I would think the average Northerner would have let the South secede too. It is hard to believe that a bloodless capitulation of Fort Sumter would have caused so much ire in the hearts of the average Joe Blow northerner.
I don’t think the average Yankee would be looking far ahead politically as to what would happen with westward expansion and slavery. That was wiser politicians considering that and rightly so.
The Civil War really puzzles me as to why the Yankees took the taking of Fort Sumter as such a big deal so as to invade the South, have their asses handed to them in battle for years and keep fighting on, know they are fighting people just like them and being the invaders, and keep fighting on, we’re told this would be a quickie war that turned into years of bloodbath, and keep fighting on.
I don’t think anything like that could happen today. The American people would be fed up after a while and impeach the President.
I think this is very true. The vast majority of white Americans from North or South hated blacks. Most of the powerful Americans at that time were WASPS–it wasn’t really until the 20th century you even saw groups of immigrant whites like the Irish and Italians attain much political power or respectability by the elites of American society (Germans appear to get into the political elite a little quicker.)
With that context, while many Northerns didn’t “like” slavery, they probably viewed it as “well, it happens primarily in the South. Not here in Pennsylvania or New York, and I’m not going to get up in arms about some Southern rednecks flogging their niggers.” It’s easy to have that opinion when you’re deeply racist and don’t have to really feel associated with slavery at all. The Dred Scot decision does make it so that despite your racism, you as a northern have to accept wholesale you are “part” of the slavery system. That definitely inspired many more northerners to become either abolitionists or “abolitionist-lite” types ala Lincoln (who didn’t advocate for an end to slavery but advocate for policies that would have guaranteed its end at some point down the line.)
So many white lives, you mean. Blacks would would still get to spend the intervening decades be worked to death in the fields. And once slavery became economically unviable, do you really think the slave owners are just going to let them go? Their nation is literally and explicitly founded months idea that blacks are subhuman. When their economy is falling apart, the white underclass is desperate because there are almost no jobs for free white men, do you think they’re going to free the slaves? Or eliminate them?
Although, really, in the situation you describe, where the North is a foreign power actively working to undermine slavery in its Southern neighbor, I’m pretty sure we’d end up in a war anyway. In the real world, the South was willing to attack their own country because they were using the democratic process to undercut slavery. You think they’d be any more sanguine about it if we’re not all part of the same country?
Lets say Texas seceded today and by some weird scenario it turned out to be an even battle or lopsided in favor of Texas, because Texas had better Generals and the Texans fought harder because they were being invaded.
The quickee subjugation of Texas turns into years of horrible bloodshed with 100’s of thousands dead.
How long would it take Americans of today to say “to hell with it. Let the fuckers leave if they want to so bad?”
The civil war was basically unavoidable given the reality of the situation. Were their specific options that Lincoln or the Southern States could have undertaken to avoid war? Sure, Lincoln could have just let the South go, and ignored it when they captured Federal forts and just moved on. The South alternatively could have decided not to secede and accepted the fact that in 25-30 years or so political power in the rest of the country would be so great relative to the slave states that they’d lose their slaves.
Miller explained very well why just letting the South go wasn’t a great option. Due to the nature of what the slavocracy did to the rest of the population of the South and the South’s economic, educational, infrastructural and etc development the South wasn’t a gem after the Civil War with slavery gone. In fact it was basically a very poor place, even after 100 years of the Federal government pouring money into the South in the 1960s parts of the old Confederacy were as desolate as a third world country. [About the only thing making them better than a third world country of the time would have been regular access to electricity and the fact that because they were in the United States those residents could travel to better parts of the country for certain things or even move, options not easily available to third world residents.] In the last 45-50 years the South has slowly gotten better and better, but even still much of the South lags economically (although some regions of some states are highly developed economic powerhouse regions.)
So it does make sense to some that maybe we didn’t “need” the South. But the problem is what happens in our history with a geographically fairly large, moderately powerful country on our southern border that hates the United States? How does that interact with European great powers? What if the British or French had held their nose on slavery and strengthened ties with the Confederacy in the later 19th century as a check on growing American power? What if the Confederacy expanded into the Caribbean or Central America, toppling weak states and creating a string of new territory or satellite states? What if the Kaiser instead decides to back the Confederacy? That immediately complicates any American involvement in WWI, both in terms of supply any arms to the Allies or getting directly involved–out of fear for a shooting war at home.
