Tuesday marks 150 years since the start of the U.S. Civil War. Newspapers everywhere are proclaiming it the deadliest war in U.S. history, the costliest U.S. war in terms of the loss of human life. That claim, like most things we say about the Civil War, is false.
Most humans, it will surprise our newspapers to learn, are not U.S. citizens. World War II killed 100 times as many people as the U.S. Civil War, with World War I not far behind. U.S. wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq are among those that have killed far more human beings than the Civil War killed.
The South, we’re told, merely wanted to be independent; slavery had nothing to do with it. Of course, this is nonsense. The South wanted to be independent in order to maintain slavery.
The North, we’re told, merely wanted to free the slaves; power, empire, profit, and politics had nothing to do with it. Of course, this too is nonsense. The war was well underway before Lincoln “freed the slaves.” Actually he did not free those slaves whom he actually could free in the border states, but only those he could not free unless the North won the war. Freeing the slaves, like bringing democracy to Iraq or saving the Jews from Hitler, was a belated justification for a war that had other motivations. Adding that moral mission to the war helped keep European nations from backing the South and helped keep Northerners killing and dying in sufficient numbers.
Regardless of who said what when, the war did end slavery and was therefore justifiable. Or so we’re told. Yet, every other nation that ended slavery did so without a civil war. Similarly, we justify the American war for independence because it brought independence, even though Canada and countless other countries achieved independence without war. If we had used a war to create public schools, we would denounce critics of that war as opponents of education. To seriously justify a war, however, would require showing that anything it accomplished could not have been accomplished without all the killing, wounding, traumatizing, and destroying. What if the North had allowed the South to secede and repealed the fugitive slave law? What if an independent North had used trade, diplomacy, and morality to pressure the South to end slavery? Would slavery have lasted longer than the Civil War raged? If so, we are still talking, at best, about a war to hasten the end of slavery.
Even if the war was really launched for national power, to keep states together in a nation for the nation’s sake, we are all better off as a result. Or so we’re taught. But is it true? Most Americans believe that our system of representative government is badly broken, as of course it is. Our politicians are bought and sold, directed by corporate media outlets, and controlled by two political parties rather than the citizenry. One reason it’s difficult to bring public pressure to bear on elected officials is that our nation is too darn big. Most U.S. citizens can’t join a protest in their nation’s capital if they want to. A resistance movement in Wisconsin can’t very well spread to other key cities; they’re all hundreds or thousands of miles away. In the years that followed the “preservation of the union,” the United States completed its conquest of the continent and began building an overseas empire, driven in large part by pressure from the same interests that had profited from the Civil War.
Secession has as bad a name as socialism, but Wisconsin could secede, ban foreign (U.S.) money from its elections and create a government of, by, and for the people by next year. A seceded California could be one of the most pleasant nations to live in on earth. Vermont would have a civilized healthcare system already if not for Washington, D.C. Yes, the North helped end Jim Crow in the South, but the South did most of that on its own, and we all helped end Apartheid in South Africa without being South Africa. In the absence of viable representative government, we won’t do much else on a national scale that we can be proud of. We now, in the United States, imprison more people of African descent than were enslaved here at the time of the Civil War, and it is national policies, completely out of the control of the American people, that produce that mass incarceration.
Those who fought in the Civil War, regardless of the politics or results, were heroes. Or so we are told. But most of the men who killed and died were not the generals whose names we are taught. They were soldiers, lined up like cogs in a machine, killing and dying on command. The vast majority of them, as with soldiers on both sides of all wars prior to late-20th century conditioning, avoided killing if at all possible. Many simply reloaded their guns over and over again, fetched supplies for others, or lay in the dirt. Killing human beings does not come easily to most human beings, and many will avoid it — unless properly conditioned to brainlessly kill — even at risk to their own lives. To be sure, many killed and many who did not kill died or lost their limbs. There was much bravery and sacrifice and even noble intention. But it was all for a tragically pointless exercise in collective stupidity, lunacy, and horror. Reassuring as it is to put a pretty gloss on a tragedy like this, we would be better served by facing the facts and avoiding the next one.
A century and a half after this madness burst forth, the United States has established a permanent military and permanent war time, with military bases in over 100 other countries, multiple major wars, and numerous small-scale secretive wars underway. Our weapons industry, born out of the Civil War, is our biggest industry, the world’s biggest arms supplier, and the source for the armaments used by many of the nations we fight our modern wars against. The civil liberties, the right to habeas corpus, everything that Lincoln temporarily stripped away for the War Between the States, also known — quite accurately — as the War of Northern Aggression, has now been stripped away for good by Justice Department lawyers and prostituted pundits pointing to Lincoln’s example. The legacy of the Civil War has been death, destruction, the erosion of democracy, and the propaganda that produces more of the same. Enough is enough. Let’s get our history right. Let’s glorify those years in our past during which we did not all try to kill each other.
David Swanson is the author of “War Is A Lie” http://warisalie.org



84 Comments

“What if the North had allowed the South to secede and repealed the fugitive slave law?”
Yes, what if. TBH, we don’t really know. Could be that the British Empire would have worked to further split up the North and South. More wars, more divide and conquer/rule, more empire.
When is war justified? When the alternative amounts to a return to feudalism.
The American Revolution, 1812, Civil War and WWII all needed to be fought. Most of our other wars were basically criminal.
