The Civil War costs and benefits suggest Lincoln was wrong.
I’ve just finished watching Ken Burns “The Civil War” and (as usual) I think I’d argue a very unusual position in terms of what the North and South “should” have done given the massive cost in lives and prosperity and pride. It seems to me that:
The South was reckless to secede. They should have realized they had little or no chance of winning a war, and even if they’d won they would have been a weak and poor new country even if the North had agreed to engage in much trade with them – a questionable proposition at best. Slavery was a morally bankrupt institution and the moral hypocrisy was particularly glaring given the South’s emphasis on the principles of Christianity.
Lincoln was irresponsible to prosecute the war so early. After Fort Sumpter Lincoln should have pressured Virginia (or at least the West Point Graduates) to stay neutral rather than immediately calling for a massive army, an act that clearly pushed many Virginians toward secession. Without Virginia’s wealth, military, and brilliant commanders like Jackson, Lee, Forest, Stuart, and more the war would have been over very quickly with far fewer dead and far less destruction. Reconstruction would have worked well rather than ushered in a long era of exploitation and corruption.
Lincoln should have considered a “no war / no recognition” policy. He would have allowed the deep south to go about their secessionist ways, courted Virginia to stay in the Union or stay neutral, and then enacted laws and policies to thwart secession non-violently such as no trade, no return of escaped slaves and active support of the underground railroad. This would have undermined the secession efforts without the massive death and destruction of infrastructure via Sherman’s march, and probably led to an eventual return of those states to the union when the economic challenges of secession started to bring greater and greater hardships to the people.
There seems to be a prevailing view in history circles that the war was justified because it preserved the union and ended slavery. I agree that slavery was so diabolical you can make a case that no cost was too high to bear to end it, but I think it could have been ended at a much lower cost both then and in terms of future fights for civil rights. Innovation and industrialization combined with the growing moral outrage and demands of poor immigrants (who didn’t want to compete with slaves) would likely have eventually ended slavery soon even in the deep south.
In terms of preserving the union, I think the case for the Civil War is extremely weak – largely irrational in fact. You simply cannot make a reasonable case that the cost of the Civil War – 625,000 dead, millions disabled, South destroyed and demoralized – justified simply keeping the deep South states in the union. “A House Divided Against Itself” did not stand – one side crushed the other with consequences that last even today in terms of the lower living standards in the deep south. A cost benefit analysis of the Civil War would show it was not worth fighting.
Comments very welcome as always!
Advertisement
Please subscribe to the feed
To be fair, their is nothing remotely unchristian about slavery. The bible is quite clear on how one treats slaves, which would indicate the religion is ok with slavery not against it.
The South was reckless to secede. They should have realized they had little or no chance of winning a war.
Agreed–yet there’s a bit more to it. For one, Lincoln may have wanted to “work things out” but the radicals didn’t (ie Douglas, abolitionists, etc). Slavery was not only to be ended–the goal was to seize the properties–ie plantations– of the southern rascals. So, yes, the secessionists were reckless, but they had little choice really. One could play “what if” –ie. had Virginia stayed with the North, there might not have been enough firepower or officers (Lee–Jackson was from Georgia…Longstreet also, wasn’t he)–but to men like Breckinridge– probably as important as any southerner in terms of arguing for secession–there was no choice. You fight.
The thing that bugs me about the CSA leaders–Jeff. Davis especially– was their endless hype, broken promises, …grandiose plans (Beauregard in that camp at times too, but much greater heart than Davis..or Lee IMHE). The southern boys may joke about that, but read accounts of the later battles–like Vicksburg, where the soldiers ( forced conscripts for most part) had hardly any rations (not just food, but …boots and clothes, etc), little ammo, few rifles–and Davis is sending messages to his officers, like 5000 men are on their way with rifles,ammo, food, etc, and you get a sense of how absurd the situation was for the South (at least some of union brass–Sherman– let the rebels surrender–tho’ Uncle Billy was no saint either).
“You boys may think war is all glory, but war is all Hell.”
Joe, I am not sure I concur with your conclusions because you’re looking at the war as we know it went down. Expectations on both sides were for a relatively quick and “cheap” conflict.
As a species we seem to systematically underrate the second part of Sherman’s analysis.
Tom thanks for checking in. One of these days we should meet up down there and tour some battlefields. Or maybe even .. Waterloo !
Certainly agree that hindsight is better, but I don’t see historians suggesting that the actual costs were not worth the actual benefits. On the contrary it seems generally accepted in academic circles that Lincoln was “right” to fight. Usually the justification seems to be that it preserved the union and expedited the end of slavery.
Other relevant examples more timely: how long have we now been in Iraq?….in Afghanistan?….how long did our leaders think we would be in Vietnam? Underestimation on wars seems to be a disease rampant among politicians of every political stripe.
horatiox, for the record Tom Jackson was from Virginia. Longstreet was from Georgia. Wikipedia tells me he was Catholic, which I never knew.
