The US Civil War: why was the North so adamant about holding the Union together?

[Craig B]

What does this have to do with Loss Leaders statement that "Just about everything the South produced was milled in the north and shipped out of New York"?

Not very much, except that it's interesting, and shows that this cotton clearly formed the basis for industry and livelihood on a huge scale not only in New York, but in Great Britain; which tends to contradict Loss Leader's statement.

 

[Nihilianth]

There are no "natural rights".

When did I say that?

I disagree with this, simply because you have the ability, and the free choice, to choose to say what is on your mind no matter the situation you are in. If man were in his natural environment, he would be completely free to say or do as he pleases without interference from a strongman. Hence: "natural rights."

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Not very much, except that it's interesting, and shows that this cotton clearly formed the basis for industry and livelihood on a huge scale not only in New York, but in Great Britain; which tends to contradict Loss Leader's statement.

That pretty much makes a decent case against that whole "the Civil War was about freeing the slaves" thing, doesn't it?
The key to government expansion was in developing the new territories, and the key to that development was capital to pay the developers. The major source for generating that revenue appears to have been cotton.
When the South objected to financing this expansion (or at least 80% or so of it) and seceded, the Union was faced with the twin problems of both loss of land and loss of the means of expansion.
Gen. Sherman fixed both problems, and then fixed the pesky problem of those Native Americans who thought a treaty was something you could rely on, shortly thereafter.

 

[Foolmewunz]

If Loss Leader had said, "Just about everything produced in the South was milled in the north OR shipped out of New York" it would've been close to accurate. New York interests controlled the shipping, trading, insuring side of the transactions.

That's accurate, but it goes to an almost Marxist view of socio-economic history to see this as a conspiracy to keep Dixie down. The southern states chose their lucratively profitable model of doing business. Slaves, raw materials, cotton.... They could've established manufacturing, but they didn't have the "right" labor pool. They had the capital to establish shipping and insurance and direct mercantile systems with Europe. They chose not to and left that to the "yankee traders". Absent the Civil War, both sides were content with their chosen regional business models. The south needed the infrastructure and financial institutions of the north. Had the Confederacy won, would you attribute it to agrarian capitalism needing to keep the northern bureaucrats servicing their bucolic lifestyles and slave-breeding industry?

In short, your theory's a bit of a reach. Is it possible some of the moneyed interests in the north felt that way? Sure. But it wasn't the dominant concern when discussing non-dissolution of the Union.

 

[Craig B]

That pretty much makes a decent case against that whole "the Civil War was about freeing the slaves" thing, doesn't it?

Perhaps. But there is a very decent case that "secession was about keeping the slaves" so the Union victory did indeed represent an extension of freedom.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I disagree with this, simply because you have the ability, and the free choice, to choose to say what is on your mind no matter the situation you are in. If man were in his natural environment, he would be completely free to say or do as he pleases without interference from a strongman. Hence: "natural rights."

We seem to be disagreeing on the term "rights". You don't have the right to say I'm a murderer. You don't have the right to say I should be killed.

 

[Nihilianth]

We seem to be disagreeing on the term "rights". You don't have the right to say I'm a murderer. You don't have the right to say I should be killed.

Slander and libel are man-made laws, meant to keep an orderly and civilized society.

 

[Meed]

That pretty much makes a decent case against that whole "the Civil War was about freeing the slaves" thing, doesn't it?

Perhaps. But there is a very decent case that "secession was about keeping the slaves" so the Union victory did indeed represent an extension of freedom.

No perhaps about it, it's simply a fact that the war was not "about freeing the slaves". If the war had been shorter (as was expected by most people at the time) then slavery would have remained intact even if the US won. It would be partially correct to say that the war was "about slavery", but not that it was "about freeing the slaves". The war was about secession. And secession was (mostly) about preserving slavery and slave-owners rights, as you rightly point out.

The key to government expansion was in developing the new territories, and the key to that development was capital to pay the developers. The major source for generating that revenue appears to have been cotton.
When the South objected to financing this expansion (or at least 80% or so of it) and seceded, the Union was faced with the twin problems of both loss of land and loss of the means of expansion.

Yeah, cotton was huge at the time. But as I understand it Western Europe was profiting greatly from the Confederate States' cotton as well. So surely the US would have continued to do well despite the secession (just not as well)?

