books on the subject of economics that cover my argument here. Defining “labor” isn’t exactly like defining the number of electrons in an atom of thorium, it’s much more subjective than it is objective. But I didn’t write the Wikipedia article or the books it used for its definition in its opening paragraph. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/273 "2013-09-06T17:12:58Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > No, WillFarnaby’s position is consistent. > > Lincoln is evil because the South should have had the right to secede. > Lincoln’s actions are evil because he “caused” a war and abused his power in doing so. (Some of his actions were overthrown (Habeas Corpus suspension) while others were legal but simply do not set well with pro-secession advocates, of course.) > People who admire Lincoln are blind to his abuses. > Here is an example: people admire him for ending slavery, but that was just an accident because it is not what he set out to do. > > There is little that I agree with in that position, but it is coherent. I still think you’re finding coherence that isn’t there. Lincoln can’t be evil because he defied the South’s right to secede or because he caused a war - because these things didn’t exist. It’s like claiming Lincoln was evil because he refused to recognize Emperor Norton’s right to rule or because he dropped the atomic bomb on Richmond. If the premise is false then you can’t derive a true conclusion from it. As for Will’s claim that people cannot credit Lincoln for ending slavery, that falls to the same argument I made above. To prove this claim, Will had to either demonstrate that slavery wasn’t ended (which is unlikely) or demonstrate that somebody other than Lincoln deserves the credit for ending slavery (which I invited Will to try and do but which he has made no attempt at). If Will thinks that slavery ended by accident, then he should come in here and say so - and offer evidence to support that opinion. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/274 "2013-09-06T21:17:05Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Lincoln can’t be evil because he defied the South’s right to secede or because he caused a war - because these things didn’t exist. That is your opinion, with which I nearly agree, but there are a great many people who would side with WillFarnaby if the discussion was limited to those two points. Why are you going to so much trouble, (over a period of days), simply to try to attack **WillFarnaby**? One need not agree with him to refrain from trying to demonize him or accuse him of incoherence. It should be sufficient to rebut the posts he actually makes without trying to spend extra time trying to portray him, personally in a bad light. ---
**Author:** ![Habeed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a587f6/32.png) [@Habeed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Habeed)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/275 "2013-09-07T19:32:08Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Where do you get this idea? Owners do not receive pennies on the dollar, that’s nonsense, they receive market value. The problem is that many owners value their property at higher than market value, this is obvious because otherwise they’d sell. So even when a property owner gets market value or higher they’re still unhappy because they wanted their property more than the money. Was actually referring to automobile auctions of cars seized by the bank. I think home foreclosure sales are sometimes done this way as well. In these kinds of sales, only a limited number of buyers are allowed who will pay cash. As I understand it, most houses/cars go for pennies on the dollar when they are sold this way. The owner of the house or car gets royally screwed by this method because it means that they will either still owe money on the loan, even if they had paid off most of it, or they don’t receive the value in equity they had. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/276 "2013-09-07T22:46:51Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > As for Will’s claim that people cannot credit Lincoln for ending slavery, that falls to the same argument I made above. To prove this claim, Will had to either demonstrate that slavery wasn’t ended (which is unlikely) or demonstrate that somebody other than Lincoln deserves the credit for ending slavery (which I invited Will to try and do but which he has made no attempt at). If Will thinks that slavery ended by accident, then he should come in here and say so - and offer evidence to support that opinion. Oh, he ended slavery- for purely pragmatic, even self-serving reasons- after publicly stating that he would willingly uphold slavery if that would preserve the Union. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/277 "2013-09-08T00:41:14Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Oh, he ended slavery- for purely pragmatic, even self-serving reasons- after publicly stating that he would willingly uphold slavery if that would preserve the Union. Damn that SOB for benefiting from doing the right thing! How dare he? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/278 "2013-09-08T01:40:47Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Oh, he ended slavery- for purely pragmatic, even self-serving reasons- after publicly stating that he would willingly uphold slavery if that would preserve the Union. Sorry. This does not fly. While the Emancipation Proclamation may be viewed as pure politics, the multiple efforts to pass what would become the Thirteenth Amendment could only come from personal conviction. It was a genuine threat to his political power at a time when the war was still going on, (that could have seriously cost him votes or political capital to accomplish his view of Reconstruction once the war had ended). As to his promise, once the South had broken away, there was no point to keeping slavery as a way to hold the Union together. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/279 "2013-09-08T14:10:02Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Sorry. This does not fly. > > While the Emancipation Proclamation may be viewed as pure politics, the multiple efforts to pass what would become the Thirteenth Amendment could only come from personal conviction. It was a genuine threat to his political power at a time when the war was still going on, (that could have seriously cost him votes or political capital to accomplish his view of Reconstruction once the war had ended). > > As to his promise, once the South had broken away, there was no point to keeping slavery as a way to hold the Union together. Arguably the Thirteenth Amendment was pure politics too. As highlighted n the recent movie _Lincoln_, abolishing slavery was essential to remove any incentive for the South to try to seceed in the future; otherwise it would just be a return to the 1860 status quo. The plain fact of the matter is that politicians do not go on kamikaze moral crusades- there ultimately has to be a payoff, or they wouldn’t remain in a position to have any influence. ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2013, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/280 "2013-10-21T02:04:10Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > 8 of the 16 presidents up to the civil war were from the South, and two more (Harrison and Lincoln) were born in southern states. On the contrary, Lincoln was born in Kentucky. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484.md?page=15)