Jump to content

Menu

Did the Civil war have to happen?


Recommended Posts

In my class today, we made two columns. The first column was called "force em". The second column was "let em". These are the two options that Lincoln had in 1861 for dealing with the South. He could FORCE the south back into the union or he could LET them become their own sovereign nation. As we added up the advantages disadvantages of either side, we seemed to agree that "let em" was the more advantageous course of action. What do you think?

 

The advantages of "let em" are:

  1. trade could continue between the two countries;
  2. war could be avoided;
  3. the fugitive slave law could be eliminated;
  4. the south could get rid of the unfair tariffs;

The advantages of "force em" are:

  1. slavery could be eliminated;
  2. the country would be kept one;

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my class today, we made two columns. The first column was called "force em". The second column was "let em". These are the two options that Lincoln had in 1861 for dealing with the South. He could FORCE the south back into the union or he could LET them become their own sovereign nation. As we added up the advantages disadvantages of either side, we seemed to agree that "let em" was the more advantageous course of action. What do you think?

 

The advantages of "let em" are:

 

  1. trade could continue between the two countries;

  2. war could be avoided;

  3. the fugitive slave law could be eliminated;

  4. the south could get rid of the unfair tariffs;

The advantages of "force em" are:

 

  1. slavery could be eliminated;

  2. the country would be kept one;

 

 

You don't consider the elimination of slavery to be more important than TRADE? HOLY MOLEY!!!!!! For the second time, I have to say, I don't think we have enough common ground on the issue for reasonable debate.

 

eta: Do you have any Native American or African American students in your class? I'd really love to hear what their parents think of your exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. I think the elimination of slavery was a MUCH higher priority and better advantage than those few others you listed combined. And I am FROM The South. They HAD to be forced- they truly didn't see the slaves as actual People- they saw them as a lower species that it was okay to "use" and abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't consider the elimination of slavery to be more important than TRADE? HOLY MOLEY!!!!!! For the second time, I have to say, I don't think we have enough common ground on the issue for reasonable debate.

 

:iagree: and would add....this is another reason I am HSing....I would be.... lets just say....extremely upset, if my child came home with such nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see that State's Rights is a dead issue here. :leaving:

 

I am a strong supporter in State's Rights but NOT when they infringe on the liberties of the individual. Being a SLAVE owned by another person is a pretty big dang infringement on civil liberties, wouldn't you say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've tried to look at your blog a few times now, and it's not loading. Is it still up?

 

It doesn't come up for me either. Quite frankly, I think this is PURE TROLL here to get us stupid homeschoolers riled up. I'm not replying to this individual again, EVER.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't consider the elimination of slavery to be more important than TRADE? HOLY MOLEY!!!!!! For the second time, I have to say, I don't think we have enough common ground on the issue for reasonable debate.

 

eta: Do you have any Native American or African American students in your class? I'd really love to hear what their parents think of your exercise.

I suspect slavery would have been eliminated without a war; it just would have taken longer.

are you taking into consideration the 600,000 plus lives lost? of course, Lincoln had no way of knowing this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in the camp that believes slavery would have gone away without war, at least not of the type we saw here. I lost relatives on both sides -- literally the cousins killing cousins (PA, NC and TN).

 

First, many thoughtful, high-ranking southern leaders were working to change things in the south. Good 'ole boys are difficult to sway -- but you get further with them with honey than threats.

 

Evil and discrimation can exist in many forms -- not just in legalized slavery (have to double check, but I believe one of the LAST places integration took hold was actually within a northeastern state, known for being exceedingly liberal).

 

Secondly, as an economic model the southern system was doomed. One of the chief reasons the south lost the war was due to a lack of industrialization (and the blockade). Also the slave trade was ended some years before.

 

I do believe slavery of the type seen here in the Americas (the British model) was wrong on all too many levels -- I just think there COULD have been a better way (a way that would have allowed for preparation and acceptance and reduced the 120+ years of strife we've been dealing with every since).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mrs. Mungo, please help out my old eyes. What does the fine print on your troll spray say?

 

It says "designed to remove unwanted trolls from message boards."