One of my favorite stories.
When Lincoln was forming his first cabinet, possessed with the knowledge that he was about to be a war President, he was about to appoint Simon Cameron as Secretary of the War Department(DOD today).
He had quite a bit of trepidation about this appointment, because Cameron pretty much had the reputation that Dick Cheney and Haliburton enjoy today. So anyway, Lincoln “made” the opportunity to speak to an aquaintance of Cameron’s who was fellow-Pennsylvanian Congressman Thadeus Stevens. Lincoln asked the congressman at one point in the conversation “You don’t mean to say you think Cameron would steal? To which Stevens replied “No, I don’t think he would steal a red hot stove”. When Cameron heard about this he demanded an apology, which Stevens promptly gave as “All right then. I do not think that you would not steal a red hot stove.”
The more things change….the more blah, blah, blah
Oh my God. You have my sincere gratitude Mr. Swanson, for telling the truth about the civil war. And what an unpopular truth it is. You are going to take a LOT of flack.
Right on.
At least he doesn’t try to pull a Nicholson Baker, whose book Human Smoke tried to posit — using documents carefully pulled out of their historical context — that Hitler wouldn’t have killed any Jews if he’d just been allowed to take over Europe (and besides, Eleanor Roosevelt said something icky about Jews in a letter, so that makes her worse than Hitler!!!).
“Actually he did not free those slaves whom he actually could free in the border states…”
What authority did Lincoln have to free the slaves in those states?
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/owens/04/guelzo.html
It seems to me that the Civil War history is extremely convoluted and the causes not easily teased out. Many of the businessmen in the northern states were deeply enmeshed in the slave trade, were in fact the major suppliers to the southern states. Many, but not as many, in the north held slaves, while many in the south did not and didn’t want them. Manufacturing competition seems to have played a part. We’re not going to solve it in the post and comments here, but it gives us something to think about.
A fair point, but he had no more authority to free them in the South. The strategy outlined at the link only make sense if slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people in the most horrible manner is a softer price to pay than risking losing court cases before winning them.
The motives of the governments are comlex but much simpler than outlining the interests of every person in the country(ies), most of whom of course didn’t want war.
Okay, I have never heard anyone refer to the Civil war as the costliest war in terms of human life, though I have heard it referred to, quite accurately, as costliest in terms of American, (US), lives. Of course one of the issues was slavery though not the only one. That was one of the primary triggers, though, again, not the only one. More broadly it was a war about a strong central government versus a loose collection of independent states. Jefferson Davis, (who was a clown and a scoundrel in my opinion), nonetheless said it best when he said the epitaph for the South would be “Killed for a theory”. How very true. The flawed idea of state’s rights damaged their war effort from recruitment to overall strategy and coordination of logistics. So yes, the war was stupid and bloody and not “justifiable” in that sense. There is a huge piece of the puzzle that you are missing though: That is the aftermath. Without the Civil War, we would undeniably not be the same country that we are. I very much doubt that we would have as strong a central government as we do now, (even the North at the outset had a federal government that was unimaginably weak from our point of view). But more importantly, we wouldn’t be as unified a people as we are without the war and without the rebuilders barely winning the reconstruction strategy debate over the avengers. Shelby Foote put it best when he said that before the war, the United States as a nation was referred to as “they”, or “those”, while after, it became “it”. Without the war, we may very well still be using different currencies depending on our state and have different foreign policies depending on region. People who know me know very well that I am never pro slaughter and I think reenactments are stupid. There are at least as many people in the North who refuse to forgive the South for the Civil War 150 years later as there are in the South who refuse to stop fighting it. But to dismiss it as meaningless is simplistic and wrong. Yes the war was stupid and destructive but it wasn’t meaningless and yes, there are lies being told about it to this day, though not all by the South. But we can’t pretend it didn’t happen. It made us the nation we are as surely as did any other event in our history. Pretending it didn’t happen is worse than dressing up as soldiers and making pretend charges in my opinion.
Wow thanks for writing this. Though I have respect for what Hamsher has accomplished with the FDL movement, I never thought I’d see the day when something like this was written in the FDL diaries.
For some more info on the disinformation we’ve been taught on the Civil War see this
http://mises.org/media/4481/The-Civil-War-and-Its-Legacy
Forget states’ rights. People have to get over this fiction they’ve been taught in school that the government consists of saints that are looking out for us.
We the people are not the government! We never were! The government is Exxon, BP, IBM, GM, J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs, …
Government is the monopoly of force
Maybe you should stop applying a twenty first century way of thinking to a post about the Civil War. NONE of the examples you list even existed during the Civil War. Not one. Maybe you can write your own diary though and surely I’ll agree with your assessment about the current state of things.
EDIT: That isn’t to say that corporations and the MIC of the time weren’t involved. Some very evil and unscrupulous people and corporations made their names and fortunes then. As David said, the vast majority of the people, north and south, didn’t want a war.
Lincoln didn’t fret to much about legal authority when prosecuting that war. He suspended habeus and when SCOTUS told him he couldn’t, he ignored them.
Good point. It should also be pointed out that Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, West Virgina and Missouri were slave states and the emancipation proclamation didn’t free a single one of those. By the end of the war though, slavery was a moot point.
People can relate to those examples better today. It’s difficult to get through the BS we were taught in school.
