Was the Civil War Worth 600,000 Dead Americans?

[JakeStarkey]

The funny thing is that did not happen, the South got stupid, Lincoln became dictatorial and absolutely ruthless, and we have the country we have today, for better and worse.

 

[Two Thumbs]

wow, the dumb in this thread is long, wide and deep.

Only a great buffoon would consider that a split America would somehow be better.

And would have to completely ignore all the history that has occurred since.

 

[antagon]

I don't think that qualifies as a response to my previous post.

Who cares? I care. I have used some colorful fonts to help you to glean some correlation.

If what you have put forward are arguments, pardon my observation that they are terse. I replied commensurately. I took the time to elaborate your gist, would you pay me the same credit?

Nevertheless, what did the United States lose? What were they defending? What wrong was committed that justified a war of such a scale?

Power, opportunity, land, constituents, resources, relationships, defenses... What do you see as the value of the southeast, moreover the legacy of sovereignty and other accolades of getting publicly robbed?

Alas, who predicted this scale when the conflict started?

I stand by my previous statements, grounded in Lockeian and Jeffersonian principle. You see, I'm not a conservative part of the time, but all of the time. I could take your argument about power, opportunity, land, constituents, resources, etc. and make the same liberal arguments that you reject so much. I could say that law and reason is not grounded in the individual, but the welfare of the collective, and you would reject that out right. I could say that an individual or a people who elects his/their representatives in a free election to exercise his/their will, doesn’t count if there is another person, in another state, in another election, who feels that his elected officials (who have done them no harm) doesn’t represent their interests, or their lust for power, which gives them the right to invade that state, and you would call me crazy! But in this case, self-evident truths don’t matter. In this case, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t matter. In this case, the principles grounded in the Declaration of Independence don’t matter. In this case, the unalienable right of self-government doesn’t matter. This case is all about other people’s goods that make up a federal privilege, and not of everyone’s rights. This case is all about top down federal strong arming of the states and the harm done to the federal government. You said so yourself. And your argument is no different than that of the liberals you argue against in this forum. Where the natural unalienable rights of the individual is NOT the object of which government was instituted to protect, and the general welfare of a nation can be described as not equal treatment under the law, equal allocation of federal protection, but redistributive in nature against everything James Madison argued in federalist no. 41. This is the argument you are making. Thomas Jefferson would not agree. Why? Because the right of secession is concurrent with the natural rights of man. All the legal, philosophical, and moral arguments you've displayed are the bedrock of modern liberal thought. And, secession off the table, you would not practice the same standard in modern legal and philosophical times.

I don't want to be mistaken for a 'conservative', even if I'd align with conservative opinions from time to time. The same with 'liberal'. I'd describe myself as my own brand of social capitalist, and politically, a centered pragmatist.

This post does get to the bottom of your perspective, however. The philosophical basis of our government does not change the fact that it is a nation. All nations take up arms against armed rebels - enemies. They depossessed the US of half of our landmass and themselves of all those rights and principles promised to citizens of the US. The US is the land of the free and home of the brave, not Mexico, the confederacy, the Cherokee or England, against whom the US fought territorial wars. It's the "if you ain't with us..." principle.

Isn't that just as noble and existential a concept as any? The right to fight.

They knew they had an asskicking coming. They exercised their right to fight by seceding, and took up a vote for their own mandate on the matter. I'm gathering that you believe the US should have been moved by the democratic nature of all that. Do you seriously maintain that nostalgia from our revolution would have afforded them a salute instead of a beatdown?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lincoln carefully flamed and incited the northern and western democrat reactions to the firing on Fort Sumter, on Old Glory, and on the memory of the Father Patriots of the century before. He never could have successfully waged war without the solid support of both camps against the South.

How could the Southern leaders thought for a second that the thought "well, the southerners are having their Jeffersonian moment, and let's wish the well and send them a good bye bouquet."

 

[there4eyeM]

