If there had been no American Civil War, the theory goes, slavery would have eventually have ended peacefully. Lincoln thought this, as did others of his time. How long would have it taken?
(btw, I assume, for the purpose of this poll, that the ACW had at least something to do with slavery. Although there are some today who disagree with this a few in the past, such as Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens, have also felt this way, so for the moment I'll hold on to this opinion. ;) )
I probably shouldn't get involved in a discussion like this. I have strongly and emotionally held "contrarian" views on the War Between the States ("civil wars" cannot be fought between two sovereign nations, which is what the United States and the Confederate States were...but there I go again!)
I believe slavery would have been phased out over time in this country. This is exactly what happened in several South American countries during the 1880's and '90's: Adult slaves remained so until their deaths, children were free and no "new" slaves could be forced into service.
As an interesting side note, fewer than 20% of Confederate Army officers and almost none of the enlisted men were slave owners.
OD
Many wars are fought by the poor for the benefit of the wealthy.
Something I find interesting is that, according to Dr. Richard Rollins in his essay "Servants and Soldiers: Tennessee's Southerners in Gray," in his Black Southerners in Gray: Essays on Afro-Americans in Confederate Armies, of the 185 former black body servants who applied for Tennessee Confederate pensions after the war, some 65 (35%) indicated in their pension applications that they had served privates. Twenty-four said that they had served lieutenants; 45 served captains; 13 were the slaves of majors; 15 served colonels; and only seven were the slaves of generals. Thus, 134 out of 185, or 72 % served captains or men of lower rank. Also, 15 former slaves had served surgeons and one was a body servant of Jefferson Davis.
Five of these black men indicated that they had been hired to go to war; 151 indicated in their applications that they were slaves of the man they served (or his father), while some 54 (36 %) indicated that they were given or hired out to individuals who were not their owners or family members of their owners.
These former body servants had to have been in the army at the end of the war in order to qualify, so this means that most served two years or longer, with enlisted men.
These stats are only for Tennessee (unfortunately only about three or four former Confederate states awarded pensions to their former body servants and other black vets, so statistics for other states aren't available; of the states who did award pensions, Tennesse is the only state I know of which has had statistics tabulated by historians).
Pax vobiscum.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I believe slavery would have been phased out over time in this country. This is exactly what happened in several South American countries during the 1880's and '90's: Adult slaves remained so until their deaths, children were free and no "new" slaves could be forced into service.[/quote]
I have no doubt this would have happened in some states, such as Virginia. But I wonder what it would have taken for, say, South Carolina or Mississippi to give up their slaves. I would imagine pressure would have been placed on them by foreign governments, but I've read many statements from the time that indicated that many powerful men would rather die than give up their slaves.
I think the majority of states would have abolished slavery by 1900, but I can see a few holding out into well into the 20th Century. After all, most in the north weren't suggesting eliminating slavery, only slowing it's expansion into the west--but the deep south wouldn't even hear of this, much less gradual emancipation.
But the rub is that if this had happened, some major slave rebellion would have likely taken place along the line.
One of the real ironies of the whole pre-war dispute was that while they were arguing over the expansion of slavery into the west, the slave economy had already pretty well reached its natural limits. If you drew a line more or less where Interstate 35 runs today - through San Antonio, Austin and Dallas/Fort Worth - the area to the west was completely unsuitable to large-scale agriculture at that time, and until the invention of mechanical well drilling equipment and windmills. So slavery wasn't going to expand much further than it had by 1860.
As far as what would have happened where it existed, without outside interference, I think things would have stayed the way they were until the invention of mechanical cotton harvesters, which didn't happen until the 1950's. There's one possible wrinkle in this - the arrival of the boll weevil in the early 1900's might have made slave agriculture unprofitable.
I really think the economic/technological aspect is significant. The fact is, at the time of the American Revolution, slavery did appear to be declining. But the invention of the cotton gin created a new profit opportunity that depended upon a plentiful supply of cheap labor. That's what caused slavery to start expanding.
