Romanticization of the Civil War
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 4, 2026 09:53
VIEWED: 15839
PAGE 3 of 13
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
In the best of all possible worlds, slavery could have been defeated without war. But the conflict was being propelled forward by westward expansion, and required urgent resolution.
So you reach a conundrum- Which set of rights takes precedence: The right of all men to be free, or States' rights? Assuming that you HAVE to choose, which would you pick?
Good question. Is it worth sacrificing 600-700 thousand people to free 4 million? I'd probably choose the one that kills the least; trusting that if given the chance, folk will eventually figure the right thing to do.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Mmm hmmm. Conveniently.
Yeah, if you were a baby then you'd be an old fart by 1860.-Signy
Oh, come on. In 1860 the Revolutionary War was the biggest thing that had ever happened in the United States. Folk still believed the Declaration of Independence applied.- Geezer
Quote:Modern historians. I can find a lot of cites... here are just two.
Actually, no. The Constitution doesn't provide for secession, it never did. They were referring to the Declaration of Independence. But as historians have often noted, once the FF had a nation to create, their rhetoric toned down considerably.-Signy
Historians pre-1860? Cites?-Geezer
http://stubbornfacts.us/random/secession_and_the_constitution
http://thegooddemocrat.wordpress.com/2007/05/22/there-is-no-right-of-s
ecession-guaranteed-by-the-constitution/
But the historian I was thinking about specifically was Howard Zinn.
Quote:Southerners WERE trying to export slavery to new territories. They were expansionist in service to an ideology (a "way of life") which most people now find anathema. (slavery, the master race, and the emperor overlaid with racism). What's the difference?
Or Germany, or Japan, which have shouldered their responsibility and guilt, and moved on. A lot quicker than southerners, it seems.-Signy
Were Germany or Japan trying to secede from a government? Seems to me they were invading and conquering other countries. Slightly different. Would you expect the Founding Fathers to apologize for the Revolution?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Good question, revealing answer.
Good question. Is it worth sacrificing 600-700 thousand people to free 4 million? I'd probably choose the one that kills the least; trusting that if given the chance, folk will eventually figure the right thing to do.
Were slaves not "people"? Then contemplate how many SLAVES died, then ask yourself if it was worth sacrificing 700,000 people to save two or three million people from death. Because while "folk" were figuring out the right thing to do, slaves would continue to die. But quite honestly, slave deaths don't seem to enter into your equation.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I see *someone* hasn't gotten past their public school "history" and actually fact checked their data...
But oh noes "slavery, slavery, SLAVERY!!!!!11!!"
Yeah, right.
Tarriff of Abominations, anyone ?
Lincoln being pro slavery (and proposing a constitutional amendment that would have protected it ?) and not really giving a shit either way save as an excuse ?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo104.html
http://confederateheritage.org/Northern-Permanent-Slavery-Amendment.ht
ml
It was about economics, and whether or not our government was by "mutual consent of the governed" (which would, logically, have the right to STOP consenting and leave) or whether it was "rule of the gun".
This last was the primary core issue, remember these states VOTED to secede, and there was much debate over it, Lincoln arrested most of Marylands legislature to prevent that vote, locked up newspaper folk who dared speak against him, forced his own people to fight their brethren at gunpoint, and what the hell is conscription but a far *worse* variation on slavery ?
Besides which, the practice was dying out already, all a westward expansion would have done was propped it up a while, industrialisation made the whole concept no longer cost-effective, and the moral implications were indeed a great factor in the rest of the planet abandoning the idea.
But no, buzzword bullshit "history" written to demonize any who would dare question the FedGovs right to ram a gun down your throat and tell you what to do seems to be trumping any actual evidence here, as far as I see it.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Were slaves not "people"?
Come on, Siggy. In common usage, the word "people" is assumed to apply to both groups in such a sentence.
Since you obviously misunderstood my point, no response from me is necessary, I guess.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Here's the thing: If any of you don't have a problem with someone flying the flag of the confederacy, a bunch of traitorous, anti-American rebel scum who attacked the U.S. and waged war on American soil and sought to violently overthrow the legitimate government,
Didn't do too well in history class, did you?
The Confederacy never wanted to overthrow the U.S., just leave it. As of 1860, many states though that it was all right to opt out of the United States if they wanted to, based on what the Founders had proposed 80 years previous. When several states did, the U.S. government responded by reenforcing its military bases in the states which had opted out...for example, Fort Sumter.
Aside from that, the first major battle of the Civil War was when Union troops invaded Virginia at Manassas Junction. Aside from Gettysburg and Antietam (attacks by the Confederacy to convince the Union to quit the war and leave them alone) all the major battles of the Civil War were fought on Confederate soil.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
I actually did pretty well in history class, thanks.
Quote:
On April 10, 1861, Brig. Gen. Beauregard, in command of the provisional Confederate forces at Charleston, South Carolina, demanded the surrender of the Union garrison of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. Garrison commander Anderson refused. On April 12, Confederate batteries opened fire on the fort, which was unable to reply effectively. At 2:30 p.m., April 13, Major Anderson surrendered Fort Sumter, evacuating the garrison on the following day. The bombardment of Fort Sumter was the opening engagement of the American Civil War.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/ftsumter.htm
You can try sophistry and equivocation all you want, but the fact still stands that the Confederacy attacked the Union and kicked off hostilities. And secession is not a patriotic action. Traitorous rebel scum seems an apt descriptor for such people taking such actions.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Besides which, the practice was dying out already, all a westward expansion would have done was propped it up a while, industrialisation made the whole concept no longer cost-effective, and the moral implications were indeed a great factor in the rest of the planet abandoning the idea.
