Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First off (as another proud Illinoisan), I am glad Lincoln preserved our union but it got me wondering what if the South won? How would the South and North be off today? I am sure there will be some spirited opinions, that's fine, but let's do keep it civil.
Sure wouldn't be where we are today with computers, airplanes, and other high tech gadgets. Probably look like Mississippi, without internet, i phones, and HDTVs. Sparsely populated. Few rich, on plantations. Everybody else in wooden shacks and double wides.
Actually, the southern states were more than happy to maintain their agrarian ways. In fact, they wanted the North to stay out of their business. The South during this time was very concerned that the federal government was beginning to exert more and more control over the separate states whereas the southern states believed that the federal gov't should not be able to have this type of power. The South believed that state rights should trump federal rights.
The problem was that because the population was growing far more rapidly in the North than in the South, the southern states were beginning to realize that they were increasingly losing influence over national matters because of the recently instituted electoral college. Because the South was losing political influence, the southern states began to also worry that they would ultimately lose control of their economic and social ways of life. When Northern political influence became too much for the South to bear, the secession movement began.
Although the issue of slavery did not directly lead to the start of the Civil War, I don't agree with your idea that it was less important than we think. In order to maintain the union, Lincoln would have gone along with keeping slavery alive in the South as long as it did not spread to any of the new territories. The thinking was that as long as slavery did not spread to any of the new territories it would eventually fizzle out because the southern economic model would not be able to sustain it. The South realized this as well and weren't going to agree to those terms. That's when secession took place (more or less) and the confederacy proclaimed its sovereignty. So slavery was indeed one of the major sticking points.
This is true, but if the ultimate fate of a south which had 'won' would still not be promising if its entire wealth was slaves and agriculture. The world was changing and the places with influence were those who changed with it. If the south thought it was going to survive on cotton it was in for a rude awakening. As I said in another post, the largest customer for southern cotton had developed a cheaper and better source which was fully under their control, and also would have undersold them.
The stringent rules about states rights bit back when local units would go home and states would not sent them back during the war. The open acceptance of succession was simply a given that in time there would be a lot of small and rather poor states instead of a confederacy.
First off (as another proud Illinoisan), I am glad Lincoln preserved our union but it got me wondering what if the South won? How would the South and North be off today? I am sure there will be some spirited opinions, that's fine, but let's do keep it civil.
If the South had won, the USA would not be as large as it is right now. I would also argue that slavery might have continued until at least the late 19th century/early 20th century. One thing to consider is this. Brazil didn't get rid of slavery until 1888(same with Cuba).
For the South to win the war even in 1860 they would have needed a very strong industrial and manufacturing base as well as a system of foreign commerce equal to that of the North. If they had had these things the war would have never taken place. This is what the South was upset about, that all the manufacturing was taking place in the North and the South was relegated to a mostly agrarian world with no chance for rapid advancement and doomed (in their eyes) to a world of poverty compared to the North.
The issue of slavery was less important than we think and it would have been resolved, as it was in every other slave holding nation in the Americas, by legislation.
If it wasn't that important of an issue, then what was the Articles of Secession about? At least for the first 4 breakaway states, slavery was a big issue. Elite planters and politicians openly mentioned slavery as an issue. Why? It was about economics.
Brilliant post, the flag DOES not represent a support for slavery, it does not even mean you are a racist, it's a representation of pride for that country, or that culture.
Job well done on pointing out that the U.S. Flag does not represent all the atrocities the U.S. has committed as a nation.
I want you to think about this. 60 percent of America's Black population lives in the South. I live in the South myself. Most Blacks I run into don't like the Confederate flag.
This is true, but if the ultimate fate of a south which had 'won' would still not be promising if its entire wealth was slaves and agriculture. The world was changing and the places with influence were those who changed with it. If the south thought it was going to survive on cotton it was in for a rude awakening. As I said in another post, the largest customer for southern cotton had developed a cheaper and better source which was fully under their control, and also would have undersold them.
The stringent rules about states rights bit back when local units would go home and states would not sent them back during the war. The open acceptance of succession was simply a given that in time there would be a lot of small and rather poor states instead of a confederacy.