Even before the war was over, the Confederacy's aims shifted; it may have started out fighting to preserve states' rights with regard to its "peculiar institution," however by 1864 it was not, no matter what some Confederate congressmen with their heads in the sand said; it was then fighting for its very existence. Realising this, by early 1864, Jefferson Davis, Lee, and most Confederate officers were in favor of officially enlisting slaves in the army and freeing them after the war (there were already anywhere from 60,000-300,000 blacks, slave and free, serving in unofficial auxilliary capacities). They were willing to sacrifice slavery in order to preserve the Confederacy, however the politicians stalled until early 1865, by which time the war was nearly over and it was too late for the newly formed CSA Colored regiments to be of any practical military advantage.
And its interesting that in the former Confederates' post-war myth of the "Lost Cause," references to slavery as the cause of the war or defenses of the moral rightness of slavery on the whole, don't figure very much, its mainly a paean to the military struggle for freedom of the South against a superior foe.
I think many of the leaders of the Confederacy, like Davis, realised that slavery was doomed. Davis himself began, even before the war, preparing his slaves for gradual and eventual emancipation.
When the war began Lincoln was mainly interested in preserving the Union, by freeing the slaves or maintaining slavery-whatever it took. But by 1863, he'd become convinced that the war was God's punishment of the US for the sin of slavery, and hence the Emancipationm Proclamation.
I think slavery would have died out by 1870; the US was practically the only civilized country that still practiced it, and the Europeans were quick in their disapproval of the South for perpetuating slavery.
Pax vobiscum.
A little bit of serendipity related to my earlier post on this thread - take a look at James Sterling's article "Wells or Cisterns" on the home page. The deep wells that watered his parent's West Texas farm were probably served with natural gas powered pumps. Even windmills won't bring water up from those depths. That's why slavery couldn't have expanded onto the Plains.
Some good points on the economic front, although I wonder if we can learn anything about the path slavery would have taken by the history of post-war sharecroppers. I also wonder whether the social structures that had developed because of slavery would have made slavery hang on longer than was strictly necessary economically. I do think the social component needs to be considered, particularly the question of what would have been done with freed slaves (sent to Africa?). Another question would be whether slavery could have existed alongside industrialization (slaves working in factories like third-world kids?). Although I'm not sure of the relevance, the image of Jefferson paying his slaves for work done in his nail factory, perhaps preparing them for the emancipation he believed was inevitable, comes to mind.
btw, another irony that has been alluded to here is that while today northerners are more likely to list slavery as a cause of the ACW than southerners are, the exact opposite was true during the war itself. Southerners talked about preserving slavery while Northerners talked about preserving the Union.
Lincoln's main interest was in preserving the high tariff imposed on Southern port cities (thus impeding econmic health in the region) to bail out northern industries during the recession.
Southerners made several attempts to seek a peaceful solution to the conflict in it's earleist stages...The Peace Congress held in Virginia in February 1861; the Confedrate Commission in March of the same year. Of course, they were seeking a solution that would allow the Confederacy to be a sovereign nation.
Northerners would have none of it. Not because of interest in preserving the union. Lincoln tipped his hand to a Colonel Baldwin, during his private mission from the Virginia Secession Convention to Lincoln in April of 1861. After Baldwin appealed for conciliation, Lincoln's only reply was, "What then, will become of my tariff?"
The issue was who would control the economic destiny of the South.
OD
I think had Southerners been allowed to phase slavery out in their own time and on their own terms, rather than have it forcibly ended by President Lincoln, that attitudes of white Southerners towards blacks after freedom might have been different-still segregated perhaps, but perhaps not as much animosity as actually resulted from what many Southerners viewed as their humiliation in losing the war, having their homeland virtually destroyed, and then more humiliation during Reconstruction.
In my own county of Lauderdale, in NW Alabama, there seems to have been a genuine feeling of respect and mutual goodwill between the races in spite of segregation and Jim Crow -though I'm not exactly sure just how widespread it truly was. We don't have the horror stories other areas did of cruelty to slaves (though it may have existed we don't have a record of it or any collective awareness of it); parternalism on the part of whites seems to have existed-and was reciprocated by blacks. And we had at least six black men who proudly attended Confederate veterans' reunions after the war. Add to that the large number of former slaves who remained on their former owners' plantations as sharecroppers; admittedly, this could be out of pure economic necessity if they couldn't find work elsewhere. Each time a new black church was dedicated, the white pastors were invited to participate; and white city officials were routinely invited to address the AME Church's district conventions when they were held in Florence. This whole phenomenon is something our local historians need to study more carefully.