Can't resist:
There is immense and sad irony that both the south and north fought for freedom, if we think of the personal motivation of the soldiers.
The southern troops stayed in the field for years without many of the necessities most armies require. Most of those soldiers were not slave owners. Why would they fight and suffer for the rich? They wouldn't have. It was out of their concept of liberty vested in states' rights.
Northern soldiers had the ideal of liberating fellow human beings and preserving a grand nation for a grander cause.
The north's economic incentive was protectionism, the south's, free trade. These concepts were as much at loggerheads as the slavery issue.
Again ironically, slaves would soon be shown to be economically unsustainable in the light of technology that made labor redundant. Besides, as an economic system, slavery has many defects, not least of which is lack of internal markets (thus, free trade was essential in order to sell overseas everything produced).
The south knew that it would soon be outvoted in Congress and lose its unfair population advantage. Otherwise, just paying the 'owners' for the slaves and freeing them, as was done in some other societies, would have removed that problem.
Lincoln did not originate the idea that secession was unacceptable. Even Jackson, a southerner, declared the union had to be preserved. There was, however, no express prohibition of secession in the constitution.
The ascension of the strong central government had its strongest footings in this conflict, yet individual rights were enhanced and protected.
So, was it worth it? No war is 'worth it'. That is not the question. War is organized insanity. Are you happier with what the US has become as a result or do you think things would be better if there were two nations in the same footprint on earth? That determines the worth.
It is subjective, like all ideas, words, concepts. Human.

 

[there4eyeM]

"I don't want to be mistaken for a 'conservative', even if I'd align with conservative opinions from time to time. The same with 'liberal'. I'd describe myself as my own brand of social capitalist, and politically, a centered pragmatist."

A reasonable position.

 

[gipper]

wow, the dumb in this thread is long, wide and deep.

Only a great buffoon would consider that a split America would somehow be better.

And would have to completely ignore all the history that has occurred since.

So is it your opinion that Lincoln was correct in forcing a terrible war that killed and wounded hundreds of thousands, completely destroyed the South, and resulted in terrible racism that persisted for decades? Do you not think the war could have been avoided and the Union preserved?

The Constitution was silent on succession. This was the only way the States would join the Union and ratify the Constitution. This means any state had the right to leave the Union and this was well known up and until the War of Northern Aggression. Lincoln changed all that by the force of arms...funny how tyrants regularly resort to violence to get their way.

No president was more tyrannical than Lincoln.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Get your facts straight.

One, the casualties were more than 600000 dead and 1000000 wounded soldiers, more than 100000 dead civilians, a racism before and during and after the war.

Two, blame the South.

wow, the dumb in this thread is long, wide and deep.

Only a great buffoon would consider that a split America would somehow be better.

And would have to completely ignore all the history that has occurred since.

So is it your opinion that Lincoln was correct in forcing a terrible war that killed and wounded hundreds of thousands, completely destroyed the South, and resulted in terrible racism that persisted for decades? Do you not think the war could have been avoided and the Union preserved?

The Constitution was silent on succession. This was the only way the States would join the Union and ratify the Constitution. This means any state had the right to leave the Union and this was well known up and until the War of Northern Aggression. Lincoln changed all that by the force of arms...funny how tyrants regularly resort to violence to get their way.

No president was more tyrannical than Lincoln.

 

[Againsheila]

The United States will always be worth preserving.

I'm not so sure. What is worth preserving about a state that strip searches children? That forces a 4 year old to remove his leg braces so he can fly? That arrests a soldier for what he posts on Facebook? Why is the United States worth preserving? What exactly do we have today that is worth preserving. We sure as hell don't have the freedom for which our ancestors fought. Few of us can even afford the "American Dream" today, so exactly why is America worth preserving?

 

[antagon]

The United States will always be worth preserving.

I'm not so sure. What is worth preserving about a state that strip searches children? That forces a 4 year old to remove his leg braces so he can fly? That arrests a soldier for what he posts on Facebook? Why is the United States worth preserving? What exactly do we have today that is worth preserving. We sure as hell don't have the freedom for which our ancestors fought. Few of us can even afford the "American Dream" today, so exactly why is America worth preserving?

Take a hike. Get on a plane and burn your passport after you land in whatever shithole you esteem over the US.

I love my country. I love it even though some of us and some of our rules are stupid. We always work them out in time. For all ye of no faith in our nation all of a sudden: just get lost. We have plenty of immigrants coming here who are willing to stand up and defend this country. Dead-weight like you can scram without us missing a step.

Have some honor and leave the country permanently.

 

[Againsheila]

The United States will always be worth preserving.

I'm not so sure. What is worth preserving about a state that strip searches children? That forces a 4 year old to remove his leg braces so he can fly? That arrests a soldier for what he posts on Facebook? Why is the United States worth preserving? What exactly do we have today that is worth preserving. We sure as hell don't have the freedom for which our ancestors fought. Few of us can even afford the "American Dream" today, so exactly why is America worth preserving?

Take a hike. Get on a plane and burn your passport after you land in whatever shithole you esteem over the US.

I love my country. I love it even though some of us and some of our rules are stupid. We always work them out in time. For all ye of no faith in our nation all of a sudden: just get lost. We have plenty of immigrants coming here who are willing to stand up and defend this country. Dead-weight like you can scram without us missing a step.

