Who Would You Have Supported In the American Civil War

[Supersonic]

Neutral, although sympathetic to the Confederacy.

Why, exactly? Is there something I'm missing that makes foreigners more sympathetic to the south than Americans?

France and the UK were relatively pro-South during the course of the war, iirc.

Yeah, France and the UK together .

*hi-5*

Historical tendency and a dose of realpolitik played into my vote.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'd easily side with my fellow Pole.

[angus]

though the Civil War has never been a main area of interest for me I find it absolutely impossible to believe "freeing the slaves" was the actual motivation for the Northern/US invasion.

I always thought it was preservation of the union that was the main motivator.  Anyway, I think it depends upon your line of income.  I'd imagine that if you were an insurer in Hartford, Connecticut that last thing you'd want is abolition of slavery.  If, on the other hand, you were a large-scale farmer in Ohio and you have to pay your laborers, then you would probably be pretty keen on the idea.  If you're an industrial manufacturer in Boston, then surely you support the tariffs on imported English plowblades and the like, and that alone might be reason enough to support the Republicans.  I agree that for the overwhelming number of northern Republicans, abolition was not a major factor.  And for the majority of northern Democrats, the war was never very popular at any stage.

I don't think any of us can honestly say which side we'd support without first making some assumptions about these sorts of things.  I'd say the same thing about the American Revolution, the Boxer Rebellion, the French Revolution, and the series of rebellions in Russia 1917.

Of course it's easy in hindsight to say oh yeah I think Lincoln and the Republicans did the right thing.  I do that all the time.  He's a big hero.  Preserved the Union.  But in situ it must be a harder call, and depends upon many factors.  I guess that's mainly why I voted neutral. 

[Redalgo]

Norway is enforcing some form of slavery?!

Norway is enforcing some form of slavery?!

Who knew?

Norway implements conscription, coercing young men to serve in its armed forces. Having pay and benefits distracts from the underlying reality that this is a form of indentured servitude - working off a debt of sorts people owe to the state and society as a whole. Norway intends to expand this practice to women starting in 2015. Though obviously mild compared to many other forms of enslavement, there is a loss of individual autonomy for those conscripted and in the event of war their lives would become expendable tools of state for advancing its objectives. I don't expect you to take this seriously, but it deeply offends me there are still countries without all-volunteer armed forces.


@Gully Foyle:

Your knowledge of the historical subject appears to be far superior to my own. I intend to defer to your explanation of it while reading and subsequently replying to your posts.

That having been said, the first post simply reinforces my deep disgust and dislike of the CSA, but does not at all affect my previous stance on the war. If the Confederacy were to make an attempt to expand further after the separation I would have seen that as justification for war, but the U.S. is responsible for the genocide against Native Americans in Southern states prior to separation - not the CSA (though it quite possibly would have been responsible for future acts of genocide, which once performed would also lend justification for war so far as I'm concerned).

I was aware of the South Carolinian initiation of the war, mind you, but consider succession the logical response to a strong discordance between their interests and values and those advanced by the federal government of the United States. That does not mean I endorse Confederate interests or values - merely that it makes sense they would want to exercise a greater measure of self-determination. The Constitution of the United States has no provisions allowing republics to leave the Union, so my only objection to how the split began right now is that they didn't try harder in Congress to first seek independence from within the system - waiting until after those measures failed to declare independence outside of the law. My earlier support for negotiated settlement was not meant to imply the Union fired the first shots - merely that the Union should have sought a quick and relatively painless end to hostilities rather than insisting on reclaiming the breakaway republics. It was poor form of Confederates to shoot first, though I suspect military action would have been needed to leave the Union because, as you also mentioned, the U.S. was an empire.

In regards to armed opponents, you are basically making my point for me at least so far as my previous stance was concerned. Slaves were not in open rebellion, abolitionists did not at the time have values representative of those of Confederate society, and the U.S. government was an external player from the moment succession occurred onward. All of this takes us back to the question of where the U.S. gets the moral authority to conquer and culturally subjugate another nation. Slavery and racism being offensive are not on their own sufficiently compelling reasons to accept the horrors of war and oppression inherent to cultural imperialism as part of a fair price for doing away with them - at least so far as I believe.

