Would it have been cheaper for the North to buy every slave instead though of fighting the Civil War?

How much more would it have cost to enslave the white Southerners along in the bargain?

For the sake of simplistic and elementary internet conversation, I'll temporarily grant you that the south seceded due to to their desire to maintain ownership rights over slaves.

The doesn't mean that the north fought to free slaves. It was 1861. African Americans (free or enslaved) were not even recognized as full human beings. Northern soldiers and politicians were in no way interested in the plight of the black people. This was of no concern.

For example; you and your wife get a divorce. You go through a vicious battle. You want your wife back, and she wants to leave. Your wife owns a a bunch of coffee cups, and now you have none. Are you fighting to get your wife back, or are you fighting for those coffee cups?

That's all it was to northerners. They wanted the south back. No one gave any thought to the slaves.

You can not look at a 150 year old historic event through a modern lens. You need context. The reality is that black people did not matter to white people in 1861. Not to southerners OR northerners. The reality is, it is very easy to teach middle schoolers about the Civil War in terms of for and against slaves; its literally black and white. But life and history are not black and white.

Don't paint me as a southern sympathizer. Not at all. Born and raised in Indiana, proud descendant of multiple northern soldiers. Reality is what it is however, and not one single Northern soldier died with any sense of fighting for slaves. Not one. They dies with visions of reunifying the states.[/quote]

Not one? I bet the black soldiers who fought and died in the 54th Massachusetts cared about slaves... but maybe you don't consider black soldiers "Northern."

Although I agree that the North was vehemently racist towards blacks, we should not conflate ending slavery with civil rights. Northerners cared deeply about slavery for a number of reasons. Some, though not a majority, did care about ending slavery for the sake of human rights. They were the most ardent members of the abolitionist movement. The majority of Northerners were terrified of the possibility that slavery would make its way back to the North, potentially replacing factory and other free workers with slave labor. That was made a real possibility after the Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott case that slaves were property and property can be taken anywhere (essentially nullifying all state laws abolishing slavery in the North). So the North could fight to end slavery, but that doesn't have to mean that every white soldier was an abolitionist. A point that I think you were attempting to make.

Of course the North wanted the South to lose the the war and not separate, losing the South would have caused untold political and economic problems for the future of the country. If the South secedes, then perhaps the West would too (a West that was newly and tenuously connected to the U.S.). But Southern secession can never be separated from slavery. I cannot understand why so many people make your argument (I suspect it comes from a reticence to make history about race. Sometimes it very much is). Slavery belongs at the center of the Civil War history. Putting it there doesn't mean that every single person was motivated, as Frederick Douglass was, to end slavery. Putting it at the center helps to understand the real causes of the conflict, not to mention the eventual failure to fulfill the promises of the 14th and 15th Amendments in the 100 years after the war (and beyond).

Devil Dog wrote:

Lorio wrote:

You do understand why the South wanted to secede, right?

Northern soldiers and politicians were in no way interested in the plight of the black people. This was of no concern.

That's all it was to northerners. They wanted the south back. No one gave any thought to the slaves.

Not quite true. Perhaps some Northern soldiers in the North gave little thought to the slaves, but that is not the case for invading Northern armies.

My first example is General Benjamin Butler, who commanded the defense of Ft Monroe, who welcomed any slaves who could reach Union lines, effectively establishing a policy that any slaves who could reach the Union Army were freed. Some of these soldiers helped the Union Army shore up defenses at the fort or actively helped the Union forces in other ways. This "confiscation" of rebel property became the policy for the Union Army. In 1861 the Confiscation Act was passed, effectively freeing any slave who fell into Union hands. Though their status didn't become official until the Emancipation proclamation, thousands of slaves flocked to the Union lines, using the disruptions caused by the war to escape.

