• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was the civil war worth it all

Was the civil war worth it

  • yes

    Votes: 30 75.0%

  • no

    Votes: 10 25.0%
  • Total voters
    40
sawyerloggingon

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
IMO if the south had been allowed the right of secession slavery would have been abolished there very early in the 20th century anyway and what we would have now is two independent nations where we now have just the USA. I'm sure we would have been very close allies and quite possibly even become one nation again so I have to wonder if the civil war was really worth the carnage.

"The approximately 10,455 military engagements, some devastating to human life and some nearly bloodless, plus naval clashes, accidents, suicides, sicknesses, murders, and executions resulted in total casualties of 1,094,453 during the Civil War. The Federals lost 110,100 killed in action and mortally wounded, and another 224,580 to disease. The Confederates lost approximately 94,000 as a result of battle and another 164,000 to disease. Even if one survived a wound, any projectile that hit bone in either an arm or a leg almost invariably necessitated amputation. The best estimate of Federal army personnel wounded is 275,175; naval personnel wounded, 2,226. Surviving Confederate records indicate 194,026 wounded.
In dollars and cents, the U.S. government estimated Jan. 1863 that the war was costing $2.5 million daily. A final official estimate in 1879 totaled $6,190,000,000. The Confederacy spent perhaps $2,099,808,707. By 1906 another $3.3 billion already had been spent by the U.S. government on Northerners' pensions and other veterans' benefits for former Federal soldiers. Southern states and private philanthropy provided benefits to the Confederate veterans. The amount spent on benefits eventually well exceeded the war's original cost.
Inflation affected both Northern and Southern assets but hit those of the Confederacy harder. Northern currency fluctuated in value, and at its lowest point $2.59 in Federal paper money equaled $1 in gold. The Confederate currency so declined in purchasing power that eventually $60-$70 equaled a gold dollar.
The physical devastation, almost all of it in the South, was enormous: burned or plundered homes, pillaged countryside, untold losses in crops and farm animals, ruined buildings and bridges, devastated college campuses, and neglected roads all left the South in ruins."

Cost Of The American Civil War
 
We're talking about a couple of generations that were prevented from being born and dying as slaves.

At the start of the civil war the slave population in the US was around 4 million individuals and made up nearly 12% of the total US population.
 
Probably not worth it over time (.....but it was a political power struggle in Congress at issue, not slavery or states rights, or any of that non-sense)
 
Better question, has any war ever been worth it?

I think the answer is no.
 
probably worth it. the nation, as a whole, came out stronger in the end and the war set the stage for the United State's ultimate rise to the status of super-power in the 20th century.

it's safe to say that without the Civil War America, indeed the world, would probably look very different. I have little doubt that even without Ft. Sumter conflict between the USA and CSA was inevitable either over the border states or the western territories. also the "balance of power" that pit European states against each other would have come across the pond as well. even during the war France expressed strong sympathies towards the Confederates while Russia and Prussia favored the Union.

Harry Turtledove does a pretty good, although pretty fantastical, series of books about how it may have played out. Although I do agree that with two major rival powers in North America the first world war would have looked very different.
 
Of course it was worth it.
 
Slateriesling said:
Better question, has any war ever been worth it?

I think the answer is no.
Click to expand...

as an almost pacifist, i have to ask myself this question, and i try to answer objectively.

the best i can come up with is this :

military force is a bit like an immune response. when a rogue nation begins to significantly metastasize, sometimes an immune response is necessary to prevent the global body from becoming infected. the best example i can give is WWII. Germany was spreading all over Europe, and Japan was doing the same in other parts of the world. though i do dream about a time in which human society evolves past nations, violence, resource hoarding, and greed, i simply don't see a way we could have stayed out of that one. it was just too awful of a situation.

most other wars, though, especially ones which had their root causes in failing colonialism and alliances, are much harder to defend. we should really study them, learn from them, and avoid situations like that in the future.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
IMO if the south had been allowed the right of secession slavery would have been abolished there very early in the 20th century anyway and what we would have now is two independent nations where we now have just the USA. I'm sure we would have been very close allies and quite possibly even become one nation again so I have to wonder if the civil war was really worth the carnage.
Click to expand...

