Does The War Shed Light On the Future of Enlightened Government?

[kgostanek]

Okay, this is my first post, although I've been monitoring these forums for several months, now. I secretly fantasize about being a brilliant, charismatic general, but since playing the game for hours, I’ve thought a lot about history and political philosophy, so I’ve started this thread. Some of you are very thoughtful, so a few of you might enjoy this discussion. This is a lengthy post and I hope I don’t receive any irritated responses because of that. It only takes up virtual space anyway, right?

I think the American Civil War (along with the Revolution) might predict the future of liberal societies, assuming some tragedy (like communism and fascism) doesn't overpower us. But there are some trends.

First, I think the European Enlightenment's thinkers got it right. If we were to implement their philosophy perfectly, we'd have avoided the Civil War and other unpleasant events.

The Constitution is "right" - in that the true meaning of the Bill of Rights (which many or most American politicians fail to understand) should satisfy humanity as long as we exist. I assert that the Constitution does not need to evolve, but our understanding of what it really means does. This was no mystery to Locke, Jefferson, or Rousseau, although it is to many modern intellectuals.

The Constitution means that no other, whether an individual or state, can own another person's life - even in the most tangential way. An individual cannot be coerced to act against his own judgment through force or fraud, unless force was acted upon him. The individual person owns his own life, and so logically owns his actions, and therefore his labor and the product of that labor, which may not be taken from him by force. This produces the economic system of private ownership, unfortunately called "capitalism." Enslaving others, as Americans once did, sheds light on this. I'll get to this later.

In this system, the state treats the individual as his own end and not a source of anything, especially of property or the value of that property. If you examine the Bill of Rights, you can see how those amendments protect self-ownership and autonomy.

But what the hell happened with the slavery thing? Most of us cannot even imagine it. It seems more like some dark comic book fantasy. Not only were slaves owned - the antithesis of the Enlightenment - but, insightfully, treated as sources of value. When examined, we could define a slave as one who produces something, but whose product is taken against his judgment and will. In this sense, taxation qualifies as slavery. I imagine that's why an income tax did exist in America at first. There are brilliant modern arguments that the constraint on political liberty is economic liberty.

Anyway, America emerged as a country whose government was reluctant to tax its citizens, to protect their self-ownership, but allowed slavery in the most complete way! - an atrocity equal to any other I can think of, in fact.

But I think it remained that the Constitution was near perfect during this period, and that the thirteenth amendment was a necessary redundancy then. So, I’ll make my basic hypothesis: The Constitution is perfect, or nearly so, but our political failures have nothing to do with total private ownership, but what we define as ownable. In fact, I think our real political failures are opposition to “capitalism” and ownership. Corruption of private ownership causes losses of political freedoms. It is just that some things should simply not be owned, and this principle can be applied to our most modern problems.

The Civil War resulted from a cultural and political schizophrenia. North and South were both “right” in one way, and “wrong” in another. The South was correct that because the Union was a voluntary alliance, states should be able to declare autonomy if they were willing to lose the protection of the Union. But on a lower level, they protected the most despicable violation of Enlightenment principles possible. They did not recognize blacks as people, but objects to be discarded at will. The North recognized this atrocity which was right, but either failed to recognize that America’s political alliance was (or should be) voluntary, which was wrong. If Montana’s citizens voted to secede from the USA, should we invade and coerce its citizens? No.

The war was to “preserve the union” only superficially. Instead, it was to expand the advance of “natural rights.” The Cold War can be seen the same way.

Before I go on, let me mention that I’ve lived in the Deep South for several years and find it very pleasant. Only the very harmless stereotypes are true. There is racism, of course, but only in the South have I seen such genuine interactions between white and black kids. Many northern whites denounce racism yet don’t even know any black people. Disparaging remarks about the South are irritating (in the same way that similar results about my hometown, Cleveland, are)

Anyway, let me illustrate my “definition of ownable things theory.” I am personally sympathetic to animal rights, for example, but I dismiss most activists because they spout nonsense. When I bought my dog, for instance, I did not buy him as an object, but instead I bought responsibility for his life. If I were to mistreat him, I should be arrested and punished. In a sense, some rights have extended to him. The correct approach to conservationism, for example, is not to make emotional appeals about the destruction of forests, it is to assert that the forest belongs to itself, or nature, etc.

Any environmental problem can be addressed with this approach. If I dump chemicals onto my neighbor’s land, I have damaged his property and so have violated his autonomy. Thankfully, in a court of law, he may be awarded compensation for this violation, so that I experience the costs (in fact, economists have formulated excellent practical ways to address environmental problems with that insight, though the average person is so clueless about economics that he elects politicians that share his general ignorance; this is another reason why a republic is superior to a pure democracy). In the future, then, I would avoid damaging what I do not own. However, what I do own, I own totally, and may discard it at will. Inanimate objects, such as my house, car, or computer are mine completely, as is the money I earn.

I think this at least provides a coherent environmental theory as an extension of the Enlightenment, in contrast to those who advocate tearing down private ownership (and society in general) and renouncing self-ownership.

The Civil War provides a profound insight into how we evolve and where we should go. I’d be curious to hear others’ thoughts on this.

[Brochgale]

Taxation is a contract between people and thier elected reps. We pay our taxes based on the assumption that our reps will look out for our interests - economic, health, defense etc. Unfortunately the reality is far from this ideal?

