Who Would You Have Supported In the American Civil War

[© tweed]

hard to say.  I do hate the South but I also have a strong bias against the invading army/aggressor in any situation.

[Cassius]

The south. Revenge is a dish best served cold...

[Zioneer]

Hmm, a deeply flawed, but well-meaning pluralistic nation that realistically wouldn't have done much to end slavery if not for the war, or a paranoid, xenophobic empire of slaveholding elitists who freaked out when the United States elected a president who might not have looked the other way on slavery, and who (the slaveholders, that is) had previously invalidated their own "state's rights" argument with Dred Scott?

Yeah, I think I'll go with the Union. Union forever boys, hurrah!

[Goldwater]

Union (Normal)

[Arturo Belano]

At the time, my ancestors were living in Guatemala. So chances are I would just not care.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

At the time, my ancestors were living in Guatemala. So chances are I would just not care.

If you did care, most likely you would have supported the Union in hopes of ending Southern filibusters trying to take over Central America.

[angus]

paranoid, xenophobic empire

It is well known that South Carolina, the first state to secede, was also the first among the British American colonies to elect a Jewish member to the colonial legislature.  In fact, outside Poland--another place which, like the American South, often finds itself the butt of politically incorrect jokes--it was the first place in the Western World to elect a Jew to public office.  Louisiana, another secession state, was the only region outside to welcome several thousand French-speaking refugees from the region of Acadia--now Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island--after having been expelled from their homelands by the British during the French and Indian War.  The Texas legislature welcomed Germans and Czechs in large numbers in the early days after their independence from Mexico.  We could go on and on along these lines, of course, and it's not that any of this history has any more relevance to the thread than your bizarre post, but it seems that you might benefit from just a little historical education.

[Peter the Lefty]

Union, not just because my family are yanks, but because I don't have issues.

[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.

[Arturo Belano]

At the time, my ancestors were living in Guatemala. So chances are I would just not care.

If you did care, most likely you would have supported the Union in hopes of bring an end to Southern filibusters trying to take over Central America.

Yeah, that's true.

[Hash]

Neutral, although sympathetic to the Confederacy.

Why on earth are you sympathetic to a bunch of slave owners?

[Oakvale]

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.

What.

[H. Ross Peron]

Neutral, although sympathetic to the Confederacy.

Why on earth are you sympathetic to a bunch of slave owners?

Supersonic's a Brit and Windjammer's a Frenchman so if they'd lived at the time they'd have been sympathetic to the Confederacy.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

So... outlawing the ownership of people is just one of those things you discuss at the negotiating table?

[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.

[© tweed]

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.

[PJ]

Family was living in Michigan, so union. Ideologically:

Union (Normal)

[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

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

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.

[TNF]

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

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

@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.

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?

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

I'm probably one of the most anti-war folks here, and I find Redalgo's position, for lack of a better word, despicable.  It's also good reason for why moral relativism falls flat on its face.

[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.

[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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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

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.

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.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

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.