Gen. Sherman fixed both problems, and then fixed the pesky problem of those Native Americans who thought a treaty was something you could rely on, shortly thereafter.

Not sure why you want to give Sherman all the credit for either of those things.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

If Loss Leader had said, "Just about everything produced in the South was milled in the north OR shipped out of New York" it would've been close to accurate. New York interests controlled the shipping, trading, insuring side of the transactions.

That's accurate, but it goes to an almost Marxist view of socio-economic history to see this as a conspiracy to keep Dixie down. The southern states chose their lucratively profitable model of doing business. Slaves, raw materials, cotton.... They could've established manufacturing, but they didn't have the "right" labor pool. They had the capital to establish shipping and insurance and direct mercantile systems with Europe. They chose not to and left that to the "yankee traders". Absent the Civil War, both sides were content with their chosen regional business models. The south needed the infrastructure and financial institutions of the north. Had the Confederacy won, would you attribute it to agrarian capitalism needing to keep the northern bureaucrats servicing their bucolic lifestyles and slave-breeding industry?

In short, your theory's a bit of a reach. Is it possible some of the moneyed interests in the north felt that way? Sure. But it wasn't the dominant concern when discussing non-dissolution of the Union.

Your premise is based on this (highlighted portion). One purpose of the tariff system was keep this from happening. In order to purchase the machinery, equipment and support to establish this, the South would have had to pay exorbitant prices, as the British (who would have been the major source) would have been forced to adjust their prices to compensate for the tariffs, effectively pricing themselves out of the market. The only alternative would have been purchasing the ships, machinery and logistical support from the Northern industrialists, who would have a virtual monopoly on the market.
The cycle would remain in place; capital flowing to the North and nothing coming back down South in return, save expensive, substandard products.

As to a Confederate victory, I've seen nothing that would indicate the Confederacy would have demanded the North keep servicing that "bucolic lifestyle" (which is itself a bit of a stretch as only a very small percentage of the Southern farmers were large plantation owners or owned large numbers of slaves). The majority of slave owners held fewer than ten slaves and usually worked in the fields along side them.
The Southerners weren't stupid, or any more racist than their Northern counterparts. Given a choice between expensive manual labor and cheap farm machinery, the vast majority of farmers would have made the obviously more economical decision. Slavery was doomed to die a natural death in only a few years anyway.
The South gained nothing by winning the war, other than financial independence. The North gained everything it needed to both remain liquid and to expand.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Yeah, cotton was huge at the time. But as I understand it Western Europe was profiting greatly from the Confederate States' cotton as well. So surely the US would have continued to do well despite the secession (just not as well)?

Where would the cotton have come from? It's also important to note that about 80% of all government revenues came from tariffs at the time and, had the South not seceded, that revenue stream would have increased hugely ( at the expense of the South). Had the South been successful in its secession, much of that revenue stream would have dried up.

Not sure why you want to give Sherman all the credit for either of those things.

Sherman's strategy was to wage unrestricted warfare on the South, which included destroying everything in his path, whether it be a valid military target or not. His view was in many ways similar to the view of current Islamists in that he considered anything and anyone who could contribute to the war effort as fair game.
At the outset of his "march to the sea" he issued orders that only those who directly opposed the advance were to be considered hostile and only those provisions necessary to supply the advance were subject to confiscation, then conveniently allowed his columns to disregard the order. This can be seen in Sherman's own report after the surrender of Savannah, as he listed enough confiscated beeves, hogs and mules to supply his army several times over for the entire campaign. Somehow, silverware, specie, and personal items such as jewelry also became contraband, to the point that it was common place for the foragers to dig up vegetable gardens in the hunt for such items, leaving the crops to rot.

He repeated this strategy against the Native Americans, annihilating the buffalo, destroying their villages, and herding the survivors into ever smaller "relocation camps".

 

[Craig B]

The Southerners weren't stupid, or any more racist than their Northern counterparts. Given a choice between expensive manual labor and cheap farm machinery, the vast majority of farmers would have made the obviously more economical decision. Slavery was doomed to die a natural death in only a few years anyway.

Say you so? Then why did they not in fact make that decision? Did not the picking of cotton remain a manual labour operation for most of the next century?

