Do you think that the Civil War was worth the human cost?

Question

Do you think that it could have been more effective if we resolved our issues in some other manner that may not work as well, or do you think the cost was appropriate? Do you believe that the conflicts needed to be resolved? What do you think were the highlights of the Civil War, which rights were the most important obtained? Was it worth the 660k+ death count?

Personally, I believe that it was worth the cost of men and the destruction of property.

Answer 1

If you believe that the Civil War was worth the human cost, you cannot argue rationally against the war in Iraq. I hear every day about the American lives unnecessarily lost in Iraq. While I agree that each life is precious, it is a tiny number compared with prior wars. The Iraqi people under Saddam Hussein were even more oppressed and terrorized than 19th century slaves in this country.

Not that the Civil War was only about slavery, but I don't have the energy to go there right now.

Answer 2

No. I believe that slavery would have been phased out in short order , and the issue was not the primary cause of the war, anyway. Otherwise, why did that genetic freak Lincoln wait until the war was half over (and the pending elections looking dicey for the GOP) before issuing the Emancipation Proclamation (which only freed the slaves IN THE SOUTH, not in the slave-holding loyalist states)?
I think these United States are excessively bloated and our government is necessarily incapable of being representative, therefore. The War Between the States was about states' rights to self-determination. If the Confederacy had become a sovereign nation, the entire course of history in the 20th Century might have been radically different.
There are some interesting speculative fiction books based on this concept, by the way. Worth the read, if only because they will challenge the whole "South is Evil" bullcarp that has been shoved down the brainholes of American students since 1866.

Answer 3

If the south had better negotiators, things could have been resolved without conflict. The south was not really about slavery except as a side issue. It was about taxes.
The northern staes had manufacturing, but European goods were still cheaper. The north put a tarrif on imported goods so they would cost more. The north also set the prices for everything. They'd say "we'll pay you X amount for your crop, and we'll sell you a plow for X amount." The south wanted freedom to negotiate their own prices. The common people in the north said let them go and we'll still deal with them, but the manufacturers knew they'd lose out, also the north had less farmland and greater population so they would have less bargaining power to obtain food. To get the interest of the northern population, they emphasized the slavery issue. You will notice that the northern states were not required at first to give up their slaves. I am not in any way shape or form trying to condone slavery. It is evil in any context, but just trying to make the point that many issues that are presented as black/white are usually have/have not.

Answer 4

People have not evolved to sufficient degree as to negotiate most any worthwhile issue in a peaceful manner, we're still of an innately barbaric nature... check out our interest and 'enthusiasm' in the area of "sports" such as boxing, comic "wrestling", american football, soccer, rugby, etc.... check out the fans' "enthusiasm"!
Yes, I've only mentioned a few of our commonly accepted games, sports and tests of endurance and strength and power and combat and 'oops', how did I get here from there? Because they're all intertwined...
Is a game of human football worth the injuries and deaths it produces? Is ANY sport?
So, what of war? To focus on your assignment, The Civil War... worth the loss of human lives?? I think most definitely NOT! But the people involved could not/ would not negotiate in a peaceful manner over ANY of the major or the minor issues which is what brought on the savage carnage suffered of all wars.
Sadly, so many in the southern states continue that war in their hearts and actions today... and have an undeniable hatred for anyone from the northern states. The KKK was born of that mentality shared with the sour-graped hatred demonstrated by so many of that segment of our 'single nation of one'.
"Poor Losers", it would be said... if it were an accepted form of combat, such as modern-day sports akin to boxing or football. The stuff of which pride and machismo is made!
How can it be said that ANYTHING is worth the cost of a human life, except in the case of actual self-defense during a criminal assault against oneself or one's family?? When it's necessary to kill or be killed, you kill or you die...
But, the peoples and nations of this world need to communicate in true negotiaton when political differences become an issue-- or just let the ol' bastards duke it out between themselves and not involve the innocents. Let Bush strap on his 6-shooters like the Texan he is! Let the combatants be those who created the conflict in the first place...
Sure, I've wandered all over the place in answering your question, but it's not a pat answer that will do your question justice. It's not your question... it's THE question. I wish the answer were "42"...

Answer 5

Being from the north, I can honestly say that the U.S. would not be the same without the southern states....I am glad they are still part of the United States. I agree that the war could have been avoided if there were more negotiations, but once the war started it was inevitable that the humon cost would be so high.....it was a rare time in history when human military technology far outpaced military tactics....the rusult was huge loss of life.

Answer 6

If you are asking this question, then you need to ask if the Revolutionary War was worth the cost. I think the better question to ask is "Was the cause of the war worth it?" My answer is yes, sometimes war as unfortunate as it is, is worth the price in order to gain the end result. Most countries not just the U.S. had civil wars, and at least this one was to create some type of equality amongst all who lived here.

Answer 7

Definitely not. There is a very good series of books of alternate history called "Stars and Stripes Forever" which has an alternative solution. In it, slavery was phased out--those persons who were born after such and such a date would be free, and the slaveholder would be responsible for them until they reached adulthood. Slaveholders who preferred would be paid a set amount for their slaves by the government, who would then be free. The North then used some of the assets it had built up to fight the war to instead build up industry in the South to create jobs for the freed slaves, and required the businesses to hire at least so many freed slaves. I liked one businessman's answer to a problem he had--the white workers refused to work with former slaves, so he said fine--fire all the white workers and hire only former slaves!

Answer 8

No war is worth the human cost. ALL issues can be solved peacefully if all parties are willing.

And below the Mason-Dixon Line it is called the War of Northern Aggression

Answer 9

Blood was the argument and the only rebuttal. It was a high price, but since the Union was preserved, it was worth it. Continental Europe would have loved to have the USA fragment. Each fragment would have been weaker. The Axis might have won the second World War...

Answer 10

of course it was worth it. it would have been better to find a different way rather then killing people to resolve the issue. but sometimes there is no other way