Have some honor and leave the country permanently.

Where am I suppose to go? America is the only country in the world that takes in people to take away the jobs of their own citizens.

 

[SayMyName]

Was the Civil War Worth 600,000 Dead Americans Just to Preserve the Union?

Yes. It was worth it. It was also worth ridding the nation of the institution of slavery.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hyperbole much?

I'm not so sure. What is worth preserving about a state that strip searches children? That forces a 4 year old to remove his leg braces so he can fly? That arrests a soldier for what he posts on Facebook? Why is the United States worth preserving? What exactly do we have today that is worth preserving. We sure as hell don't have the freedom for which our ancestors fought. Few of us can even afford the "American Dream" today, so exactly why is America worth preserving?

Take a hike. Get on a plane and burn your passport after you land in whatever shithole you esteem over the US.

I love my country. I love it even though some of us and some of our rules are stupid. We always work them out in time. For all ye of no faith in our nation all of a sudden: just get lost. We have plenty of immigrants coming here who are willing to stand up and defend this country. Dead-weight like you can scram without us missing a step.

Have some honor and leave the country permanently.

Where am I suppose to go? America is the only country in the world that takes in people to take away the jobs of their own citizens.

 

[antagon]

I'm not so sure. What is worth preserving about a state that strip searches children? That forces a 4 year old to remove his leg braces so he can fly? That arrests a soldier for what he posts on Facebook? Why is the United States worth preserving? What exactly do we have today that is worth preserving. We sure as hell don't have the freedom for which our ancestors fought. Few of us can even afford the "American Dream" today, so exactly why is America worth preserving?

Take a hike. Get on a plane and burn your passport after you land in whatever shithole you esteem over the US.

I love my country. I love it even though some of us and some of our rules are stupid. We always work them out in time. For all ye of no faith in our nation all of a sudden: just get lost. We have plenty of immigrants coming here who are willing to stand up and defend this country. Dead-weight like you can scram without us missing a step.

Have some honor and leave the country permanently.

Where am I suppose to go? America is the only country in the world that takes in people to take away the jobs of their own citizens.

That's part of our great history, too. Just over 200 choices out there. Be creative. Show up in Mongolia or Greenland and claim refugee status.

 

[Old Rocks]

No price is too high to pay when sweeping aside an outdated republic and instituting a centralised leviathan state.

I think it can be well determined that the South was defending and the North was attacking. Therefore, the context of the question could be regarded as was Lincoln's goal of unity worth wasting 600,000 lives.

Get over it. The south started a war, and the north finished it. Your chosen side lost. Slavery is dead as is the Confederacy. The United States of America is where we live, if you do not like that, there is no law keeping you here.

 

[Indofred]

I suppose you'd have to ask the freed slaves.
Is human freedom worth fighting for?
Can humans be owned as property?

 

[Old Rocks]

I think it can be well determined that the South was defending and the North was attacking. Therefore, the context of the question could be regarded as was Lincoln's goal of unity worth wasting 600,000 lives.

The south (the confederate gov't) was on the offense as they occupied all the seceded states... US territory.

The states seceded via vote by democratically elected officials in their state. That’s the same way they entered in the union. That’s hardly the occupation you describe. Elected officials who execute the will of the people do not occupy. No new outside force entered to lay claim to the Southern States until northern invasion. The people who were in those states were the same people who have always been there. Occupation? If the American Revolution could be justified via the will of the people then why couldn’t secession be justified by the will of the people? Why was war necessary? For defense? To redress a grievance for a loss? Why?

You lost. All of this was settled Appamatox. We are one nation, indivisable.

 

[Katzndogz]

The Civil War certainly should have been worth it. It was worth it for quite awhile. Today, the benefits are debatable.

 

[Againsheila]

Was the Civil War Worth 600,000 Dead Americans Just to Preserve the Union?

Yes. It was worth it. It was also worth ridding the nation of the institution of slavery.

But the civil war didn't do that. The slaves in the north were not freed until AFTER the civil war, they were exempted from the Emancipation Proclamation. In fact, the EP didn't apply to any slaves the north actually had control over. It exempted all slaves in northern states and in southern states already under the north's control. I never understood why Lincoln got credit for freeing the slaves since he didn't free anyone he actually had control over.

 

[Againsheila]

I suppose you'd have to ask the freed slaves.
Is human freedom worth fighting for?
Can humans be owned as property?

Nice try, but 4 slave holding states remained with the north and those slaves were not freed until AFTER the civil war.