Pax vobiscum.
Lee.
Here's a post on the tarrif from another thread (near the bottom of the page). The tarrif, imho, seems to be an excuse that became popular after defending slavery went out of fashion and people still needed to defend succession.
Worst Presidents (http://www.gracecentered.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=20;t=6448;st=20)
Many pro-Southern defenders and neo-Confederates attempt to make the cause of the war purely economic or states' rights; on the other hand, many Civil Rights activists and others attempt to make the cause of the war totally about the North's moral imperative to end slavery or preserve the Union. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle and a bit more complex.
Pax vobiscum.
See you guys tomorrow.
I don't believe that ending slavery was a motive for most northerners at the beginning of the war, but I also don't believe that the South would have succeeded if not for the slavery issue.
And some of the pro-slavery legislation the South had proposed was certainly not "states rights" legislation.
Here's a link to an interestling sourced, footnoted article regarding the causes of the war. This contains quotes from contemporary Confederate leaders explaining why the South suceeded. Does anyone have any contemporary quotes saying that tariffs were the cause of the war?
Confronting Slavery andRevealing the "Lost Cause (http://crm.cr.nps.gov/archive/21-4/21-4-5.pdf)
There's a book which was published, I think in 2000, called When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession, by Charles Adams, an economic historian. I have it in my library at home. In this book Adams argues, unconvincingly that the war was fought over tariffs. He relies heavily on the European press's coverage of the war and secession, and asserts that the legality of secession should have been decided by the courts. He makes a few good points, but on the whole his arguments are very unconvincing.
Pax vobiscum.
In the link to the Worst Presidents thread above, McPherson talks about Adams tarrif arguments. Let's just say he doesn't care for them (he says Adams made up his numbers out of thin air at one point).
It's notable the DiLorenzo, who is probably the most prolific proponent of the tariff theory, relies heavily on Adams in pretty much everything he writes.
I think the tariff issue was probably real, but considerably more complex than anyone has thought about.
It's probably true that the southern states did not pay tariffs in a disproportionate share to the rest of the country. However, the southern ports probably accounted for the collection of a disprportionate share of tariff collections. By that, I mean this: A disproportionate share of the nation's imports came through southern ports, especially New Orleans and Charleston, which were some of the busiest ports in the country at that time (New Orleans still is.) So even though the economic burden of the tariff fell upon the ultimate consumer, perhaps in a northern state, the government collected the money in the south. That was a matter of vital concern. (Remember that acquisition of New Orleans as a port was the whole point of the Louisiana Purchase.)
There's a yet greater factor. A disproportionate share of the nations export's did originate in the South in the form cotton and tobacco, and the primary purchaser of the cotton was Great Britain. The British government used protective tariffs for its agricultural products already. (The Irish potato famine was greatly magnified by the high price of grain caused by a tariff.) There hadn't been much of a tariff on cotton because cotton doesn't grow in England. However, the years leading up to our war corresponded with Britain's final subjugation and incorporation into the Empire of India. India was a huge new source of guess what? Cotton.
So the tariffs would put American cotton growers at a competitive disadvantage at just the time that their customer acquired a new source of supply. And I doubt if anyone articulated this very well, particularly since most southern politicians were not very deep thinkers.
In fact, one school of thought is that it was the availability of Indian cotton that tipped the balance in keeping Britain from trying to intervene in our war. Had the British textile mills been starved for materials, so the thinking goes, the British government might have attempted to negotiate a settlement.
My point was/is not that the cause of the war was the tariff – only that the tariff, and the economic subjugation of the Southern states of which the tariff was tip of the iceberg, was Lincoln's motivation for waging war against the Confederacy.
A wise man once said that history is written by the winners. Northern historians have for 140 years spun slavery as the reason for the secession. In fact, slavery was a protected institution in the South – there were Constitutional guarantees and a recent Supreme Court ruling in the South's favor, as long as they remained in the union. Secession would and did remove those protections, and Southern leaders knew that.