Now to answer your question regarding broad-based support for revolution, I believe I answered last night. Basically what I'm looking for is a strong majority of people in the country in question being either apathetic toward or in favor of violent opposition to the prevailing regime. Revolutions generally only involve a minority of the population taking part in usurping power, but at the same time it seems to me that during revolutions the number of people who are devoted loyalists is also a minority of the population. When the people are so divided I see it as a splendid opportunity to give the "good guys" a helping hand so that they will triumph and get to establish a new order - the expectation being that their new government or regime will better recognize and uphold my perception of what are human rights than their predecessors. Though this does imply I am internationalist in wanting to spread my views around the world, at the same time I don't consider it explicitly imperialist since there was already sufficient unrest in a country for people to be alright with seeing the old order crumble, because I expect no special treatment or position of power for my country over theirs after the change occurs, and I would not be in favour of installing puppet regimes or coming to the aid of leaders in allied regimes in the event of them failing to be reelected.

I must also object to your accusations against me in regards to the Arab Spring and nationalism. I do not insist rebels in other countries share my values as a prerequisite for them being alright to have in power, and I would feel friendly toward their leaders so long as their values are more compatible with those espoused by the people of their respective countries than those of leaders who came before. I do not support offering aid to rebels who intend to steer their countries further away from my values, sure, but I also do not favor supporting non-democratic governments from rebellions. There is a delicate balance for me to achieve between wanting to globalize my ideology and respecting the cultures of other peoples enough to let them develop on paths very different than those I would prefer, if that is what they want. In regards to reshaping the United States into a moral exemplar, I do not think other countries will necessarily emulate us. I recognize that democracy and liberalism, and likewise with the socialism I long to see implemented, are far from being universally favoured by people. My tolerance for people to embrace alternative values just seems to be greater than that of most people posting in this thread. Furthermore, I strongly support humanitarian interventions more often than most people on the Atlas, as indicated by thread poll results, as well. So with all due respect I'd hardly describe myself as isolationist when it comes to international relations.

I am also offended that you would compare me to the missionaries, seeing as I do not look down on foreign cultures and do not want to force folks to see things from my perspective. The amount of ill-will being directed toward me in this thread is very discouraging and I am very disappointed that so many of you have rushed to conclusions about me rather than seeing where a cool, level-headed discussion of ideas will lead - especially since the discussion here has already led me to adopt a new position that support for the Union is justified by the cultural imperialism of the CSA in subjugating minority nations within its borders - nations whose domination demands liberation via intervention. As I said before, unfortunately, this new position also makes me wonder why we are not aggressively pursuing liberation of cultual nations oppressed within many other countries. There is no shortage of people in need of "saving" around the world, though that ironically ties back in to the same Puritan bullsh**t of being convinced that they possess the one and only valid Truth everyone else should embrace. So how aggressive is too aggressive?

Under my value set it might be impossible to have a stance here that isn't simultaneously FF'ish and HP'esque.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Norway is enforcing some form of slavery?!

Norway is enforcing some form of slavery?!

Who knew?

Norway implements conscription, coercing young men to serve in its armed forces. Having pay and benefits distracts from the underlying reality that this is a form of indentured servitude - working off a debt of sorts people owe to the state and society as a whole. Norway intends to expand this practice to women starting in 2015. Though obviously mild compared to many other forms of enslavement, there is a loss of individual autonomy for those conscripted and in the event of war their lives would become expendable tools of state for advancing its objectives. I don't expect you to take this seriously, but it deeply offends me there are still countries without all-volunteer armed forces.

I'm not fond of conscription, but you are insulting people who actually were held in slavery by equating these things.

[Oakvale]

This thread is an example of the perils of abstract thought and thinking about things in isolation.

[Redalgo]

I'm not fond of conscription, but you are insulting people who actually were held in slavery by equating these things.

They are of the same ilk. I shouldn't equate them, and I do apologize for that and see how it could be insulting, but it would also be irrational for me to treat them as separate issues.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Conscription - peacetime conscription at least - is an injustice but it is beyond absurd to compare it to slavery. Seriously compare it, at any rate. And especially to American Slavery; one of the most howlingly heinous forms of slavery in history.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

They are of the same ilk.

But they aren't. Only the most extreme forms of conscription are comparable, and even then it's pretty dubious.

[Redalgo]

Of course they can be compared - don't be daft. They can be contrasted as well, of course.

