If the civil war had ended differently....

I have been thinking this for a while.

Winning the Civil war was one of the biggest mistakes the United States has ever made The Confederates did not want to be a part of a secular Democracy, and forcing them to remain in the Union was not only a big waste of human life, but also a bad idea.

Now our nation remains deeply divided along much the same lines (at least culturally) that existed back then. We would now have a more peaceful, just and compassionate nation had we just avoided this war.

What a very interesting answer, ebrown!

Thank you.

But, if I may intrude on your brain a bit more....

Let's pretend I'm really ignorant on this topic (not a stretch) and that I'm really trying to better understand the reasons for the war (the truth), I would love to hear your thinking that led you to this conclusion. (When and if you have time, no hurry!) Because really, I don't feel informed enough to ask questions and therefore better digest your reply.

I'm not in the habit of bumping my own thread, prefering to let them die a dignified death if nobody seems too interested but I'm still really curious about this and I thought we had some real Cival War buff around here so...

BUMP

Apu was right, the Late Unpleasantness had multiple causes and they weren't always simple. Here are a few causes, not in any sort of priority order.

Different economies. The South was almost exclusively agrarian, while the North was dependant upon trade. The Industrial Revolution was widely adopted in the North, while the South clung to plantation living. Because of this the North wanted protectionist trade barriers, and the South, depending on cheap imports, wanted free trade. The North encouraged individual entrepeneurship and invention. The South was mired in the status quo and looked down upon manufactures of all sorts.

Differing historical perspectives and cultural expectations. The South looked backward and held highly romanticized notions about chivalry, gallantry, and the superiority of the aristocracy. The North was forward looking, always looking for the main chance. The North looked back at the restrictions of the Old World as something to be left behind, not preserved. The South loved reading Sir Walter Scott, while the North preferred reading pamphlets on new inventions and new ideas. The population in the South grew much slower than the population of the New England states where most new immigrants walked off of the ship. The South was Episcopal-Baptist, and the North was Congregational-Methodist. In the North the expansion of canals, roads, railroads, and telegraph was rapid, while many Southern communities remained virtually isolated from any urban centers. Of course, the Southern economy was dominated by true slave labor, while in the North wage slavery was the rule of the day.

Stresses imposed by national expansion. Already early in the 19th century it was evident that the United States expected to expand westward. The Louisiana Purchase was intended to resolve the problem of free navigation on the Mississippi, and coincidentally opened the trail to Oregon. The Northwest Ordinance, enacted under the Articles of Confederation was just the first of many "annexations" of western territories into the States. New immigrants, especially in the North, rushed westward to find their own bit of land, personal freedom and wealth. As a consequence many of the early States were Free States, and that began to alter the political balance in Congress.

The Southern States, who had a slight dominance after the Revolutionary War, began to fear that they would eventually be outvoted by Northerners. In addition, the plantation economy was very hard on the land. Intense cotton farming after a few generations wears out the land and yields begin to fall. The answer for many Southerners was to look for new lands conducive to the plantation system. For instance, they wanted to annex Cuba. Part of the friction between Anglo-Texan settlers (many of whom were slave holding Southerners) and the Mexican government was the holding of slaves (slavery was prohibited by Mexican law). Northern politicians blocked the annexation of Texas largely because they feared that Texas would be broken up into smaller slave holding states to give the South more power in Congress. A number of compromises and laws were passed between 1815 and the Civil War to defuse the problem, but each ended in failure. The political history of the time is fascinating, but far to complex and lengthy to go into here.

Slavery. "Apu, just say slavery!" Many of the issues mentioned above had slavery as subtext. The Founders in order to obtain ratification of the Constitution had to compromise on the slaver issue with the Southern States. The Slave Trade was made illegal by 1815, but slavery didn't just wither away as expected. Some States turned from direct farming to the breeding of slaves for sale further South and West. Slave smuggling rose, as did the death rates in passage. The slave population in the South was large, and even those who wanted to do away with it were frightened of the consequences of large numbers of freed slaves wandering the countryside. Without slave labor how could the Southern way of life continue? The Northern laboring classes were opposed to slavery as possible competition for their wage-slave jobs in factories, but had nothing against slavery in the South. On the other hand, Northern liberals headed the abolitionist movement and worked hard to destroy slavery everywhere in the United States. This caused a great deal of friction, and the Fugitive Slave Law and the Dred Scott Decision only threw gasoline on the fire.

Harry Turtledove wrote some future histories on the very subject. Want me to see if I can find the titles.

Turtledove is a very good writer, by the way, with doctor's degree in history.

"What if" is always an interesting game, but in this instance, I don't see much room for the "IF". The industrial, economic, and manpower resources of The North assured Southern defeat, and only the timidity and ineptitude of early Northern Generalship and the extraordinarily able Generalship on the part of some of the Confederate commanders throughout the conflict permitted the war to last as long as it did.

I think a more likely "what if" centers on why the war lasted as long as it did. Had The North prepared properly for war, and had it followed contemporary good military practice at and immediately following First Manasas, Richmond, the capitol of The Confederacy, very likely would have fallen within weeks.

Thank you, Asherman, for you're clear and concise explaination.

You've raised a couple of points that are interesting to contemplate - what would have happend if we had annexed Cuba or if Texas had split into several different states....?

Hi Roger and thanks for the tip! I'll google around for more information on Turtledove and search out his work.

That is indded an interesting question, timberlandko!

Shelby Foote addresses the question as to why the war took 4 years. He believes it had to do with some bad decisions made by Union generals early on and the fact that the Northern soldiers were not very enthusiastic about their cause. Many northern soldiers were basically mercenaries - new immigrants paid to fight. Southerns felt they were defending their homeland and their way of life. It's been awhile since I read Mr. Foote's books, but I highly recommend them.