AH Challenge: no confederate nostolgia

[Scott Rosenthal]

David: You are trying to compare apples with oranges, or at the very least, apples with PCs. Immigration to the south wasn't depressed by slavery, it was depressed because the nature of the Confederate economy (and this included FAR more than simply slavery) was unsuitable for mass immigration. Industrial development was quite limited in the south, thus depriving immigrants of a ready job market, farmland was more limited (not simply plantations, even in plantation-sparse states, rich farmland was more limited than the north and midwest), and economic mobility was restricted. Certainly slavery exacerbated these characteristics, but it didn't cause them. Add to this the differing social structures in both regions (the south didn't exactly prize social mobility), and it becomes clear that immigration was tied to factors that had far more to do with the differing makeup of both regions than simply the existence of slavery.

There is no question that slavery affected the economic development of both regions differently, but it isn't entirely clear that it was inefficient or even deleterious to the south. Northern industrial efforts were heavily subsidised by tariffs, and the little matter of cotton exports (a huge money-maker pre-1860) seems to be ignored quite often. Agricultural productivity was higher in the MIDWEST than in the south, but certainly not in New England or the Middle Atlantic states. Southern crops had seriously limited yields outside of their geographic 'homes' though, and this, more than anything else, would have been disastrous for the south in the long run. For instance, there were numerous COUNTIES in Georgia that produced more cotton than the entire state of Texas, and outside of the existing Confederacy, it is difficult to find any other good cotton-growing prospects. Indigo (sp?) and sugar were a bit easier, but even these high-value crops weren't going to be able to compete with the vast food output from the midwest over time.

Regarding slaves and investment, you stand on firm ground. Slaves represented something on the order of 2 billion dollars in real property in 1860, a staggering percentage of the total value of real property in the south at the time. On the other hand, slaves tended to be concentrated in larger plantations, which were not the bulk of the holdings in the south. One of the more interesting untold stories of the pre-war south was the huge white underclass, smallholders and the like who did not own slaves, and were astonishingly UNPRODUCTIVE farmers as well. These smallholders never improved their efficiency or moved into manufacturies or trade, as did their cousins in the north. They also didn't invest in slaves, so this couldn't be a factor...perhaps it was cultural?

 

[MerryPrankster]

"David: You are trying to compare apples with oranges, or at the very least, apples with PCs."

Heh, heh, heh.

Y'all are darn right. In addition to being immoral, slavery is (in the long run) unprofitable and unsustainable.

 

[David Howery]

actually, it's pretty clear that the south was agriculturally inefficient on those crops that were available in both north and south. Hogs weighed on average 60 lbs. less in the south than those in the north. Comparable businesses that were run by slaves in the south and by wage workers in the north were shown by modern studies that the slave worked ones were only about 1/3 as efficient as the northern ones (!). Horses were used for plowing in the north because they were more efficient, and mules were used in the south because they could take more abuse. A study of the slavery era noted that southerners had to buy hoes that were three times as strong as those sold in the north. Slavery is the cause of all this inefficiency. Why wouldn't it be? Slaves had no interest in doing a good job or being efficient. There was absolutely no incentive, and they had no fear of reprisals, as they knew they were too valuable to just kill out of hand like the Romans used to do to their slaves....

 

[Scott Rosenthal]

David: You are ignoring the fundamental differences in the geography in which both slave and free labor systems existed. Most hog enterprises, for instance, were small farms in forested and rock(ier) terrain in the south, those in the north tended to be larger, and run on flatter terrain closer to rivers (the ancestors of todays factory farms). Horse vs mules might also be explainable by the fact that mules can subsist on diets that horse would sicken and die upon, and the North (with easier access to the grain-producing midwest) could easily provide horsefeed, while adequate feed for mules could be produced locally in the south. The hoes can be explained the same way, while the productivity of slave labor vs free labor can be attributed to the fact that the overwhelming bulk of slaves worked at labor which free workers did not. There is no question that free labor is more efficient (where did the idea that it is not come to mind?), but slave labor was hardly inefficient to the point of dysfunctional, however repellant we both might find it to be. That said, you are trying to tie all of the south's difficulties and failings to one single flaw. This might be fine for one of Ken Burn's documentaries, but it hardly stands up well to serious analysis...