Butler was eventually sent to New Orleans, where he welcomed he continued his policies. In 1862, he created 3 regiments comprised of escaped slaves, which he folded into his army. Other union commanders followed suit, by the end of 1862, Congress was forced to pass a law setting wages for African American troops in the Union army. It became widely known that the Union army gave black men a chance to fight to free themselves and their families. By the end of the war, something like 100,000 freed slaves had joined the Union forces. This bolstering of forces was instrumental to Union success and disruption of Confederate economy in some areas, with over half a million slaves (men, women, and children) fleeing to the Union lines in total.

Sorry history guy but you've been brainwashed.

What General Butler was actually giving the slaves wasn't freedom. It was 'state's rights.'

Not only were the northern states just as racist as the southern, the vast majority of them were slave states too, when the country was founded. They merely ended the practice sooner, which was easier for them because they were more industrial than agricultural.

Sojourner Truth was born in the north and her first language was Dutch. Propagandists rewrote her famous speech to project a southern AfAm accent.

Beware of attempts to project false virtue by exposing the vice of others. The north was no better than the south.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Not only were the northern states just as racist as the southern, the vast majority of them were slave states too, when the country was founded. They merely ended the practice sooner, which was easier for them because they were more industrial than agricultural.

Sojourner Truth was born in the north and her first language was Dutch. Propagandists rewrote her famous speech to project a southern AfAm accent.

Beware of attempts to project false virtue by exposing the vice of others. The north was no better than the south.

So you are saying the abolitionist movement was just as strong in the south as in the north? I find that surprising...

Bad Wigins wrote:

Not only were the northern states just as racist as the southern, the vast majority of them were slave states too, when the country was founded. They merely ended the practice sooner, which was easier for them because they were more industrial than agricultural.

Sojourner Truth was born in the north and her first language was Dutch. Propagandists rewrote her famous speech to project a southern AfAm accent.

Beware of attempts to project false virtue by exposing the vice of others. The north was no better than the south.

The Lincoln-Douglas debates gave facts of Lincoln's and the people's mindset of the day. While we cannot fully appreciate the culture of living in that past, it does indicate the far divide of the races of that time.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. " - Abraham Lincoln

To the victories go the writing of the history books. Tearing down and removing history serves no one but the haters of truth. It is often as ugly as it is beautiful.

Good lord, are you referring to the confederate monuments that were torn down? even a dullard could realize that most of those were built as historical monuments. Most were built as racist propaganda years after the war in an attempt to popularize the revisionist Lost Cause mythos. So they were not markers of history, but clearly propaganda pieces.

I'm sure some legitimate monuments have fallen/will fall as a result, but thats the price of erecting hundreds of false 'historical' monuments in a racist campaign.

So you agree Lincoln was a racist?

Go read David Herbert Donald biography of Lincoln.

He DID offer the border states money for every slave.

And what exactly would the North do with a bunch of unemployed Negroes they had bought?!

Ship 'em back to Africa, as even Lincoln and others suggested at times?

The South gave them jobs, if nothing else. Many slaves even went back to their "masters" (as servants or whatever term you want) after the hostilities ended.

Pick and choose wrote:

derp wrote:

Good lord, are you referring to the confederate monuments that were torn down? even a dullard could realize that most of those were built as historical monuments. Most were built as racist propaganda years after the war in an attempt to popularize the revisionist Lost Cause mythos. So they were not markers of history, but clearly propaganda pieces.

I'm sure some legitimate monuments have fallen/will fall as a result, but thats the price of erecting hundreds of false 'historical' monuments in a racist campaign.

So you agree Lincoln was a racist?

Sure, by modern definitions he undoubtedly was to a degree, especially publicly out of political necessity . Just as he was undoubtedly against slavery. Just as the Civil War was undoubtedly about slavery. did you have a point to make?

You lack reality wrote:

And what exactly would the North do with a bunch of unemployed Negroes they had bought?!

Ship 'em back to Africa, as even Lincoln and others suggested at times?

The South gave them jobs, if nothing else. Many slaves even went back to their "masters" (as servants or whatever term you want) after the hostilities ended.

lol, 'jobs'.

the stupid is strong in this one.

to make it simpler, here are the points I'm actually asserting.