South Carolina had threatened to leave the union in 1828 because of heavy tariffs imposed on the South in an attempt to protect northern manufacturers from foreign competition.
The Charleston Mercury printed an editorial in November 1860, 2 days before Lincoln was elected, stating "The real causes for the dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government, from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (OldDad @ April 03 2004,2:00)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]motivation for waging war against the Confederacy.
A wise man once said that history is written by the winners. Northern historians have for 140 years spun slavery as the reason for the secession[/quote]
Ah, but this "spinning" was not first done by northern historians, but by the people who seceded themselves, from the proposals of the Senate Committee of Thirteen--formed to see if a compromise could be reached with the newly-elected Lincoln--members Jefferson Davis and Robert Toombs formed to see if a compromise could be reached with the newly-elected Lincoln which focused on slavery with no mention of the tariff, to Alexander Stephens' famous declaration that slavery was the cornerstone of the confederacy, to the secession ordinances themselves--three of which mentioned slavery, none of which mentioned the tariff. If the best way to judge historical figures' motives is to look at their own stated reasons for doing what they did, the answer becomes obvious.
As to constitutional protection for slavery, or rather the expansion of slavery, the future of this protection was definitely in doubt now that Lincoln would be appointing Justices. And in fact when Salmon Chase replaced Roger Taney as Chief Justice, the character of the court did indeed change. The South's reaction on this front is likely analogous to pro-choice advocates' reaction to Bush's election. They hardly thought that current rulings would offer future protection.
It is ironic that if the South had not reacted to Lincoln's election with a violent, emotional reaction that tariffs could never explain and seceded, the thirteenth amendment to the constitution would likely have protected slavery, not destroyed it. But the South's passion for the expansion of slavery--which was as emotional as it was logical, based at least in part on the fear that a Southerner could have no part in a Free western US, with all the opportunities the grand new frontier offered if he was not willing to leave his slaves behind--ended up causing slavery to end sooner rather than later.
And yet the many written records Southerners left behind tell us this was indeed the case. The later, revisionist, history in this case was that the cause of secession was the old nullification bugaboo tariffs, which was more noble and would make the Lost Cause myth viable.
Alexander Stephens, Vice-president of the Confederacy, met with Lincoln and offered to give up slavery if the United States of America would let the CSA leave the USA in peace; Strange indeed this willingness to forgo the reason history says was the cause of secession. Lincoln wouldn't tolerate any condition but total surrender.
John H. Reagan, a member of Jefferson Davis' cabinet, had this to say about the cause of the war:
It has been to a large extent assumed that negro slavery was the cause of that war. This is not strictly true. It was the occasion of the war, but not the principal cause of the war. The real cause of the war was sectional jealousy, the greed of gain, and the lust of political power by the Eastern States. The changing opinions of civilized nations on the subject of slavery furnished the occasion which enabled political demagogues to get up a crusade which enabled them in the end to overthrow, in part at least, the Constitution of the United States, and to change the character of the Federal government by a successful revolution.
Why the South Seceded (http://www.civilwarhistory.com/Confederate%20Veteran/CV5/Why%20the%20South%20Seceded.htm)
OD
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Alexander Stephens, Vice-president of the Confederacy, met with Lincoln and offered to give up slavery if the United States of America would let the CSA leave the USA in peace; Strange indeed this willingness to forgo the reason history says was the cause of secession. Lincoln wouldn't tolerate any condition but total surrender.
John H. Reagan, a member of Jefferson Davis' cabinet, had this to say about the cause of the war:
It has been to a large extent assumed that negro slavery was the cause of that war. This is not strictly true. It was the occasion of the war, but not the principal cause of the war. The real cause of the war was sectional jealousy, the greed of gain, and the lust of political power by the Eastern States. The changing opinions of civilized nations on the subject of slavery furnished the occasion which enabled political demagogues to get up a crusade which enabled them in the end to overthrow, in part at least, the Constitution of the United States, and to change the character of the Federal government by a successful revolution.