 

[Scott Rosenthal]

Matt: We agree...in the long run, slavery is unsustainable in the face of modern industrial development In the short run, however, it is quite sustainable, and therein lies the bug....

 

[carlton_bach]

There was absolutely no incentive, and they had no fear of reprisals, as they knew they were too valuable to just kill out of hand like the Romans used to do to their slaves....

I don't buy that that was at all common practice. Yes, there's that famous tale of Trebellius Pollio threatening to feed a clumsy slave to his pet moray eels, but that's Suetonius in full storytelling mode - personally I don't think its credible. Beyond that, how many documented cases in which a Roman master killed a slave 'out of hand' (ie for a disproportionately minor offense and without deliberation) do we have? The Digests cite Hadrian (extralegally) banishing a Roman matron for having her maid put to death for carelessness - not exactly evidence for it being common. The Romans were pretty nasty to their slaves, but I doubt they were impulse serial killers.

 

[atreides]

First, thanks to all the people who had so far answered my questions. Your comments are very enlightening indeed.

So basically you say that apart from slavery there were other issues, arising from diverse factors like demography, culture, economy, politics, etc. But I can't believe slavery wasn't central, or very important. As someone pointed out, slavery has a lot to do with economics, politics and culture. And also there's another question that comes to the fore: other countries in the world had also seen regions within them lose power in favor of others, now and in the past, but I don't think there are many cases, of actually going to war over it. So there must be something else working, something particular to the American culture of the time. I wonder if slavery can be linked to that "something"?

To Scott Rosenthal, thanks for your interesting and detailed views. Good work! But I have to protest over this, at a personal level:

******personal protest begins****

"4) You suggest that the south acted out of irrationality and racism, betraying a substantial ignorance of american culture."

You may think I'm too sensitive, and perhaps I am, but I really didn't like the wording of that sentece.

Why? Because if an American gave an opinion about my culture in an educated way, and then asked if he was wrong or not about my culture/history/etc., the LAST thing I'd do would be to call him/her "substantially ignorant"...because to begin with he was just basically asking for info, and didn't HAD to know anything about my culture anyway: in fact I'd feel flattered he had enough interest in my culture to dare venture an opinion at all.

And no, I don't think I'm a "substantial ignorant" about your culture. In fact, I daresay I know your culture a lot more than you know mine. Mind you, it is ok with me: I won't blame you for not knowing something you don't need to know...I'd just inform you.

****personal protest ends****

To answer your point, yes, I know racism was everywhere (in LatAm too) and I think I didn't implied otherwise, but it was more an issue to the South than the North, obviously. And irrationality? Maintaining racism is in itself irrational, economicaly, politically, etc. So therefore, it seems to me that going to war to keep it, be it the first reason or the tenth reason, should be even more irrational. That's the sense of the "irrationality" I was talking about.

If I'm wrong in my appreciations, then I'll welcome any corrections. Thanks you!

A.

 

[Scott Rosenthal]

atreides: Re your concerns regarding the use of the words 'substantially ignorant'. Sorry if you took offense, but words have meanings, and here the meanings strike me as appropriate. Ignorant, unless I am mistaken, means without knowlege of, or generally uninformed as to the substance of, a given entity. We could quibble abit about the definition, but I suspect that we could quickly come to some sort of general agreement there. I prefaced my use of the word 'ignorant' with 'substantially' because I don't believe that you are completely ignorant. On the other hand, referring to the south (as a group of people over many decades of existence) as irrational and racist is in fact evidence of substantial ignorance of these poeple and their history. I don't suggest you did so with malice, and in fact would argue that ignorance (substantial or otherwise) is something of an excuse.

You are absolutely correct that I know little of your culture (in fact, I don't even know where you are from...), but I would likely to avoid making sweeping generalizations (except perhaps in jest, which I doubt you were doing here) about it if I didn't wished to be characterized as ignorant.