1. slavery was a major cause for the civil War

2. the North was more anti-slavery than the south

3. most confederate war monuments were built long after the war as part of a racist propaganda campaign

the third one is the only one that is even open to debate.

the thing I love about a Civil War debate is it very quickly identifies two types of people that I like to avoid:

1. people who like to talk very loudly about things they don't know very much about

2. racists who won't let a few facts get in the way.

Devil Dog wrote:

You should not be under the impression the the North gave one fvck about the slaves, or that the Union Army was fighting and dying to free those wretched souls. Racism was just as vicious north of the Mason-Dixon.

They were fighting to keep the South from seceding. Nothing more.

Yes and no. Some Union soldiers did believe that slavery was a sin. And, yes, the South wanted to secede and protect their "way of life". Please tell me what that means? Does that include having cotton-picking slaves?

Does the south still claim that they hate the north because we invaded the south and decimated Atlanta? The same Atlanta that has southern newspapers with articles about southern soldiers hiding behind citizens in the city of Atlanta while Sherman's army was bombing Atlanta?

You seem to forget. The north had an unlimited supply of people and resources. Where were over 70% of all the factories in the 1860's? Where was the majority of this country's population? Harvard and Yale continued their classes as if nothing was going on through the entire war. Meanwhile the south was decimated. Some towns lost over 65% of all men.

South had the slaves. North had some slaves. The south fought to keep slaves. Good luck trying to convince yourself that this is not true.

Don't poke the sleeping bear!

derp wrote:

to make it simpler, here are the points I'm actually asserting.

1. slavery was a major cause for the civil War

2. the North was more anti-slavery than the south

3. most confederate war monuments were built long after the war as part of a racist propaganda campaign

the third one is the only one that is even open to debate.

1. I would agree it was a major political cause, the moral cause at the time was far less so.

2. Yes, for political/economic reasons. Morally not so much.

3. Yes and no. Some were, some were erected for the quarter million who died for their country.

Pick and choose wrote:

derp wrote:

to make it simpler, here are the points I'm actually asserting.

1. slavery was a major cause for the civil War

2. the North was more anti-slavery than the south

3. most confederate war monuments were built long after the war as part of a racist propaganda campaign

the third one is the only one that is even open to debate.

1. I would agree it was a major political cause, the moral cause at the time was far less so.

2. Yes, for political/economic reasons. Morally not so much.

3. Yes and no. Some were, some were erected for the quarter million who died for their country.

1. Oh so the south was morally against slavery?

2. So there wasn't an morally based abolitionist movement in the North?

3. I think you meant 'died fighting their country'. (a bit of a cheap shot, i admit.....but true) .

I agree it is a shame that all the needless propaganda monuments have tainted the legitimate monuments, but it's almost impossible to separate them now. The people who erased history are the people who built all the BS Lost Cause monuments and the ones who used the monuments as a symbol of white supremacy. They are the reason the Confederate monuments are being torn down.

People like the morons who insist the civil war wasn't about slavery.

You lack reality wrote:

And what exactly would the North do with a bunch of unemployed Negroes they had bought?!

Ship 'em back to Africa, as even Lincoln and others suggested at times?

The South gave them jobs, if nothing else. Many slaves even went back to their "masters" (as servants or whatever term you want) after the hostilities ended.

There was the proposal to give freed slaves forty acres of land and a mule. That never came to fruition but the Negroes the North would have bought would not necessarily have moved out of the South. They'd have been free to go where ever they wanted which was the case anyway after the war was over and it was an issue they needed to deal with. Yes, many of them did continue to work for their former owners but had the option of not doing that if they found something better. And yes, there was the idea of returning black people to Africa. That was an idea that both blacks and whites considered at times..

Calling slavery a job, by the way, is a really bad look. By that standard you could say that sending someone to prison gives him a job,