# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2013, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/81 "2013-08-31T17:44:06Z")
> [@jsutter](#): > > There’s no it escaping folks. The South was founded as a Union colony, a banana republic. The corrupt Union oligarchies supported the corrupt Confederate oligarchies for sixty years primarily with the 3/5 rule, giving slaves the right to vote as their masters did. Indeed, in the early days of the Republic, the South, united behind leisure and profit built on slavery, was easily a match for a confederation of Union financial powers, competing among themselves. On the contrary, the South dominated the Union for decades; of the first 5 Presidents, 4 were Virginia slaveowners. The South demanded that their slaves be counted fully, when calculating how many Representatives (and thus electoral college votes) the South would received and “compromised” at 60%. The South pushed through legislation like the Fugitive Slave Laws forcing the north to enforce returned the South’s victims back to it, and censored publication of anti-slavery material. Naturally, when the South’s political power waned, and they faced the prospect of being in the minority, they tantrumed. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2013, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/82 "2013-08-31T18:50:40Z")
> [@jsutter](#): > > There’s no it escaping folks. The South was founded as a Union colony, a banana republic. The corrupt Union oligarchies supported the corrupt Confederate oligarchies for sixty years primarily with the 3/5 rule, giving slaves the right to vote as their masters did. Indeed, in the early days of the Republic, the South, united behind leisure and profit built on slavery, was easily a match for a confederation of Union financial powers, competing among themselves. The southern and northern colonies were founded at the same time during the colonial period. The declaration of independence was written by a southerner. The man they call the “father of the Consitiution” was a southerner. 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. The South used their control over the Senate to prevent bills they considered anti-Southern or anti-slavery from passing. If the South was a banana republic before the Civil War, much of the blame on that has to do with the South itself. If the South was slow to develop industrially, most of that had to do with the slavery system, and the way it concentrated wealth in the hands of an agrarian elite that had neither the inclination or the heavy capital to industrialize. And if the democratic institutions in the south withered, leading to control by a so called “slavocracy”, that was also due to the enormous inequality of wealth, as well as the ability of the large slaveholders to manipulate racial fears to keep control. ---
**Author:** ![computergeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e56c9b/32.png) [@computergeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/computergeek)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2013, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/83 "2013-08-31T19:38:23Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#): > > On the contrary, the South dominated the Union for decades; of the first 5 Presidents, 4 were Virginia slaveowners. The South demanded that their slaves be counted fully, when calculating how many Representatives (and thus electoral college votes) the South would received and “compromised” at 60%. The South pushed through legislation like the Fugitive Slave Laws forcing the north to enforce returned the South’s victims back to it, and censored publication of anti-slavery material. Naturally, when the South’s political power waned, and they faced the prospect of being in the minority, they tantrumed. I think the Dred Scott decision and most especially the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 did a tremendous amount to galvanize the North against slavery and towards war to end slavery. Before the Slave Law, I think Northerners didn’t like slavery but weren’t really up in arms about it. Once the South pushed the law into effect, it basically forced Northerners’ noses in it and they didn’t like having to be part of the institution of slavery (being forced to help return slaves, etc). Southerners thought they were solidifying their hold on slavery but it really backfired on them and started making it a major moral issue among the general population in the North. ---
**Author:** ![computergeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e56c9b/32.png) [@computergeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/computergeek)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2013, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/84 "2013-08-31T19:41:11Z")
Also, if the South had successfully seceded, it might have put further pressure on the survivability of slavery. If the North no longer had to abide by the Fugitive Slave Law, then they could be just like Canada, helping slaves to escape and not returning them. It also would have been interesting to see what free blacks living in the South would have done, whether they would have stayed or hightailed it out of there for the North. ---
**Author:** ![jsutter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@jsutter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsutter)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2013, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/85 "2013-08-31T20:14:00Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Gosh, you… you mean there was TRADE between the northern and southern states? I can see how that led to a war. > > I’d like some details about what you consider “the north selling slaves to the south,” though, as the slave trade had been abolished almost 50 years earlier. The slave trade being made illegal upped the prices/profits and all parties concerned thrived on business as usual. It is true that the slave trade per se was significantly reduced after 1810 but by then, of course, the South had accumulated a good breeding stock. My point really is that the South’s dependence on/addiction to slavery made it hostage to the Union from the gitgo. ---
**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:** [August 31, 2013, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/86 "2013-08-31T20:23:42Z")
> [@computergeek](#): > > I think the Dred Scott decision and most especially the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 did a tremendous amount to galvanize the North against slavery and towards war to end slavery. Before the Slave Law, I think Northerners didn’t like slavery but weren’t really up in arms about it. Once the South pushed the law into effect, it basically forced Northerners’ noses in it and they didn’t like having to be part of the institution of slavery (being forced to help return slaves, etc). Southerners thought they were solidifying their hold on slavery but it really backfired on them and started making it a major moral issue among the general population in the North. There was also the issue of the territories. Should slavery be allowed or not? Compromises were suggested - southern territories would allow slavery and northern territories would not or maybe each territory would be allowed to decide for itself if it allowed slavery. Southerners would not accept these suggestions - they wanted the federal government to legalize slavery in all territories. That was one of the controversial aspects of the Dred Scott decision. Taney said that Congress did not have the power to prohibit slavery in the territories. ---