Moving on... you note the relative absence of civil wars in other states where regions lost power to other regions, yet slavery wasn't involved. Might I (gently) suggest that you need to read a bit more history. The number of civil wars tied to precisely this sort of thing is almost beyond counting, even if we wish to limit ourselves to the 20th century alone. It really becomes a question of how we wish to interpet the whole thing...after all, I have a marxist friend who persists in telling me that EVERY war (including WWII) was the obvious outgrowth of capitalism and its internal contradictions. Slavery certainly was 'gasoline on the fire' as it were, but there were many, many other factors at work.

 

[Brilliantlight]

We know that now, they didn't then. Lee thought it perfectly possible to shatter the AOTP... that was the whole point of his maneuverings at Gettysburg, and why he kept attacking the Union positions. In hindsight, he would have done better to move off, find a defensive position, and let the Union attack him instead....

After which they surround the defensive position cutting the supply lines. Lee will then be forced to attack the troops cutting him off or move south to more friendly area, if he has time. Lee is in the north and is facing an army larger then himself. There is no real reason for the Union to assault Lee when a siege would do better.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Atreides: A complete answer to your questions might take more space than this board has available, and I am not known for brevity in the best of circumstances, but I will do my best to give you some succinct replies. Please note that I do NOT defend the southern positions, I merely describe them. That said....

1) The ACW was about quite a bit other than slavery, and in fact slavery was pretty much a peripheral issue. An important one yes, but hardly central to the conflict as such. So the idea that the civil war was about abolishing slavery (and thus unique in that sense) is not entirely correct. It would be true, however, to argue that the process of emancipation was more violent in the US than elsewhere.

2) In every state that seceeded, there was (at the very least) a vote in the state legislature. There is very little doubt that, with a few notable exceptions, most of the states that seceeded would have done so even if the issue had been put to a referendum. Note that Maryland (for instance) wished to secede, but was prevented from doing so by what were fairly clearly extralegal means by Lincoln as he took office. Some of the border states (notably Missouri) had overwhelmingly secessionist state govts, but were quickly seized by enterprising Union military officers. Then there is the case of TN, which was strongly divided between a confederate sympathizing west, and a unionist east. There the matter was resolved largely through military action. As you can see, it isn't a terribly clear-cut answer, and the resolution of the issue in places like Kentucky formed the basis of some of the more interesting political and military manuvering of the war.

3) The argument that the South made re: the decision to secede was that as the North took greater and greater control of the levers of power in the federal govt, it had grown increasingly despotic in both its methods and directions of control. Tariff policy, for instance, was designed almost exclusively to support northern manufacturers, and was devastating to southern agricultural exports. New states with economies and political leanings overwhelmingly hostile to southern interests were being admitted, while expansion into areas potentially friendly to the south (such as Cuba) were effectively blocked by Northern majorities. Immigration policy which encouraged mass immigration (very good for the industrial north, devastating for the agricultural south) was forced upon the south, as was a policy of 'internal improvements' which favored northern railroads vs southern canals and rivers. The south, which had been the dominant power in American politics from the time of the revolution, was losing out economically (as the industrial revolution took hold in the north), politically (the northern population, and hence its political power, burgeoned in the 19th century), even culturally, and the south saw this as a threat to its very way of life. If the North dominated the union, so went the reasoning, the south could either stay in increasing submission, or leave to remain the master of their own fate. Slavery was a superlative example of this, as the south (which felt, rightly or wrongly, that slavery was essential to its way of life) saw their 'peculiar institution' under increasing attack by a hostile north, and an ever more restive federal govt. The fact that America is a democracy (actually a republic, but lets not quibble) made the matter worse, as the growing population imbalance between the north and the south meant that the north's dominance would only grow with time. For the south, the growing dominance of the north could not be reversed, but it could be run away from...or so they thought...

