Poll: Was the U.S Civil War worth it?

[SaberDicer]

An interesting discussion came up in my history class today, It's AP US History and we were working on the cultural changes in the 1920's but today our teacher had to teach some crap for Black History Month, so he mentioned the Emancipation Proclaimation. Then someone else asked if he thought the Civil War was worth the losses for the social rights gained by blacks, which weren't many but still better than enslavement. Before I knew it the whole class had erupted into an argument about whether the Civil War was worth it, which suprisingly was racially unbiased. Anyhow, just wanted your takes on the issue, the causes of the Civil War thread reminded me of it.

 

[Yossarian]

no way, like, a lot of people were like, killed and stuff.

 

[her209]

Hell yes!

 

[aswedc]

There is no way to tell what the world would be like had the Civil War not happened. How can you decide whether it was worth it?

 

[acemcmac]

the United States and the Confederacy would never have become leading industrial powers because animosity and beaurocracy would have prevented free enough trade for either to be able to gather the prereqs for full industrialization.

My money is still on the allies for WW1 (because the US played such a minor role, and only at the very end), thereby causing WW2... assuming the depression was still as bad as it was without the US contributing to inflation nearly as much, but Hitler CERTAINLY would have won WW2... I forsee a protracted war on the eastern front lasting until the end of the 1940's... anyone's guess who wins.... I'd assume Hitler because he would have been far more heavily armed at Stalingrad if he didn't have to divert his forces so heavily to the west.....

history after that is anyones guess, but I stand by the assertion that without the US staying united, Hitlers chances of permanently changing the face of Eurasia are increased far too much for it to be considered "not worth it"

 

[SaberDicer]

Originally posted by: aswedc
There is no way to tell what the world would be like had the Civil War not happened. How can you decide whether it was worth it?

Well just say the crisis had never transpired and there was some deal worked out and amended into the consitution allowing slavery in slave states

 

[cyclohexane]

Apparently not, as the Republicans are no longer "lincoln's party"

 

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: SaberDicer

Originally posted by: aswedc
There is no way to tell what the world would be like had the Civil War not happened. How can you decide whether it was worth it?

Well just say the crisis had never transpired and there was some deal worked out and amended into the consitution allowing slavery in slave states

oh, I'm assuming that you're presuming that the North decided to let the South go on it's merry way....

If the North was to refuse the South's demands of secession, conflict was unavoidable. As you know, the seeds of the civil war were sewn decades in advance....

 

[MrYAK]

Originally posted by: acemcmac
the United States and the Confederacy would never have become leading industrial powers because animosity and beaurocracy would have prevented free enough trade for either to be able to gather the prereqs for full industrialization.

My money is still on the allies for WW1 (because the US played such a minor role, and only at the very end), thereby causing WW2... assuming the depression was still as bad as it was without the US contributing to inflation nearly as much, but Hitler CERTAINLY would have won WW2... I forsee a protracted war on the eastern front lasting until the end of the 1940's... anyone's guess who wins.... I'd assume Hitler because he would have been far more heavily armed at Stalingrad if he didn't have to divert his forces so heavily to the west.....

history after that is anyones guess, but I stand by the assertion that without the US staying united, Hitlers chances of permanently changing the face of Eurasia are increased far too much for it to be considered "not worth it"

My name is YAK, and i approve this statment.

 

[TheLonelyPhoenix]

Whether it was "worth it" or not in hindsight is very different that what went into the decision at the time. Sure, if we had known our less-than-100 year old country was going to become a world superpower if unified, and become a key player in a World War that could have left us all speaking German and Japanese if we had lost, then it was definitely worth it.

At the time, though, it pretty much came down to whether or not Lincoln was going to allow the country to split on his watch. The Civil War was the bloodiest battle fought in the world up until that point in history, but allowing the country to split apart would have destroyed all the promise of greatness that we had as a newborn country, and I think Lincoln knew that. Now the rest of the world takes notes on us, trying to figure out how we remained a unified people with only one Civil War and without rewriting our Constitution every 5 years.