**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:** [August 31, 2013, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/87 "2013-08-31T20:25:52Z")
> [@jsutter](#): > > The slave trade being made illegal upped the prices/profits and all parties concerned thrived on business as usual. It is true that the slave trade per se was significantly reduced after 1810 but by then, of course, the South had accumulated a good breeding stock. > > My point really is that the South’s dependence on/addiction to slavery made it hostage to the Union from the gitgo. What you’re saying really doesn’t make any sense. How could slavery make the south hostage to the north if the slave trade was illegal? ---
**Author:** ![jsutter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@jsutter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsutter)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2013, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/88 "2013-08-31T20:40:21Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > What you’re saying really doesn’t make any sense. How could slavery make the south hostage to the north if the slave trade was illegal? Slavery doomed the South from the beginning. The North with its wealth and industry was destined to break it and pick up the pieces. Think about the rest of my posts. They offer a context for what I’m saying here. Aloha ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2013, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/89 "2013-08-31T20:56:07Z")
> [@jsutter](#): > > The slave trade being made illegal upped the prices/profits and all parties concerned thrived on business as usual. But the north had no slaves to sell. (Yes, there were kidnappings and “ransom gangs” but they dealt in comparatively small numbers of people and completely extralegally.) Your implications that the north was some major supplier of slaves after about 1810 is just whack. > [@](#): > > My point really is that the South’s dependence on/addiction to slavery made it hostage to the Union from the gitgo. > [@jsutter](#): > > Slavery doomed the South from the beginning. The North with its wealth and industry was destined to break it and pick up the pieces. There is no question that the south had a slave-based economy while the north had shed theirs a hundred years prior and had increasingly turned to mechanical industry. There is no question that an industrialized economy will outperform a human-strength based one, whether the latter workers are free or slave. So yes, the south was on a doomed path no matter what, and the north was likely to become dominant in almost any scenario. But you seem to have taken the rest of your arguments off a cliff. The options were to let the south secede, weakening the US as a nation overall and allowing the preservation of slavery and leaving all the problems for some future generation; or go to war to preserve the Union for many reasons, eliminate slavery, and give the southern states a road to modernity and industry. If you get near a further point, do make it. ETA: It seems that only pride and greed kept the south from throwing in the towel, giving up their slaves and asking for national help to industrialize and reform. ---
**Author:** ![jsutter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@jsutter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsutter)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2013, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/90 "2013-08-31T21:40:05Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > But the north had no slaves to sell. (Yes, there were kidnappings and “ransom gangs” but they dealt in comparatively small numbers of people and completely extralegally.) Your implications that the north was some major supplier of slaves after about 1810 is just whack. Earlier from me: > [@](#): > > The slave trade being made illegal upped the prices/profits and all parties concerned thrived on business as usual. It is true that the slave trade per se was significantly reduced after 1810 but by then, of course, the South had accumulated a good breeding stock. Do you read whole posts or just cherry pick nit picks? > [@](#): > > There is no question that the south had a slave-based economy while the north had shed theirs a hundred years prior and had increasingly turned to mechanical industry. There is no question that an industrialized economy will outperform a human-strength based one, whether the latter workers are free or slave. Wage slaves and indentures are free? Alohahahaha > [@](#): > > … > > The options were to let the south secede, weakening the US as a nation overall and allowing the preservation of slavery and leaving all the problems for some future generation; or go to war to preserve the Union for many reasons, eliminate slavery, and give the southern states a road to modernity and industry. Weaken the Union? It would have destroyed it as The Power in North America. See previous post. You think our Civil War spared us problems? The last battle of the Civil War took place in Mississippi in 1964. > [@](#): > > If you get near a further point, do make it. > > ETA: It seems that only pride and greed kept the south from throwing in the towel, giving up their slaves and asking for national help to industrialize and reform. Pride, greed and a way of life. War seemed a better way than capitulation. Bankers and arms manufacturers everywhere agreed. Aloha ---
**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:** [August 31, 2013, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/91 "2013-08-31T21:56:16Z")
> [@jsutter](#): > > Think about the rest of my posts. They offer a context for what I’m saying here. Yes, they do. ---