Here’s example’s from the Civil War era. Some of the influences that Lincoln worked for are
“the adoption of the entire Whig/Hamiltonian agenda of protectionism, nationalized banking, corporate welfare, large public debt, and an internal-revenue bureaucracy; and the politics of the Lincoln cult”
http://mises.org/daily/4887/The-Great-Centralizer-Lincoln-and-the-Growth-of-Statism-in-America
Very true indeed but none of what you say addresses my overall point that we wouldn’t be the same nation we are without having fought that war. Only a fool would deny that.
The same nation? In what way?
Maybe we wouldn’t have all these imperial wars and an empire like Alexander Hamilton planned. Maybe hundreds of millions of people killed in the wars of the 20th century would have lived. Maybe the hundreds of millions of people that were killed by their governments in the 20th century during peacetime would have lived.
“The American Revolution, 1812, Civil War and WWII all needed to be fought.”
Like I said it’s very difficult to get through the BS we were all taught in school.
All war is a racket.
Well, if you had actually read my original comment, rather than just culling through it for buzz phrases, you wouldn’t have to ask that question because I answered it and even gave examples.
I did read it. I don’t agree with it at least not most of it. Like I said “all war is a racket”.
I enjoyed this and I like seeing content like this on MyFDL.
I aired my anti-South whatnot to a horrible reception yesterday, so I don’t want to touch a lot of this with a ten foot pole. The one thing I do want to say is that while it is true that in most ways we would be better off without the South, I’m not sure it’s an option. The problem with is that the rest of the states wouldn’t have any veto power over their public policies. Without a measure of control over what they do we’ll have environmental and economic problems that make today look like 1962 (not to mention the constant worry of aggressive militarism that we’d also have no control over).
For instance, I would love to not have to worry about some nuclear plant in Texas poisoning my air with radiation because it wasn’t regulated and none of the shitkickers in their government know what they’re doing. Or exacerbating the concentration of wealth, with some places being awesome places to live, work and save and some being southern fried Galtian hell. We need control over things like that if we take freedom, health and human development seriously.
This statement jolted me: “Yes, the North helped end Jim Crow in the South, but the South did most of that on its own…”
As a sixty-plus year old southerner, I know that statement to be pure hogwash. Left free of Federal influence, it would only take a decade or two for most – if not all – of the worst of Jim Crow to be re-established here.
Amen.
Either you dont understand what your talking or you tweaked some facts to suit your story.
“Newspapers everywhere are proclaiming it the deadliest war in U.S. history, the costliest U.S. war in terms of the loss of human life. That claim, like most things we say about the Civil War, is false.”
What the claim is that the Civil war is the war that the most Americans died in. No one is claiming that the American Civil War “the costliest U.S. war in terms of the loss of human life”. You changed the American lives to human lives. Shame on you.
Civil war:623,026 Americans died
WW2:407,316 Americans died
Vietnam: 58,169 Americans died
“The South, we’re told, merely wanted to be independent; slavery had nothing to do with it. Of course, this is nonsense. The South wanted to be independent in order to maintain slavery.”
Really? Who told you that? Everyone I have ever talked to (including teachers) have said that the Civil War was about slavery.
Its rather strange that you are the only one making that point.
Hindsight is 20/20. History cant be changed no matter how hard you try. The Civil War wont disappear from history just because you think it was possible to stop slavery without war.
“One reason it’s difficult to bring public pressure to bear on elected officials is that our nation is too darn big. Most U.S. citizens can’t join a protest in their nation’s capital if they want to. A resistance movement in Wisconsin can’t very well spread to other key cities; they’re all hundreds or thousands of miles away.”
Have you ever heard of the internet? Or a telephone? How about cars?
Planes? Trains? Bicycles?
Its strange how in these modern times ‘we’ cant go protest because the country is “too darn big” Yet how many people showed up at Woodstock? Or what about professional sports? Those stadiums hold a lot of folks, they didnt have any problem getting to those places.
“The vast majority of them, as with soldiers on both sides of all wars prior to late-20th century conditioning, avoided killing if at all possible. Many simply reloaded their guns over and over again, fetched supplies for others, or lay in the dirt. Killing human beings does not come easily to most human beings, and many will avoid it — unless properly conditioned to brainlessly kill — even at risk to their own lives. To be sure, many killed and many who did not kill died or lost their limbs. There was much bravery and sacrifice and even noble intention. But it was all for a tragically pointless exercise in collective stupidity, lunacy, and horror. Reassuring as it is to put a pretty gloss on a tragedy like this, we would be better served by facing the facts and avoiding the next one.”
Now your asserting that our military has brainwashed our troops to kill everyone. Talking about disinformation, you are the disinformation king then.
The American Civil War has for a great period of time been portrayed has an national tragedy that pitted brother against brother. I havent seen any glorified portrayal of the Civil War. Even the Civil War buffs look at the Civil War as something that should never happen again.
But I see what you were attempting with this diary entry. You were trying to make America in general look bad. It is a tired narrative that is being pimped by the Far Left. Your objective is to sway Americans away from liking America. There is a long known theory that Communists/Socialists etc. have that Americans love their country too much to be convinced that Socialism should replace Capitalism. Actually once one is familiar with the Far Lefts tactics it becomes child’s play to recognize such propaganda.