4) You suggest that the south acted out of irrationality and racism, betraying a substantial ignorance of american culture. I assure you that racism was (and sadly, still is) alive and well in the north, and in many cases far worse. I have lived all over this country, and the worst racism I found wasn't in Atlanta or Texas, but in Boston and Minnesota. Speculation as to why would take several posts all its own, but let me assure you that the notion of racism as a southern vice is simply nonsense. There clearly WAS racism in the south (once again, still is), but one need only read the newspapers in any major northern city during that period to see that it was hardly limited to the CSA. The south was a cultural entity, not simply a political or economic one, and like it or not, slavery was an integral part of that. The plantation culture rested heavily upon slavery, and the absence of any significant industrial base (or for that matter a large trading class) meant that the plantation culture was the 'brass ring' as it were, for the society as a whole.

I suggest this all the time, but if you want an outstanding one-volume history of the era that will give you some perspective, check out James McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom". This book covers the period leading up to the war quite well, and illustrates the trends that contributed to it. Like all works of its sort, it has limitations, but if you are looking for some understanding, I believe you will find it most valuable.

1) The South would have had a shot of recognition by England and France by freeing the slaves. They had no realistic chance unless they did that. Southerners knew full well that recognition would be easier to get if they did so. Even in late 1864 and early 1865 when their position was hopeless they chose not to do so which makes it obvious that preserving slavery was one of the main reasons for secession.

2) All of which were slave states along with all the states in the Confederacy. There seems to be a pattern here.


3) They should have done what good politicians should do and make deals. Certain northern congressmen would have been willing to do something for the south if they get something in return. That is how democracies work. They could have gotten some northern farm states like Wisconsin or Iowa to oppose tarrifs harder it they helped some other bill that helps the south more like an internal improvements bill that mandates that the road shall be built in North Carolina for example. It also contradicts your first point which said slavery was a peripheral issue. It wasn't it was one of the MAIN issues.

4) Of course the north was racist but that is not the point. It isn't always good vs bad but bad vs worse. Blacks were doing considerably worse then northern whites but much better then southern blacks.

 

[Brilliantlight]

I'd point out too that the votes for secession were extremely close in every state except TX.. sometimes, just a few thousand votes were the margin of victory. This wasn't so much because so many opposed secession, it was more because a lot of people wanted to 'wait and see' what Lincoln did before seceeding. However, the 'secede now!' people managed to swing things their way... just barely.
Slavery wasn't really a peripheral issue, but it wasn't the only issue behind the war... and it influenced every other issue. Why did the south have no immigration? Slavery meant no jobs for immigrants. Why did the south have no investment capital? Everything was tied up by the plantations. Slavery led to an incredibly inefficient agriculture in the south (livestock averaged lower weights, yields per acre were less). No investment capital meant no factories and few railroads, and the south was dependent on the north for dang near all manufactured goods (and no, they weren't happy about that). One would have to conclude that even if the south had won it's independence, their economy would have been dismal for decades to come, and slavery would have had to be abandoned anyway....

Agreed, but it would have taken them until at least 1900 to admit that, more likely 1920. They would have had to admit to themselves that the Yankees were right and no one wants to admit that the other party was right.

 

[Beck Reilly]

1) The South would have had a shot of recognition by England and France by freeing the slaves. They had no realistic chance unless they did that. Southerners knew full well that recognition would be easier to get if they did so. Even in late 1864 and early 1865 when their position was hopeless they chose not to do so which makes it obvious that preserving slavery was one of the main reasons for secession.

All this indicates is that the South was economically dependent on slavery. Look at it this way. If the South lost, well, they would be forced to free their slaves, BUT they'd at least have the relative backing of the north in building a new economy. However, if the South won, but was forced to free their slaves to do it, they would be on their own, without an economy, and no one to help. So, they chose to attempt to stick with their economy, hoping that superior leadership on the battlefield and superior soldiery alone would win them the war. Unfortunately for them, the odds were too greatly stacked in the North's favor.