 

And just for general information purposes to add someone to your ignore list go to User CP. Under miscellaneous it says "buddy/ignore list" and you just type the name in the ignore list spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that "The Civil War was fought over slavery" is the glossy, easy to teach, PS version of the events. While the abolition of slavery was a WONDERFUL consequence of the War Between the States, the war itself was fought over states' rights, not slavery. The Great Emancipator himself stated that his primary objective in the war was to save the Union, not free the slaves. It's very easy to make the sweeping generalization that all Southerners were evil, but did not the same God that governed the hearts of Northerners govern the hearts of Southerners as well? And how do we know that the South (as a sovereign nation) would not have gone on to become as industrialized as the North, and abandoned slavery on its own?

 

Just a couple of thoughts...

 

(BTW, the op's blog worked for me. I'm using Safari. Don't know if that makes a difference.)

 

-Robin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, I'm not willing to be set up by a troll into this debate. Sorry.

 

(BTW, the op's blog worked for me. I'm using Safari. Don't know if that makes a difference.)

 

-Robin

 

He said he fixed in one of the threads (not sure which).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that "The Civil War was fought over slavery" is the glossy, easy to teach, PS version of the events. While the abolition of slavery was a WONDERFUL consequence of the War Between the States, the war itself was fought over states' rights, not slavery. The Great Emancipator himself stated that his primary objective in the war was to save the Union, not free the slaves. It's very easy to make the sweeping generalization that all Southerners were evil, but did not the same God that governed the hearts of Northerners govern the hearts of Southerners as well? And how do we know that the South (as a sovereign nation) would not have gone on to become as industrialized as the North, and abandoned slavery on its own?

 

Just a couple of thoughts...

 

(BTW, the op's blog worked for me. I'm using Safari. Don't know if that makes a difference.)

 

-Robin

Just FWIW....I don't know that we were actually debating the pros and cons of the Civil War and all the intricacies it involved (and, FTR, my family battled on both sides as well...my relatives being mainly from KS and MO) but more the insinuation by OP that slavery alone didnt trump the arguments in his pros list...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TROLL (aka: Bridgekeeper): What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?ARTHUR: What do you mean? An African or European swallow?TROLL: Huh? I-- I don't know that. Auuuuuuuugh!

 

 

 

 

:lol: I crack me up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TROLL (aka: Bridgekeeper): What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?ARTHUR: What do you mean? An African or European swallow?TROLL: Huh? I-- I don't know that. Auuuuuuuugh!

 

 

 

 

:lol: I crack me up!

 

And you inspire me:

 

There once was a provocateur

Whose threads were intended to lure.

With venom he spoke

For all to be roped.

Warning--stay out of the sewer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh. But what KIND of teacher? I mean, when I sign up for a teachers discount card I have to narrow it all down, LOL- what grade/s and what subject/s. I think that's a bit much, but it seems that the generic term "teacher" leaves much to be described. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my class today, we made two columns. The first column was called "force em". The second column was "let em". These are the two options that Lincoln had in 1861 for dealing with the South. He could FORCE the south back into the union or he could LET them become their own sovereign nation. As we added up the advantages disadvantages of either side, we seemed to agree that "let em" was the more advantageous course of action. What do you think?

 

The advantages of "let em" are:

  1. trade could continue between the two countries;

  2. war could be avoided;

  3. the fugitive slave law could be eliminated;

  4. the south could get rid of the unfair tariffs;

The advantages of "force em" are:

  1. slavery could be eliminated;

  2. the country would be kept one;

 

 

Is that the best they came up with?

 

Are you asking us to debate with 5th graders?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did WWII really have to happen? We could have saved all of that fighting if we just let Hitler take over the world and kill every Jew, Gypsy, Black, Asian, Muslim .... (let's just save time and say anyone not blonde). That would have been SO much easier! :blink:

 

-Christina (dripping sarcasm if you didn't get it)

 

FTW!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did WWII really have to happen? We could have saved all of that fighting if we just let Hitler take over the world and kill every Jew, Gypsy, Black, Asian, Muslim .... (let's just save time and say anyone not blonde). That would have been SO much easier! :blink:

 

-Christina (dripping sarcasm if you didn't get it)

 

Sorry to have to disagree with you Christina. Fascism would have eventually been done away with. And doesn't the world need more blonds?