If this is an example of the research (propaganda actually) that went into your book then I will pass.
I was born in Texas and lived there as a child and again as an adult. Northerners did help end official Jim Crow by being foot soldiers who sometimes died for their efforts, but the southern people were the prime movers in ending the legal foundation. I think that it would be very hard to reestablish the legal foundation given the makeup of the southern population. That racism still exists in the South is true, but it is just as true in the North (see Boston’s reaction to bussing – no different than Little Rock).
Certainly the history of Jim Crow shows that until the Federal government started backing up the abolition of lynchings and other killings, there was no punishment for such crimes. Now, however, even without Federal influence, I suspect that there will be no more Jim Crow laws.
I do not think it would have been possible to end slavery short of the civil war. The south was determined to cling to slavery by any means necessary, even if it meant splitting off and forming its own nation. Just as now, business people do nothing without considering the costs of doing business. There just was no profit in ending slavery, since it both created the cheapest form of disposable labor and kept wages for poor white southerners down (why pay a white farmer when you can hire out a dozen slaves to work for nothing). By the time the south broke away, the issue of slavery had already begun to dominate the politics of the day. Lincoln himself helped lead the third party, the Republicans, to victory partly on the promise of realizing abolitionists’ dreams of ending the institution (the fact that many abolitionists were only looking for a way to expel Africans back to Africa is incidental). It was a major contributing economic factor to the secessions.
There is a difference between the cause of something and the consequence of that same something. The most accurate account of the cause of the civil war is that slavery was indeed the cause, or rather the demand by southern states to have slavery accepted, through the abmomination of the Fugitive Slave Act, even in free states. In addition, the south wanted to extend slavery to new territiories, and the fact that Lincoln did not favor that expansion is a proximate cause of southern aggression. If slavery had not existed in the United States or had been abolished at its founding, the civil war would not have been fought. The consequence of the civil war was however the beginning of the incredible concentration of wealth that marks contemporary America. Without the need for massive industrial undertakings to support the war effort, these giant companies would have never emerged.
Do you think that if the South had won the war there would still be black slavery in Atlanta? What about steam boats?
Given ongoing efforts by Republicans to deny minority voting rights, particularly in the South, it is hard to imagine where you got the notion that those rights – from which all other rights flow – would survive absent the certainty of Federal intervention.
“Papers please” in Arizona is just the most recent example of attempted minority suppression and federal intervention.
Wow the lies taught in school are deeply ingrained.
Did any of the defenders of the officially taught myths know that Mark Twain fought for the south?
All forms of rackets occur during wars, but that is not the same as saying all wars are rackets.
Like I said, when the alternative is our return to feudalism, war is justified.
All wars are ruinous, so they should only be fought when the alternative will be even greater ruin. I can make a strong case for the American Revolution, 1812, Civil War and WWII. Other wars, not so much.
This is fucking bullshit and wrongheaded as you clearly have no understand of what the civil war was or what it was about. You also have a fundamental “liberal” defect of not appreciating what the men of the US army did at that time.
The civil war was not a fucking political adventure like the fiasco in Vietnam Iraq and Afghanistan.
The civil war defined us as a nation. Who we are. What region ,you as an American, identify with. As Shelby Foote said (and he was wrong about a lot of things but not this) “The civil war turned the United States into an “is”. Before that, the US were states that had a complex relationship and were reluctantly under a national government.
But, while having a strong central government might have seemed like a good idea in the 1800′s to the 1960′s…right now that doesn’t seem so fat does it?
Yeah, murdering history is dangerous to say the least.
No.
I went to college in South Carolina…
Specifically Charleston.
The civil war needed to be fought.
The First World War’s combatant casualties might have been higher than the Second’s, but the Second World War’s total civilian and combatant deaths was greater, by millions. Post-First World War casualties were staggering. Exhaustion and dislocation of millions, at home and at war, created a population terribly susceptible to a new influenza virus that killed millions around the globe.
The other cultural lens we look through is to see only our own participation in global catastrophes. For the US, we see the Second World War through the eyes of Marines in the South Pacific, soldiers in North Africa, Sicily and Palermo, infantry on Normandy’s beaches and in the Battle of the Bulge, and pilots and waist gunners on B-17′s. On the infamous Bataan Death March in 1942, there were about 11,000 Americans and 65,000 Filipinos.
When the US entered it, the Second World War was already more than two years old. Until the Normandy landings, more British troops were fighting the Axis than Americans. As brutal as was the Western Front, it was small potatoes compared to the larger scale of battle and death on the Eastern Front between Germany and Russia. That’s why Colonel Klink’s greatest fear in Hogan’s Heroes was being shipped off to the Eastern Front.
The US was still a collection of states, a Massachusetts regiment, a Tennessee brigade even after the unCivil War. Reconstruction did not make us feel closer, nor did depriving the southern economy of its fundamental economic driver, unpaid slaves, and giving them the right to vote.
The First World War is considered as the war that defined the “us” in the United States. It was the first large-scale war where men from across the country and from all economic backgrounds, including American blacks, were drafted, trained and fought together. Familiarity may breed contempt, it also breeds understanding and empathy. They came home to and made a different, now majority-urban America.
The point Dave is making is that we could use a devolution of power in this country to make the capital more accessible and responsive to the people.
I can get on board with that. It would effectively end the empire of expansion, and the imperial presidency.