 

[Brilliantlight]

David: You are ignoring the fundamental differences in the geography in which both slave and free labor systems existed. Most hog enterprises, for instance, were small farms in forested and rock(ier) terrain in the south, those in the north tended to be larger, and run on flatter terrain closer to rivers (the ancestors of todays factory farms). Horse vs mules might also be explainable by the fact that mules can subsist on diets that horse would sicken and die upon, and the North (with easier access to the grain-producing midwest) could easily provide horsefeed, while adequate feed for mules could be produced locally in the south. The hoes can be explained the same way, while the productivity of slave labor vs free labor can be attributed to the fact that the overwhelming bulk of slaves worked at labor which free workers did not. There is no question that free labor is more efficient (where did the idea that it is not come to mind?), but slave labor was hardly inefficient to the point of dysfunctional, however repellant we both might find it to be. That said, you are trying to tie all of the south's difficulties and failings to one single flaw. This might be fine for one of Ken Burn's documentaries, but it hardly stands up well to serious analysis...

1/3 as efficient actually makes sense. Why would a slave work hard? He gets nothing for it but abuse. It is obviously unfair to him and you need to have foremen to see that they do much of anything and that limits its productivity as well.

 

[Brilliantlight]

All this indicates is that the South was economically dependent on slavery. Look at it this way. If the South lost, well, they would be forced to free their slaves, BUT they'd at least have the relative backing of the north in building a new economy. However, if the South won, but was forced to free their slaves to do it, they would be on their own, without an economy, and no one to help. So, they chose to attempt to stick with their economy, hoping that superior leadership on the battlefield and superior soldiery alone would win them the war. Unfortunately for them, the odds were too greatly stacked in the North's favor.

Being economically dependent on slavery makes it a peripheral issue how? If your economy is dependent on something it is a MAIN issue.

 

[Beck Reilly]

Being economically dependent on slavery makes it a peripheral issue how? If your economy is dependent on something it is a MAIN issue.

It was the primary ECONOMICAL reason. But there were other reasons for the secession as well. The primary OVERALL reason was the loss of southern power compared to the rise of northern power. Basically, the South felt as if the North could bend or break any southern customs, traditions, or laws without the South even having a say in the matter. The federal interference with what the South viewed as strictly southern matters was the primary cause of the Civil War.

 

[Brilliantlight]

It was the primary ECONOMICAL reason. But there were other reasons for the secession as well. The primary OVERALL reason was the loss of southern power compared to the rise of northern power. Basically, the South felt as if the North could bend or break any southern customs, traditions, or laws without the South even having a say in the matter. The federal interference with what the South viewed as strictly southern matters was the primary cause of the Civil War.

1) Even granting there were other reasons the prime ECONOMIC reason is still a primary reason not a peripheral one. If the north would have not tried to even limit slavery (Lincoln was elected on a platform that limited slavery to only those states that already had it but not abolishing it.) the south would have never tried to secede.

2) Virtual all the things mentioned is a direct result of the south being dependent on slave labor. Its customs were based on the fact that you had an entire race of people of whom the vast majority were slaves. Its traditions were based on having black slaves to whom it was all right to treat like cattle. Its laws revolved around keeping slaves from getting educated and/or escaping.

 

[robertp6165]

You folks seem remarkably quick to jump on me (by my calculation, you're criticizing me for not responding to an offensive post within a couple hours of its being posted). And yet awfully slow to hit that nice convenient "report this post" button that appears in the upper right corner of every message. You know, Walter, the exclamation mark button I told you about last week. The one I told you you should probably press before complaining that I miss offensive comments.

Sigh...

So THAT's what that exclamation mark is! Ok...well, Ian, thank you for the explanation. And thank you for responding to BL's post, too.

 

[David Howery]

Scott Rosenthal
That said, you are trying to tie all of the south's difficulties and failings to one single flaw.


say what?!?! I'm not tying all the south's problems into a single cause. If you go back and read my earlier posts, you'll see I said straight out that slavery was only one cause of the ACW, and that it affected all the other issues. The only point I'm trying to make here is that agriculture in the south was inefficient, and slave based agriculture was even more so. We agree on that much, quit picking on me

 

[Scott Rosenthal]

Brilliant:

1) Before 1864, the idea that the south should give up ANYTHING for peace with the north was anathema to any souther politician of any standing (even people like Stephens wouldn't not discuss it openly), and after that, it was clear that NOTHING was going to bring European recognition. The south did in fact discuss emancipation (and DID arm slaves for the military, with emancipation as the reward for service) in 1865 (way too little, way too late) at the explicit request of RE Lee. Even then, the uproar was considerable, if we are to believe Mary Chesnut and her ilk. The fact of the matter was that large sections of the south (thost most dependent upon slave labor, an economic, not ideological issue) such as Georgia (with its fiercely territorial Gov Brown) simply weren't going to discuss the matter, and argued that the CSA constitution put slavery outside the control of the govt in any event. I find the notion of the CSA actually obeying a constitutional decree that they found inconvenient vastly amusing, but there you are...