The hallmark of economic development the world over is the long run transfer of labor from agriculture to the industrial and service sectors ... Following World War II, millions of workers from California to the Carolinas handpicked all American-grown cotton, but by the 1970s farmers gathered the entire crop with cotton harvesting machines. This transformation increased the productive efficiency of inputs to agriculture, restructured the American economy, and forever changed the economic, social and political life of cotton communities and states and the nation at large. The mass exodus of African-Americans from the cotton fields transformed race from a local matter to a national concern with profound implications for racial economic equality, the decline of America’s cities, and the welfare state.

 

[Meed]

Where would the cotton have come from? It's also important to note that about 80% of all government revenues came from tariffs at the time and, had the South not seceded, that revenue stream would have increased hugely ( at the expense of the South). Had the South been successful in its secession, much of that revenue stream would have dried up.

Interesting, I didn't realize it was as high as 80%.

Sherman's strategy was to wage unrestricted warfare on the South, which included destroying everything in his path, whether it be a valid military target or not. His view was in many ways similar to the view of current Islamists in that he considered anything and anyone who could contribute to the war effort as fair game.
At the outset of his "march to the sea" he issued orders that only those who directly opposed the advance were to be considered hostile and only those provisions necessary to supply the advance were subject to confiscation, then conveniently allowed his columns to disregard the order. This can be seen in Sherman's own report after the surrender of Savannah, as he listed enough confiscated beeves, hogs and mules to supply his army several times over for the entire campaign. Somehow, silverware, specie, and personal items such as jewelry also became contraband, to the point that it was common place for the foragers to dig up vegetable gardens in the hunt for such items, leaving the crops to rot.

I'm not sure how this relates to my question exactly. Are you saying this strategy was the key to winning the war? Or are you saying it benefited the US in some other way? Or are you just saying Shermer was a bad person?

He repeated this strategy against the Native Americans, annihilating the buffalo, destroying their villages, and herding the survivors into ever smaller "relocation camps".

Indeed, my only point was that he is one of many US Americans who did this kind of thing to the Native Americans. He is responsible for it, but not solely responsible for it.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Your premise is based on this (highlighted portion). One purpose of the tariff system was keep this from happening. In order to purchase the machinery, equipment and support to establish this, the South would have had to pay exorbitant prices, as the British (who would have been the major source) would have been forced to adjust their prices to compensate for the tariffs, effectively pricing themselves out of the market. The only alternative would have been purchasing the ships, machinery and logistical support from the Northern industrialists, who would have a virtual monopoly on the market.
The cycle would remain in place; capital flowing to the North and nothing coming back down South in return, save expensive, substandard products.

Show your work. What tariffs? Duty was low through the 1830s to 1850s. (The Nullification Crisis was one state, a southern state, saying that the tariffs were "not being reduced enough"! Jackson signed a lower tariff in '32 and there were continued revisions.)

Where is the great rush to spend the profits from their agricultural base on infrastructure, financing and services during those nearly three decades.

This is the stuff of revisionist history. There were no "special rates" for importing production machinery into the southern states. They had the same rates as the manufacturing centers in Mass, RI, NY, PA, NJ. They had a much more profitable economic base and they stuck with it. The tariffs kept dixie down is stuff for alt dot history.

As to a Confederate victory, I've seen nothing that would indicate the Confederacy would have demanded the North keep servicing that "bucolic lifestyle" (which is itself a bit of a stretch as only a very small percentage of the Southern farmers were large plantation owners or owned large numbers of slaves). The majority of slave owners held fewer than ten slaves and usually worked in the fields along side them.
The Southerners weren't stupid, or any more racist than their Northern counterparts. Given a choice between expensive manual labor and cheap farm machinery, the vast majority of farmers would have made the obviously more economical decision. Slavery was doomed to die a natural death in only a few years anyway.
The South gained nothing by winning the war, other than financial independence. The North gained everything it needed to both remain liquid and to expand.

It was a hypothetical, merely showing that without evidence one can attribute any motive one wishes to events. Since the South didn't win, it was purely a talking point. But the motives of the southern states was not the actual point. It was your herculean efforts to frame this in terms of an economic struggle to keep the southern states producing for "massa" in the north. It just didn't happen as you are portraying it. The myth of repressive tariffs is a fine example. Your read on this has no more credence than my made-up scenario as to how the south would have behaved had they won.

