Full Version: The US Civil War
In my recent Politics in Post-Industrial Society class, we had a discussion on a certain chapter of Barrington Moore's bookSocial Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World dealing with the American Civil War. The argument that was put forth was that the Civil War was necessary for the adoption of capitalist democracy and that a compromise with the South on the issue of slavery would have been at the expense of democracy. Further, a compromise would have allowed slavery to go into the Western territories and encircle the industrialized North threatening industrial capitalism.
I reject this claim. I do not believe that the Civil War was necessary or that the only way that slavery could have been abolished was through force of arms. Economically speaking, the cotton trade in the years following the Civil War period was nowhere near as profitable as it had been. This would have put the South in economic disaster and forced them to industrialize whether they wanted to or not. Eventually it would have no longer even been profitable to own slaves. This is my view in a nutshell but I shall expand on them at a later date.
Questions for debate:
1. Was the American Civil War necessary?
2. How did it contribute to democracy as well as capitalism?
3. (I know this last one is a stretch, but...) What do you believe would have been the consequences of compromise with the South to avoid the war -or- a Southern victory in the war?
I reject this claim. I do not believe that the Civil War was necessary or that the only way that slavery could have been abolished was through force of arms. Economically speaking, the cotton trade in the years following the Civil War period was nowhere near as profitable as it had been. This would have put the South in economic disaster and forced them to industrialize whether they wanted to or not. Eventually it would have no longer even been profitable to own slaves. This is my view in a nutshell but I shall expand on them at a later date.
Questions for debate:
1. Was the American Civil War necessary?
2. How did it contribute to democracy as well as capitalism?
3. (I know this last one is a stretch, but...) What do you believe would have been the consequences of compromise with the South to avoid the war -or- a Southern victory in the war?
1. Was the American Civil War necessary?
Necessary for what purpose? Prior to the attack on Fort Sumter by South Carolina, it may have been avoidable. After that, the North was left with rather few options.
2. How did it contribute to democracy as well as capitalism?
By eliminating the slave-based economy of the South, it definitely contributed to the rise of free-market capitalism. It also contributed to the increased power of the federal government: 1. because war nearly always has that effect, 2. because the losing side in this particular war was a movement that was on balance anti-federal, and 3. because the 14th Amendment (especially as "interpreted" by subsequent courts) further restricted the powers of the states, leaving a vacuum for the federal government to fill in.
The consequences for democracy from these developments were not positive. Generally speaking, democracy is at its strongest where government is closest to the people - that is, when power is decentralized as much as possible. Centralizing it into a government controlling a very large country makes it proportionally harder for individual citizens to exercise any kind of accountability over it.
3. (I know this last one is a stretch, but...) What do you believe would have been the consequences of compromise with the South to avoid the war -or- a Southern victory in the war?
Ask a stretchy question, get a stretchy answer.
If the Union hadn't won the Civil War, I think it would have been considerably less likely that we would have developed into the industrial and geopolitical power we became. Some would say that might have been a good thing, and I suppose that view isn't entirely without justification. Nonetheless, I for one am rather comfortable that we became the first to get the Bomb. I shudder to think of the alternatives to that.
Necessary for what purpose? Prior to the attack on Fort Sumter by South Carolina, it may have been avoidable. After that, the North was left with rather few options.
2. How did it contribute to democracy as well as capitalism?
By eliminating the slave-based economy of the South, it definitely contributed to the rise of free-market capitalism. It also contributed to the increased power of the federal government: 1. because war nearly always has that effect, 2. because the losing side in this particular war was a movement that was on balance anti-federal, and 3. because the 14th Amendment (especially as "interpreted" by subsequent courts) further restricted the powers of the states, leaving a vacuum for the federal government to fill in.
The consequences for democracy from these developments were not positive. Generally speaking, democracy is at its strongest where government is closest to the people - that is, when power is decentralized as much as possible. Centralizing it into a government controlling a very large country makes it proportionally harder for individual citizens to exercise any kind of accountability over it.
3. (I know this last one is a stretch, but...) What do you believe would have been the consequences of compromise with the South to avoid the war -or- a Southern victory in the war?
Ask a stretchy question, get a stretchy answer.