The south may not become a cesspool of pollution because of deregulation because power would shift in all kinds of unexpected ways. The apathetic would become active.
We need a strong central government to help us compete in the world, to limit how brutally we compete with each other at home, and as a force to regulate corporate forces that employ us, but which can also drive us into the ground. The problem is not the central government’s strength or debt, but it’s priorities. Those are now overwhelmingly pro-corporate. So are a large minority of states, so tentherism is about as helpful in maintaining civil society as creationism.
Would smoke-filled rooms still be full of cigars?
I think the state’s flag remains testament to that.
Ah, a fan of Smedley Butler.
David,
Lincoln’s 1858 “A House Divided” speech does much to explain how slavery fit in to Lincoln’s thinking.
http://usinfo.org/enus/government/overview/22.html
Above all else, he was determined to keep the house together in one piece. His views on slavery were always secondary to that goal but none the less, hopelessly entwined.
You make a good point about being aware of looking at the past through a modern lens. Corporations in 1860 were still babies. They began to come of age during the war, and flowered after it as the US expanded westward.
Railroads were the first, great corporations. They made the Vanderbilts and Harrimans household names and the richest Americans. The unCivil war made them more powerful; the grant of free land from coast to coast made them behemoths.
The next big corporations were oil, Rockefeller’s Standard Oil; steel, Andrew Carnegie and JP Morgan; electricity, Edison’s GE; telecoms, Bell’s AT&T; and supporting industries like rubber and glass.
They grew to adolescence between 1865-1911. They are now in the prime of life, though a few have passed away. When AT&T was broken up in 1983 (though like Standard Oil, it has since reconstituted itself), it was bigger than the next six American companies combined.
Standard Oil was the world’s largest group of companies in 1911, when it was broken up. That was before naval and merchant ships ran on oil, before trains, trucks and tanks ran on diesel, before the age of the automobile. The original “Seven Sisters” were the principal subsidiaries of Standard Oil after that 1911 break-up. Rockefeller continued to control them indirectly.
Articles claiming US Civil War deadliest war in history:
http://www2.dailyprogress.com/entertainment/2011/mar/14… /
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/us-marks-150th-a…
http://www.thirdage.com/news/civil-war-anniversary-cele…
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110412/COLUMNISTS… -
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/119674244.html
et cetera
not here in Virginia
where are you?
You may have misread his comment about the importance of slavery. He is criticizing the notion that the South merely wanted independence and that slavery was a side issue.
I agree that slavery was a critical issue in making the country ready to go to war with itself. Slavery was the backbone of the Southern economy. Slaves were valuable “property” in their own right. Their labor created immensely valuable crops, cotton chief among them. That combination turned otherwise marginal lands into land of great value, the third leg on the stool that was the South’s agrarian economy.
I believe the “slavery” issue at the start of the war was less about its human dimension, the treatment of people as property, that it was about its economic importance to the southern way of life. I think the human rights aspect of slavery became a powerful emotional tool during the war, as it became clear that it would not end quickly with an easy victory for either side, and as both sides would have to retask their economies and societies to waging a protracted war. That’s what makes the unCivil War the first modern war.
Between 1865 and 1914, with the exception of the short Franco-German War of 1870 and the Boer War in 1899, wars were skirmishes pitting stone or bronze age non-whites against technologically “advanced” white colonial powers.
For how many days? The implication that as a Missourian he was pro-South and pro-slavery is incorrect. Like a good journalist and comedian, he soon let out for California.
I call BS on this. Don’t even try to draw an equivalency between the racism in the South and people in the North.
Is there racism in the north? Sure!
But is the South magnitudes of order worse? Of course. It’s an insult to the concept of racism to try and compare north and south in this country.
I’m pretty sure there would still be slavery if the south had won the war, yes.
Maybe. Probably not, but maybe. One thing is for damn sure – there wouldn’t be a black middle class south of the mason dixon line, let alone black millionaires.
Cute, as if that’s a fair comparison. No, there wouldn’t be any steamboats. But there might still be outhouses if the north hadn’t won.
This is the best comment on the thread.
But to be fair I’ve only read to here so far.
Please elaborate on how a situation comes to existence with both the following conditions:
1. Southerners have even more control over their own economy
2. The region isn’t a cesspool of pollution (among a cesspool of other things)
I personally can’t imagine a situation where those two go together.
One of the major reasons for those casualty/survival statistics is the medieval state of medicine during the unCivil War. Many men died of wounds, malnourishment, exposure, and treatment. Quite a few died of hunger and exposure in concentration/POW camps, whose practices merit a separate debate. Weapons were limited in their range and accuracy, but cannon were plentiful, as were large caliber bullets that had devastating impacts. So were the masses of men hurled at one another.
Medical practices during the First World War were marginally improved. Hand washing and sterilization had become common and surgeries were more hygienic, but antibiotics and the lifesaving surgical techniques they made possible were decades away.
Consider how late in the 20th century it was before apartheid ended in South Africa.
I found a link about this subject here.
http://www.correntewire.com/truth_about_confederacy
Thoughts?
Oh, I agree. The Confederacy represented a return to feudalism.
And if peacefully divided, I doubt that the North would have long survived in any enlightened form. The rotten royals of Europe would have made short work of what was left of the United States.
About as short a work as Davis and Lee made of the Yankees.