 

[SaberDicer]

Originally posted by: acemcmac
the United States and the Confederacy would never have become leading industrial powers because animosity and beaurocracy would have prevented free enough trade for either to be able to gather the prereqs for full industrialization.

My money is still on the allies for WW1 (because the US played such a minor role, and only at the very end), thereby causing WW2... assuming the depression was still as bad as it was without the US contributing to inflation nearly as much, but Hitler CERTAINLY would have won WW2... I forsee a protracted war on the eastern front lasting until the end of the 1940's... anyone's guess who wins.... I'd assume Hitler because he would have been far more heavily armed at Stalingrad if he didn't have to divert his forces so heavily to the west.....

history after that is anyones guess, but I stand by the assertion that without the US staying united, Hitlers chances of permanently changing the face of Eurasia are increased far too much for it to be considered "not worth it"

Well you could also argue that if the two parties reconciled and war was averted, the U.S could have focused it's sights from internal conflict to the imperalism that begins to show up in the late 19th/early 20th century. Henceforth, the U.S could have easily still stopped WWI with it's large arms build up from Imperalism. Also if the South had never lost political power, one could argue that Roosevelt would have never become a major player or that he would not have left office and then split the party in 1912 allowing Wilson to win, which would have meant a larger U.S involvement and possibly a more lenient peace treaty. Hypothetical History is so interesting.

 

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: SaberDicer

Originally posted by: acemcmac
the United States and the Confederacy would never have become leading industrial powers because animosity and beaurocracy would have prevented free enough trade for either to be able to gather the prereqs for full industrialization.

My money is still on the allies for WW1 (because the US played such a minor role, and only at the very end), thereby causing WW2... assuming the depression was still as bad as it was without the US contributing to inflation nearly as much, but Hitler CERTAINLY would have won WW2... I forsee a protracted war on the eastern front lasting until the end of the 1940's... anyone's guess who wins.... I'd assume Hitler because he would have been far more heavily armed at Stalingrad if he didn't have to divert his forces so heavily to the west.....

history after that is anyones guess, but I stand by the assertion that without the US staying united, Hitlers chances of permanently changing the face of Eurasia are increased far too much for it to be considered "not worth it"

Well you could also argue that if the two parties reconciled and war was averted, the U.S could have focused it's sights from internal conflict to the imperalism that begins to show up in the late 19th/early 20th century. Henceforth, the U.S could have easily still stopped WWI with it's large arms build up from Imperalism. Also if the South had never lost political power, one could argue that Roosevelt would have never become a major player or that he would not have left office and then split the party in 1912 allowing Wilson to win, which would have meant a larger U.S involvement and possibly a more lenient peace treaty. Hypothetical History is so interesting.

No you can't. :laugh: It goes back to the Constitutional Convention and the Federalists vs Anti-Federalists. What you suggest is akin to asking aboritionist and anti abortionists to agree. They never will. Until one side gets an army, stomps the other into complete submission and then time or technology (tech in contraceptives) makes it non-issue, they will NEVER see eye to eye. The civil war was unavoidable unless Lincoln decided to let them walk.

Furthermore, I have no idea how you are assuming that we'd have been involved in WW1 at all.... we would NEVER have industrialized on anything NEAR the timetable we did had we split, and therefore would have had no massive army to ship to Europe, no means to ship it, no political clout, and therefore no freaking say, whatsoever in European affairs.

You go even further astray when... hang on... gotta look something up

 

[artikk]

Originally posted by: her209
Hell yes!

 

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: acemcmac

Originally posted by: SaberDicer

Originally posted by: acemcmac
the United States and the Confederacy would never have become leading industrial powers because animosity and beaurocracy would have prevented free enough trade for either to be able to gather the prereqs for full industrialization.

My money is still on the allies for WW1 (because the US played such a minor role, and only at the very end), thereby causing WW2... assuming the depression was still as bad as it was without the US contributing to inflation nearly as much, but Hitler CERTAINLY would have won WW2... I forsee a protracted war on the eastern front lasting until the end of the 1940's... anyone's guess who wins.... I'd assume Hitler because he would have been far more heavily armed at Stalingrad if he didn't have to divert his forces so heavily to the west.....

history after that is anyones guess, but I stand by the assertion that without the US staying united, Hitlers chances of permanently changing the face of Eurasia are increased far too much for it to be considered "not worth it"

Well you could also argue that if the two parties reconciled and war was averted, the U.S could have focused it's sights from internal conflict to the imperalism that begins to show up in the late 19th/early 20th century. Henceforth, the U.S could have easily still stopped WWI with it's large arms build up from Imperalism. Also if the South had never lost political power, one could argue that Roosevelt would have never become a major player or that he would not have left office and then split the party in 1912 allowing Wilson to win, which would have meant a larger U.S involvement and possibly a more lenient peace treaty. Hypothetical History is so interesting.

No you can't. :laugh: It goes back to the Constitutional Convention and the Federalists vs Anti-Federalists. What you suggest is akin to asking aboritionist and anti abortionists to agree. They never will. Until one side gets an army, stomps the other into complete submission and then time or technology (tech in contraceptives) makes it non-issue, they will NEVER see eye to eye. The civil war was unavoidable unless Lincoln decided to let them walk.

Furthermore, I have no idea how you are assuming that we'd have been involved in WW1 at all.... we would NEVER have industrialized on anything NEAR the timetable we did had we split, and therefore would have had no massive army to ship to Europe, no means to ship it, no political clout, and therefore no freaking say, whatsoever in European affairs.

You go even further astray when... hang on... gotta look something up

Yeah dude, you are completley underestimating the gravity of what the South walking in the civil war would have caused..... Wilson was from VA. He would never have sat in washington had the Civil war not been fought

 

[TheLonelyPhoenix]

Originally posted by: acemcmac

Originally posted by: acemcmac

Originally posted by: SaberDicer

Originally posted by: acemcmac
the United States and the Confederacy would never have become leading industrial powers because animosity and beaurocracy would have prevented free enough trade for either to be able to gather the prereqs for full industrialization.

My money is still on the allies for WW1 (because the US played such a minor role, and only at the very end), thereby causing WW2... assuming the depression was still as bad as it was without the US contributing to inflation nearly as much, but Hitler CERTAINLY would have won WW2... I forsee a protracted war on the eastern front lasting until the end of the 1940's... anyone's guess who wins.... I'd assume Hitler because he would have been far more heavily armed at Stalingrad if he didn't have to divert his forces so heavily to the west.....

history after that is anyones guess, but I stand by the assertion that without the US staying united, Hitlers chances of permanently changing the face of Eurasia are increased far too much for it to be considered "not worth it"

Well you could also argue that if the two parties reconciled and war was averted, the U.S could have focused it's sights from internal conflict to the imperalism that begins to show up in the late 19th/early 20th century. Henceforth, the U.S could have easily still stopped WWI with it's large arms build up from Imperalism. Also if the South had never lost political power, one could argue that Roosevelt would have never become a major player or that he would not have left office and then split the party in 1912 allowing Wilson to win, which would have meant a larger U.S involvement and possibly a more lenient peace treaty. Hypothetical History is so interesting.

No you can't. :laugh: It goes back to the Constitutional Convention and the Federalists vs Anti-Federalists. What you suggest is akin to asking aboritionist and anti abortionists to agree. They never will. Until one side gets an army, stomps the other into complete submission and then time or technology (tech in contraceptives) makes it non-issue, they will NEVER see eye to eye. The civil war was unavoidable unless Lincoln decided to let them walk.

Furthermore, I have no idea how you are assuming that we'd have been involved in WW1 at all.... we would NEVER have industrialized on anything NEAR the timetable we did had we split, and therefore would have had no massive army to ship to Europe, no means to ship it, no political clout, and therefore no freaking say, whatsoever in European affairs.