If the Union hadn't won the Civil War, I think it would have been considerably less likely that we would have developed into the industrial and geopolitical power we became. Some would say that might have been a good thing, and I suppose that view isn't entirely without justification. Nonetheless, I for one am rather comfortable that we became the first to get the Bomb. I shudder to think of the alternatives to that.
Questions for debate:
1. Was the American Civil War necessary?
2. How did it contribute to democracy as well as capitalism?
3. (I know this last one is a stretch, but...) What do you believe would have been the consequences of compromise with the South to avoid the war -or- a Southern victory in the war?
[/quote]
It is amazing that even today, over 130 years after the Civil War started, there is passionate debate regarding the "cause" of the Civil War. Consider this:
It is a fact that when the armies for the North and South were first formed, only a small minority of the soldiers on either side would have declared that the reason they joined the army was to fight either "for" or "against" slavery.
However, equally true is the statement: "Had there been no slavery, there would have been no war. Had there been no moral condemnation of slavery, there would have been no war." (This was made by Sydney E. Ahlstrome, in his monumental study of religion in America A Religious History of the American People, Yale University Press,1972, on p. 649)
The message here is that the reasons a nation goes to war are usually various and complicated. The American Civil War is no exception.
The curious thing is that although slavery was the moral issue of the nineteenth century that divided the political leaders of the land, the average American had very little interest in slaves or slavery. Most Southerners were small farmers that could not afford slaves. Most Northerners were small farmers or tradesmen that had never even seen a slave.
But political leaders on both sides were very interested in slaves and slavery. The South's economic system was based upon cotton--and slavery. The political leaders of the South, such as Robert Barnwell Rhett of South Carolina, William Lowndes Yancey of Alabama, The Fire-Eatersand Robert Augustus Toombs of Georgia, recognized that if the South lost her slaves (i. e., had to pay slaves wages similar to what white laborers were paid), her entire socio-economic system would probably collapse. Hence any political action that took place that threatened the slavery system of the South received the undivided attention of the South's political leaders, many of whom were themselves slave owners.
Political leaders in the North were much more divided about the slavery issue. Many of the powerful abolitionists, such as William L. Garrison of Massachusetts, were either religious leaders or newspaper editors. A fewer number of abolitionsits, such as Senator Edwin Sumner of Massachusetts and Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, were politicians. The north had equally powerful political leaders such as democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas who were either indifferent towards or supportive of slavery.
Today we recognize slavery as a moral issue. But in the early nineteenth century, it was seen as an economic issue first, moral issue second. A series of legislative actions, most notably the Missouri Compromise of 1820, had been enacted by Congress to put limits on the propagation of slavery, but compromise with northern and southern interests was always kept in mind. The South had an economic interest in the spread of slavery to the new territories so that new slave states could be created and the South's political influence would remain strong. The North had an interest in limiting the spread of slavery into the new territories for both purposes of controlling Southern political power AND support of the moral issue.
Up until the middle 1800s, slavery was kept as a background issue that remained largely the concern of political leaders of the South, and abolitionists of the North. But in 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, sponsored by Democrat Stephen A. Douglas, brought slavery to the forefront of national attention. Kansas-Nebraska eliminated the old Missouri Compromise (which in 1820 had designated areas of the new territories in which slavery could and could not be introduced) and made it possible for slavery to be introduced in virtually any new territory. Douglas called the concept of allowing residents of the territories to decide the slavery issue for themselves Popular Sovereignty. Kansas-Nebraska caused a firestorm to errupt in the North, awakening many people to the danger of the potential spread of slavery. Moderate politicians such as Abraham Lincoln became active in the cause of fighting both the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the spread of slavery.
Although the majority of the American people-- including many moderate politicians like Abraham Lincoln--wanted to avoid Civil War and were content to allow slavery to die a slow, inevitable death, the most influential political leaders of the day were not. On the southern side, "fire-eaters" like Rhett and Yancey were willing to make war to guarantee the propagation of their "right" to own slaves. On the northern side, abolitionists like John Brown and Henry Ward Beecher of Connecticut were willing to make war in order to put an immediate end to the degrading institution of slavery.
These leaders, through either words or action, were able to convince the majority that it was necessary to go to war, and in order to convince them they justified the war with arguments that only indirectly referred to the subject of slavery (i.e., state rights et. al.).