Why the South Seceded (http://www.civilwarhistory.com/Confederate%20Veteran/CV5/Why%20the%20South%20Seceded.htm)
OD[/quote]
The telling thing about the Reagan article is the date--1903, forty years after the fact, and the spinning had begun. And even at that, Reagan admits that slavery was "the occasion of the war."
Also, I don't have it in front of me, but wasn't Stephens mission well near the end of the war, when the eventual outcome had become obvious? Even then, if memory serves, this was a controversial proposal. But by then the parameters had shifted so much that the some, including man who had made such strong pre-war statements about slavery, were willing to grasp at whatever straws remained. btw, in this case "history"'s name was Alexander Stephens. ;)
But it is getting late, and is indeed an hour later than the clock says. :sleeping:
bump
Unfortunately, slavery is still alive and well many places around the world. The church should be at the front of the battle to end slavery around the world. However, because it doesn't happen on our doorstep, most Christians ignore it or don't even know it is happening. While the church turns its back, children are sold into slavery to repay a debt their parents owe. Others are kidnapped and forced into a slavery that includes prostitution. Others become slaves as a result of being on the losing end of a conflict. The church could make a difference in this area if we really wanted to - and the world would see Jesus through us.
I understand there has been a renewed effort among Christians in this area. Not long ago, I heard a commentator on Fresh Air (NPR) compare Sam Brownback to Wilberforce because of his efforts in this area, fwiw.
That's true Marc. However most Christians don't even know this injustice is still being done to millions of people around the world. They probably couldn't even name two countries where slavery was still practiced. That is sad.
: spurly Thu Apr 19, 2007 - 21:44:04
That's true Marc. However most Christians don't even know this injustice is still being done to millions of people around the world. They probably couldn't even name two countries where slavery was still practiced. That is sad.
And a lot of them have no clue that slavery was ever practiced in this country, or that we fought a war over it. ::frown::
Pax.
I think that slavery, as referred to in this discussion, would have faded out by the end of the 19th Century due entirely to purelyeconomic reasons. (http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/LevyPeartdismal.html)
Interesting.
A counter point Norm is that the world may have had more machines, etc that began the industrial revolution far earlier if it had not been for slavery. (And that would have been bad for global warming at least). Machines were being invented around the time of the birth of Christ, but slave labor was far less expensive than to develop them further.
: normfromga Wed Apr 25, 2007 - 15:03:03
I think that slavery, as referred to in this discussion, would have faded out by the end of the 19th Century due entirely to purelyeconomic reasons. (http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/LevyPeartdismal.html)
While an interesting theory, I'm not sure the reality supports it. Slave labor in factories still happens today and wasn't unheard of in the American south where an estimated half million slaves worked in factories, mills, and shipyards.
: Arkstfan Thu May 03, 2007 - 12:52:04
: normfromga Wed Apr 25, 2007 - 15:03:03
I think that slavery, as referred to in this discussion, would have faded out by the end of the 19th Century due entirely to purelyeconomic reasons. (http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/LevyPeartdismal.html)
While an interesting theory, I'm not sure the reality supports it. Slave labor in factories still happens today and wasn't unheard of in the American south where an estimated half million slaves worked in factories, mills, and shipyards.
That's why I said "as referred to in this discussion."
There may be workers being literally bought and sold in today's labor pool, but I suspect most are being coerced into sweatshops, and fields and orchards, by other circumstances beyond their control. Many probably have little or no chance of moving up or moving out, and must depend on meager wages and, in some cases, employer provided shelter and board. Whether this is
de facto"slavery," "indentured servitude," or just "poor houses/farms," I tend to think that it would be even more common if it could be done openly, without legal or union intervention especially while competing with the "global economy." ::shrug::
: normfromga Fri May 04, 2007 - 12:47:16
: Arkstfan Thu May 03, 2007 - 12:52:04
: normfromga Wed Apr 25, 2007 - 15:03:03
I think that slavery, as referred to in this discussion, would have faded out by the end of the 19th Century due entirely to purelyeconomic reasons. (http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/LevyPeartdismal.html)
While an interesting theory, I'm not sure the reality supports it. Slave labor in factories still happens today and wasn't unheard of in the American south where an estimated half million slaves worked in factories, mills, and shipyards.
That's why I said "as referred to in this discussion."