You're making some VERY big assumptions. The first is that slavery would have been abolished. The value of slaves had grown to a point where their value to a plantation holder was second only to the value of his land. Now if that value went down over time, it would be abolished. However, the value increased greatly between 1820 and 1860. If it had increased at a similar rate between 1860 and 1900, there's no way until the 1930s.

Your second assumption is that only 2 nations would exist. If the South had been allowed to secede, what would stop Vermont. Or say Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan forming their own Union. I also think it's very doubtful that the Confederacy stays together. That whole union was based on the idea that anybody could leave any time, so it's very likely that at least one of the States would have seceded from the Confederacy by 1920 if not before that.

Then you build the "close allies" assumption on the other 2. Unless those other 2 assumptions played out, it's hard to say that the 3rd would


So if you make a those assumptions, then no. If you make different assumptions, then maybe. I'd have to say yes because I'm not prepared to make assumptions, and things worked out OK.
 
It was worth it given that civil war seemed to be what was required to end slavery.

If they could have ended slavery without having war that would have been preferable, but the South decided to act like a little bitch. Obviously, I would prefer that over 600,000 people not had to die over some bull****.

*Anybody who's planning on responding to me with some revisionist "but the war wasn't even about slavery" nonsense can move on. Most, if not all, of seceding states listed slavery as their primary concerns and all of the "other" reasons people give for the South wanting to secede from economics to states rights were based in slavery as well.

**Anybody who's planning on responding to me with some "but the South tried to resolve their differences peacefully, the North got us into this" nonsense can move on too. The South wanted to keep its slaves and it also wanted to secede which isn't permissible, so the North had to shut that **** down. And for those who had to do a double take, you read it right: secession wasn't permissible. Read Texas v. White for more information and if you've got a problem with that, take it up with the Supreme Court.
 
rocket88 said:
You're making some VERY big assumptions. The first is that slavery would have been abolished. The value of slaves had grown to a point where their value to a plantation holder was second only to the value of his land. Now if that value went down over time, it would be abolished. However, the value increased greatly between 1820 and 1860. If it had increased at a similar rate between 1860 and 1900, there's no way until the 1930s.
Click to expand...

I think one reason the war happened was because King Cotton was starting to peak. The Southern economy was reliant on exporting cotton to the UK, France, and the North. If those countries started relying on other places for their cotton, like the UK did with India, than the bottom falls out on the Southern economy and the price of slaves.

Geographically their economy was also limited. By the time of the civil war the plantation had reached the western and northern limits of its viability.

I could easily see a major Confederate economic crisis in the 1870s or 80s...followed by large French and British loans to bail them out...followed by French and British naval bases and troops to protect their interests.
 
Helix said:
as an almost pacifist, i have to ask myself this question, and i try to answer objectively.

the best i can come up with is this :

military force is a bit like an immune response. when a rogue nation begins to significantly metastasize, sometimes an immune response is necessary to prevent the global body from becoming infected. the best example i can give is WWII. Germany was spreading all over Europe, and Japan was doing the same in other parts of the world. though i do dream about a time in which human society evolves past nations, violence, resource hoarding, and greed, i simply don't see a way we could have stayed out of that one. it was just too awful of a situation.

most other wars, though, especially ones which had their root causes in failing colonialism and alliances, are much harder to defend. we should really study them, learn from them, and avoid situations like that in the future.
Click to expand...

Obviously the need to protect from the "tyrany of evil men" is necessary lest one looses everything. I think the OP brings up a point though about the worth of such action. I think the slaves at the time they were emancipated thought that the Civil War was worth it to free them from the tyrany of slavery. I don't think the south, once it lost the war, thought it was worth it any more than the Germans thought the WW's were worth it in hind sight.

This is why it should be criminal to start a war on false pretense. Sorry for the blatantly partisan hack there but the set up was too good to pass up.
 
The OP is radical Ron Paul total racial bigotry crap.

The OP sobs huge tears for lose of white peoples lives of course - he's white. And doesn't give a DAMN for the millions of slaves who would have lived and died - if not outright murdered - during the time he guesses that only in 2 more generations of slaves they would have magically become free and equal in the independent Confederate slave nation. Maybe, in only half a generation they could have all become sharecroppers and servants rather than technically slaves - unable to vote of course.