I didn’t say or mean to imply he was. He was not pro slavery but he did fight for the south.
If you’re saying the Civil War was the turning point of turning the U.S. into an imperialist empire then I agree.
Some quotes of Abraham Lincoln:
“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.”
-Abraham Lincoln 1858 Charlestown, Illinois, debate with Stephen Douglas
“the Constitution should never be altered so as to authorize Congress to abolish or interfere with slavery in the states” – his orders on the Corwin amendment
Excellent, thought-provoking diary, David.
Recommended.
Great and insightful comments, as well.
DW
“Yet, every other nation that ended slavery did so without a civil war.”
At best, that is a very misleading statement. Why? Because most of the slavery which you are refering to occured in colonies of empires. Most notably the British Empire. It’s not called a “civil war” when a colony goes into revolt. And revolt they did. If slave rebellions are to be considered “civil wars” then there were many. Here’s but a few examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demerara_rebellion_of_1823
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quilombo_dos_Palmares
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussa
Also, I’d point out that while slavery in the French and British Caribbean came to a “peaceful” end in the 1838-1840 period, that had more to do with the fact that it had become unprofitable. The empire found new wars and new sources of profit.
The French decided that it was more profitable to invade, plunder and colonize North Africa during that time period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_conquest_of_Algeria
And the British decided to take slavery to a whole new level with it’s opium trade. Opium was far more profitable and I doubt that it’s a coincidence that slavery ended in the Caribbean at the same time that the British Empire was fighting it’s first Opium war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War
As for the freed caribbean slaves, much of the economic infrastructure was packed up and shipped out when slavery ended so the slaves went out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Peaceful… so very peaceful.
Well-written and thought-provoking post, with which I almost entirely disagree. The game of what-if? is always a fun one, and I love to play it. But when you basically ask “What if the South was allowed to secede peacefully?” I think the answer must be that we, and I mean the world, would be a lot worse off than it is now.
I cannot prove that to you or to any true believer in absolute pacifism. Nevertheless, if the Confederacy had continued to exist, I think it would have been disastrous. Here are some of the reasons why.
First, the French would not have left Mexico nearly as quickly as they in fact did when Lincoln sent Sheridan to the Rio Grande in 1865 and told Emperor Napoleon III that if he didn’t remove his troops, veteran Union soldiers would. The French split, and the Second Mexican Revolution succeeded in just a couple of years. The Confederates would almost certainly have not objected to an Empire of Mexico as they wanted to be allies with the French and the British.
Second, the European colonial powers would have moved right back into Latin America. The consequences of that would have been incalculable, and almost certainly all bad, at least for the Latin Americans.
Third, sooner or later the arrogant Confederates would have provoked another war with the United States, or vice-versa, and subsequent wars in North America would have been so bloody as to make the Civil War look like a minor skirmish. And the Europeans would have laughed all the way to their stock exchanges. Hell, the United States might have actually ceased to exist at some point.
Which means that if some other variant of Hitler or Stalin had risen to power in some other country or empire, they may well have succeeded in conquering the entire planet.
I am one of the first to point out America’s flaws and the sometimes disastrous policies of its leaders, but, on the whole, I believe the world has been better off with a strong and united America than it would have been without one.
Just as I think it would have been disastrous for America to sit out World War II.
I, a descendant of Confederate veterans, say this. It’s a good thing the North won the Civil War, and the Yankees did not die in vain. Disagree with me if you wish, but that’s what I think, for whatever it’s worth.
You had me with you until you brought up socialism and capitalism. You seem to imply that America must be capitalist. I disagree with that. I’m a socialist. I’m also a veteran. I also consider myself to be an American patriot, far more so than the fascists on Wall Street actually are.
Unfortunately there are a lot of lies in this article and you’re missing a lot of facts. The Civil War involved a lot of complex political dynamics that can only be understood in the context of its time. Trying to understand a mid 19th century war through an early 21st century lens is going to lead to misunderstandings if not outright falsehoods.
The US was a fragile coalition of states at the time with a very weak central government compared to today. The Civil War also caused a great number of changes that permanently changed and redefined the country America would become.
First of all, the Civil War is defined as being the costliest in terms of American (both Northern and Southern) lives lost.
Secondly, “freeing the slaves” was nowhere near as simple as you make it out to be. Lincoln could not simply issue a proclamation that freed all the slaves and be done with it (it took a Constitutional amendment to abolish slavery anyway, since slavery was protected in the Constitution, and Lincoln put forth the effort to pass this amendment – the 13th Amendment – during the war). The Emancipation Proclamation itself was a war measure and therefore could not free slaves in Union territory, and would be unconstitutional had war not been declared (nonetheless it DID free slaves as the Union army advanced into the South). Furthermore it was very unpopular in the North when it was issued (and was a factor in the 1863 NYC draft riots, the 1864 “Copperhead” movement to take what are now the Midwestern states out of the Union). The North was by no means united, and Lincoln had to keep these AND the border states together. Moreover, he had to keep these states together AND bring the South back into the Union to abolish slavery. Logically, his goal would be to preserve the Union first, since slavery could only be eliminated if the states that contained slaves remained in the Union.
Now, as to your questions – What if the North had allowed the South to secede and repealed the fugitive slave law? If the North allowed the South to secede, it could not abolish slavery in the South. Sure, it could repeal the Fugitive Slave law, but it wouldn’t do much good since the South would no longer be in the country, and slavery would still exist there.