There may be workers being literally bought and sold in today's labor pool, but I suspect most are being coerced into sweatshops, and fields and orchards, by other circumstances beyond their control. Many probably have little or no chance of moving up or moving out, and must depend on meager wages and, in some cases, employer provided shelter and board. Whether this is de facto"slavery," "indentured servitude," or just "poor houses/farms," I tend to think that it would be even more common if it could be done openly, without legal or union intervention especially while competing with the "global economy." ::shrug::
From my reading there appears to be a lot of quasi-slavery. Stated to be prisoners they often have committed such serious crimes as standing firm in their faith, calling for free multi-party elections, protesting the government taking their property either for government purposes or to give to those with better loyalty credentials to the government. Not bought and sold yet forced to labor with no recourse.
This is a tough question because had South been allowed to break away, then the rest of history after that point would have unfolded differently. The US would have been weaker. In the early 1900s the US wouldn't have had the ability to emulate Europe and become the miniature imperialistic world power that it became by 1900. It probably would not have entered WWI, thus there would have been no Great Depression or Worldwide flu epidemic. Thus no facsist dictators would havehad the opportunity to rise to power and WWII would have never happened, nor a Cold War (including Korean War and Vietnam War) and no genocide of millions of people including Jews. Thus there would have been no justification for Israel to be created in 1948, and so Arab nations wouldn't have any reason to be ticked off at the West for supporting what they see as Israeli occupation and therefore there would be no Islamic Fundamentalist movement and no 9/11 or Iraq war. Of course, other things probably would have occurred instead that would have been equally stupid.
Also, it was because of some of these events that worldwide movements happened that led to the end of imperialism and many social movements that ended old racial social divisions. Apartheid didn't end in South Africa until 1994 or so. Perhaps forced labor would have been replaced by machine labor, but certainly movements toward civil rights would have been a much longer struggle without the Civil War (even though it took 100 years to really get that started in a serious manner).
: Logismos Sun May 06, 2007 - 22:55:43
This is a tough question because had South been allowed to break away, then the rest of history after that point would have unfolded differently. The US would have been weaker. In the early 1900s the US wouldn't have had the ability to emulate Europe and become the miniature imperialistic world power that it became by 1900. It probably would not have entered WWI, thus there would have been no Great Depression or Worldwide flu epidemic. Thus no facsist dictators would havehad the opportunity to rise to power and WWII would have never happened, nor a Cold War (including Korean War and Vietnam War) and no genocide of millions of people including Jews. Thus there would have been no justification for Israel to be created in 1948, and so Arab nations wouldn't have any reason to be ticked off at the West for supporting what they see as Israeli occupation and therefore there would be no Islamic Fundamentalist movement and no 9/11 or Iraq war.
That's a new one. Not content to limit your loathing to current repbulicans, you are going to blame all the worlds ills on repulicans who lived over a hundred years ago?
Even without the south, the U.S. would have entered WWI and evenually WW2. It was our industrial might that carried the war, and the industry was all in the north.
KP
1. I don't loathe Republicans. I voted for bush twice and I would vote for McCain tomorrow if he was on the ticket. Don't presume to know me.
2. I don't blame all the ills of today on the decisions of the Civil War era. The events of that period were part of a long chain of events. Had those events been different, the rest would also be different. The question is the extent to which they would be different, which we can only guess at.
3. The South was about 1/3 of the US population in the late 1800s. The US would have still become a industrial powerhouse, but a less significant one. The division of the US could have possibily inturrupted the US economic imperialism of Latin America and the pacific. Extreme nationalistic competition between the Confederate States and the US may have altered involvement overseas. The list of things that could have been significantly altered is huge. America's involvement in WWI is already something that barely happened (and shouldn't have happened). Had America itself been different its completely possible that decsion would have been different as well.