2) Several slave states did NOT secede (notably the border states), and several that did ONLY seceded after Lincoln called up troops to use against the secessionists. While this latter point is something of a formality (face it, VA was going...), some states (notably NC and FL) might have been kept in the union had they been more accessible to Union armies. This was the case with KY, MO, and TN, all of which had substantial slave populations. Slavery didn't lead to secession, though there is little question that it was a positively correlated factor.

3) Southern leaders (notably the 1850s era Senators) were lousy politicians? Well whack my wanker, hold me while I faint of shock! Of course they were horrible politicians, most of them were arrogant planters with all of the worst attributes of English aristocracy and without the neato accent. Remember, this is the crowd that gave us Jeff Davis! In fairness, there wasn't a whole lot that they could bargain with, as the confluence of interests between the north and the midwest were very strong, and northern domination of the federal govt was in the interest of everyone EXCEPT the south. The internal improvements (mostly RR, some canals) that ran east-west couldn't go through the south, as they wouldn't lead anywhere useful, but in the north they would lead directly to the terminus for the midwest and its rich resources. Tariffs were fine with the midwest, their consumption of industrial products was low, and after transportation costs were factored in, the tariffs didn't really come into their calculations. Northern goods were reasonably cheap for them, and European ones were luxuries. Even intelligent southern leadership (in almost vanishing supply by then) would have been hard pressed to do much in the way of logrolling, and the lot that they had weren't intelligent, and weren't interested in bargaining. They had dominated the govt ever since the Virginia mafia took control of the show following the revolution, and they saw it as their right....

4) There is considerable debate about this point. There isn't (or shouldn't be) any question that slavery was a horrible way to live, and NOBODY is defending it (I am not), but in terms of lifespan, health, etc. there isn't a whole lot of evidence to suggest that slaves weren't about as well of (in a physical sense, at least) than their compatriots in the north. Remember, early industrial revolution was a BAD time to live in, and the openly racist nature of much of the north (once again, try reading a newspaper of the period in any major northern city, Boston is my favorite...) didn't make things any better.

5) Lincoln was elected on a platform in 1860 that explicitly rejected federal interference in the institution of slavery, but would discourage its growth outside of the existing slave states. It wasn't until 1862, and even then only when it was forced upon him by the exigencies of war, that this changed and Lincoln swung in favor of emancipation. Now in fairness most southerners saw Lincoln as an abolitionist (remember he was a compromise candidate, and was seen more as a representative of the pro-abolitionist GOP not as the figure we think of him as now), but the rhetoric of the campaign was certainly not focused on slavery as the sole issue. Slavery was seen as a 'test of strength' between the GOP and the Dems (in much the same way as several issues are simply proxies for naked partisanship today), but the south had been threatening secession since the 1820s, and more often than not, on issues having nothing to do with slavery.

6) There is no question that slavery contributed (and strongly so) to the onset of the ACW, but it was a necessary, not a sufficient condition. Had the South been in a position to block what they saw as northern interference in their internal affairs, northern domination of the central govt (leaving them with no real incentive to stay in the Union, since they were doing quite well financially selling their agricultural output), and northern attempts to subsidise their own industries and trade at southern expense, the deadlock around slavery would have been seen for precisely what it was...an important, yet peripheral question. The fact is though, that after the Mexican war, the southern position became more and more untenable, and they were left with few options (in their minds) to resist these intolerable conditions other than secession. Mind you, I don't defend these positions, but read any southerner of the time, and you will see this in their writing. All of the CSA bigwigs said this for at least a decade before the war, and it was a common refrain from every southern politican during that era.