-F
I was wondering if, given the cost of the Civil War, it wouldn't have been cheaper and cost a lot less lives for the Union to just buy out all the slaves in the Confederacy. While looking for figures on the costs of the war and the cost of slaves, I came across this:
Quote:
What If the Union Had Bought Out the Confederacy Instead of Fighting the Civil War?
Brian Gongol
Was There a Better Way to End Slavery Than Civil War?
Slavery was one of the most vile institutions ever to mar the soul of the American republic. This exercise assumes three things:
It was right to end slavery
The resources used to fight the Civil War could have been used in other ways
It is desirable to use resources as efficiently as possible
Evaluating the Costs of the Civil War
Total cost (North and South) of the Civil War (in current dollars from the era): $5,200,000,000
Total number of slaves living in the South at the start of the Civil War: 3,500,000
Average cost of war per slave: $5,200,000,000 / 3,500,000 $1,485.71
Average market price per slave in 1860 (current dollars from the era): $1,658.00
Total estimated cost to have bought out all living slaves at market price: $1,658.00 * 3,500,000 $5,803,000,000
Approximate premium cost of buyout in excess of direct costs of war: $603,000,000
Total combatant deaths due to war: 558,052
Value of combatant lives lost if priced at the market value of a slave: 558,052 * $1,658.00 $925,250,000
The Premium Paid for War
If slaves were selling for more than $1,600 each, then it would be consistent with the principle that "all men are created equal" to value the life of a free soldier at the same amount. A very conservative estimate of the value of lives lost in combat, then, would be the market value of a slave times the number of soldiers' lives lost, or more than $900,000,000. The difference between the actual cost of the war ($5,200,000,000) and the hypothetical buyout option ($5,803,000,000) would have been only $603,000,000, or three hundred million dollars less than the very conservative estimate of the value of lives lost in combat.
http://www.gongol.com/research/economics/slavebuyout/
I found other sources that put the dollar cost to the Union at over $6 billion, so the buyout might have been even less than the cost of the war.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
While not a historian, would you give any credence to the words of Revolutionary agitator Samuel Adams?
Quote:
"Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."
Seems he wasn't keen on domestic insurrection or rebellion, and thought the leaders of Shays' Rebellion should be hanged.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Besides which, the practice was dying out already, all a westward expansion would have done was propped it up a while, industrialisation made the whole concept no longer cost-effective, and the moral implications were indeed a great factor in the rest of the planet abandoning the idea.
-F
I was wondering if, given the cost of the Civil War, it wouldn't have been cheaper and cost a lot less lives for the Union to just buy out all the slaves in the Confederacy. While looking for figures on the costs of the war and the cost of slaves, I came across this:Quote:
What If the Union Had Bought Out the Confederacy Instead of Fighting the Civil War?
Brian Gongol
Was There a Better Way to End Slavery Than Civil War?
Slavery was one of the most vile institutions ever to mar the soul of the American republic. This exercise assumes three things:
It was right to end slavery
The resources used to fight the Civil War could have been used in other ways
It is desirable to use resources as efficiently as possible
Evaluating the Costs of the Civil War
Total cost (North and South) of the Civil War (in current dollars from the era): $5,200,000,000
Total number of slaves living in the South at the start of the Civil War: 3,500,000
Average cost of war per slave: $5,200,000,000 / 3,500,000 $1,485.71
Average market price per slave in 1860 (current dollars from the era): $1,658.00
Total estimated cost to have bought out all living slaves at market price: $1,658.00 * 3,500,000 $5,803,000,000
Approximate premium cost of buyout in excess of direct costs of war: $603,000,000
Total combatant deaths due to war: 558,052
Value of combatant lives lost if priced at the market value of a slave: 558,052 * $1,658.00 $925,250,000
The Premium Paid for War
If slaves were selling for more than $1,600 each, then it would be consistent with the principle that "all men are created equal" to value the life of a free soldier at the same amount. A very conservative estimate of the value of lives lost in combat, then, would be the market value of a slave times the number of soldiers' lives lost, or more than $900,000,000. The difference between the actual cost of the war ($5,200,000,000) and the hypothetical buyout option ($5,803,000,000) would have been only $603,000,000, or three hundred million dollars less than the very conservative estimate of the value of lives lost in combat.
http://www.gongol.com/research/economics/slavebuyout/
I found other sources that put the dollar cost to the Union at over $6 billion, so the buyout might have been even less than the cost of the war.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
But without the outright abolition of slavery, what's to stop speculators from just stepping in and using that buyout money to go and buy MORE slaves to bring over and sell?
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You can try sophistry and equivocation all you want, but the fact still stands that the Confederacy attacked the Union and kicked off hostilities. And secession is not a patriotic action. Traitorous rebel scum seems an apt descriptor for such people taking such actions.
Okay.
Quote:
The Capture of Fort Ticonderoga occurred on May 10, 1775 when a small force of Green Mountain Boys led by Ethan Allen and Colonel Benedict Arnold overcame a small British garrison at the fort and looted the personal belongings of the garrison. Cannons and other armaments from the fort were transported to Boston and used to fortify Dorchester Heights and break the stalemate at the Siege of Boston.
After seizing Ticonderoga, a small detachment captured the nearby Fort Crown Point on May 11. On May 18, Arnold and 50 men boldly raided Fort Saint-Jean on the Richelieu River in southern Quebec, seizing military supplies, cannons, and the largest military vessel on Lake Champlain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Fort_Ticonderoga
Hmmm. Almost two months prior to the Declaration of Independence, when the Colonies seceded by declaring "...that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved;..."
Traitorous rebel scum indeed, King George.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME