Why did the North fight the civil war?

[BobTheCoward]

This comes out of Trump's tweets on the civil war and other comments I saw on it.

We know why the south wanted to secede.

Why did the North want to stop them? We just take it as a given that the North is pro Union. We can probably rule out that it was because they opposed slavery. Wars are very rarely acts of Charity.

I imagine myself as a northerner, and my first guess is my position would be, "you southern states can get the F out of my country."

Where was the "good riddance" faction and why didn't they win?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The abolishing of slavery is an excellent reason for the war, since the availability of cheap labor meant that the South didn't need mechanization the way the North had already implemented in many places: there is no money to be made from selling/licensing your advanced machines and tools if there is no demand for them.
By forcing the South to stay in the Union AND abolish slavery, Southern land owners need to upgrade to Northern levels of farming techniques to stay competitive which in turn meant buying a lot of machines and tools from Northern manufacturers.

 

[Loss Leader]

Where was the "good riddance" faction and why didn't they win?

The "Good Riddance" faction was patiently waiting for the war to simply cost too much in lives and money. They were largely based in the rust belt. Boston and Philadelphia led the nation in moral outrage. But Lee's entire reason for leaving Virginia was to make the war so unpleasant for Philadelphians that they just wanted to quit. Unfortunately for Lee, he didn't have the logistical support to get anywhere interesting and he fought most of his northern battles in the middle of nowhere.

Though not well developed, the Civil War saw the start of people thinking of themselves as "Americans" first before citizens of their states. This strongly militated against secession.

Also important were border states that were fighting for their very lives. We couldn't leave Kansas as a slave state because the people of Kansas couldn't decide if they wanted to be a slave state - and bloody Kansas was a terroristic war that started before the Civil War and continued to the end of it. Other states coming in, most notably California, were die-hard anti-slavery (there was plenty of money for everybody in CA). This meant that the slave states would be a minority which would eventually doom slavery as an institution.

Still, plenty of Northerners would have been happy with Secession. The Mayor of NYC (or Governor of NY or something) stated that NY should secede with the confederacy.

Could the war have been avoided? Yes and No. Better leadership from Buchanan (or, really, any leadership from Buchanan) and a Supreme Court that cared about human rights - these could have led to a gradual abandonment of slavery by pure political reality. There might still have been war. However, once Buchanan sided with the southern states, war was inevitable.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Could the war have been avoided? Yes and No. Better leadership from Buchanan (or, really, any leadership from Buchanan) and a Supreme Court that cared about human rights - these could have led to a gradual abandonment of slavery by pure political reality. There might still have been war. However, once Buchanan sided with the southern states, war was inevitable.

But that is still about preserving the union. Where was the solution to preserve the union by cutting out the cancer (the southern states being allowed to leave it)?

 

[Border Reiver]

But that is still about preserving the union. Where was the solution to preserve the union by cutting out the cancer (the southern states being allowed to leave it)?

The idea of Union meant all of the States, not just those ones where the majority felt they should stay together. There was a Unionist movement in what would become the CSA, but for obvious reasons after Fort Sumter they stayed quiet.

Essentially, the US had worked out a number of political compromises before getting to the civil war, and a lot of people were hopeful that their representatives could find another compromise - instead after Lincoln was elected it seems like the southern states adopted a "If we can't get our way, we're going home and taking our stuff with us" attitude and the northern states were pretty much in the "you can't do that" mode. Psychologically, I don't think that the US was capable of adopting a "just let 'em go, we'll better off" attitude. Both sides felt they had put up with the other's BS for too long and they weren't going to take it anymore.

 

[TraneWreck]

Could the war have been avoided? Yes and No. Better leadership from Buchanan (or, really, any leadership from Buchanan) and a Supreme Court that cared about human rights - these could have led to a gradual abandonment of slavery by pure political reality. There might still have been war. However, once Buchanan sided with the southern states, war was inevitable.

I just don't think there was any way to avoid war. Once the South tied its fortunes to slavery, secession was inevitable. At the time of the Civil War, slave labor was the single most valuable resource in the country. It wasn't slowing down, it was increasing in value.

A SCOTUS ruling against the slave states triggers secession - hell, they were ready to secede over tariffs in the Nullification crisis decades earlier. Let's assume the North capitulates on issues like the Fugitive Slave Act around 1860 - that may have prevented immediate war, but it eventually would have broken out over westward expansion.

That's not to excuse Buchanan, but I do not see any way the war could have been avoided absent one side or the other capitulating on slavery.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The idea of Union meant all of the States, not just those ones where the majority felt they should stay together. There was a Unionist movement in what would become the CSA, but for obvious reasons after Fort Sumter they stayed quiet.

Essentially, the US had worked out a number of political compromises before getting to the civil war, and a lot of people were hopeful that their representatives could find another compromise - instead after Lincoln was elected it seems like the southern states adopted a "If we can't get our way, we're going home and taking our stuff with us" attitude and the northern states were pretty much in the "you can't do that" mode. Psychologically, I don't think that the US was capable of adopting a "just let 'em go, we'll better off" attitude. Both sides felt they had put up with the other's BS for too long and they weren't going to take it anymore.

Put up with BS for too long? I take it they were never exposed to the concept of sunk costs?

 

[BobTheCoward]

I just don't think there was any way to avoid war.

That meant secession was inevitable, but I want to know about your opinion on war. What made war inevitable?

 

[TraneWreck]

That meant secession was inevitable, but I want to know about your opinion on war. What made war inevitable?

I think I said that: the South tying their fortunes to slavery. Under no circumstances would the South have abandoned slavery, and unless the North capitulated, war was inevitable. There were only temporary solutions and compromises as the neither side would ever have given in absent force.

Now, people in the North weren't all on a humanitarian mission, there were plenty of racists in the Union, but what forced the war was a perception by the South that Lincoln would eventually move towards abolition - which may have been true.

It could have happened earlier, but temporary compromises maintained the uncomfortable peace. If Lincoln came up with a temporary compromise, war would still have happened, probably over westward expansion.

 

[Belz...]

In a way, the north-south divide has existed since the country was founded, and still exists today. Civil war ain't entirely over, it seems.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I think I said that: the South tying their fortunes to slavery. Under no circumstances would the South have abandoned slavery, and unless the North capitulated, war was inevitable. There were only temporary solutions and compromises as the neither side would ever have given in absent force.

Now, people in the North weren't all on a humanitarian mission, there were plenty of racists in the Union, but what forced the war was a perception by the South that Lincoln would eventually move towards abolition - which may have been true.

It could have happened earlier, but temporary compromises maintained the uncomfortable peace. If Lincoln came up with a temporary compromise, war would still have happened, probably over westward expansion.

Capitulation sounds like a great option​. I would call it preserving the union by taking out the garbage. Why was that off the table?

 

[Belz...]

Capitulation sounds like a great option​. I would call it preserving the union by taking out the garbage. Why was that off the table?

1) Wanting to eliminate slavery
2) Wanting to preserve the union
3) Wanting more turf and more stuff. Countries are rarely just OK with a big chunk of it seceding. Are you surprised?

 

[TraneWreck]

Capitulation sounds like a great option​. I would call it preserving the union by taking out the garbage. Why was that off the table?

This is the same question I just answered: the South was willing to die to keep slavery, the North would not allow the union to dissolve to allow the South to keep their slaves.

I'm sure this is one of your "unique" opinions where you think the North should have let the South go and continue their gross abuse of slaves for untold generations.

As for the North, there were multiple factions:

1) Some knew that capitulating over slavery would have allowed it to continue and spread. By limiting its spread, they hoped to put it on a course to extinction. This is the reason the South gave for secession and was true.

2) Allowing secession at will ends the Union. There is no constitution. Why wouldn't every state leave every time they didn't get what they wanted? Maybe you see no value in a Union, in which case you don't understand the position, but it was important to a huge number of people who revolted together, shared resources, obligated one another under laws and agreements...

3) Consider the geopolitics of two separate United States. Free to make whatever arrangements they want with foreign nations, the strength of the US dissolves completely.

4) The North did not want to lose control of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers.