You go even further astray when... hang on... gotta look something up

Yeah dude, you are completley underestimating the gravity of what the South walking in the civil war would have caused..... Wilson was from VA. He would never have sat in washington had the Civil war not been fought

Forget to switch your account? 😛

 

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: TheLonelyPhoenix

Originally posted by: acemcmac

Originally posted by: acemcmac

Originally posted by: SaberDicer

Originally posted by: acemcmac
the United States and the Confederacy would never have become leading industrial powers because animosity and beaurocracy would have prevented free enough trade for either to be able to gather the prereqs for full industrialization.

My money is still on the allies for WW1 (because the US played such a minor role, and only at the very end), thereby causing WW2... assuming the depression was still as bad as it was without the US contributing to inflation nearly as much, but Hitler CERTAINLY would have won WW2... I forsee a protracted war on the eastern front lasting until the end of the 1940's... anyone's guess who wins.... I'd assume Hitler because he would have been far more heavily armed at Stalingrad if he didn't have to divert his forces so heavily to the west.....

history after that is anyones guess, but I stand by the assertion that without the US staying united, Hitlers chances of permanently changing the face of Eurasia are increased far too much for it to be considered "not worth it"

Well you could also argue that if the two parties reconciled and war was averted, the U.S could have focused it's sights from internal conflict to the imperalism that begins to show up in the late 19th/early 20th century. Henceforth, the U.S could have easily still stopped WWI with it's large arms build up from Imperalism. Also if the South had never lost political power, one could argue that Roosevelt would have never become a major player or that he would not have left office and then split the party in 1912 allowing Wilson to win, which would have meant a larger U.S involvement and possibly a more lenient peace treaty. Hypothetical History is so interesting.

No you can't. :laugh: It goes back to the Constitutional Convention and the Federalists vs Anti-Federalists. What you suggest is akin to asking aboritionist and anti abortionists to agree. They never will. Until one side gets an army, stomps the other into complete submission and then time or technology (tech in contraceptives) makes it non-issue, they will NEVER see eye to eye. The civil war was unavoidable unless Lincoln decided to let them walk.

Furthermore, I have no idea how you are assuming that we'd have been involved in WW1 at all.... we would NEVER have industrialized on anything NEAR the timetable we did had we split, and therefore would have had no massive army to ship to Europe, no means to ship it, no political clout, and therefore no freaking say, whatsoever in European affairs.

You go even further astray when... hang on... gotta look something up

Yeah dude, you are completley underestimating the gravity of what the South walking in the civil war would have caused..... Wilson was from VA. He would never have sat in washington had the Civil war not been fought

Forget to switch your account? 😛

no, like I said.... had to look something up

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/ww28.html

 

[DainBramaged]

No it wasn't.

 

[jadinolf]

Originally posted by: Yossarian
no way, like, a lot of people were like, killed and stuff.

I was just wounded and stuff.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Yes, at least IMO. The "social rights gained by blacks" may not have amounted to much, but it was the first step that made all the others possible.

Plus, the argument between North and South was almost constant in the 1800s. Even when compromise was attempted, both sides raced to bring in the West as slave or free states, and in at least one case (Kansas), it almost came to open war. Half of the country was willing to leave if they didn't get their way, and the other half wasn't going to allow either to happen for a host of reasons, slavery being but one. So whether it was worth it or not:

1. It was INEVITABLE.
2. Slavery is bad. 🙂

 

[HOWITIS]

Originally posted by: acemcmac

Originally posted by: SaberDicer

Originally posted by: acemcmac
the United States and the Confederacy would never have become leading industrial powers because animosity and beaurocracy would have prevented free enough trade for either to be able to gather the prereqs for full industrialization.