7) Regarding slave labor as inefficient, this has been a big issue in academic debate for years. Eugene Genovese originally raised this point, but later even he backed off a bit, particularly in the light of the huge surprlus in payments generated by southern cotton and other agricultural output. The southerners were terrible businessmen, and almost totally in thrall to Northern bankers by 1860 (one of the more amusing points about emancipation was that the southerners lost about 2 billion in property, most of it was made up for by the default on the roughly 2 billion that they owed bankers in the north), but the middlemen who grew fat on the cotton trade certainly didn't see slave labor as unproductive. I am NOT defending slavery, nor am I suggesting that in the long run, the South would have had big problems as mechanized agriculture grew more efficient, but circa 1861, this simply wasn't obvious, nor was it necessarily true.

8) We agree completely regarding Lee and defensive positions. As was demonstrated quite nicely during the 1865-65 campaign in the east, if Lee found a nice solid defenisve position to hold, the Union would be delighted to besiege him and simply walk over the rest of the confederacy.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Brilliant:

1) Before 1864, the idea that the south should give up ANYTHING for peace with the north was anathema to any souther politician of any standing (even people like Stephens wouldn't not discuss it openly), and after that, it was clear that NOTHING was going to bring European recognition. The south did in fact discuss emancipation (and DID arm slaves for the military, with emancipation as the reward for service) in 1865 (way too little, way too late) at the explicit request of RE Lee. Even then, the uproar was considerable, if we are to believe Mary Chesnut and her ilk. The fact of the matter was that large sections of the south (thost most dependent upon slave labor, an economic, not ideological issue) such as Georgia (with its fiercely territorial Gov Brown) simply weren't going to discuss the matter, and argued that the CSA constitution put slavery outside the control of the govt in any event. I find the notion of the CSA actually obeying a constitutional decree that they found inconvenient vastly amusing, but there you are...

2) Several slave states did NOT secede (notably the border states), and several that did ONLY seceded after Lincoln called up troops to use against the secessionists. While this latter point is something of a formality (face it, VA was going...), some states (notably NC and FL) might have been kept in the union had they been more accessible to Union armies. This was the case with KY, MO, and TN, all of which had substantial slave populations. Slavery didn't lead to secession, though there is little question that it was a positively correlated factor.

3) Southern leaders (notably the 1850s era Senators) were lousy politicians? Well whack my wanker, hold me while I faint of shock! Of course they were horrible politicians, most of them were arrogant planters with all of the worst attributes of English aristocracy and without the neato accent. Remember, this is the crowd that gave us Jeff Davis! In fairness, there wasn't a whole lot that they could bargain with, as the confluence of interests between the north and the midwest were very strong, and northern domination of the federal govt was in the interest of everyone EXCEPT the south. The internal improvements (mostly RR, some canals) that ran east-west couldn't go through the south, as they wouldn't lead anywhere useful, but in the north they would lead directly to the terminus for the midwest and its rich resources. Tariffs were fine with the midwest, their consumption of industrial products was low, and after transportation costs were factored in, the tariffs didn't really come into their calculations. Northern goods were reasonably cheap for them, and European ones were luxuries. Even intelligent southern leadership (in almost vanishing supply by then) would have been hard pressed to do much in the way of logrolling, and the lot that they had weren't intelligent, and weren't interested in bargaining. They had dominated the govt ever since the Virginia mafia took control of the show following the revolution, and they saw it as their right....

4) There is considerable debate about this point. There isn't (or shouldn't be) any question that slavery was a horrible way to live, and NOBODY is defending it (I am not), but in terms of lifespan, health, etc. there isn't a whole lot of evidence to suggest that slaves weren't about as well of (in a physical sense, at least) than their compatriots in the north. Remember, early industrial revolution was a BAD time to live in, and the openly racist nature of much of the north (once again, try reading a newspaper of the period in any major northern city, Boston is my favorite...) didn't make things any better.