Southern politicians convinced their majority that the North was threatening their way of life and their culture. Northern politicians convinced their majority that the South, if allowed to secede, was really striking a serious blow at democratic government. In these arguments, both southern and northern politicians were speaking the truth--but not "the whole truth." They knew that to declare the war to be a fight over slavery would cause a lot of the potential soldiers of both sides to refuse to fight.
So-was the war about slavery? Absolutely. If there had been no disagreement over the issue of slavery, the South would probably not have discerned a threat to its culture and the southern politicians would have been much less likely to seek "their right to secede." But was it only about slavery? No. It was also about the constitutional argument over whether or not a state had a right to leave the Union, and--of primary concern to most southern soldiers--the continuation of antebellum southern culture. Although the majority of Southerners had little interest in slaves, slavery was a primary interest of Southern politicians--and consequently the underlying cause of the South's desire to seek independence and state rights.
1. Was the American Civil War necessary?
2. How did it contribute to democracy as well as capitalism?
3. (I know this last one is a stretch, but...) What do you believe would have been the consequences of compromise with the South to avoid the war -or- a Southern victory in the war?
[/quote]
It is amazing that even today, over 130 years after the Civil War started, there is passionate debate regarding the "cause" of the Civil War. Consider this:
It is a fact that when the armies for the North and South were first formed, only a small minority of the soldiers on either side would have declared that the reason they joined the army was to fight either "for" or "against" slavery.
However, equally true is the statement: "Had there been no slavery, there would have been no war. Had there been no moral condemnation of slavery, there would have been no war." (This was made by Sydney E. Ahlstrome, in his monumental study of religion in America A Religious History of the American People, Yale University Press,1972, on p. 649)
The message here is that the reasons a nation goes to war are usually various and complicated. The American Civil War is no exception.
The curious thing is that although slavery was the moral issue of the nineteenth century that divided the political leaders of the land, the average American had very little interest in slaves or slavery. Most Southerners were small farmers that could not afford slaves. Most Northerners were small farmers or tradesmen that had never even seen a slave.
But political leaders on both sides were very interested in slaves and slavery. The South's economic system was based upon cotton--and slavery. The political leaders of the South, such as Robert Barnwell Rhett of South Carolina, William Lowndes Yancey of Alabama, The Fire-Eatersand Robert Augustus Toombs of Georgia, recognized that if the South lost her slaves (i. e., had to pay slaves wages similar to what white laborers were paid), her entire socio-economic system would probably collapse. Hence any political action that took place that threatened the slavery system of the South received the undivided attention of the South's political leaders, many of whom were themselves slave owners.
Political leaders in the North were much more divided about the slavery issue. Many of the powerful abolitionists, such as William L. Garrison of Massachusetts, were either religious leaders or newspaper editors. A fewer number of abolitionsits, such as Senator Edwin Sumner of Massachusetts and Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, were politicians. The north had equally powerful political leaders such as democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas who were either indifferent towards or supportive of slavery.
Today we recognize slavery as a moral issue. But in the early nineteenth century, it was seen as an economic issue first, moral issue second. A series of legislative actions, most notably the Missouri Compromise of 1820, had been enacted by Congress to put limits on the propagation of slavery, but compromise with northern and southern interests was always kept in mind. The South had an economic interest in the spread of slavery to the new territories so that new slave states could be created and the South's political influence would remain strong. The North had an interest in limiting the spread of slavery into the new territories for both purposes of controlling Southern political power AND support of the moral issue.
Up until the middle 1800s, slavery was kept as a background issue that remained largely the concern of political leaders of the South, and abolitionists of the North. But in 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, sponsored by Democrat Stephen A. Douglas, brought slavery to the forefront of national attention. Kansas-Nebraska eliminated the old Missouri Compromise (which in 1820 had designated areas of the new territories in which slavery could and could not be introduced) and made it possible for slavery to be introduced in virtually any new territory. Douglas called the concept of allowing residents of the territories to decide the slavery issue for themselves Popular Sovereignty. Kansas-Nebraska caused a firestorm to errupt in the North, awakening many people to the danger of the potential spread of slavery. Moderate politicians such as Abraham Lincoln became active in the cause of fighting both the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the spread of slavery.