4. Ultimately no one knows and there is no right or wrong answer to these questions of what would have happened.
: Logismos Sun May 06, 2007 - 22:55:43
This is a tough question because had South been allowed to break away, then the rest of history after that point would have unfolded differently. The US would have been weaker. In the early 1900s the US wouldn't have had the ability to emulate Europe and become the miniature imperialistic world power that it became by 1900. It probably would not have entered WWI, thus there would have been no Great Depression or Worldwide flu epidemic. Thus no fascist dictators would havehad the opportunity to rise to power and WWII would have never happened, nor a Cold War (including Korean War and Vietnam War) and no genocide of millions of people including Jews. Thus there would have been no justification for Israel to be created in 1948, and so Arab nations wouldn't have any reason to be ticked off at the West for supporting what they see as Israeli occupation and therefore there would be no Islamic Fundamentalist movement and no 9/11 or Iraq war. Of course, other things probably would have occurred instead that would have been equally stupid.
If the Confederacy was allowed to remain separate, they may find themselves between the rock and the hard place.
1. Presuming that the North would pass some kind of legislation outlawing slavery, slaves would continue to escape north, with no more "Dred Scott" decision guaranteeing their return.
2. Their best customer and allie, Great Britain, will eventually put teeth into their high ideals concerning Emancipation, and discontinue commerce with nations relying on slave labor.
As to the effect on the Union, or World History in general, I find nearly point taken a
non sequitur:
Even taking the results of the Spanish American War into consideration, we were hardly an "imperialistic world power", even in miniature, by the beginning of the last century. Cuba's independence, our purchase of the Philippines, and Spain's secession of Puerto Rico and Guam hardly made us a significant colonial power.
Likewise, our timidity in entering WWI, and our non-aggressive bargaining at Versailles also shows that imperialistic was hardly an apt description for US.
But, even if your descriptions were apt, I am not sure how the secession would have much influence on this period. I would be surprised if our isolationist views was a "Southern" thing, and to wage war, you need men, money, and materiel, and I am not sure a truncated Union would be lacking in any of these.
Of course, if the South kept Missouri, so that Black Jack Pershing, as well as some of our other up-and-coming military leaders, was raised a rebel, maybe we would not have the leadership that would have trained and led a force that would be able to stem the tide against the Allies. So what?
If Germany prevailed, Hitler would probably still have come to power, especially if the Depression still occurred, as well as the Reds in Russia, so that most of the events leading to those other wars would still have taken place.
Though Harry Turtledove and other historic speculators may disagree, I just don't think that the US influence on plagues, politics, and prosperity on the world stage were significant enough eighty or so years after the War Between the States that the preservation of the CSA would have had an effect.
Even taking the results of the Spanish American War into consideration, we were hardly an "imperialistic world power", even in miniature, by the beginning of the last century. Cuba's independence, our purchase of the Philippines, and Spain's secession of Puerto Rico and Guam hardly made us a significant colonial power.
Likewise, our timidity in entering WWI, and our non-aggressive bargaining at Versailles also shows that imperialistic was hardly an apt description for US.
Innocence, idealism and benevolance characterized the feeling of US foreign policy in the early 1900s. But the US by its very nature was expansionistic and by 1900 had become a minor imperialistic nation. At the start, it did this in the traditional mannor, by annexing territory such as that in the Carribean and Pacific Islands. Later it shifted toward less direct means posessing sovereignty over foreign nations through economic imperialism and occasional military intervention. The US certainly was not seen as a in imperialistic "World Power" by any means and in fact many in the US came to see traditional colonialism as an evil source of conflict. Wilson's Fourteen Points tried to communicate this idea, but it fell upon deaf ears until the same essential idea was later agreed upon in the Atlantic Charter during WWII. But through all this, America's own form of economic imperialism was growing steadily.
The US colonialism was pretty minor compared to the European powers but in large part that was a function of geography. Most resources Europe went out colonizing to get, existed on the North American continent. So what colonial aspirations the US had generally had more to do with securing trade routes and providing stable depots for ship's coal.
Even without American involvement Germany was in ruins by the time we entered World War I. Industrial output had fallen to nearly half the pre-war level and anti-war sentiment was running high. Germany might have been able to hold more territory and negotiate more favorable peace terms but had reached a breaking point and had to stop the war. The main US contribution was stemming the final major German offensive that had been designed to create leverage to broker a favorable peace and participating in the offensive by the Allies that lead to more unfavorable terms. Remember though that the overthrow of the Kaiser led to Germany's collapse and severely colored the treaty negotiations.
