Well, if we’re going into history… I believe (despite being a northern democrat) that the Civil War was fundamentally unjust. It makes a mockery of the principles of the Declaration of Independence if secessionary states will be outright invaded.
(If slavery was an issue, then the North should’ve just bought out the South—likely would’ve been much cheaper than the actual war.)
(If slavery was an issue, then the North should’ve just bought out the South—likely would’ve been much cheaper than the actual war.)
The North (well, congress) tried to buy out the South (well, slaveowners). The South rejected it. There were actually multiple attempts at this, some before the war, some during the war.
The thing is, the War between the States really truly was about slavery, nothing else. The dodge that it was about states’ rights comes down to exactly one right—the right to keep slaves. Compare with such travesties as the fugitive slave acts, which they pushed through congress, which actually did greatly infringe the rights of the northern states. The southern states, despite some of their propaganda, did not generally support the right of secession. Their Constititution explicitly forbade it. Every single article of secession passed by their state legislatures explicitly called out slavery as the reason for secession.
The odd thing is that slavery was not in any immediate danger. But with the election of Lincoln the southern states saw that their grip on the country was not as absolute as they desired, and they threw a tantrum, because they demanded not only the right to have slaves, but that the rest of the country not judge them for it.
Considering the length and, um, disputed quality of his writings, could you not simply link to Moldbug’s blog? At least not as if it’s somehow a decisive counterargument—“well, Moldbug disagrees, sorry.” Not saying you intended that as an appeal to authority, but …
I was struck by one quote from Lincoln’s first inaugural address (emphasis added):
“The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.”
In other words, as long as they rendered unto Caesar and didn’t take his stuff, Lincoln was willing to abandon all other federal government functions no matter how constitutionally mandated. This seems like secession in all but name.
Remember also that the casus belli was that Fort Sumter was supposed to be handed over to the Confederacy, but the federal government refused to.
Both seem more consistent with a power theory than a slavery theory.
Okay, sure, in some sense it was about that, just as we can talk about the cause of the war being the laws of physics plus the entire past light-cone.
But that’s not usually what we mean by “cause of war”. I don’t see how this is a cause in any truly useful or predictive sense. Expanding and protecting personal power certainly is necessary for wars, but it’s pretty much vacuously satisfied: the prominent decision makers almost always want to expand and preserve their power. Although it often leads to wars, it often doesn’t. What made or let it lead to war this time, rather than more peaceful politicking?
The thing is, the War between the States really truly was about slavery, nothing else.
I am suspicious of any monocausal theory of historical events. Surely slavery is by far the most important cause of the war. But there were a lot of other reasons.
The North (well, congress) tried to buy out the South (well, slaveowners). The South rejected it. There were actually mulitple attempts at this, some before the war, some during the war.
I did not know that, though I am not greatly surprised. Do you have a source where I can learn more?
Unfortunately failed attempts are written about much less than successful ones, so I have not found in-depth discussions on the net about “compensated emancipation” in the U.S., though that’s the term to search for. I have found a few references to specific attempts though.
Yeah, I have a bad? habit of editing my responses as I think more about them. I try not to substantially alter them after people respond, but I missed this time.
I would say generally bad, but it did not really bother me this time, because it was easy for me to edit my own repsonse to fit. And you still answered my question.
If we’re going to nitpick, then the South shooting first is as propagandistically misleading as saying Germany shot first in WWI or Japan in WWII. Yes, it’s true, if you ignore the things like supplying arms to Britain or embargoing Japan or lying to the South about evacuating Ft. Sumter:
“He stated that Mr. Seward authorized him to give assurances to the Southern commissioners that Fort Sumter would be evacuated. This assurance appears to have been repeated, on various occasions, and at length with the statement that the fort would be immediately evacuated. On the seventh of April, Mr. Campbell, having learned, doubtless, that ships-of-war were in motion at New York and elsewhere, and hearing the rumors at Washington, addressed a note, indicating his uneasiness, to the Secretary of State, and received the explicit reply: “Faith as to Sumter fully kept—wait and see.” On the twelfth of April, a fleet, consisting of two sloops-of-war, a steam cutter, and three steam transports appeared off Charleston harbor, and remained at anchor in the offing, inactively, during the assault which ensued. It is well known that upon the appearance of this fleet, a message was despatched to Montgomery for orders, to which the reply was, to demand the surrender of the fort, and to reduce it if compliance with the demand were refused. Upon Major Anderson’s refusal, the bombardment began.”
I believe that the end results of the American Revolution were beneficial enough to justify it in hindsight. However at the time it was initiated, the projected benefits were indeed to little to justify what occurred.
Yeah; as far as I can tell, the United States basically got lucky in that its revolution didn’t result in the kind of mess that appeared in the aftermath of various other famous revolutions.
The justification was the tremendous economic potential needed local, independent government given the constraints of communication and transport at the time. That’s what they taught me in high school History, anyway. Also, that about 1⁄3 of colonists supported the revolution, 1⁄3 the crown, and 1⁄3 weren’t aware it was going on.
By the way: I’m new here, and I notice there’s no way to neutralvote once you’ve already voted. e.g. I voted you up and then changed my mind, but don’t want to vote you down. So you get a freebie.
I might agree with this. But would you say that it was justified on other grounds and that these were just used as the “sellable to the public” excuse?
It worked out fairly well, but considering the results of the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the Iranian Revolution, among others, I’d say we got lucky.
Here’s one on a very different topic:
England’s offenses against the American colonies did not justify the American Revolution.