What if an independent North had used trade, diplomacy, and morality to pressure the South to end slavery? Lincoln tried some of this in 1860 and 1861 in an attempt to keep the South from making war. It didn’t work, not even with a proposed amendment that stated that slavery could not be abolished (he did not support a version of this that would have disallowed amending the Constitution later to repeal this proposed amendment). The tensions between the North and the South were already way too high by 1860, having endured decades of compromises (1820 and 1850), the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the 1840s Mexican War that expanded US territory in the West (which Lincoln opposed) thus expanding the amount of territory that could become slave states, and many other events. And as far as trade policy Britain was a major importer of American cotton. This is one of the reasons why Lincoln declared a blockade of Southern ports in the war. Lincoln (and other Republicans, Whigs, and abolitionists) tried to convince the public in the decades prior that slavery was immoral, yet it remained accepted. Violent acts like John Brown’s raid didn’t help. The USA was a powder keg by 1850 and certainly by 1860.
Would slavery have lasted longer than the Civil War raged? Well, slavery exists in other countries to this day, and we did not end Apartheid until the 1980s, so who says slavery wouldn’t still exist in the USA? In any case this is a moot point since Lincoln put forth tremendous effort to end slavery in the US during the Civil War. Without a war, who knows how long it would last.
The Civil War has very little to do with campaign finance laws. I don’t know where you’re getting that from. However, presidential candidates were not expected to campaign for themselves during the mid-19th century. It was a different world than today. Nonetheless, Southerners held the Presidency for much of the period from 1776-1860. This helped make the “slave power” more powerful. Lincoln was one of the first Presidents to be from the North, and he wasn’t expected to win, either (he did so with less than 40% of the popular vote) – if any candidates were bought and sold, it would be candidates like Douglas and Breckenridge that took money from railroads or slaveowners.
As for your comment about Wisconsin seceding, today. Imagine if it did that. Now imagine if the other states trying to pass “anti-Union” laws seceded too. The state of Illinois, in which I live, would be surrounded by seceded states. If civil unrest erupted in Wisconsin, or an adjacent state, the state would be vulnerable to attack. I’d want the federal government to protect me, no? Hell, I’d probably even fight, and so would many other residents – your life, and your rights, are at stake in that kind of situation. That’s what the Civil War was like. The South did not peacefully secede. A similar situation happened in 1861 when Marylanders threatened to take the state out of the Union (not to mention there were riots in Baltimore at the time). Washington would have been surrounded by enemy territory. This is what prompted Lincoln to suspend habeas corpus (which is actually permitted by the Constitution in “cases of insurrection or rebellion when the public safety may require it”). Civil unrest and certainly civil war falls under that definition. We are facing much lesser wars now (not to mention, none of these wars are on our own soil) so things like the Patriot Act are unjustified and unconstitutional.
The Civil War was most certainly necessary to end slavery (among other things) in this country. Its effects are still felt today, and the concept of social equality as part of American democracy was not established until Lincoln and the Civil War. Further advancements in civil rights would have been impossible without it. That other countries did not need a war to abolish slavery has nothing to do with why we needed one or not, since their histories are different. Yes, lost of other wars we have fought in (like many recent wars – Iraq, Vietnam, Mexican War) were probably unnecessary, but that doesn’t make the Civil War (or WWII or the American Revolution) unnecessary. If there’s anything that’s not taught to us enough in school it’s why the Civil War was fought as opposed to the how. It’s the why that matters. Instead of learning about Lincoln and the abolition of slavery we learn about how specific battles were won and lost. I fear that our remembrance of the war will be more about the how and less about the why, too. This leads to misinformation like this being written about the war, since the why is not understood. This is why we need to remember the Civil War. Not because it was a peaceful or pleasant time for which to be nostalgic for, but to remember why it was fought, and what we can learn from that for today.
“I believe the declaration that ‘all men are created equal’ is the great fundamental principle upon which our free institutions rest” – A. Lincoln, 1858
And in reference to your comment about using a war to create public schools – the Civil War did exactly that. Lincoln built public schools for freed blacks, in addition to his support and passage the Morill Land Grant Act that allowed the development of state university systems. So it is a little ironic how you’re stating that the Civil War was unnecessary at the same time as supporting one to establish public schools.
It should be said that Roger Taney (the judge who handed down that decision) was not in support of the Emancipation Proclamation, either, and was the judge that handed down the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857.
“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.”
-Abraham Lincoln 1858 Charlestown, Illinois, debate with Stephen Douglas
“My friends, I have detained you about as long as I desired to do, and I have only to say, let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man—this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position—discarding our standard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal.”
- A. Lincoln, speech at Chicago, July 10, 1858
It is clear from your posts here you are ripping things you found off the Internet and from mises.org. The quote I mentioned is from October 18, 1858, one month after the quote you mentioned, from a speech which also contains:
“I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes.”
I will not argue with you anymore.
So you’d rather be a colonial serf with no representation than support the American Revolutionary War?
It is entirely possible that the Civil War could have simply led the United States into successive secessions that would continue to break up and destroy the country until it fell apart and collapsed, or was overtaken by another major world power. At the very least we’d probably have a Great Wall of America running down the Ohio and the Mason-Dixon Line.