The South’s slavocracy had a lot in common with European nobility, in that it was based on agricultural land ownership, inherited wealth and a concentration of political power. That system was not sustainable long term and had serious disadvantages to free movement of capital and various other things necessary to modernize. Most likely an independent Confederacy would be hit with the same sort of things that forced modernization in countries that held on to serfdom late in the game (mostly Russia and parts of Eastern Europe) and had de facto serf like conditions for a few generations more. But those countries offer a lesson, the CSA may have been weaker than the US economically but it’s likely as it modernized it would still be able to develop a fairly strong military even if its people were very poor (poor people never stopped the Soviets from building a powerful military.)
It’s easy to suggest we could have just cut the Confederate States out and been on our merry way, but the reality is geopolitically it could have been a long term nightmare for the United States to deal with.
I agree. Prospective cannon fodder is generally against war.
Wiser only in that it made political and economic sense to the wealthy minority.
There were dozens of Union forts along the Mississippi and the SE Atlantic seaboard. As Sumter went, so would go the rest. The CSA would then own the Caribbean and the Ohio/Mississippi not to mention being on the doorstep of Central America and South America. Without Union military pressure, many of the border states would have switched allegiance to the CSA and Northern hegemony would have been broken. No wonder.
Simply, war is profitable.
Just as we did with Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Alohahaha.
That’s a glaring error in how the Three-Fifths Compromise worked. As you can see from the wording of the Constitution:
The Three-Fifths Compromise gave southern whites representation in Congress of a larger population by counting those who couldn’t vote. The former slaves did not have the right to vote until the amendments of 1868 and 1870; even propertyless white men did not have the vote in all states until 1856. What the Three-Fifths Compromise gave the south was an additional number of votes in Congress beyond its voting population. In other words, with its large slave population, the antebellum south had disproportionate political power versus the antebellum north, not the other way around.
That’s my point. Of course the slaves didn’t vote. You took my metaphor literally. In the future, please don’t and save us the need to discuss the pointless.
Being flippant is fine. The joy is in the flippancy. There is, however, no joy in getting pissed off and acting cranky because a poorly delivered joke was misunderstood.
Maybe a little disappointed but that’s the extent of it. I’m new on the Boards and am learning what’s fair and what’s not. Anyway, I’ll try to make myself better understood in the future.
My understanding is that the South failed to win any significant battles in the Western theater, and failed to win any significant naval engagements. Most of the South’s victories were substantially pyrrhic. They sustained losses that would ultimately make it impossible for them to continue.
ombre12’s claims are a bit hyperbolic. Particularly the “for years” claim.
As you note, the war in the West turned in favor of the North rather quickly, and kept that momentum despite occasional defeats through the end of the war. Even in the East, “for years” does not really cover Antietam, (17 months into the war), while Gettysburg, (26 1/2 months into the war), was the last hope for a Southern victory and coincided with the fall of Vicksburg and the opening of the entire Mississippi to the North. It also makes the Northern defeats sound as though they were a series of constant and persistent losses when they were actually a few bad losses between long periods of stalemate, interrupted by victories in North Carolina and elsewhere along the Southern coast…
Well the South didn’t have much of a navy. What battles? Merrimack vs Monitor I guess.
And the western front did not go as well as the eastern fronts–where it was almost always a southern victory, sometimes a draw. True, in the long run the South had no chance unless the North decided the war was not worth the trouble and bloodshed and gave up on the idea of reacquiring the South.
The Monitor vs the Virginia was a tie, with the North winning by default since the Virginia was not abloe to chase off the Union Navy or break the blockade. However, there was also he North Carolina campaign beginning with the taking of Fort Hatteras and, later, Roanoke, and then expanding through the coastland. Similar battles were fought elsewhere. New Orleans was captured within 13 months of the war’s outbreak, initiating the drive up the Mississippi to Vicksburg.
You might want to watch the earlier episodes of The Civil War by Ken Burns to get a better handle on how the rank and file citizens and troops really felt about the war.