Well, if we’re going into history… I believe (despite being a northern democrat) that the Civil War was fundamentally unjust. It makes a mockery of the principles of the Declaration of Independence if secessionary states will be outright invaded.
(If slavery was an issue, then the North should’ve just bought out the South—likely would’ve been much cheaper than the actual war.)
I believe that neither side had the foggiest idea of how costly in lives and money the Civil War would turn out to be.
The North (well, congress) tried to buy out the South (well, slaveowners). The South rejected it. There were actually multiple attempts at this, some before the war, some during the war.
The thing is, the War between the States really truly was about slavery, nothing else. The dodge that it was about states’ rights comes down to exactly one right—the right to keep slaves. Compare with such travesties as the fugitive slave acts, which they pushed through congress, which actually did greatly infringe the rights of the northern states. The southern states, despite some of their propaganda, did not generally support the right of secession. Their Constititution explicitly forbade it. Every single article of secession passed by their state legislatures explicitly called out slavery as the reason for secession.
The odd thing is that slavery was not in any immediate danger. But with the election of Lincoln the southern states saw that their grip on the country was not as absolute as they desired, and they threw a tantrum, because they demanded not only the right to have slaves, but that the rest of the country not judge them for it.
It’s a bit more complicated than that.
Considering the length and, um, disputed quality of his writings, could you not simply link to Moldbug’s blog? At least not as if it’s somehow a decisive counterargument—“well, Moldbug disagrees, sorry.” Not saying you intended that as an appeal to authority, but …
I was struck by one quote from Lincoln’s first inaugural address (emphasis added):
In other words, as long as they rendered unto Caesar and didn’t take his stuff, Lincoln was willing to abandon all other federal government functions no matter how constitutionally mandated. This seems like secession in all but name.
Remember also that the casus belli was that Fort Sumter was supposed to be handed over to the Confederacy, but the federal government refused to.
Both seem more consistent with a power theory than a slavery theory.
Not about expanding or preserving the personal power of the most prominent decision makers? Wow. The war between the states sounds truly exceptional!
Okay, sure, in some sense it was about that, just as we can talk about the cause of the war being the laws of physics plus the entire past light-cone.
But that’s not usually what we mean by “cause of war”. I don’t see how this is a cause in any truly useful or predictive sense. Expanding and protecting personal power certainly is necessary for wars, but it’s pretty much vacuously satisfied: the prominent decision makers almost always want to expand and preserve their power. Although it often leads to wars, it often doesn’t. What made or let it lead to war this time, rather than more peaceful politicking?
I am suspicious of any monocausal theory of historical events. Surely slavery is by far the most important cause of the war. But there were a lot of other reasons.
I did not know that, though I am not greatly surprised. Do you have a source where I can learn more?
About which assertions?
Unfortunately failed attempts are written about much less than successful ones, so I have not found in-depth discussions on the net about “compensated emancipation” in the U.S., though that’s the term to search for. I have found a few references to specific attempts though.
http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=8&subjectID=2 lists an attempt in 1847 (unclear what territory it covered—may have only been Pennsylvania) and one submitted by Lincoln in 1849 (limited to DC). Neither succeeded.
http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=35&subjectID=3 covers some of the actions during the war.
For slavery being the only real cause of the civil war, well, to me it’s pretty clear that without slavery there wouldn’t have been a civil war, and that no change that didn’t also eliminate slavery would have eliminated the civil war, though some may have delayed it. There are two nice blog posts more or less on that topic: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/04/the-ghost-of-bobby-lee/38813/ and http://volokh.com/posts/1218531359.shtml
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/4/13/856804/-To-Those-Clueless-Wingnuts-Who-Claim-That-SLAVERY-was-NOT-the-Main-Cause-of-the-CIVIL-WAR… has a nice selection of the actual declarations of secession. More can be found with a bit of searching, e.g. http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
I’ll try to add a bit more later.
Your comment was simpler when I responded. I have edited my response to quote the part I was responding to.
I think your first two links address my question, though I will have to look at them in more detail.
Yeah, I have a bad? habit of editing my responses as I think more about them. I try not to substantially alter them after people respond, but I missed this time.
I would say generally bad, but it did not really bother me this time, because it was easy for me to edit my own repsonse to fit. And you still answered my question.
Nitpick: The South shot first. Just a nitpick, though ;)
If we’re going to nitpick, then the South shooting first is as propagandistically misleading as saying Germany shot first in WWI or Japan in WWII. Yes, it’s true, if you ignore the things like supplying arms to Britain or embargoing Japan or lying to the South about evacuating Ft. Sumter:
I believe that the end results of the American Revolution were beneficial enough to justify it in hindsight. However at the time it was initiated, the projected benefits were indeed to little to justify what occurred.
Yeah; as far as I can tell, the United States basically got lucky in that its revolution didn’t result in the kind of mess that appeared in the aftermath of various other famous revolutions.
The justification was the tremendous economic potential needed local, independent government given the constraints of communication and transport at the time. That’s what they taught me in high school History, anyway. Also, that about 1⁄3 of colonists supported the revolution, 1⁄3 the crown, and 1⁄3 weren’t aware it was going on.
By the way: I’m new here, and I notice there’s no way to neutralvote once you’ve already voted. e.g. I voted you up and then changed my mind, but don’t want to vote you down. So you get a freebie.
Clicking on the bold “vote up”/”vote down” undoes it.
Thanks. I thought I was doing that, but I must have been switching to the other link because the score was incrementing by 2.
I might agree with this. But would you say that it was justified on other grounds and that these were just used as the “sellable to the public” excuse?
It worked out fairly well, but considering the results of the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the Iranian Revolution, among others, I’d say we got lucky.