So the OP claims that 4,000,000 slaves - and another 4-8,000,000 being slaves (slaves didn't tend to have long lifespans) being treated as slaves, beaten, raped, killed at will - all those don't count because they weren't human - they were just slaves.

And he so CRIES over a million white people dying. Died because slave owners were the wealthiest people in the USA and they liked being the wealthiest, wanted slaves and wanted their own slave country too. So a million people died because of people of the opinion of the OP.

VERY SICKENING. Evil perspective. But not suprising given the OP also urged deliberately wanting and allowing people with HIV/AIDS to die as punishment for their immorality. He has made his hatred of anyone with any religious beliefs well known too.

The Civil War stopped the formation of a massive slave nation. I think that is what the OP laments.

Has the OP missed posting any bigotries he has?
 
Last edited:
Eynon said:
I think one reason the war happened was because King Cotton was starting to peak. The Southern economy was reliant on exporting cotton to the UK, France, and the North. If those countries started relying on other places for their cotton, like the UK did with India, than the bottom falls out on the Southern economy and the price of slaves.

Geographically their economy was also limited. By the time of the civil war the plantation had reached the western and northern limits of its viability.

I could easily see a major Confederate economic crisis in the 1870s or 80s...followed by large French and British loans to bail them out...followed by French and British naval bases and troops to protect their interests.
Click to expand...

Even that assumes that they couldn't have expanded a slave economy into other things. What if they had gone into making the textiles themselves and used slaves as their labor force? Or that other states wouldn't have come on board, thus expanding the territory available.

And I think British naval bases would probably keep the North from being closely allied.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
IMO if the south had been allowed the right of secession slavery would have been abolished there very early in the 20th century anyway and what we would have now is two independent nations where we now have just the USA. I'm sure we would have been very close allies and quite possibly even become one nation again so I have to wonder if the civil war was really worth the carnage.

"The approximately 10,455 military engagements, some devastating to human life and some nearly bloodless, plus naval clashes, accidents, suicides, sicknesses, murders, and executions resulted in total casualties of 1,094,453 during the Civil War. The Federals lost 110,100 killed in action and mortally wounded, and another 224,580 to disease. The Confederates lost approximately 94,000 as a result of battle and another 164,000 to disease. Even if one survived a wound, any projectile that hit bone in either an arm or a leg almost invariably necessitated amputation. The best estimate of Federal army personnel wounded is 275,175; naval personnel wounded, 2,226. Surviving Confederate records indicate 194,026 wounded.
In dollars and cents, the U.S. government estimated Jan. 1863 that the war was costing $2.5 million daily. A final official estimate in 1879 totaled $6,190,000,000. The Confederacy spent perhaps $2,099,808,707. By 1906 another $3.3 billion already had been spent by the U.S. government on Northerners' pensions and other veterans' benefits for former Federal soldiers. Southern states and private philanthropy provided benefits to the Confederate veterans. The amount spent on benefits eventually well exceeded the war's original cost.
Inflation affected both Northern and Southern assets but hit those of the Confederacy harder. Northern currency fluctuated in value, and at its lowest point $2.59 in Federal paper money equaled $1 in gold. The Confederate currency so declined in purchasing power that eventually $60-$70 equaled a gold dollar.
The physical devastation, almost all of it in the South, was enormous: burned or plundered homes, pillaged countryside, untold losses in crops and farm animals, ruined buildings and bridges, devastated college campuses, and neglected roads all left the South in ruins."

Cost Of The American Civil War
Click to expand...

Putting aside the slavery issue, which is significant, the Confederacy and the Union may have developed rivalries over the territories and resources not yet incorporated into the Union. Even if they did not, dividing the two powers would gave vastly limited the nation's great achievements during the 20th century.

Probably "worth it" on those terms alone.
 
Last edited:
sawyerloggingon said:
IMO if the south had been allowed the right of secession slavery would have been abolished there very early in the 20th century anyway and what we would have now is two independent nations where we now have just the USA. I'm sure we would have been very close allies and quite possibly even become one nation again so I have to wonder if the civil war was really worth the carnage.