My money is still on the allies for WW1 (because the US played such a minor role, and only at the very end), thereby causing WW2... assuming the depression was still as bad as it was without the US contributing to inflation nearly as much, but Hitler CERTAINLY would have won WW2... I forsee a protracted war on the eastern front lasting until the end of the 1940's... anyone's guess who wins.... I'd assume Hitler because he would have been far more heavily armed at Stalingrad if he didn't have to divert his forces so heavily to the west.....

history after that is anyones guess, but I stand by the assertion that without the US staying united, Hitlers chances of permanently changing the face of Eurasia are increased far too much for it to be considered "not worth it"

Well you could also argue that if the two parties reconciled and war was averted, the U.S could have focused it's sights from internal conflict to the imperalism that begins to show up in the late 19th/early 20th century. Henceforth, the U.S could have easily still stopped WWI with it's large arms build up from Imperalism. Also if the South had never lost political power, one could argue that Roosevelt would have never become a major player or that he would not have left office and then split the party in 1912 allowing Wilson to win, which would have meant a larger U.S involvement and possibly a more lenient peace treaty. Hypothetical History is so interesting.

No you can't. :laugh: It goes back to the Constitutional Convention and the Federalists vs Anti-Federalists. What you suggest is akin to asking aboritionist and anti abortionists to agree. They never will. Until one side gets an army, stomps the other into complete submission and then time or technology (tech in contraceptives) makes it non-issue, they will NEVER see eye to eye. The civil war was unavoidable unless Lincoln decided to let them walk.

Furthermore, I have no idea how you are assuming that we'd have been involved in WW1 at all.... we would NEVER have industrialized on anything NEAR the timetable we did had we split, and therefore would have had no massive army to ship to Europe, no means to ship it, no political clout, and therefore no freaking say, whatsoever in European affairs.

You go even further astray when... hang on... gotta look something up

wtf are you talking about. the south was absolutly destroyed by the civil war. in the south every white male under 40 fought. no exceptions. there was no need to stay at home and supply due to slavery. the south let their slaves work the fields, and resupply the armies while whites went to fight. they even enlisted some slaves to fight for them. the south was burnd, blasted, and destroyed. if the south was never invaded it would be far more powerful economicly than it is today. infact it is only the latter part of the 20th century that the south had a full recovery to an extent. ALSO, America would have been far more powerfull militarialy in the north and the south through the 20th century. we would have seen ww1 fought here. with bitter rivals across borders no way the north and south would've been allies. both sides would havE had industrial complexes built to sustain their military by 1914. war and threats of wr are best to force technological and industrial advances

 

[smc13]

Originally posted by: acemcmac
the United States and the Confederacy would never have become leading industrial powers because animosity and beaurocracy would have prevented free enough trade for either to be able to gather the prereqs for full industrialization.

My money is still on the allies for WW1 (because the US played such a minor role, and only at the very end), thereby causing WW2... assuming the depression was still as bad as it was without the US contributing to inflation nearly as much, but Hitler CERTAINLY would have won WW2... I forsee a protracted war on the eastern front lasting until the end of the 1940's... anyone's guess who wins.... I'd assume Hitler because he would have been far more heavily armed at Stalingrad if he didn't have to divert his forces so heavily to the west.....

history after that is anyones guess, but I stand by the assertion that without the US staying united, Hitlers chances of permanently changing the face of Eurasia are increased far too much for it to be considered "not worth it"

You need to do more studying of history. The U.S. didn't even invade North Africa till after the battle of Stalingrad started (Operation Torch started on Nov 8 1942 - Germans were at Stalingrad in Sept). On Nov 19, The Soviets encircled The German sixth army. You can't possibly be saying the reason for the German defeat is because the Americans had been fighting for 11 days? The Russians probably would have beaten the Germans if the Germans had simply gone east and attacked Russian while ignoring Britain and France. Also, If Germany hadn't attacked Russia, violating their agreement, They might have been able to hold western Europe (probably not since they would probably have run out of fuel).

Sorry, But I doubt that hitler would have won WWII if the US hadn't existed.

 

[FoBoT]

it was inevitable

 

[miniMUNCH]

Um...

You all do realized that the US Civil War was about a whole lot more than slavery, right?

Vote: Yes

 

[krcat1]

Has anyone read Harry Turtledove's series of books that take place in an alternate time-line in which the South won its independence in 1863?

The jist of the story is the two nations hate each other. The US is allied with Germany (not Hitler), and the CSA is allied with England/France, and a war happens every 20-30 years.

Civil rights for everyone are secondary to gaining revenge of the other side for the last war.