 

:001_huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in the camp that believes slavery would have gone away without war, at least not of the type we saw here. I lost relatives on both sides -- literally the cousins killing cousins (PA, NC and TN).

I too have thought about this. I still raise the question of the territories tho. What would have happened when the western territories wanted to become states? I guess the citizens of each of these territories could decide for themselves whether to join the union or the confederacy but there still is the potential for war here.

Certainly the leaders of the south did not regard slavery in a positive light. Nevertheless, the slave power was very powerful. It's just really hard to say how slavery would have eventually been eliminated. THAT it would have happened is pretty clear. HOW it would have happened is more difficult.

 

 

 

Secondly, as an economic model the southern system was doomed. One of the chief reasons the south lost the war was due to a lack of industrialization (and the blockade). Also the slave trade was ended some years before.

This is certainly true. Alexis deToqueville noted this in his book Democracy In America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in the camp that believes slavery would have gone away without war, at least not of the type we saw here. I lost relatives on both sides -- literally the cousins killing cousins (PA, NC and TN).

I too have thought about this. I still raise the question of the territories tho. What would have happened when the western territories wanted to become states? I guess the citizens of each of these territories could decide for themselves whether to join the union or the confederacy but there still is the potential for war here.

Certainly the leaders of the south did not regard slavery in a positive light. Nevertheless, the slave power was very powerful. It's just really hard to say how slavery would have eventually been eliminated. THAT it would have happened is pretty clear. HOW it would have happened is more difficult.

 

 

 

Secondly, as an economic model the southern system was doomed. One of the chief reasons the south lost the war was due to a lack of industrialization (and the blockade). Also the slave trade was ended some years before.

This is certainly true. Alexis deToqueville noted this in his book Democracy In America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect slavery would have been eliminated without a war; it just would have taken longer. Are you taking into consideration the 600,000 plus lives lost? of course, Lincoln had no way of knowing this.

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slavery in the South was already declining. Cotton prices started falling in the late 1840s. Some historians I've read (who've presented BOTH sides) have said that slavery hit its apex around 1850 and probably would've died completely by 1870 due to lower demand for cotton and more cost-efficient methods of farming and manufacturing.

 

Speaking of manufacturing...has anybody ever really looked at the factory abuses of the North from about 1840 until 1895? That's a study in and of itself.

 

Slavery in the North

Poor women and children (numbering into the hundreds of thousands) in the north were forced into a type of "silent slavery" that many folks in North just didn't want to deal with. It was far easier to focus on the "wicked Southerners" (of whom less than 10 percent EVER owned even one slave) than the rampant abuse of factory workers and the deplorable manufacturing conditions of the North. And don't forget that every president since Andrew Jackson promised the mainly impoverished South (except the fewer than 10 percent wealthy slave owners) to give economic aid to the South...to give agricultural incentives, ease trade problems, help bring in more modern farming equipment to the area, etc. And not ONE president helped. They were too busy pumping dollars into the factories of the north which allowed more and more workers to be employed, yet no substantial labor acts were passed and enforced until almost 1900 to protect these workers.

 

Yes, slavery is a terrible human rights violation. But it's just one form. We all know stories of children factory workers in other countries in degrading conditions laboring for 14 hours a day, working in rat infested, broken down buildings. We see street people in Southeast Asia and our hearts break for them. We see very young women forced into prostitution, or six-year-old children having to work instead of being granted a childhood and the chance to be educated. We ignore the fact that our American North was like this for most of the nineteenth century. How many of you in school ever really studied what was going on in the North? It took the North over thirty years AFTER the Civil War to get rid of their "slavery."

 

I am from the South and am greatly distressed over how slaves were treated--both Southern black slaves (and the treatment Native Americans received) AND Northern poor white "slaves"--the dear women and children who lived, worked and died to support manufacturing and who have almost no role whatsoever in American history because, to give meaning to their plights, would've hurt Lincoln's aim of focusing on Southern human rights' violations only. The North wanted to take the heat off of themselves.

 

There were major human rights' violations on both sides. Too bad we only hear about the side that lost.

