Just before the discussion veered off into the question of personal liberties and the source therein, Jois asked the question “If slavery had not existed, would there still have been a Civil War?”
Any takers on this?
Personal opinion: Unlikely at best (that there would be a Civil War, not that there will be any takers on this topic). The issue of States’ Rights was used as a stalking horse by the pro-slavery contingent; without slavery as a major dividing issue, the pro-States’ Rights forces would never have gained the power and strength that they did.
P.S. Grateful newbie thanks to UncleBeer for instructing me in the error of my ways. Helping hands are always appreciated.
“If this war ain’t about [n-word], what is it about?”
Nate was one of the U.S.’ leading slave traders before the war (he opposed succession), became one of the most famous (and infamous) generals, and helped found the Klan during re-construction. Later on he quit the Klan stating that it was too violent and argued for increased foreign-born immigration into the South.
I simply can’t imagine the War of Southern Aggression [tee hee] occurring without slavery. Feudalism depends on slavery and/or serfdom, without slavery the South would have had to practice exactly the same thing those bleeding-heart capitalists were practicing. There would have been no Fugitive Slave Act, no Dred Scott decision, no Missouri Compromise, no Preston Brooks’ steel-tipped cane, etc.
“Secession” would just be another academic topic, listed next to “nullification” in the list of “things malcontented sectionalists have advocated under a paper-thin veil of states’ rights”, and everyone would pronounce it “succession”. Oh, I guess that last one is true in fact.
Any similarity in the above text to an English word or phrase is purely coincidental.
Of course there would have been a Civil War. Slavery had little or nothing to do with it; the war was fought almost entirely over economic issues.
You could look it up. Of course you would have to look it up in a source that was at least thirty of forty year old; I’m sure the revisionist historians have probably figured out a way to “correct” history by now.
And could you actually provide a citation for one of these references, Jim? Most libraries carry books older than 30 years and there has not been much “revisionist” thought on the origins of the Civil War in a long time. (There have been new additions to the ongoing controversy, but not many changes in direction.)
It would be interesting to see you develop a theory of “economic differences” that was somehow able to leave slavery out of the equation.
We did not have a Civil War when New England discussed seccession during Mr. Madison’s war. We did not have a Civil War over any of the other tariff battles. We did not even get a three-way Civil War with California/Nevada and Washington/Oregon secceding during the 1861-1865 conflict (although there was discussion, there, as well).
So how did the Civil War become an unavoidable conflict on simply economic differences that did not include the issue of slavery?
I think this is a issue that is almost impossible to debate.
I mean, how can we say what would have happened without slavery. I do believe there were many other issues that created the conditions for the War, however, almost every issue was wrapped or at least connected to slavery.
I personally think our great dislike for those d*mn yankess was enough to start a war over.
Yes, the impetus to war was driven by economic competition between the industrializing North and the agrarian South. While issues related to the meaning of federalism and states’ rights are without question a part of the whole picture, to say that slavery had little or nothing to do with it is absurd. The cheap labor afforded by slavery was one of the South’s trump cards in the economic game. The threat of losing that trump was very much a part of the equation that created the conditions sufficient for war.
Yes, there was a fierce economic competition.
Yes, there was much debate about the role a federal government can play in a union of states.
Yes, there was a significant part of the population who questioned the morality of slavery.
No, slavery cannot be dismissed as a component of the stage that set upon us the Civil War.
DLV: I think this: “In retrospect, it probably would have cost less to buy out all the slaves and to set them free. :-)” was seriously considered. I’m sure I saw the math for it somewhere, sometime.
The other thing that comes to mind is population at the time of the war:
South 5 million free white
4 million slaves (nearly)
That’s a lot of non-cause right there.
I wonder if the combined total of slaves at any given time on this earth ever approached that total.
Rearding slavery in the Old South: It is my opinion that slavery was a failing system by the 1840’s-the old plantation society was just about bankrupt. Even if there had been no Civil war, the whole premise of the slave-based economy (One crop economy, non-efficient markets, etc.)would have doomed the whole thing. Indeed, it was slavery that kept the South in poverty (excepting the planter aristocracy). The whole thing probably would have been abandoned, no later than the 1890’s
I have a question for the Southerner who insist it was about “States Rights”, not slavery.
Had the South won the Civil War, would they have freed the slaves? Most southerners want to distance themselves from slavery and that is certainly understandable.
Personally, I think they would have. Not out of any moral reasons, but because it was too expensive. As the North found out, it was easier to “rent” slaves for factories, packinghouses, steel mills, coal mines, etc. They would pay them a pittance for a 12-hour day, certainly less than the amount it took to provide for a slave (housing, food, clothing, medical care). Then after some time, they could turn them onto the streets.
The entire economic system of the US, not only in the South, but also in the North, was influenced by slavery. If slavery had not existed, I am quite sure that US would have been so different that “the” Civil War would never had happened; that is, nothing that we would recognize as the Civil War would have happened. As for whether there would have ever been any civil war, that’s impossible to say. Simirlarly, if Germany had won WWI, there never would have been anything quite like WWII, but that doesn’t mean that there would have been perpetual peace.
BTW, many go from the claim “Slavery caused the Civil War” to the claim “Support for the Confederacy is the same as support for slavery”. These are logically separate claims.
Okay, suppose there was no slavery in the South, or that all the Southern slaves were freed prior to 1860. And suppose this would have made enough of a difference for the south NOT to have seceded, and for the Civil War not to have been fought.
Then consider this: The 14th amendment was a direct result of the Civil War and the forced freeing of the Southern slaves. Without the Civil War, the 14th amendment probably would not have been passed. The 14th Amendment is thought of nowadays as a bulwark for personal rights and equal treatment; however, the most important thing the 14th Amendment did on a governmental scale was erode the doctrine of states’ rights. (The Civil War itself also made people a little sick of this whole states’ rights business, as well.)
So: If the Civil War had not happened, would the Federal government have nearly as much centralized power as it does today?
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.
IMHO, probably so. The Great Depression would have happened with or without the Civil War. It was there that the Feds started finding all sorts of inventive ways to pass “national” laws outside the scope of the Framers’ original intentions.