"The approximately 10,455 military engagements, some devastating to human life and some nearly bloodless, plus naval clashes, accidents, suicides, sicknesses, murders, and executions resulted in total casualties of 1,094,453 during the Civil War. The Federals lost 110,100 killed in action and mortally wounded, and another 224,580 to disease. The Confederates lost approximately 94,000 as a result of battle and another 164,000 to disease. Even if one survived a wound, any projectile that hit bone in either an arm or a leg almost invariably necessitated amputation. The best estimate of Federal army personnel wounded is 275,175; naval personnel wounded, 2,226. Surviving Confederate records indicate 194,026 wounded.
In dollars and cents, the U.S. government estimated Jan. 1863 that the war was costing $2.5 million daily. A final official estimate in 1879 totaled $6,190,000,000. The Confederacy spent perhaps $2,099,808,707. By 1906 another $3.3 billion already had been spent by the U.S. government on Northerners' pensions and other veterans' benefits for former Federal soldiers. Southern states and private philanthropy provided benefits to the Confederate veterans. The amount spent on benefits eventually well exceeded the war's original cost.
Inflation affected both Northern and Southern assets but hit those of the Confederacy harder. Northern currency fluctuated in value, and at its lowest point $2.59 in Federal paper money equaled $1 in gold. The Confederate currency so declined in purchasing power that eventually $60-$70 equaled a gold dollar.
The physical devastation, almost all of it in the South, was enormous: burned or plundered homes, pillaged countryside, untold losses in crops and farm animals, ruined buildings and bridges, devastated college campuses, and neglected roads all left the South in ruins."

Cost Of The American Civil War
Click to expand...

I think a better question would be was slavery followed by sharecropping (slavery by a different name after slavery ended on paper) followed by racial segregation and discrimination that didn't officially end until the 1970s worth it all?
 
rocket88 said:
Even that assumes that they couldn't have expanded a slave economy into other things. What if they had gone into making the textiles themselves and used slaves as their labor force? Or that other states wouldn't have come on board, thus expanding the territory available.

And I think British naval bases would probably keep the North from being closely allied.
Click to expand...

thing about slavery is it doesn't seem to work that well for stuff outside the home and more the most basic manual labor (agriculture, mining)...a Southern textile industry would not be able to compete. They could have pushed into the mineral rich western territories like Arizona, but that would have meant war with the North. I think they were economically stuck and the future wasn't rosey.

also yes, the Union would have lost their **** if the Brits or French had bases in the South.
 
Smeagol said:
I think a better question would be was slavery followed by sharecropping (slavery by a different name after slavery ended on paper) followed by racial segregation and discrimination that didn't officially end until the 1970s worth it all?
Click to expand...


good question. remember though that the breaking of the Planter's class political power led to good things aside from slavery, like the home-stead act and the transcontinental railroad. So the Civil War not only freed the slaves it cleared the way for the creation of history's greatest middle-class and higher education system.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
IMO if the south had been allowed the right of secession slavery would have been abolished there very early in the 20th century anyway and what we would have now is two independent nations where we now have just the USA. I'm sure we would have been very close allies and quite possibly even become one nation again so I have to wonder if the civil war was really worth the carnage.

"The approximately 10,455 military engagements, some devastating to human life and some nearly bloodless, plus naval clashes, accidents, suicides, sicknesses, murders, and executions resulted in total casualties of 1,094,453 during the Civil War. The Federals lost 110,100 killed in action and mortally wounded, and another 224,580 to disease. The Confederates lost approximately 94,000 as a result of battle and another 164,000 to disease. Even if one survived a wound, any projectile that hit bone in either an arm or a leg almost invariably necessitated amputation. The best estimate of Federal army personnel wounded is 275,175; naval personnel wounded, 2,226. Surviving Confederate records indicate 194,026 wounded.
In dollars and cents, the U.S. government estimated Jan. 1863 that the war was costing $2.5 million daily. A final official estimate in 1879 totaled $6,190,000,000. The Confederacy spent perhaps $2,099,808,707. By 1906 another $3.3 billion already had been spent by the U.S. government on Northerners' pensions and other veterans' benefits for former Federal soldiers. Southern states and private philanthropy provided benefits to the Confederate veterans. The amount spent on benefits eventually well exceeded the war's original cost.
Inflation affected both Northern and Southern assets but hit those of the Confederacy harder. Northern currency fluctuated in value, and at its lowest point $2.59 in Federal paper money equaled $1 in gold. The Confederate currency so declined in purchasing power that eventually $60-$70 equaled a gold dollar.
The physical devastation, almost all of it in the South, was enormous: burned or plundered homes, pillaged countryside, untold losses in crops and farm animals, ruined buildings and bridges, devastated college campuses, and neglected roads all left the South in ruins."