Although the majority of the American people-- including many moderate politicians like Abraham Lincoln--wanted to avoid Civil War and were content to allow slavery to die a slow, inevitable death, the most influential political leaders of the day were not. On the southern side, "fire-eaters" like Rhett and Yancey were willing to make war to guarantee the propagation of their "right" to own slaves. On the northern side, abolitionists like John Brown and Henry Ward Beecher of Connecticut were willing to make war in order to put an immediate end to the degrading institution of slavery.
These leaders, through either words or action, were able to convince the majority that it was necessary to go to war, and in order to convince them they justified the war with arguments that only indirectly referred to the subject of slavery (i.e., state rights et. al.).
Southern politicians convinced their majority that the North was threatening their way of life and their culture. Northern politicians convinced their majority that the South, if allowed to secede, was really striking a serious blow at democratic government. In these arguments, both southern and northern politicians were speaking the truth--but not "the whole truth." They knew that to declare the war to be a fight over slavery would cause a lot of the potential soldiers of both sides to refuse to fight.
So-was the war about slavery? Absolutely. If there had been no disagreement over the issue of slavery, the South would probably not have discerned a threat to its culture and the southern politicians would have been much less likely to seek "their right to secede." But was it only about slavery? No. It was also about the constitutional argument over whether or not a state had a right to leave the Union, and--of primary concern to most southern soldiers--the continuation of antebellum southern culture. Although the majority of Southerners had little interest in slaves, slavery was a primary interest of Southern politicians--and consequently the underlying cause of the South's desire to seek independence and state rights.
Questions for debate:
1. Was the American Civil War necessary?
2. How did it contribute to democracy as well as capitalism?
3. (I know this last one is a stretch, but...) What do you believe would have been the consequences of compromise with the South to avoid the war -or- a Southern victory in the war?
The war was inevitable. It was more than just economics and never about slavery. Add in the differences between States Rights vs. Centralized consolidation.
Lincoln was for a nation unified under central control. Yet he was firm in his belief that the Union must be maintained above all. That was why he was open to the idea of a compromise which would have protected slavery where it was already law.
Any study of Lincoln shows a much darker president than how he is portrayed.
I disagree that slavery would have fallen to the growth of industrialization in the north and globally. Look at the history of industrialization in America and I think you’ll see that without the birth of Unions, and monopoly controls, Capitalism would have shackled firmly by socialism or communism after growing discontent.
Workers were virtual slaves in many respects.
Slaves would have been the desirable “employee”
The dark side of capitalism is that for it to truly work, as Libertarians dream of, you must have people willing to let the market decide and respectful of human life and the rights of others
Slave owners miss the mark there. They are lacking in that grail of civilized behavior.
Quite simply the South could have industrialized and maintained and even grown stronger by the use of slave labor in its factories. I think industrialization would have led to the increase of slavery and regardless of any deals which may have been struck to prevent the civil war, allowing the maintaining the legality of slavery in the South would have eventually led to the increase of power to the South in such strength that the war would have happened regardless and also led to the South furthering plans for increasing their slave supply down through Mexico and South America.
I think I answer both 2 and 3 with that.
1. Was the American Civil War necessary?
2. How did it contribute to democracy as well as capitalism?
3. (I know this last one is a stretch, but...) What do you believe would have been the consequences of compromise with the South to avoid the war -or- a Southern victory in the war?
The war was inevitable. It was more than just economics and never about slavery. Add in the differences between States Rights vs. Centralized consolidation.
Lincoln was for a nation unified under central control. Yet he was firm in his belief that the Union must be maintained above all. That was why he was open to the idea of a compromise which would have protected slavery where it was already law.
Any study of Lincoln shows a much darker president than how he is portrayed.
I disagree that slavery would have fallen to the growth of industrialization in the north and globally. Look at the history of industrialization in America and I think you’ll see that without the birth of Unions, and monopoly controls, Capitalism would have shackled firmly by socialism or communism after growing discontent.
Workers were virtual slaves in many respects.
Slaves would have been the desirable “employee”
The dark side of capitalism is that for it to truly work, as Libertarians dream of, you must have people willing to let the market decide and respectful of human life and the rights of others
Slave owners miss the mark there. They are lacking in that grail of civilized behavior.
Quite simply the South could have industrialized and maintained and even grown stronger by the use of slave labor in its factories. I think industrialization would have led to the increase of slavery and regardless of any deals which may have been struck to prevent the civil war, allowing the maintaining the legality of slavery in the South would have eventually led to the increase of power to the South in such strength that the war would have happened regardless and also led to the South furthering plans for increasing their slave supply down through Mexico and South America.
I think I answer both 2 and 3 with that.
Was the American Civil War necessary?
By all accounts yes.
How did it contribute to democracy as well as capitalism?
Do you really need to ask how the Civil War contributed to democracy? I would argue that slavery is a byproduct of unchecked capitalism. As an economic system capitalism is completely compatible with slavery, but capitalism doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It cannot double as a form of government or replace political philosophy. Capitalism is self-correcting as far as the markets go. I’ll even grant that it can put a spotlight on a very narrow list of basic rights, such as property rights, but that’s as far as it goes. By itself capitalism could no more inform slave owners the labor black slaves provided was not free than it could convince the nation that women had a right to vote and participate in elections.
What do you believe would have been the consequences of compromise with the South to avoid the war – or – a Southern victory in the war?
Slave labor would continue in light industries such as textiles and food preparation. On the “bright side” the north would invest in these industries. Free labor would almost guarantee an ROI unless slave-owning industries are badly managed. Assuming after the South's victory we don't help reverse the global trend with respect to human rights progress, the flip side is we’d provide the Group of 77 with another economic casus belli. Young, struggling democracies would not only have to deal with the disadvantage we already place them in by subsidizing our agriculture, a protectionist policy poor democracies can’t afford, but now other economic sectors would be under attack by free labor exports from the U.S.
Finally, I may be going out on a limb here, but I think slavery could assist in supporting foreign direct investment, or at least slow the exodus from FDI to portfolio investments.
Do you think just maybe that’s because, having ended slavery and free labor, the cotton trade was no longer as profitable as it was before the Civil War?
Left to its own devices the South would eventually industrialize some or most aspects of subsistence agriculture, but they would find a way to use that free labor to their advantage. Although India is fairly modern with heavy and technology industries, some areas refuse to part with child slave labor because of the economic advantage free labor gives them in the world market. You place a scary amount of faith in an economic system.
By all accounts yes.
How did it contribute to democracy as well as capitalism?
Do you really need to ask how the Civil War contributed to democracy? I would argue that slavery is a byproduct of unchecked capitalism. As an economic system capitalism is completely compatible with slavery, but capitalism doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It cannot double as a form of government or replace political philosophy. Capitalism is self-correcting as far as the markets go. I’ll even grant that it can put a spotlight on a very narrow list of basic rights, such as property rights, but that’s as far as it goes. By itself capitalism could no more inform slave owners the labor black slaves provided was not free than it could convince the nation that women had a right to vote and participate in elections.
What do you believe would have been the consequences of compromise with the South to avoid the war – or – a Southern victory in the war?
Slave labor would continue in light industries such as textiles and food preparation. On the “bright side” the north would invest in these industries. Free labor would almost guarantee an ROI unless slave-owning industries are badly managed. Assuming after the South's victory we don't help reverse the global trend with respect to human rights progress, the flip side is we’d provide the Group of 77 with another economic casus belli. Young, struggling democracies would not only have to deal with the disadvantage we already place them in by subsidizing our agriculture, a protectionist policy poor democracies can’t afford, but now other economic sectors would be under attack by free labor exports from the U.S.
Finally, I may be going out on a limb here, but I think slavery could assist in supporting foreign direct investment, or at least slow the exodus from FDI to portfolio investments.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Sep 14 2006, 12:19 PM) 
Economically speaking, the cotton trade in the years following the Civil War period was nowhere near as profitable as it had been.
Do you think just maybe that’s because, having ended slavery and free labor, the cotton trade was no longer as profitable as it was before the Civil War?
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Sep 14 2006, 12:19 PM)
This would have put the South in economic disaster and forced them to industrialize whether they wanted to or not.
Left to its own devices the South would eventually industrialize some or most aspects of subsistence agriculture, but they would find a way to use that free labor to their advantage. Although India is fairly modern with heavy and technology industries, some areas refuse to part with child slave labor because of the economic advantage free labor gives them in the world market. You place a scary amount of faith in an economic system.
QUOTE(christopher @ Sep 14 2006, 04:18 PM)
Workers were virtual slaves in many respects.
But not in every respect. Legally, they were equal with everyone else, and many did advance beyond their low economic condition. Many more did not, but the point is, real slaves practically never did. That had an effect on their motivation to work. Real slaves never had anything to look forward to, no goal to work towards. Many of them didn't even have a family they could call their own.
They were also limited in number, because free people never did the job of slaves. It was considered "beneath" them. That reduced the work ethic of the entire society which enslaved them.
1. Was the American Civil War necessary?
Yes, I think so. The US started out as a lose federation of states with the British as a common enemy. Then the common enemy stopped trying to get the colonies back, and that led to internal bickering. As states joined the Union, a big issue became whether the new states would be free or slave. Institutionalized slavery was, from before the US existed, an inevitable source of major conflict.
On the feeling level, of course the Civil War was necessary. The great compromize involved with founding a free nation that also condoned slavery was a compromize that couldn't stand the test of time. It's simply wrong.
And that's easy to see from this perspective in history.
2. How did it contribute to democracy as well as capitalism?
The ideal that all people are created equal got a push forward, to be followed by women's sufferage and the Civil Rights movement. The federal side of government got stronger and continued to overshadow states' rights, which could be considered to be anti-democracy.
There really is no such thing as free labor, only cheap labor. I'm on the side that capitalism strives to lower the cost of labor, and so there's an inherent conflict between labor and management. Some organizations try to avoid this conflict by treating employees well. Others look for alternatives (to put it nicely).
Private ownership of land became possible, which likely had a positive impact on individuals, but maybe not the entire economic system. The events that took place between the end of the Civil War to the heavy industrialization of the US are pretty darn complex. Still, it's hard to imagine what would have happened had slavery continued as an institution into the 20th century.
3. (I know this last one is a stretch, but...) What do you believe would have been the consequences of compromise with the South to avoid the war -or- a Southern victory in the war?
I have no particular belief on this question. Speculation, sure. Maybe the South would have industrialized right in parallel with the North, but it would have been dependent on trade with the North to do so. Most of the industrial raw materials were in the North.
Maybe the North would have insisted that in order for trade to happen, slavery would need to be abolished.
Maybe the North would have gone Marxist with the rapid industrialization.
Maybe the South would have joined with Mexico.
Maybe the South would have been invaded by Native Americans getting out of the way of the North's push westward.
Plenty of room for speculation -- that's why I have no particular beliefs on this question.
Yes, I think so. The US started out as a lose federation of states with the British as a common enemy. Then the common enemy stopped trying to get the colonies back, and that led to internal bickering. As states joined the Union, a big issue became whether the new states would be free or slave. Institutionalized slavery was, from before the US existed, an inevitable source of major conflict.
On the feeling level, of course the Civil War was necessary. The great compromize involved with founding a free nation that also condoned slavery was a compromize that couldn't stand the test of time. It's simply wrong.
And that's easy to see from this perspective in history.
2. How did it contribute to democracy as well as capitalism?
The ideal that all people are created equal got a push forward, to be followed by women's sufferage and the Civil Rights movement. The federal side of government got stronger and continued to overshadow states' rights, which could be considered to be anti-democracy.
There really is no such thing as free labor, only cheap labor. I'm on the side that capitalism strives to lower the cost of labor, and so there's an inherent conflict between labor and management. Some organizations try to avoid this conflict by treating employees well. Others look for alternatives (to put it nicely).
Private ownership of land became possible, which likely had a positive impact on individuals, but maybe not the entire economic system. The events that took place between the end of the Civil War to the heavy industrialization of the US are pretty darn complex. Still, it's hard to imagine what would have happened had slavery continued as an institution into the 20th century.
3. (I know this last one is a stretch, but...) What do you believe would have been the consequences of compromise with the South to avoid the war -or- a Southern victory in the war?
I have no particular belief on this question. Speculation, sure. Maybe the South would have industrialized right in parallel with the North, but it would have been dependent on trade with the North to do so. Most of the industrial raw materials were in the North.
Maybe the North would have insisted that in order for trade to happen, slavery would need to be abolished.
Maybe the North would have gone Marxist with the rapid industrialization.