(And on that topic... did you know that the Confederacy put in a more repressive tariff on their own states than the Union had from '32 to '60? 15% across the board, including imports from the U.S. of A.)

 

[Nihilianth]

No perhaps about it, it's simply a fact that the war was not "about freeing the slaves". If the war had been shorter (as was expected by most people at the time) then slavery would have remained intact even if the US won. It would be partially correct to say that the war was "about slavery", but not that it was "about freeing the slaves". The war was about secession. And secession was (mostly) about preserving slavery and slave-owners rights, as you rightly point out.

Come on now! The war was NOT about secession! The war was about property rights. The South invoked the idea of "abolishing" a government that did not protect their rights. The Constitution specifically protected the right of the people to own property, and the government cannot take an individual's property.

Slaves WERE property. The northern abolitionists actively worked to free slaves. Abraham Lincoln was labeled as an abolitionist by his political opponents. When he won the election, the South decided that the government would not have their interests at heart, and so decided to secede. The issue of secession came about BECAUSE of "property rights" (slavery.)

The problem is, that the portrayal of Abe Lincoln being an abolitionist was not completely accurate.

Slavery was doomed to die a natural death in only a few years anyway.

As a British person would say: "Bullocks!" Where's your source? Here's mine to counter this ridiculous claim:

1790: 697,681 slaves - 8% of blacks are free.
1800: 893,602 slaves - 11% blacks are free.
1810: 1,191,362 slaves - 14% blacks are free.
1820: 1,538,022 slaves - 13% blacks are free.
1830: 2,009,043 slaves - 14% blacks are free.
1840: 2,487,355 slaves - 13% blacks are free.
1850: 3,204,313 slaves - 12% blacks are free.
1860: 3,953,760 slaves - 11% blacks are free.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States

There is absolutely NO indication that "slavery would have died a natural death." At least not for another 100 years before mechanization of the farm comes about due to an efficient and small internal combustion engine. No indication whatsoever. None. This revisionist history ******** has to stop.

 

[Craig B]

There is absolutely NO indication that "slavery would have died a natural death." At least not for another 100 years before mechanization of the farm comes about due to an efficient and small internal combustion engine. No indication whatsoever. None. This revisionist history ******** has to stop.

Yes. We're being asked to believe that Southern landowners who were subsequently obliged to pay wages, however scanty, to their labourers, would have been unwilling to make them work for no money at all. And as noted, the machinery required to replace this workforce did not appear until well into the twentieth century.

 

[Meed]

Come on now! The war was NOT about secession!

Of course the war was about secession. The United States' goal in the war was to prevent secession (i.e. "preserve the union"). The Confederate States' goal in the war was to remain and independent country. A war can "about" multiple things, but it's beyond me how anyone could say that the civil war wasn't about secession.

The war was about property rights. The South invoked the idea of "abolishing" a government that did not protect their rights. The Constitution specifically protected the right of the people to own property, and the government cannot take an individual's property.

Yes, the secession was about slavery. I said that in the very post you are responding to. I even said it would be partially correct to say that the war was "about slavery" (in that the war was about secession and the secession was about slavery).

Remember though, the US was initially just trying to maintain the status quo when they went to war. If they had won the war quickly, the slave states would have remained slave states.

 

[Nihilianth]

Of course the war was about secession. The United States' goal in the war was to prevent secession (i.e. "preserve the union"). The Confederate States' goal in the war was to remain and independent country. A war can "about" multiple things, but it's beyond me how anyone could say that the civil war wasn't about secession.

Now you are moving the goal posts. I am going to put it right back to where it belongs. This is specifically what you said:

"No perhaps about it, it's simply a fact that the war was not "about freeing the slaves."

Care to withdraw that statement, that it was not "about freeing the slaves?"

Sure, part of it was about secession, but that was only secondary to the property ownership (slave) thing.

Yes, the secession was about slavery. I said that in the very post you are responding to. I even said it would be partially correct to say that the war was "about slavery" (in that the war was about secession and the secession was about slavery).

Remember though, the US was initially just trying to maintain the status quo when they went to war. If they had won the war quickly, the slave states would have remained slave states.

I may have misunderstood your post, as you seem to have contradicted yourself. So was slavery a cause for the Civil War or not?