One important thing to remember. The post-WWI Germany was artificially propped up for years before the Great Depression because they borrowed from the US to fund reparations. A weaker US unable to fund that borrowing. That borrowing helped keep Germany closer to being stable and may have helped prevent the Beer Hall Putsch from gaining traction.
All alternative history is speculation but it is logical to believe that Hitler's rise power would have happened nine years sooner.
Of course one could also argue that without Hitler, Germany would have gone communist since the communist party was quite strong and Hitler's main opposition. A communist Germany aligned with the Soviets might still hold sway over the entire continents of Europe and Asia.
Well said, I agree.
: spurly Thu Apr 19, 2007 - 21:31:36
Unfortunately, slavery is still alive and well many places around the world. The church should be at the front of the battle to end slavery around the world. However, because it doesn't happen on our doorstep, most Christians ignore it or don't even know it is happening. While the church turns its back, children are sold into slavery to repay a debt their parents owe. Others are kidnapped and forced into a slavery that includes prostitution. Others become slaves as a result of being on the losing end of a conflict. The church could make a difference in this area if we really wanted to - and the world would see Jesus through us.
I agree with you ... Slavery "IS" still alive & well right here in the ole' USA, as well as many places around the world. Oh, of course we identify "it" according to it's political correctness (e.i. we've dressed-it-up, to alter it's appearance) ...BUT... a "ROSE" by any other name ... is STILL A ROSE???
Assuming no interference from the government or other outside cultural pressures ("we" tend to cave pretty quick as a rule), slavery would not only still be practiced, but would be heartily embraced with zealous biblical support! Along with asking if Slavery is 'authorized'? godly? christian? or even nice? The question could also be asked "Who would be the slaves today?"
: Logismos Sun May 06, 2007 - 22:55:43
This is a tough question because had South been allowed to break away, then the rest of history after that point would have unfolded differently. The US would have been weaker. In the early 1900s the US wouldn't have had the ability to emulate Europe and become the miniature imperialistic world power that it became by 1900. It probably would not have entered WWI, thus there would have been no Great Depression or Worldwide flu epidemic. Thus no fascist dictators would havehad the opportunity to rise to power and WWII would have never happened, nor a Cold War (including Korean War and Vietnam War) and no genocide of millions of people including Jews. Thus there would have been no justification for Israel to be created in 1948, and so Arab nations wouldn't have any reason to be ticked off at the West for supporting what they see as Israeli occupation and therefore there would be no Islamic Fundamentalist movement and no 9/11 or Iraq war. Of course, other things probably would have occurred instead that would have been equally stupid.
Also, it was because of some of these events that worldwide movements happened that led to the end of imperialism and many social movements that ended old racial social divisions. Apartheid didn't end in South Africa until 1994 or so. Perhaps forced labor would have been replaced by machine labor, but certainly movements toward civil rights would have been a much longer struggle without the Civil War (even though it took 100 years to really get that started in a serious manner).
Had Lincoln not issued his call for troops in April 1861, the seceding states would have been confined to (west to east) Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. Upper South states would have stayed in, and Lincoln could have pursued a policy of containment if the Deep South states tried to expand out of their territorial confines. Remember, the firebreathers pushed secession because the strategy of using the federal courts to force slavery on voters not inclined to allow extension into their territories was faltering. Secession had the effect of cutting off the Confederacy's nose to spite its face. Attempts to force its way into Mexico, the Caribbean and Central America would have united the major European powers, the British Empire, and the Union against them.
The Confederacy's fate: either banana republicanism or complete fragmentation and slow return to the Union. Economically, it would have pursued the third world economics of resource extraction. Texas would have probably broken away from the dysfunctional rump of Confederate federalism within a few years to preserve its petroleum assets. Even now, the South is dysfunctional: in reality, as a region, it sucks up more federal spending than it produces in revenues.
Odds are that the British and French would have insisted on emancipation at some point as a condition of continued recognition. Brazil did by 1888.
The USA is concerned with making money - slavery maybe illegal, but we still rely on it. The illegal migrant worker system is relied on by farmers and construction companies in this country - publicly we condemn it, blame the people in slaved by the economic system; but we are no where near to changing the system.
blessings