I don’t think any of the results of *not* having the civil war would have been good for this country, or the world.
At the time the Emancipation Proclamation was issued in 1862, we were already at war. Using the court system to free the slaves instead of turning the Union Army into an emancipation force would have tied up the courts for an eternity.
In any case Lincoln pushed through the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery permanently (the Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure). Too many people ignore that.
Lincoln did have peaceful plans for emancipating slaves (such as gradual compensated emancipation, with all slaves freed by 1900), but they fell through when war broke out. He even tried this plan in the border states during the war, and it didn’t work.
maybe your handle would be better called the “Heart of Lincoln Cult” since you paint him out to have been a saint.
http://mises.org/daily/3704
Thank you for a great diary, which makes me look back further to the reform era of the 1830′s and 1840′s, when in fact antislavery activists explored methods of nonviolent direct action which could have provided an alternative both to the calamity of the Civil War and to the tragedy almost a century of further Jim Crow under the Compromise of 1877.
Personally, a perspective I find very appealing is that of the Northern “disunionists” who urged secession _from_ the slave system, and evidently were influenced in their slogan “No Union with Slaveholders” by the Irish civil rights movement of that time, led by Daniel O’Connell, who similarly challenged the union of Ireland with England.
In 1839, interestingly, an antislavery activist named Charles Whipple published a pamphlet called _Evils of the Revolutionary War_ in which he laid out a blueprint for how independence could have been won through mass nonviolent resistance, the earliest exposition of this kind of which I am aware (at least in the English language). He also noted that had such means prevailed, both slavery and the exploitation and destruction of the many Indigenous Nations would not have continued.
Thus I see the Civil War, like the violent rather than nonviolent American Revolution of the previous century, as a tragic case of the wrong road taken, however noble some of the ends.
To see this tragedy in perspective, I would urge that we fully appreciate the physical and structural violence of slavery and the ongoing campaign of “Manifest Destiny” against the Indigenous Nations of the continent during the era of 1830-1860, as well as the military violence of 1861-1865, as radical evils which a nonviolent activist must fully acknowledge.
One of the ironies, with its vivid resonances 150 years later, was that “moderation” and “compromise” on the subject of slavery led to the disaster of the Civil War, while the determined peace activists of the preceding decades had called for abolitionism, feminism, and integration of the races — positions then often branded “fanatical,” as some of us may likewise feel marginalized in the current political climate.
Above all, this anniversary is a time to honor the conscientious objectors of the Civil War, both North and South, who were often among the most militant foes of slavery and were ready to die, but not to kill, for their convictions — as some of them did.
During the war itself, the antislavery peace community was divided, with some reluctantly accepting the violence as a “lesser evil,” but others such as Adin Ballou holding to the principle of nonviolence.
Now, as then, people of good will may have a range of views, and this diary challenges us to consider the roads which might have been taken in the 19th century and can still be taken now.
Here are some things Lincoln is accused of during the Civil War
http://mises.org/etexts/ostrowski.asp
32. Illegally declaring martial law.
33. Illegally blockading ports.
34. Illegally suspending habeas corpus.
35. Illegally imprisoning thousands of Northern citizens.
36. Tolerating their subjection to inhumane conditions in prison.
37. Systematically attacking Northern newspapers and their employees, including by imprisonment.
38. Deporting his chief political enemy in the North, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio.
Sounds more like Dick Cheney and Bush than the cult worship espoused by Lincoln worshipers.
Read this:
http://www.correntewire.com/truth_about_confederacy
OG We are all entitled to our opinions. But when there is an effort to mislead people to trick them into changing their minds. Well I take great offense to such behavior.
And honestly the OP wasnt mainly talking about the Civil War. The OP was using the Civil War as a tool to spread their propaganda. I find the OP’s intent obvious. I know that you share the same opinions as the OP, but integrity is integrity, and anyone trying to trick its audience should be called on such vile behavior.
I do find it interesting that there is so much deception involved in promoting Socialism. Logically if the promoters are dishonest, well that says alot about the system that they are promoting.
And yes a prefer Capitalism over Socialism, but that doesnt mean that I support or promote the status quo. I am telling this based on the common narrative put forward by Anti-Capitalism propagandists. Just because I do not like Socialism does not make me a supporter of the status quo. Nor to be sure from the Right.
Again we are untitled to our own opinions. I know that not all that support Socialism are engaged in dishonest propaganda. But then that section of supporters dont seem to be very vocal. The vocal ones are the ones being dishonest. And it those that are being in your face dishonest, that I am talking about.
“You may have misread his comment about the importance of slavery. He is criticizing the notion that the South merely wanted independence and that slavery was a side issue.”
And you may have missed what I said. I am saying that the generations notions about the Civil War is that it (the war) was about Slavery.
When you research the subject (the slavery vs independence argument) most of the results on google turn out to be from Left wing sites. Putting the reality of the debate squarely as propaganda. What I see is that some Right Winger started the lies, and now Leftists are exploiting it.
That’s a nice example of imperialist thinking where the individuals are slaves of “world powers”. Alexander Hamilton must be your hero.
@ captjjyossarian April 12th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
I’d rather that individuals run their own lives rather than an oligarchy.
Thank you for saying this; I think you did so quite well and you beat me to making a point along similar lines to…this.