 

Stepping off my soap box now...

 

-Michele R. in TN (a history minor before hs'ing)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry for publicly sharing my ponderings of your internet status- and the possibility that you were trolling.

Although I did state I wasn't entirely convinced that you are a troll. :)

Anyway, your Civil War post "could" be the beginning of a very interesting discussion- I just think it came too soon after the Obama thread- where many thought you were starting trouble. And since you don't have very many posts, well- people start thinking trollish thoughts ;)

 

 

Anyhoo, no- the Civil War did not "have" to happen. But I have no idea how long it would have taken for The South to do away with slavery. We had a LOT of rich people dependent on having slaves to do their work, ya know? And rich people usually have lots of clout in their local area at least, AFA politics is concerned. I hated the racial tension that I experienced growing up in The South, and I was very glad to move away from there, and that I was able to raise my oldest away from all of that.

I don't know if racial tensions would be more or less, if there hadn't been a Civil War.

I don't know the statistics of how many slaves there were, I don't even know if anyone attempted to keep such a record- especially considering children born to slaves, etc.

I also don't know how many slaves died in/because of slavery- so I'm not sure if the death toll from the war is worse than the death toll from slavery itself, KWIM?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too have thought about this. I still raise the question of the territories tho. What would have happened when the western territories wanted to become states? I guess the citizens of each of these territories could decide for themselves whether to join the union or the confederacy but there still is the potential for war here.

Certainly the leaders of the south did not regard slavery in a positive light. Nevertheless, the slave power was very powerful. It's just really hard to say how slavery would have eventually been eliminated. THAT it would have happened is pretty clear. HOW it would have happened is more difficult.

 

 

I]

 

 

By about 10 years before the Civil War there were prominant Southern leaders who argued all the time that slavery was a positive good. As an institution it was actually becoming more and more entrenched.

 

I'm not so sure that the cotton prices were just falling, either. Isn't it true that they were fluctuating wildly rather than declining?

 

Also, long before the Civil War there was fighting in some of the territories because of the popular sovereignty principle that you are espousing. People who strongly favored and strongly opposed slavery moved to the territories and tried to keep out their opposites so that if and when the vote was taken they would be able to ensure that the territories would enter on the 'right' side. There were gun battles over this in Kansas. And really, how would you decide when and how to have that vote? And once voted a slave or a free state, could the status ever be changed? If so, how? Ongoing violence was pretty clearly going to ensue in the territories, probably even after they became states, no matter which side they were leaning toward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't romanticize the South. However, the history of The War Between the States is much more complicated that the modern North=White Hats and South=Black Hats of your typical textbook. It is also a shibboleth that you must bow down to, to be PC. And it is a blatantly false idea.

 

Yes, some southern leaders became hardened in their pro-slavery stances, as radical abolitionists funded terror and violence, and non-radicals did not condemn them. Many of the South's leading generals were anti-slavery, while many northern generals were ambivalent.

 

As far as race relations go, I believe they would definitely be better today had abolition been gradual, plus I believe that your average freed slave would have been better off financially.

 

The idea that the North was pure in regards to prejudice is laughable. Part of the reason Lincoln was always publicly insistent that the war was being fought over Union, not slavery, was that he knew his audience. There were many riots in the North, and many, if not most whites, did not look kindly on blacks coming north and "taking" their jobs.

 

Early on in our history, the Yankee ship owners were the slave traders, and most of the early abolitionists were Southerners. But things changed as the economics changed, and the regions each became hardened in their relative stances.

 

I think the North was at fault for fomenting revolution rather than gradual change, which hurt everybody, including the former slaves in the long run. I think the South was at fault for immediately seceding when Lincoln was elected (and truly many Southerners were exasperated with South Carolina).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt the "pros" & "cons" were seriously considered

back then, when the issues were current events. Nothing much has changed since then. The resulting opinion depends on one's value system and worldview.

 

Geo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Brown, Bloody Kansas , etc were part of the reason many southerners were defensive and had their backs to the wall, as many felt that northerners didn't care if southerners were all slaughtered in their beds. It was a complicating factor, further complicated by slave-holder retaliation against Jayhawkers, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...