- This topic has 5 voices and 12 replies.
-
Posts
-
This is a related, though different question that I posed previously about whether the South could have avoided war by giving up slavery. If the South would have retained the institution, but cut itself off from bothering with the North, could it have avoided war? For example, “brushing aside” Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry, forgoing any rights it was granted by the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, etc…would these and other moves have cooled the embers of tension between North and South? I suppose in other words, if the South had "gone about its business" and limited its legal or political interactions with the North, would this have prevented war? If you say "no", that war was inevitable nonetheless, does this indicate that the North was fully responsible for instigating the war?
Nope, because you had all the abolitionists stirring things up more than you had southerners stirring things. Leave slavery as is and the Kansas Red-Legs and Jayhawkers move into Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, etc. and the whole thing explodes anyway. I have had the discussion about avoidance of war, but in the case of the American Civil War I think nothing was going to stop that war from happening. It started all the way back with the founding fathers, almost came to head during Andrew Jackson's watch with "the mouth of the South" John C. Calhoun and secession. The two cultures were different in every way, culturally, economically, socially, religiously. The lives lost were unfortunately inevitable. It was a cleansing period and was needed to give birth to the "United" States.
It was a cleansing period and was needed to give birth to the "United" States.
Interesting you say that. Some may well argue that the type of "unification" of the states now is a grouping enforced by federal bully rather than the free association of states envisioned by the founders, and what the states enjoyed before the Civil War.
Quite possibly… depends on which side of the fence you're on. I honestly see both sides as having a legitimate beef with the other...The South claims that just like anything else they entered into an association that initially gave them dominion over their own states with some assistance from the new Federal gov't. Then they went and changed it (AoC) and enacted exactly what you stated - a bully gov't forcing it's will on those who would say "that isn't what we signed up for."The North on the other hand did get all the southern states to sign the Constitution... so the South really could not complain that they were forced into that. They could have left prior to that, but did not and signed a document that sealed them to the Union for the duration. The gov't was not going to let these states go. It would weaken the Union, make the Constitution a joke and would take away any legitimacy that the gov't would ever have.The states before the Civil War were no different before or after the war. That is in regards to their rights and status. The only time they had a different role was prior to the Constitution. After that, their roles and rights were signed, sealed and delivered.So they were certainly bullied, but bullied under the auspices of a contract they willfully and purposefully signed and entered into...Like I said, I see both sides and think it is a debate that will never get resolved...
I don't think the South would have been willing to keep to itself as you postulate. They were simply too wedded to slavery as a political, economic, and social system to be willing to give it up. At best you might come up with a scenario where the Southern political leadership is willing to accept no slavery in the territories rather than viewing the right to expand slavery as linked with the right to continue to have slavery in the South.If the South is somehow willing to accept slavery remaining within its 1850 boundaries only then do you probably avoid the Civil War. How and when slavery dies out without the Civil War seems hard to say; I'd speculate the 1880s or 1890s.
I think that had the (deep) South kept to itself there wouldn't have been a Civil War. (And that means staying within, say, the 1850 boundaries.)However, I don't think it was possible for the (deep) South to keep to itself--without changes they would never have accepted. Cotton depleats soil; in that era new land was necessary to maintain a cotton based economy as they didn't know how to rejuvenate the soil. I don't see the (deep) South abandoning a cotton based economy. I also don't see the (deep) South being willing to make the changes that would have been necessary to have a cotton based economy without slavery. Hence I don't see it having been possible for the South to have kept to itself.
I have always said that even though the South fired the first shot, they did not start the war. It was northern abolitionists and agitators that needed to keep to themselves. Keeping to themselves is exactly what the South wanted, to be left alone. If they had been left a lone, slavery would have died a natural death within a few decades because of economic factors alone. The invention of the Cotton Gin spelled doom for southern slavery right there. Technology was already starting to eliminate the labor based rationale for slavery before the war started. The abolitionists and others were not patient enough and it s they, not the South, that precipitated the war because of their actions and rhetoric. It should be no surprise that the South reacted the way it did, they did what anybody or any animal does when it is cornered, they fought.
I am a firm believer that the Civil War was inevitable. Call it the growing pains we had to endure to become the world power we are in such a short period of time relatively speaking in terms of world history.You could most certainly blame expansionists as the instigators of the war. You could blame abolitionists, Copperheads, slave owners, businessmen, politicians, etc etc... There were SO many little fires in the matchbook that it finally ignited the whole thing. The South was to blame. So was the North. So were everyone else in the country. It was inevitable.
If they had been left a lone, slavery would have died a natural death within a few decades
With respect, I disagree. Slavery was expanding, not dying. In 1790 there were 700,000 slaves; in 1850 there were 3.2 million slaves. In 1790 there were six slave states; in 1860 there were 15 slave states. Without the Civil War I do not think the South would have ended slavery.
The invention of the Cotton Gin spelled doom for southern slavery right there.
Again, I disagree. Thanks to the cotton gin the production of cotton expanded from 750,000 bales in 1830 to 2.85 million bales in 1850. The cotton gin made slavery very profitable. Prior to the cotton gin I think slavery was dying. After the cotton gin I do not think anything short of the Civil War would have ended slavery.
Prior to the introduction of the mechanical cotton gin, cotton had required considerable labor to clean and separate the fibers from the seeds.[9] With Eli Whitney’s introduction of “teeth” in his cotton gin to comb out the cotton and separate the seeds, cotton became a tremendously profitable business, creating many fortunes in the Antebellum South. New Orleans and Galveston were shipping points that derived substantial economic benefit from cotton raised throughout the South. Additionally, the greatly expanded supply of cotton created strong demand for textile machinery and improved machine designs that replaced wooden parts with metal. This led to the invention of many machine tools in the early 19th century.[10]The invention of the cotton gin caused massive growth in the production of cotton in the United States, concentrated mostly in the South. Cotton production expanded from 750,000 bales in 1830 to 2.85 million bales in 1850. As a result, the South became even more dependent on plantations and slavery, with plantation agriculture becoming the largest sector of the Southern economy.[11] The number of slaves rose in concert with the increase in cotton production, increasing from around 700,000 in 1790 to around 3.2 million in 1850.[12] By 1860, the southern states were providing two-thirds of the world’s supply of cotton, and up to eighty percent of the crucial British market.[13]According to the Eli Whitney Museum website: Whitney (who died in 1825) could not have foreseen the ways in which his invention would change society for the worse. The most significant of these was the growth of slavery. While it was true that the cotton gin reduced the labor of removing seeds, it did not reduce the need for slaves to grow and pick the cotton. In fact, the opposite occurred. Cotton growing became so profitable for the planters that it greatly increased their demand for both land and slave labor. In 1790 there were six slave states; in 1860 there were 15. From 1790 until Congress banned the importation of slaves from Africa in 1808, Southerners imported 80,000 Africans. By 1860 approximately one in three Southerners was a slave.[14]Due to its inadvertent effect on American slavery, the invention of the cotton gin is frequently cited as one of the ultimate causes of the American Civil War.[15][16][17]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_ginIn the short term yes, the cotton gin made slavery more profitable. The long term trend of technological growth has been to increase individual productivity, which in turn reduces the number of laborers required for a particular task. A knock on effect is that technology requires education, and given that slave-owners deliberately tried to limit the education of slaves exactly how useful would they be in an increasingly mechanistic society. Education implies knowledge does it not? unless you are willing to claim that blacks are in fact animals ad incapable of improving themselves then yes, technology spelled doom for slavery in the US. I do not say it would have ended overnight but it would have ended, and probably on terms much more favorable to the black population in the US than what actually occurred.Simple logic and common sense tells us that slavery could not continue indefinitely in the US given the direction the country was developing. The question was whether organic processes or war would end the practice. I stand by my assertion that the war was avoidable and the South was not ultimately at fault. I tend more to agree with Notch, there is plenty of blame to go around and no single “Silver Bullet” cause.But to claim that it would take war to kill slavery in the US is a very simplistic view of a complex issue.I am not going to go into the myriad issues with using Wikipedia as a source for anything to be taken seriously.
A knock on effect is that technology requires education, and given that slave-owners deliberately tried to limit the education of slaves exactly how useful would they be in an increasingly mechanistic society.
Again, with respect I don’t see the South has having been moving in the direction of a technological society. Yes, the South was using the cotton gin, but they remained an agricultural society. Furthermore, a technological society does not require all workers to be skilled and/or educated. Look at what the assembly line did to craftsmanship. So I reject the idea that technology would eventually have required the education of the slaves.
Simple logic and common sense tells us that slavery could not continue indefinitely in the US given the direction the country was developing. The question was whether organic processes or war would end the practice. I stand by my assertion that the war was avoidable and the South was not ultimately at fault.
Again, I respectfully disagree. I don’t think that—as you previously stated—slavery would have died out within a few decades. I don’t think anything short of Civil War would have ended slavery within the lifetime of those living in 1861.
I am not going to go into the myriad issues with using Wikipedia for anything to be taken seriously.
I agree that while quoting Wikipedia is quick, fun, and easy it is not normally the best of sources.However, I don’t think that discredits the facts I’m using support my opinion that slavery was increasing, not dying. Which include:--The cotton gin was invented in 1793.--The South became even more dependent on plantations and slavery, with plantation agriculture becoming the largest sector of the Southern economy.--The number of slaves rose in concert with the increase in cotton production, increasing from around 700,000 in 1790 to around 3.2 million in 1850. --In 1790 there were six slave states; in 1860 there were 15.--By 1860 approximately one in three Southerners was a slave.So once again, I reject your assertion that without the Civil War "slavery would have died a natural death within a few decades because of economic factors." I believe the facts I cited above (as contained in the Wikipedia article I cited) establish that—due to the cotton gin—prior to the Civil War slavery was increasing, not dying.
Sorry, the increasing mechanization of agriculture would have made the slave economy unsustainable after about 1900 or so or are you willing to say that slave labor could effectively complete with the internal combustion engine? I can't think of any modern activity outside the sex trade where slave labor is more efficient (notice I don't say cheaper although that can also be argued) than free labor and even in the sex trade it is questionable. Slavery is only economically feasible in low productivity pre-industrial economies. Southern slave-owners were not Luddites.
...the increasing mechanization of agriculture would have made the slave economy unsustainable after about 1900...
I disagree.Even today American agriculture is dependent on the cheap labor of uneducated, unskilled illegal aliens. So I don't see mechanization as making the slave economy unsustainable by 1900. (I also note that sharecropping--a method adopted to continue slavery in all but name--still exists in the South.)I do think that without the Civil War slavery would eventually have ended. But I think it is far more likely that it would have ended due to something akin to the pressure the world put on South Africa to end apartheid than because the South voluntarily changed its agricultural practices.