The South was ran very feudalistic for a long time because of the plantation economy. And Britain found it could get cotton from other places besides the South. Whether or not the USA would have traded with the South, that could be left up to debate.
Another crop to look at is sugar. There were plenty of other places to get sugar cheaper than Louisiana, so Louisiana would have been undersold as well.
If it wasn't that important of an issue, then what was the Articles of Secession about? At least for the first 4 breakaway states, slavery was a big issue. Elite planters and politicians openly mentioned slavery as an issue. Why? It was about economics.
It depends on which side you are looking from. For your average southern planter, be he be small fry or one of the top elite, the greatest portion of his wealth was in his slaves. Southern gentry, the class who actually owned the slaves, which was around one percent of the south, did not accumulate cash. They had land, and high ticket European fineries, and crops and slaves. In the north, wealth was in capital but in the south most of the wealth were cash poor.
To them, taking away their slaves would be to take all their wealth. Land was worth something but to maintain it and their style the required labor to turn in a crop to continue the cycle. But it was more than *just* labor, since the slaves themselves were the major investment they held. Just the threat of losing their slaves was unthinkable.
How much intent there was with the beginnins of the war to free slaves is questionable from the point of view of the North. It was about resisting the acts of secession. To *some* it was a hope, but the abolitionists were never a majority. In a practical way, slavery was destined not to survive the war, but that was more an unintended concequence at the beginning.
With the disruption of life with armies pushing through civilian territory, slaves would have an expanded chance to run, and with men and boys sent away for the war running would easier too. Until it became *politically* expedient to embrase the issue and champion the end of the practice, more often than not runaways were stranded by armies who could barely feed themselves, and escapee/refugees simply got in the way. Some of the generals were not just uninterested, but not opposed at all. Some had people who got in the way shot if they didn't leave.
This is a classic tale, however, since refugees (and even if they were intentional refugees thats what they were) always get in the way and are pushed aside or worse by marching armies.
When the war had dragged on, the death toll mounting, and it still wasn't won and over.. and ... Lincon faced reelection, he added a new cause, the elimination of slavery *in the south*. States which held slaves but were not confederate were *not* effected by the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln had become increasingly troubled by the human side of slavery, but it wasn't until after the proclamation that it became a major *personal* motivation.
However what counts as a *cause* is what existed at the beginning, and for the North it was not of much importance, and that only to a sliver of the populace. For the south it was important because it was the cornerstone of their system, and the percieved threat to slavery loomed larger than it was as the war began.
You can say that slavery was both a fundamental issue and one of little thought depending on who you reference.
Overnight, I had to think about alot of things. One major thing I had to consider was the economic impact of the Civil War. After the Civil War, Britain turned to India for its cotton. Since Britain basically ruled India, Britain could get cotton from India, and cheap. The northern states depended on southern-grown cotton for its textile mills in cities like Fall River,MA;and Lowell,MA. Louisiana was the big sugar cane grower. However, it was later found that one could get sugar from the Caribbean as it would be more plentiful.
The question is this. What would have happened if the South had won?
Well, there are a few scenarios that could have taken place.
1) The USA could have imposed a trade embargo in the CSA, rendering all products from that region useless. The same happened to Haiti, only worse. In Haiti's case, France made Haiti pay for its independence, and there was a boycott on Haiti by neighboring colonies. With the CSA, there is a possibility that the USA would have imposed a boycott on all southern-grown agricultural products. I have said that the slave system would have died out by the 20th century. However, one thing to consider is that if the USA had boycotted the CSA, this would have caused a big problem. Cotton plantations would run at a loss because they would have had a hard time getting their products to a market. It would have collapsed. The South would have plunged into a depression deeper than it did after Reconstruction. The slave system would have to end much sooner because there would be no use for slavery.
2) Another scenario would have taken place. The USA might see that getting cotton from overseas would have been very expensive. The USA would not have considered a boycott and would have decided to be trading partners with the CSA. Slavery would have continued longer,eventually dying out by the time the late 1880-early 1900s. The industrial revolution that hit the northern states might have eventually hit the South as well.