[Oakvale]

The thing you're missing here is that no amount of paens to rational enquiry is going to distract from the unavoidable reality that if you had your way the Confederacy and slavery would have survived. People are disgusted because of what would actually happen under your belief system. The fact that North Korea is a hellhole or whatever is not relevant, regardless of how logically concrete you think your argument is.

There are obviously ethical problems with conscription but comparing it to the African slave trade based on the idea that you can somehow logically extend your basic ethical principles in that manner is absurd and counterproductive to your argument.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Soy Mexicano. Me encanta como Benito Juárez y quien lo apoya, especialmente el hombre alto que lleva grandes sombreros.

Thankfully, I have no relatives who lived in America during the Civil War. I'm sure that my dirty papist German and Irish ancestors would have voted against Lincoln.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The word 'comparable' is sometimes used as a shorthand for 'reasonably comparable', 'fairly comparable', 'legitimately comparable, 'honestly comparable', and so on.

[Franzl]

Of course they can be compared - don't be daft. They can be contrasted as well, of course.

Slavery involves "ownership". No matter how unjust conscription is (and I agree entirely that it is bad policy), conscriptees are not the property of anyone.

[Redalgo]

The thing you're missing here is that no amount of paens to rational enquiry is going to distract from the unavoidable reality that if you had your way the Confederacy and slavery would have survived. People are disgusted because of what would actually happen under your belief system. The fact that North Korea is a hellhole or whatever is not relevant, regardless of how logically concrete you think your argument is.

I'm now explaining for a third time that I've been convinced to adopt a pro-Union, anti-CSA stance. I didn't even vote in the poll until after being brought onto the Union side, having entered the thread without my mind entirely made up.


@Franzl: So far as I'm concerned conscription implies the state assumes ownership of the individual.

[Franzl]

@Franzl: So far as I'm concerned conscription implies the state assumes ownership of the individual.

Well then you assume something that is simply incorrect. Sorry.

A person that is regarded as property has no rights. You can argue that rights are somewhat limited if you're forced to join the army, but no democratic society that implements conscription violates basic human dignity in the process.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

@Franzl: So far as I'm concerned conscription implies the state assumes ownership of the individual.

But it doesn't. It forces service, yes. It does not claim ownership or the rights of ownership. Even the Australian convicts were not truly slaves.

[Redalgo]

Fair enough - that makes more sense than what I was providing as an alternative.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

@Franzl: So far as I'm concerned conscription implies the state assumes ownership of the individual.

Could you not argue the same thing for the levying of taxes or imposition of civil law?

I oppose conscription on principle for many reasons, but I don't think conscription in and of itself implies that the state owns you in a similar manner to the ownership of black slaves for the selfish benefit of wealthy plantation owners.

[traininthedistance]

Comparing conscription to slavery is comparable to comparing taxation to slavery.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

This thread makes me want to quit posting on this forum. Only in a forum populated by immature nincompoops and reactionary nutbags would this generate more discussion than interesting debates on immigration, globalization and low fertility rates. Atlas may have pollinated my sensibilities but I'm not inclined to come back here if this trash proliferates the forum.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

This thread makes me want to quit posting on this forum. Only in a forum populated by immature nincompoops and reactionary nutbags would this generate more discussion than interesting debates on immigration, globalization and low fertility rates. Atlas may have pollinated my sensibilities but I'm not inclined to come back here if this trash proliferates the forum.

What's your beef with historical debate?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

This thread makes me want to quit posting on this forum. Only in a forum populated by immature nincompoops and reactionary nutbags would this generate more discussion than interesting debates on immigration, globalization and low fertility rates. Atlas may have pollinated my sensibilities but I'm not inclined to come back here if this trash proliferates the forum.

What's your beef with historical debate?

I am a modern man. I like industrialization, flexible labor markets and abhor chattel slavery. This question bores me.

I love history but arguing about who was in the "right" is moronic imo. This is especially holds true for cases in which there is clear villainy and clear virtuosity - like the Civil War. I suppose that who won is largely responsible for this clarity but I'm not going to question the very foundations of the civic society I live in: the Confederacy is embodied by evil reactionary racists who sought to defend an unsustainable society doomed by the resource curse.

[Redalgo]

Scott, traininthedistance, did I not already cede the point?

[angus]

Me encanta como Benito Juárez y quien lo apoya,

Ya lo creo que debe ser y quien lo apoyaba

(Juárez está muerto, ¿no?)