And even if the war were won quickly by the North, you cannot make an argument about what "would have happened." I would argue that most likely, the Northerners (victors) would still have demanded the South free the slaves. Whether the North won quickly or not, the South would have been in no position to negotiate. They didn't even have representation in Congress, as they withdrew from the Union. But obviously, it is fruitless to argue one way or the other, as there are no sources that could possibly prove your point.

 

[Meed]

Now you are moving the goal posts. I am going to put it right back to where it belongs. This is specifically what you said:

"No perhaps about it, it's simply a fact that the war was not "about freeing the slaves."

That is one of the things I said... I also said "The war was about secession." to which you responded "Come on now! The war was NOT about secession!" and then I addressed your response... I have no idea what you're talking about w.r.t. "moving the goal posts".

Care to withdraw that statement, that it was not "about freeing the slaves?"

No, because I don't think the war was "about freeing the slaves".

Sure, part of it was about secession, but that was only secondary to the property ownership (slave) thing.

Secession primarily was about slavery. And the war was about secession. I've said this all two posts ago.

I may have misunderstood your post, as you seem to have contradicted yourself. So was slavery a cause for the Civil War or not?

Do you see that there is a difference between "about slavery" and "about freeing the slaves"? If so, then there is no contradiction.

And even if the war were won quickly by the North, you cannot make an argument about what "would have happened." I would argue that most likely, the Northerners (victors) would still have demanded the South free the slaves. Whether the North won quickly or not, the South would have been in no position to negotiate. They didn't even have representation in Congress, as they withdrew from the Union. But obviously, it is fruitless to argue one way or the other, as there are no sources that could possibly prove your point.

It's true that we can't be 100% certain what would have happened, but the emancipation proclamation was not made until the war was already 2+ years underway and freeing the slaves was never the primary war goal. Lincoln made this very clear. Read the record from the North's perspective at the start of the war and see if you think they thought they were going to war for the sake of freeing the slaves. There were some people who cared about freeing slaves in the north, but they were a small percentage of the population and not well liked.

 

[SonOfLaertes]

...snip
He repeated this strategy against the Native Americans, annihilating the buffalo, destroying their villages, and herding the survivors into ever smaller "relocation camps".

Ascribing all of this to Sherman is quite a stretch. He did eventually acquiesce to such a policy, but only by looking the other way as the locals and certain army commanders (most notably Mackenzie) sought to engage the plains tribes in their camps.

A tidal wave of immigrants and settlers pushed the boundaries of western expansion and caused the problems with the native americans. Sherman would have had to push all his resources against the advance of settlement to stop inevitable engagement with the plains tribes. The annihilation of the buffalo was only a convenient side effect of this determined western advance. An advance that consisted of a large number of southerners, by the way. Southerners who were being raped, mutilated, burned and kidnapped into slavery by the plains tribes in retaliation for their advance into tribal territory.

The plains tribes were attacked within their camps because there was no other way to effectively engage them. The tribes were masters of open warfare on the plains. When attacked, women and children were as dangerous as any full grown adult male soldier.

Western expansion was never a government or military program. To stop the tidal wave of settlement would have meant going against the popular will of the people, and no politician or military commander had that authority. See the career of Sam Houston for reference. Treaty's were signed, and individuals broke the treaty, not the government or the military. Those individuals were then slaughtered too horrible effect by the plains tribes.

Those same plains tribes, btw, only held the territory they did by slaughtering the previous occupants and taking it by force. The Comanches, for instance, only held Comancheria for a few centuries before the white man came. They took it by nearly wiping out the apaches and other tribes who had previously wandered there. The Comanches well understood the concept of being overrun by a stronger enemy.

 

[Ian Osborne]

It's true that we can't be 100% certain what would have happened, but the emancipation proclamation was not made until the war was already 2+ years underway and freeing the slaves was never the primary war goal. Lincoln made this very clear. Read the record from the North's perspective at the start of the war and see if you think they thought they were going to war for the sake of freeing the slaves. There were some people who cared about freeing slaves in the north, but they were a small percentage of the population and not well liked.

And the Confederacy offered to free the slaves in return for recognition from Britain and France. To be fair, this was in 1865, when the war was all but lost, but even so, it shows the southern war aims weren't 'all about slavery'.