Who Would You Have Supported In the American Civil War

[TNF]

Probably the Confederacy because Western Kentucky was pro-Confederate. Naturally, with hindsight and if I were transported back today, I'd be on the side of the Union and favor Radical Reconstruction.

[TNF]

I have no way of knowing, obviously. If the question here was supposed to be, "Who do you think should have won the American Civil War?" however my answer is the Confederate States, though I personally would want to live in the United States and in the event of a pro-civil rights revolution in the CSA would want the USA to militarily intervene so as to assist in their liberation. Confederates should've been left be to govern themselves; the Union response was imperialist and should have simply been to demand the CSA sit down for negotiations and agree to just terms of separation.

no

[TNF]

Redalgo's position here is a good reason as to why ideological non-interventionism/pacifism is incompatible with reality.

[TNF]

Redalgo's position here is a good reason as to why ideological non-interventionism/pacifism is incompatible with reality.

It may be an over-correction for the far more aggressive foreign policy agenda I favoured as a Trotskyist. My earliest position on the matter was in strong support of the Union back then, and today for financing and helping train militants to wage revolutions in every country on the planet - meanwhile using a robustly funded armed forces to invade other countries, install socialist states, culturally assimilate - then rinse and repeat until there is nowhere left to save from capitalism, organized religion, authoritarian forms of government, etc.

Right now I'm having trouble scheming up a rationale for why to support the Union but not also wage war against every other slavery-condoning country back then. I am a cosmopolitanist, after all, and reckon it's very poor form to only care about people who dwell within ones own country.

Better to end slavery in one's own country than in none at all for fear of coming across as parochial.

[TNF]

Redalgo's position here is a good reason as to why ideological non-interventionism/pacifism is incompatible with reality.

Your young and in your prime. Why don't you go pick up a gun and go fight for some other peoples freedoms. Its not as easy as you would think, and when the draft was instituted in 1863, NYC went up in flames.

Totally missing the point here.

[TNF]

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.

[TNF]

[TNF]

Norway is enforcing some form of slavery?!

Who knew?

[TNF]

I would've supported the Union, but in a more limited war. The Confederacy attacked the Union. As despicable and disgusting as its motives were and the regime was, I do believe the Confederacy had a right to secede. It did not, however, have a right to attack the remaining United States of America. The Union had every right to defend its sovereign territory.

Insofar as the post-war aftermath goes, I would have been firmly in the Radical Republican camp.

Why? Why do people believe that a bunch of butthurt aristocrats had the right to try and quit the country?

[TNF]

Truth is, I don't really care about whether States have a right to secede (they clearly don't have it, anyway, since any nation is founded on the basic premise that its parts can't split whenever they want to). A State that attempts to secede in order to perpetuate the existence of slavery shouldn't be let to secede, EVEN if it juridically had the right to. If the constitution had said otherwise, then f**k the constitution.

This kind of goes without saying. The American Constitution is terrible and needs to be re-done.