Yes, Jackson was virginian (West VI. actually). Should have recalled that–he is however immortalized on Stone Mountain in Georgia, along with Lee and Davis. Heroes of the CSA yall.
Got Longstreet correct at least. Longstreet did convert to catholicism, fairly late in life–also ….joined the GOP after the war (he was already pals with Grant ante-bellum, as they say). Longstreet may have been a good general, but he was blamed for the failure at Gettysburg (not without some justice–he apparently thought Lee’s plan too aggressive, and may have stalled a bit), and not respected much by the old southerners.
Longstreet was correct in his assessment that the attack as proposed was suicidal and could not work. He wanted the Big Tops and failing that wanted to slide south and east to cut the Federal supply line. Lee ought to have retreated the third day. He did not have enough men, he did not have enough ammunition, his army was spread out with exterior lines of communication facing an enemy on high ground with interior lines of communication and many more men and supplies. Marching men across a mile of open ground facing entrenched muskets and massed artillery was not “aggressive”. Longstreet did in fact delay, but in the end did as ordered, very reluctantly… tis said that he never actually uttered the order to advance.
>The South was reckless to secede.
Yes, most countries path to war is sheer folly.
>They should have realized they had little or no chance of winning a war
Generals never think that. Young men marching off to war always want to get a go at it before its over since it will be so short and victory is assured.
>even if the North had agreed to engage in much trade with them
I don’t think there was all that much North-South trade. That is why earlier embargoes had been so difficult. Northern Economy versus Southern Economy met in Washington, DC and when that failed, they met on the field of battle. Each flying false flags relating to slavery or freedom to secede.
> Slavery was a morally bankrupt institution and the moral hypocrisy
Please do not consider morality as an issue. Northern factory owners needed capital and Southern plantation owners needed capital. Slaves were capital. Slavery was a moral issue only to the rabble rousers such as the nearly mad John Brown. Various alternatives such as Liberia or relocating Negroes to Brazil were under serious consideration. The institution was indeed enroute to oblivion but the North did not want to pay compensation for eroding Southern capital.
>The South’s emphasis on the principles of Christianity.
Well the North had Bible-Thumpers too. None of them mattered much. We open our public meetings with prayer prattling and pledges of allegiance. No one ever takes any of it seriously.
>Lincoln was irresponsible to prosecute the war so early.
Not necessarily. Failure to prosecute it promptly might have meant defeat.
>Lincoln should have considered a “no war / no recognition” policy.
He didn’t have to. McClellanism was the functional equivalent of a Phony War.
>prevailing view war was justified because it preserved the union and ended slavery.
Slavery was not an issue. It was merely an excuse of great convenience.
>625,000 dead, millions disabled, South destroyed
>A House Divided Against Itself” did not stand – one side crushed the other.
Precisely, but then that was the goal.
Not exactly, FG. Slavery was not the only issue, but it was an issue–certainly to the Northerners. Lincoln may not have been a radical abolitionist but the abolitionists (such as RW Emerson) were pressuring him to end slavery and to make the southern rascals pay. Ergo, there was a financial motive for the North’s military actions as well: ie, control of the Southern economy–the construction and control of the railroads as well. As with the materiel issue, the railroad-monopolies are typically overlooked by the pop-historians (like Burns).
For one, Lincoln and Grant were acquainted with the industrialists such as Vanderbilt, and Carnegie. That may sound a bit cynical but by the end of the CW (ie, Sherman’s march) the Northern industrialists were very interested in making a profit from the Union’s destruction of the South (which continued with Reconstruction). Thus the South paid for the actions of a few CSA leaders (mostly corrupt, reckless rogues, the generals included).
There is no question that the economic benefits of the War of Northern Aggression were of paramount importance. Supplying the Northern army and rebuilding the Southern railroads would be profitable. So much corruption, confusion and negligence went into the war purchasing that to this day much of our corruption and whistle-blower actions are brought under Civil War era legislation. There were some social pressures on the slavery issue and there was some progress being made on it as well, but I just don’t see drawing-room debates as exerting real pressure.
Thanks for the bit of knowledge about the source of whistle blower and corruption legislation came from civil war times. I think that war time purchases are urgent at the time and seen as corrupt later. In the War Between the States both sides had their share of corruption. The North could afford the wastage but the South could not. I read once that the North’s economy improved during the war even though much debt was accumulated.
My plan for the South to win is to abolish slavery (pay the slave owners in Confederate dollars) in 1861, let the Union occupy and supply its garrisons like Sumter and build up the Southern industrial base over the next decades. You lose a little on the periphery and maybe the border states join the Confederacy. Thr North will get tired of such an ill defined war, as we do now in Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. This would have removed the trade policies which were hobbling the Southern economy.