...etc.

Recall that everyone thought the war would be over in a few weeks, maybe a few months. They didn't realize what was about to happen - neither side did. If you sat both sides down and explained to them what the costs would have been, who knows if they still go to war - I bet the South still wouldn't give up slavery.

As the war continued, it became more and more about slavery as the Union tried to keep European countries from supporting the Rebels, and as Lincoln saw an opening to use the war to end slavery.

 

[Meed]

This comes out of Trump's tweets on the civil war and other comments I saw on it.

We know why the south wanted to secede.

Yeah, primarily because of slavery.

Why did the North want to stop them? We just take it as a given that the North is pro Union. We can probably rule out that it was because they opposed slavery. Wars are very rarely acts of Charity.

The North had reasons to oppose slavery beyond charity. But you're right that the war was not fought to end slavery. The emancipation proclamation came when the war had already been going on for a long time. Ending slavery was not a stated war goal at the beginning. Before the war, many were opposed to slavery and wanted it to end, but most didn't want to do it forcibly. They wanted to gradually decrease the power of the slave states by forming more free states with Western expansion and so on.

I imagine myself as a northerner, and my first guess is my position would be, "you southern states can get the F out of my country."

Where was the "good riddance" faction and why didn't they win?

It's hard to understand today how the concept of "union" was viewed back then. Northerners held it in very high regard. Union was seen as being good for the strength of the country as a whole and for the lives of their children. It was seen as something achieved by the Revolutionary War. This was probably influenced in part by some of the political speeches given around the time. The Confederate states were seen as traitors who attacked first and who were trying to destroy the union. You can read such sentiments in letters from Northern soldiers around the start of the war.

I'm speaking more about the general population here, rather than motives of Lincoln and other elite forces. As for the forces in power, I don't know what their true motives were, but I'll note that nations almost always have resisted subregions who want independence. It makes sense that a country wouldn't want to lose control over a large number of territory, people and resources.

 

[TraneWreck]

But you're right that the war was not fought to end slavery.

The way to say it is, the Civil War was not fought to end slavery, it was fought to defend it. Fortunately, it was a loss.

 

[Meed]

But that is still about preserving the union. Where was the solution to preserve the union by cutting out the cancer (the southern states being allowed to leave it)?

That isn't what union meant. It's a bit like saying "why not keep your whole body intact by amputating your left arm?"

 

[Meed]

Could the war have been avoided? Yes and No. Better leadership from Buchanan (or, really, any leadership from Buchanan) and a Supreme Court that cared about human rights - these could have led to a gradual abandonment of slavery by pure political reality. There might still have been war. However, once Buchanan sided with the southern states, war was inevitable.

The anticipated gradual reduction of slaver power is partly what made the war happen, though. The balance in the number of slave states vs free states was expected to favor the free states, as Western expansion increased.

In a way, the north-south divide has existed since the country was founded, and still exists today. Civil war ain't entirely over, it seems.

What?

The way to say it is, the Civil War was not fought to end slavery, it was fought to defend it. Fortunately, it was a loss.

Yeah, that's a good way of putting it.

 

[Belz...]

What?

I said: In a way, the north-south divide has existed since the country was founded, and still exists today. Civil war ain't entirely over, it seems.

What part do you have an issue with?

 

[BobTheCoward]

That isn't what union meant. It's a bit like saying "why not keep your whole body intact by amputating your left arm?"

But a bunch of slave owning Southerners feel like the Union's appendix to me. The body as a whole is better with them excised.

 

[TraneWreck]

But a bunch of slave owning Southerners feel like the Union's appendix to me. The body as a whole is better with them excised.

What do you mean, better, though?

The Union's tax base is harmed. Any significance on the national stage, gone. The ability to spread west is now left open to not only competition from the South, but from European countries as the Monroe Doctrine is borderline impossible to enforce. Internally, there is no longer a Union as any state can throw a tantrum and leave.

And, on top of that, slavery still exists. Just because they aren't in the Union's jurisdiction anymore, it's still an astonishing humanitarian abuse left to expand.

And, there will probably be a war or wars, anyway, over westward expansion.