In hindsight--American Wars

[Redalgo]

I've mixed feelings on a lot of these conflicts but in hindsight feel hesitantly supportive toward American participation in the Revolutionary, Quasi, Persian Gulf, Bosnian, and Afghan Wars, in addition to World War II and Operation Unified Protector.

[Redalgo]

Even allowing for some pro-Confederate respondents, I find the number of voters who chose the Civil War--20 out of 30--surprisingly low.  For those who didn't choose it, I'd be interested to know what your reasons are.

In my case it is because I consider the right of people to national self-determination important. The Southern republics had political interests divergent from those of their counterparts in the North. Refusing to accept the legitimacy of succession was not worth throwing away tens of thousands of lives over and - although under different circumstances I'd have stubbornly fancied war against the CSA on humanitarian grounds - at the time I suspect said country posed too great a threat to the Union to be prudently tangled with in a full-blown conflict. For now I think a diplomatic, non-violent resolution and an agreement for peaceable coexistence would have been preferable.

[Redalgo]

>implying that Southerners are a separate nationality

'Divergent political interests' in this case means slavery. How in the world does a socialist defend the right of slaveowners to try and destroy the United States (because they lost an election) because they want to continue owning, oppressing, and crippling other human beings?

My use of the word "national" was improper in this instance, ya. After more than an hour of thinking about how best to answer your question, I arrived at a conclusion that my unusual position on this matter is a result of contradictions in the liberal and socialist ideas I've been doggedly trying to reconcile for the past few years. A more thorough, specific explanation is warranted but for now it is half past one in the morning where I live and some sleep is badly needed. If you're willing to wait for awhile though I'll gladly come back to this and elaborate!

[Redalgo]

Alright! I'm awake again - w00t! TNF, it may be useful to lay this out as a cost-benefit analysis.


Core Objectives:

- Resolve the secessionist crisis
- Avoid unnecessary bloodshed
- Liberate the enslaved workers
- Improve North-South relations
- Promote a free & open society


Benefits of War:

- Restoration of the Union
- Four million slaves freed
- Justice for illicit succession
- Improved security and strategic geopolitical influence
- Consolidation of the republic's stability and legitimacy
- Denial of a foothold in western territories to slavery
- Enhanced actionable freedom for African Americans


Detractors of War:

- About 620,000 comrades were slain as soldiers
- State coercion of over 124,500 people to serve
- Violated rights for many of the ~400,000 POWs
- Poor disproportionately suffered by conscription
- Implementation of "total war" by some generals
- Perhaps >50,000 civilians died from military acts
- CSA troops were at times unpaid, malnourished
- Undermined democratic institutions in the South
- Imperialist aggression against Southern culture
- Inter-regional tensions seemed to get entrenched
- Uncompensated property loss for slave owners


In looking at these outcomes I find that, no matter how I approach the decision to engage in or shy from the Civil War, it is a conflict that both defended and violated a lot of human rights that I care deeply about. The liberal in me values private property rights, federalism, individual autonomy from undue state coercion, the preservation of representative government and non-violence in politics, and equality of citizens before the law. My relatively socialist considerations include enhancing equality of opportunity, dismantling hierarchies of dominant and subordinate social groups, promoting freedom that's actionable - not just written down on paper, resisting the imperialist attempts of major powers to project their political-economic interests onto weaker nations, and ensuring human beings are afforded dignified living conditions and opportunities for fulfilling self-enrichment without exception. I also consider it more important for the state to reflect its subjects' cultural values than to get my way, politically.

Very clearly I cannot get everything I want in this situation, and this problem would persist even if I made an effort to analyze the decision as strictly an advocate for one ideology or another - especially since contradictions already exist in each of them which would force me to sacrifice one or more of my objectives to achieve another. At least so far as I'm concerned right now, the Civil War was a lose-lose scenario. My immediate reaction to that is wanting some alternative options to examine in hopes of outcomes which do not so much shock my conscience. Perhaps someone could argue me back into thinking the Civil War was the best option on the table but until then I'm inclined to tinker with diplomatic "what if"s and wonder whether we would've been in a better position to quickly and decisively overwhelm the CSA with our military at a later date while inflicting less harm in the process. Or maybe that could have never happened. I'm not entirely sure. Either way, I do not consider myself pro-slavery or a defender of slave ownership.

What do you think?