Cost Of The American Civil War
Click to expand...



I don't think I can answer whether it was worth it or not... however you are correct, slavery was on the way out because machinery was making it economically obsolete, not to mention public opinion in the Western world rapidly making it socially unacceptible.
 
Eynon said:
good question. remember though that the breaking of the Planter's class political power led to good things aside from slavery, like the home-stead act and the transcontinental railroad. So the Civil War not only freed the slaves it cleared the way for the creation of history's greatest middle-class and higher education system.
Click to expand...

I do think the senseless loss of life and multitudes maimed is the biggest tragedy of the Civil War. Others might dismiss the human toll as being less important than the states rights issue. I say the south forfeited forever states rights and are now subject to federal oversight because of the crime of slavery. Compare to post WWII Japan.
 
Smeagol said:
I do think the senseless loss of life and multitudes maimed is the biggest tragedy of the Civil War. Others might dismiss the human toll as being less important than the states rights issue. I say the south forfeited forever states rights and are now subject to federal oversight because of the crime of slavery. Compare to post WWII Japan.
Click to expand...

it was tragic, but the problem is, for some reason the Union seemed to lack the political will to make the great changes until after all that blood had been spilt. in some ways the ****-ups of general mcclellan made sure that the slaves were freed.
 
joko104 said:
The OP is radical Ron Paul total racial bigotry crap.

The OP sobs huge tears for lose of white peoples lives of course - he's white. And doesn't give a DAMN for the millions of slaves who would have lived and died - if not outright murdered - during the time he guesses that only in 2 more generations of slaves they would have magically become free and equal in the independent Confederate slave nation. Maybe, in only half a generation they could have all become sharecroppers and servants rather than technically slaves - unable to vote of course.
Click to expand...

The OP opines that the slaves would have been freed anyway, so your comment about him not caring about them is a careless slander.

So the OP claims that 4,000,000 slaves - and another 4-8,000,000 being slaves (slaves didn't tend to have long lifespans) being treated as slaves, beaten, raped, killed at will - all those don't count because they weren't human - they were just slaves.
Click to expand...

The OP said nothing of the kind.

And he so CRIES over a million white people dying. Died because slave owners were the wealthiest people in the USA and they liked being the wealthiest, wanted slaves and wanted their own slave country too. So a million people died because of people of the opinion of the OP.
Click to expand...

So the deaths of white people, large numbers of white people, the vast majority of which were in no way wealthy and did not own slaves, is not to be mourned, if I take your meaning correctly.

VERY SICKENING. Evil perspective. But not suprising given the OP also urged deliberately wanting and allowing people with HIV/AIDS to die as punishment for their immorality. He has made his hatred of anyone with any religious beliefs well known too.
Click to expand...

Given the level of misrepresentation you've already brought to the discussion I'm not inclined to believe you.

The Civil War stopped the formation of a massive slave nation. I think that is what the OP laments.

Has the OP missed posting any bigotries he has?
Click to expand...

Mind reading usually just betrays one's own secret thoughts and attitudes.

Having said that, the Civil War was obviously worth it on a number of levels. Not only was slavery abolished but the executive branch was strengthened and the nation as a whole was greatly strengthened, which was a great advantage when it came time to fight WWII. I doubt that America, democracy, or freedom would have survived otherwise.
 
When only global government leaders can engage in an act of war (not citizens)....then every war...would come much closer to being worth having.
 
LowDown said:
Having said that, the Civil War was obviously worth it on a number of levels. Not only was slavery abolished but the executive branch was strengthened and the nation as a whole was greatly strengthened, which was a great advantage when it came time to fight WWII. I doubt that America, democracy, or freedom would have survived otherwise.
Click to expand...

that is a real possibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom