Who Would You Have Supported In the American Civil War

[Redalgo]

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.

[Redalgo]

@Oakvale:

The Civil War was not for abolishing slavery. It was for beating renegade republics into submission and then reabsorbing them into the Union. Though I consider the Davis regime despicable, I would not want to demolish and replace the CSA's government without the consent of armed opponents of that regime in active struggle against said government from within requesting U.S. assistance.

This is in line with my rationale for not supporting the initiation of unilateral conflicts waged by the U.S. against dozens of countries with oppressive regimes today for humanitarian reasons. Over half of all countries on the planet ought to have revolutions, in my opinion, but I do not think it is the place of the United States to force changes of government before home-grown elements with sufficiently broad-based support are trying to bring about the demise of the old order and replace it with something meaningfully better.


@Scott:

No. The ownership of people is not something that would be discussed at the negotiating table, though I would eagerly support the Union first leading by example when it comes to abolition and then henceforth bringing it up at pretty much every diplomatic event with the Confederates (and every other country still allowing the practice, for that matter) thereafter. Make no mistake - I do strongly object to slavery - but I am also still a moral relativist and my respect for foreign customs is far stronger than my urge to maim or slaughter anyone who gets between me and a world where my morals have been made the law of the land. Slaves and Southern abolitionists in revolt, in contrast, would lend legitimacy to an argument of the CSA's government being illegitimate by virtue of being unrepresentative of - and also unresponsive to shifts in - the values of the People.

Edit: Though I should add that I would favor intervention sooner if a sufficiently powerful alliance of pro-abolition world powers was assembled to make the war relatively quick and painless, assuming the CSA continued to condone violence along ethnic and/or racial lines. The U.S. was not a superpower back then and with the Union split in two it would've been reckless (as evidenced by the Union suffering over a third of a million casualties) to unilaterally engage them in war.

[Redalgo]

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.

[Redalgo]

I'm seeing a big contradiction here.  You think slavery is immoral, yet you don't think it's moral to intervene when other countries are clearly guilty of that human rights violations out of respect for foreign customs?  If you object to the way the Union fought the war or rallied for the anti-slavery cause, that's another discussion entirely, but I strongly object to your sentiment that we shouldn't intervene simply because we don't want to look like we're disrespecting other cultures.  And just how do you measure the legitimacy of a government by the way the citizenry reacts?  If the abolitionists and slave-owners fought and lost the war by themselves, does that mean the CSA was legitimate in its subjugation of the black race?

A nation cannot and should not use the military to enforce moral order all the time for a number of reasons, but I think the circumstances of the American Civil War clearly permitted intervention on our part.  I don't even think it's remotely comparable to imperialism, as you think it is, if only because the Union was trying to regain territory that seceded from the country.  The intent was not to extend power and influence to foreign nations that we had no business in.

The contradiction would be if I held the position that might should make right when I'm the one holding the gun to someone's head but not when the situation is reversed. If I were to be violently in favor of abolition of slavery I would have to support wars against every country that allows it, every country that has conscription, and every one that can coerce prisoners of state to work without pay.

The following still enforce some form of slavery; feel free to advocate abolitionist wars against them if you please:

- Algeria
- Angola
- Argentina
- Austria
- Bolivia
- Brazil
- Chile
- China (both)
- Cuba
- Cyprus
- Denmark
- Ecuador
- Egypt
- Estonia
- Finland
- Greece
- Iran
- Israel
- Japan
- Jordan
- Korea (both)
- Kuwait
- Libya
- Mexico
- Moldova
- The Netherlands
- Norway
- Philippines
- Russia
- Seychelles
- Singapore
- Switzerland
- Syria
- Thailand
- Turkey
- United States
- Venezuela

And mind you, that is before one gets loose with the word "slavery" and applies it to capitalist forms of wage labour or to societies where people must work to have access to basic necessities of life as opposed to having them guaranteed under the protection of human rights. Slavery was not even abolished all throughout the Union's northern states before or during the Civil War, so I'm assuming the pro-Union votes must be for a lesser of evils, no?

Mind you, my opposition is not so simple as wanting to avoid looking bad for disrespecting other cultures. It is rooted in the golden rule, in a deep conviction that nations should have a right to self-determination. To answer your questions though (1.) I consider widespread violent unrest an indicator of people ceasing to recognize a regime's legitimacy - as tearing up the social contracts usually binding them with their respective states (as a general rule of thumb I assume enough people are apathetic during revolutionary times that 1/3 or greater support for a coop or revolution implies the state is being propped up only by an oppressive minority of loyalists - many up whom have special privileges from the state they don't want to see revoked under a new order); and (2.) if abolitionists lost fighting the war alone within the CSA it would not mean the CSA's regime was legitimate - merely that its guardians possessed more and/or better applied capital in war (the reason I support aid for revolutionaries is because they often have the will and good intent but not the assets needed to achieve their goals - often fighting from a dreadfully disadvantaged position).  

If slaves and abolitionists did not rise up at all, it implies to me enough apathy or complacency on their parts to accept the Davis regime's legitimacy - regardless of whether they work within the existing order to pursue reforms. If they rise up but in too few of numbers I would still see them as freedom fighters but also as out of touch with the values of their fellow Confederates to such an extent that their triumph would require subjugation of the masses to advance the interests of just a few, which would obviously be a far from an ideal outcome. There is no truly respectable way to force abolition upon a broadly pro-slavery population without turning to authoritarianism or - in the case of the Union as a foreign entity - imperialism. I stand by the use of that word because the Confederacy was obviously not of the same cultural nation as that of northern states of the Union. The cultural subjugation of one nation and domination by the other is by definition a type of imperialism. Whether imperialism can be righteous is where we appear to disagree.

I do not mean any disrespect Scott but I have really given this matter considerable thought.

...

But perhaps an effective counter-argument for getting me onto your side would be to point out that enslaved African Americans in the CSA were a cultural, ethnic, or racial nation of their own being oppressed by the Confederates. That would appeal to me a lot better than any argument that slavery in inherently immoral. It'd tap into that remaining reservoir of rage against and aggression toward expansionists, colonialists, imperialists, genocidaires, etc. I have as where to draw the line between tolerating self-determination and subjectively feeling justified to wage war. Having thought of this just now is actually causing me to switch positions and return to the pro-Union camp, though for the remainder of this post I'll continue to debate the posts directed at me.

Of course, now the contradiction for me is tolerating slavery in some instances but not others. You've brought me down a troubling line of thought. I don't like to have loose threads in my fabric of theory on how to approach and solve political problems. If you have a rabbit in your hat for dealing with that dilemma I want to see it pulled out, for peace of mind.

. . . moral relativism falls flat on its face.

Unfortunately, I have yet to hear any compelling arguments for why any moral absolutes exist. There are arguably some benefits to be had by pretending things can be objectively good or bad but whether moral relativism falls flat on its face in practice has no bearing on whether it actually appears to be the most reasonable of conclusions available. One of the reasons I embrace liberalism and the social contract in theory is because I honestly cannot think of any other way (aside from the [subjectively!] HP-incarnate, might-makes-right argument) to respond when an anarchist challenges the widespread assumption that state has a right - or at least moral justification - to implement its laws and otherwise threaten to do violence upon individuals.

I am not quite ready to embrace and feel comfortable with the theory that I am just another manipulative brute trying to strong-arm people into compliance with my wishes without a cause any nobler than raw and vicious, ethical egoism.

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

If one considers the endeavor justified, yes, though in practice it seems like most folks have ceased to notice, much less care, about residual institutions of slavery in the U.S. and abroad regardless of position on abolition in the CSA.

1. As many others have previously stated, "foreign customs" does not justify SLAVERY

2. Is legitimacy not already lent to the argument that the CSA did not represent the people by the mere fact that it was legal to own people? I'd say widespread SLAVERY is a pretty good case for saying that the people are not being represented.

Foreign customs do not lend slavery immunity from criticism, aye, but the more pertinent question to me on this matter is whether slavery justifies political violence in opposition and other forms of harm inflicted to bring about its abolition. Where does our moral authority to do that come from, Alfred? My waffling on the issue revolves around that concern.


@Gully Foyle:

Your posts are quite long and I might not get to reading them until tomorrow morning. I am not ignoring you - rather just making sure I don't get engrossed in their content until I have sufficient time to reply. I appreciate you going through the trouble of being so thorough!


Edit: For clarification by the way, when I express a personal opinion about what is right or wrong, correct or false, I am offering a subjective appraisal that makes sense within the constructed framework of perceiving reality pieced together in my head. When I express my belief in slavery being immoral for example, what I mean to say is that I personally feel that slavery is wrong and recommend it not be practiced... but make no claim as to whether it is objectively good or bad. Explaining that every time I judge something would make my posts even more wretchedly verbose and difficult to read than they already are! D:

[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.

[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.

[Redalgo]

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

[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.

[Redalgo]

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

[Redalgo]

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