Maybe the South would have joined with Mexico.
Maybe the South would have been invaded by Native Americans getting out of the way of the North's push westward.
Plenty of room for speculation -- that's why I have no particular beliefs on this question.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Sep 14 2006, 06:19 PM)
In my recent Politics in Post-Industrial Society class, we had a discussion on a certain chapter of Barrington Moore's bookSocial Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World dealing with the American Civil War. The argument that was put forth was that the Civil War was necessary for the adoption of capitalist democracy and that a compromise with the South on the issue of slavery would have been at the expense of democracy. Further, a compromise would have allowed slavery to go into the Western territories and encircle the industrialized North threatening industrial capitalism.
I reject this claim. I do not believe that the Civil War was necessary or that the only way that slavery could have been abolished was through force of arms. Economically speaking, the cotton trade in the years following the Civil War period was nowhere near as profitable as it had been. This would have put the South in economic disaster and forced them to industrialize whether they wanted to or not. Eventually it would have no longer even been profitable to own slaves. This is my view in a nutshell but I shall expand on them at a later date.
Questions for debate:
1. Was the American Civil War necessary?
Although I have a very limited understanding of the details of the ACW, I have seen and read enough to know the general story and in my estimation, the civil war was never because of slavery or democracy, but rather it was about good old fashioned power politics and who was in charge of the new state. I think it was necesary simply because it had to be made abundantly clear to every one, exactly just who was in charge.
2. How did it contribute to democracy as well as capitalism?
One of the funny things about American politics to me, as a European, is what is defined as being 'democratic' in the USA since what you have over there doesn't strike me as being very democratic at all.
By the time of the ACW, democracy had already taken root in most European nations and I don't think the USA, or CSA would have wallowed in a non representative system and allowed the Europeans to pave the way into the future. The great strength of the USA has always been its size, geographically and economically but also socially, and having so many people, united under in the belief of a fair political system would have created the USA as we know it today, regardless of its flag or capitol city.
3. (I know this last one is a stretch, but...) What do you believe would have been the consequences of compromise with the South to avoid the war -or- a Southern victory in the war?
Who wins when the Americans fight the Americans? Obviously the Americans. The differences between the North and the South, just aren't that great once you strip away the slavery issue and I think the only consequence of a southern victory would be a different capital and possibly a different flag. Slavery would have been abolished eventually simply because it makes sense to do so. Slavery destroys the soul and even the most hardcore slave owners wouldn't have been able to hold back the tides of universal condemnation.
Your questions require a greater depth of understanding than I can provide, but I do not think that history is simply a matter of choices where one out come could lead in a very different direction to another. One of the lessons of my own reading is that national attempts to shape one's destiny, especially using war is more often than not simply a bump in thelong road and nothing really changes in the long run. Wars are nearly always fruitless ventures brought about by personal ambition misuing the human desire to 'act', to 'do something about it'. The ACW is the same. It came about only because men could not agree with each other and they justified the slaughter they wrought with high flung ideals about democracy and freedom and as if these could only happen by killing other people. The USA as we know it today was probably always the inevitable outcome of so many like minded people living in the America's.
1. Was the American Civil War necessary?
Necessary for what, exactly? To free the slaves? When politicians wage wars for "freedom", many times they wage war for their own personal power and own personal gain. If Lincoln had not waged the Civil War, he would have gone down in the history books as a bad president. So, I think there was a little prestige at stake here. Frankly, I don't give a rat's tail about the slaves. It's disgusting to see politicians draft men to go fight for other people's freedom.
3. (I know this last one is a stretch, but...) What do you believe would have been the consequences of compromise with the South to avoid the war -or- a Southern victory in the war?
One thing for certain, a half million American lives would have been saved.
Necessary for what, exactly? To free the slaves? When politicians wage wars for "freedom", many times they wage war for their own personal power and own personal gain. If Lincoln had not waged the Civil War, he would have gone down in the history books as a bad president. So, I think there was a little prestige at stake here. Frankly, I don't give a rat's tail about the slaves. It's disgusting to see politicians draft men to go fight for other people's freedom.
3. (I know this last one is a stretch, but...) What do you believe would have been the consequences of compromise with the South to avoid the war -or- a Southern victory in the war?
One thing for certain, a half million American lives would have been saved.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.