5) Lincoln was elected on a platform in 1860 that explicitly rejected federal interference in the institution of slavery, but would discourage its growth outside of the existing slave states. It wasn't until 1862, and even then only when it was forced upon him by the exigencies of war, that this changed and Lincoln swung in favor of emancipation. Now in fairness most southerners saw Lincoln as an abolitionist (remember he was a compromise candidate, and was seen more as a representative of the pro-abolitionist GOP not as the figure we think of him as now), but the rhetoric of the campaign was certainly not focused on slavery as the sole issue. Slavery was seen as a 'test of strength' between the GOP and the Dems (in much the same way as several issues are simply proxies for naked partisanship today), but the south had been threatening secession since the 1820s, and more often than not, on issues having nothing to do with slavery.

6) There is no question that slavery contributed (and strongly so) to the onset of the ACW, but it was a necessary, not a sufficient condition. Had the South been in a position to block what they saw as northern interference in their internal affairs, northern domination of the central govt (leaving them with no real incentive to stay in the Union, since they were doing quite well financially selling their agricultural output), and northern attempts to subsidise their own industries and trade at southern expense, the deadlock around slavery would have been seen for precisely what it was...an important, yet peripheral question. The fact is though, that after the Mexican war, the southern position became more and more untenable, and they were left with few options (in their minds) to resist these intolerable conditions other than secession. Mind you, I don't defend these positions, but read any southerner of the time, and you will see this in their writing. All of the CSA bigwigs said this for at least a decade before the war, and it was a common refrain from every southern politican during that era.

7) Regarding slave labor as inefficient, this has been a big issue in academic debate for years. Eugene Genovese originally raised this point, but later even he backed off a bit, particularly in the light of the huge surprlus in payments generated by southern cotton and other agricultural output. The southerners were terrible businessmen, and almost totally in thrall to Northern bankers by 1860 (one of the more amusing points about emancipation was that the southerners lost about 2 billion in property, most of it was made up for by the default on the roughly 2 billion that they owed bankers in the north), but the middlemen who grew fat on the cotton trade certainly didn't see slave labor as unproductive. I am NOT defending slavery, nor am I suggesting that in the long run, the South would have had big problems as mechanized agriculture grew more efficient, but circa 1861, this simply wasn't obvious, nor was it necessarily true.

8) We agree completely regarding Lee and defensive positions. As was demonstrated quite nicely during the 1865-65 campaign in the east, if Lee found a nice solid defenisve position to hold, the Union would be delighted to besiege him and simply walk over the rest of the confederacy.

1) Which shows them to be more interested in slavery then anything else. They didn't even have to concede it to the north but say that they did it to get English recognition. I agree by 1864 it was too late to get that no matter what. England would certainly not profit by backing what they knew as the wrong horse. They would upset the US for no reward as the Confederacy was doomed by then. The "Armed black Confederate troops" never made it to the front line.

2) You are not going to fight to perserve anything when it it is certain to everyone you are doomed if you do unless it is clearly a die fighting or just die scenario which this wasn't. Union soldiers didn't go around shooting people just for kicks.

3) You always have things you can bargin with. The average politician wants the deck stacked heavily in his favor in case some of "his" votes go the other way.

4) However bad it was in the north the slaves kept going in that direction. There weren't many blacks going south to be enslaved.

5) The south was worried about a sort of "Cut it off and then kill it." scenario in which the north woud eventually have so many more people and land (out west) that slavery would be abolished in the long run anyways unless the US started doing things like invading Cuba. From what I have read I think it is safe to say that was more or less Lincoln's plan.

6) In other words if the Southerners were strong enough to block abolitionist action in Congress they would have stayed in. I agree there. The fact that there was no places for roads to go in the South was their own damn fault. Start building factories and cities and suddenly you have places to go.

7) Farms (or anything else) are AlWAYS going to produce less with slave labor then free labor. For example, look at Stalinist Russia which could be described as a huge slave camp and didn't produce squat compared to other European powers on a per capita basis.

8. Yes and no. Lee should certainly have attacked but it should have been a counter-attack in the Union conquered areas in the South not going north on a suicide mission. With a counter attack he would have had the civilians on his side and easier logistical problems and a better idea of the topological layout. Also it is MUCH easier to retake a city that has most of the population on your side then to conquer a much larger city with the populace hostile to you. The South had ZERO chance of taking a major Northern city.