The South was ran very feudalistic for a long time because of the plantation economy. And Britain found it could get cotton from other places besides the South. Whether or not the USA would have traded with the South, that could be left up to debate.
Another crop to look at is sugar. There were plenty of other places to get sugar cheaper than Louisiana, so Louisiana would have been undersold as well.
I think the northern mills would have simply looked at price and quality. India cottown still is the best in the world, thought its not cheap anymore. Then it was. They would have bought what cost them less. I don't even think it would have been 'personal' to not buy southern cotton, just financial.
The ultimate doom of the South from the start as it developed was that farming was largely based on non-food crops. Cotton, tabbacco and sugar were the primary money makers. Sugar is a food, of course but it was a treat then, not something you had to have for survival. Part of it was the quality of the land in some areas, but largely it was much higher profits were available from these crops. Thus the economy of the south was closely connected to the rise or fall of their price without a lot of alternatives.
Overnight, I had to think about alot of things. One major thing I had to consider was the economic impact of the Civil War. After the Civil War, Britain turned to India for its cotton. Since Britain basically ruled India, Britain could get cotton from India, and cheap. The northern states depended on southern-grown cotton for its textile mills in cities like Fall River,MA;and Lowell,MA. Louisiana was the big sugar cane grower. However, it was later found that one could get sugar from the Caribbean as it would be more plentiful.
The question is this. What would have happened if the South had won?
Well, there are a few scenarios that could have taken place.
1) The USA could have imposed a trade embargo in the CSA, rendering all products from that region useless. The same happened to Haiti, only worse. In Haiti's case, France made Haiti pay for its independence, and there was a boycott on Haiti by neighboring colonies. With the CSA, there is a possibility that the USA would have imposed a boycott on all southern-grown agricultural products. I have said that the slave system would have died out by the 20th century. However, one thing to consider is that if the USA had boycotted the CSA, this would have caused a big problem. Cotton plantations would run at a loss because they would have had a hard time getting their products to a market. It would have collapsed. The South would have plunged into a depression deeper than it did after Reconstruction. The slave system would have to end much sooner because there would be no use for slavery.
2) Another scenario would have taken place. The USA might see that getting cotton from overseas would have been very expensive. The USA would not have considered a boycott and would have decided to be trading partners with the CSA. Slavery would have continued longer,eventually dying out by the time the late 1880-early 1900s. The industrial revolution that hit the northern states might have eventually hit the South as well.
One can only speculate and give an opinion.
Interesting thoughts. Considering the vindictive system imposed on the South after it lost, if the war dragged on and the same need for revenge existed, I can well see a trade embargo imposed. Even before the end, southern agriculture had taken a major hit and they didn't have anything else. I could see Northern interests offereing a deal of cotton severly undersold which would create an ongoing condition of poverty but might have held off collapse. But the mills also depended on a steady, and dependable suppy of cotten, and if the fields and labor was disrupted, the south may not have been able to supply this. The English could, along with a very high quality product. They would have used one of the other and made a deal, not both. If the economy crumbled along with the fuedalized society, *slavery* would have died a natural death early.
But consider feudal Europe. They did NOT hold slaves, or not importantly. The major driving force was serfdom. You lived on the land with your family. You farmed strips for the Lord as partial rent, but also gave a portion of what you grew. The lord in the castle kept away the barbarians. It was for a a win win, until the barbarians were gone and the serfs remained. This is more likely what the south would have *quickly* fallen into as it did after reconstruction. Tenant farming is almost identical to serfdom without barbarians. In the modern world and even in the post war south, it was modified to the owner's advantage with credit from the store for those necessities you had to have. You were tied to the land until you could pay it off and you never would.
The mixed layer of black exslaves and white poor living under tenancy which did happen would likely have happened if by intention or accident there was no advantage to hold slaves as slaves. Tenancy also removed the need to take care of and feed babies and old people and sick people, since you got your cut of the crop even if they didn't get much at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