**Author:** ![jsutter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@jsutter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsutter)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2013, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/92 "2013-08-31T22:10:13Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Yes, they do. Well, thank you, myself. Aloha ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2013, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/93 "2013-08-31T22:17:01Z")
Does anyone else have the sense that **jsutter** is participating in a slightly different argument from the rest of us? Dude, seriously, you keep raising arguments to arguments and going in circles. I think I have the gist of what you’re trying to say, but your base aim seems to be to exculpate the south from all wrongdoing (it warn’t their fault, the north made 'em do it), which is pure Oscar Meyer pink stuff. When you can form a coherent argument about the south’s “way of life” that doesn’t equate to “living the good life off the backs of slaves,” get back to me. ---
**Author:** ![jsutter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@jsutter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsutter)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2013, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/94 "2013-08-31T22:31:56Z")
From my very first post in this round of nonsense: > [@jsutter](#): > > … > > There’s no it escaping folks. The South was founded as a Union colony, a banana republic. The corrupt Union oligarchies supported the corrupt Confederate oligarchies for sixty years primarily with the 3/5 rule, giving slaves the right to vote as their masters did. Indeed, in the early days of the Republic, the South, united behind leisure and profit built on slavery, was easily a match for a confederation of Union financial powers, competing among themselves. And this recently from you: > [@](#): > > When you can form a coherent argument about the south’s “way of life” that doesn’t equate to “living the good life off the backs of slaves,” get back to me. Please … ---
**Author:** ![jsutter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@jsutter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsutter)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2013, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/95 "2013-08-31T22:56:51Z")
> [@jsutter](#): > > From my very first post in this round of nonsense: > > And this recently from you: > Please … I tried to edit the above but was tripped up by the five minute rule. My proposed edit can be summed as, Dear AB, RMFP before you disagree with what I’ve said. Aloha ---
**Author:** ![jsutter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@jsutter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsutter)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2013, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/96 "2013-09-01T00:01:03Z")
Andy, I wrote this: > [@](#): > > … Indeed, in the early days of the Republic, the South, united behind leisure and profit built on slavery, was easily a match for a confederation of Union financial powers, competing among themselves. … And you replied this? > [@Andy\_L](#): > > … > On the contrary, the South dominated the Union for decades; > … On the contrary? Please, RMFP before you leap. Aloha ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2013, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/97 "2013-09-01T00:04:18Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > One theory is that the only reason the south was able to maintain a slave-based economy was because it was politically connected to the rest of the country, which had a growing non-slave economy. Think of it as a marriage where the husband is a business executive and the wife runs a boutique - the wife is only able to keep the boutique going because her husband’s salary is paying for all of the couple’s household expenses. > > Secession was the equivalent of a divorce. Even if the United States had let the southern states go peacefully, the CSA was doomed because it didn’t have the resources to finance the running of a country. This is laughably ignorant of the fact that the South was paying the majority of the taxes under the tariff regime before the Civil War because the Southern economy was built on exports. The Whig cronyist Abraham Lincoln stated in his inaugural address that he would invade the South in order to keep the tariff revenue flowing for his government looting cronyists in the North. While the aristocratic slaveowners were indeed living off the slave labor, so were the Northern industrialists who taxed the South for all it was worth to pay for their crony deals. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2013, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/98 "2013-09-01T00:11:57Z")
> [@jsutter](#): > > Andy, > > I wrote this: > > And you replied this? > > On the contrary? Please, RMFP before you leap. > > Aloha You claimed that the South was founded as a Union colony; I wrote that in the contrary, the South was was far more powerful than the North during the early days of the USA, and provided evidence to that effect. ---
**Author:** ![jsutter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@jsutter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsutter)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2013, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/99 "2013-09-01T00:26:20Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > This is laughably ignorant of the fact that the South was paying the majority of the taxes under the tariff regime before the Civil War because the Southern economy was built on exports. > > … > > While the aristocratic slaveowners were indeed living off the slave labor, so were the Northern industrialists who taxed the South for all it was worth to pay for their crony deals. Precisely. You’ve described the South as a typical banana republic, which, if anyone has noticed, is my original thesis. Aloha ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2013, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484/100 "2013-09-01T01:01:39Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > You don’t need the qualifier unless you’re trying to mollify neo-Confeds. > > A rational interpretation would be hard-pressed to find ANY root cause for the war that does not stem from slavery, unless you’re going to posit some absolute “right to self-determination” that includes gross human abuse. > > Not every single reason is slavery by itself; I’ve never heard a good argument that did not rest on some aspect of slavery, a slave-based economy, slaves as personal property and wealth, etc. No matter how much you churn it, it’s slavery all the way down. Slavery was the cause of secession. Secession was the cause of war. The fact that Northern white supremacists didnt want slavery in the territories was also a factor. Of course, this was because they wanted to save the territories for whites only and deport freed blacks, not because they were concerned with human rights. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided/667484.md?page=6)