Most politicians are now self serving careerists who live in a bubble seperated from reality? USA/UK/Europe - it does not matter where - there is not much differnece between most of them and the press and media only serve to keep the gravy train running for these parasites?

Enlightened govt is a utopian ideal? Most politicians hate any kind of written costitution/

[Coffee Sergeant]

I never bought the "right to secede" argument. The U.S. Constitution makes no explicit mention of this either for or against. But I am of the view that when the states unified themselves in declaring indepdendence against Great Britain, a new nation was forged. Especially since the vote in the Continental Congress was unanimous, and a national army was fielded, that was not under the control of any one state. And my idea of a nation is something that is indivisible, except in the rare case of mutual agreement between two factions.

[pepe4158]

Hmmmm I thought I was (intelejant)

but being a dumb southener ya lost me at the 2nd paragraph

Really man...you deduced this all from playing the game?

[soloswolf]

I am very pro-states rights. I am happy my country was preserved, but if it had been the North that was breaking away, I would have followed New Hampshire in a second.

And as far as a 'right to secede', I'm pretty sure Britain wasn't too thrilled about our decision to leave their authority either, we just happened to have won the war(s) over it.

Nothing is indivisible, I feel, and that is the way it should be. The same spirit that was in the hearts and minds of our founding fathers was in many of the Confederate leaders. Heck, even the same blood as well!

All I am trying to say is that it is no longer a rebellion if you win.

(I have more to say, but I gotta go to work. I am quite sure this will continue... )

[pepe4158]

Ha-ha it was none other than A. Hitler who said, 'its only the winner who will write history' which seems to be part of your arguement Solo?

Still I have to wonder about what Jefferson, Franklin, n none other than G Washington would think of a man like J. Davis....as it was unthinkable to them not to stay united, but a different time different era eh?.....Still it was the founding father's attitude that either we hang together or will surely all hang seperatly.

Like it or not it was Lincoln who prevailed on congress, to decide for sure the union was un-divisible, the only true definining asspect of the war.....although questionable for sure if this wasnt a power grap by the legislation n executive branch over the judicial?

I cant help thinking of a book, where Lee n Longstreet are having a possible fictional conversation on the 2nd day of Gettysburg.
Longstreet says, ' N make no mistake those boys on that hill can fight, if they get good leadership n good ground....I use to fight with them n swore an oath I always would.....we did brake the oath ya know.
Lee responds, 'well we have some pretty good boys waitin for us too.....n lets not talk about the oath.
Latter Lee refects to himself....Longstreet was right, we did brake the oath, but best not to reflect on that too much.

[Skibear]

Actually 'history is written by the winners' is usually attributed to Napoleon. But there is no guarantee he didnt steal it off somebody else.


I much prefer Churchills one though which definately is his own
"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it"

A great man with a whole bag of wisdom to share from beyond the grave:

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Sir_Winston_Churchill/

[pepe4158]

ha-ha.....probably, but A Hitler used it to justify the attack on Poland n his reasoning for movie taping Polish troops supposidly attacking German forces first.

He had a movie crew supposidly photo-graph a live attack by Polish troops on German positions....(the Polish prisoners undoubtly coercide into this suicidal charge NOT understanding the Germans were intending to use live rounds.)

When asked by his own generals the meaning of this charade?....hence the response, not suprising he would quote Napolean tho eh?...he was his hero n at the fall of France went to his burial tomb n stared for hours supposidly.

[Skibear]

Maybe, though I am not sure he had a film crew. It was a night attack on a radio station from memory. He might have then taken photos of the dead but I cant remember. But back on subject....

It seems to me that from looking way back then the CSA acted on their right to rebellion, same as the 13 colonies had done no so very long before. It was perfectly within their rights to rebel, so long as they could keep their freedom by resisting the unionist governments attempts to bring them back into the fold.
But with the universality of the rebellion then it probably should have been allowed to succeed. These guys really REALLY hated the north and wanted no part of them telling them what to do. Obviously in the border states it was less clear, and some counties and individuals stayed loyal. But by the standards of most rebellions through history it was pretty universal, they had the right to self determination, the ability to stand alone as a workable nation and if they had got more help from the European powers they probably would have. Certainly even in 1864 after 3 years of war many in the north could still see no way that the south could be brought back into the fold by military means alone.
Its a bit alien to most of us I think just how hostile the two parts of the country were to each other so I suppose (for the most part) it is a testiment to the US govt that they were able to unite the country eventually and make it think as one again. But you can bet your bottom dollar that there was alot of hate for generations afterward.
As to fighting over slavery, well I think it was a big part of the desire by the south to keep it and not be told what to do by the north. However most sotherners were not slaveholders I think, and they were stirred up by the southern press more than any personal loss they might have had by the abolition of slavery. Same as the press manipulates public opinion nowdays too. But eventually slavery would have faded from the south just as it did in the north and in europe, and without the loss of 2% of the population too! Ultimately the civil war was a human tradegy really and though Lincoln is cited as a great leader for keeping the states together, there was a massive human cost eviqilent nowadays to something like 6 million americans dying based on current population. If the southern states wanted to break away now would the public accept 6 million american bodybags to keep it together AND call the president that did it a hero? I suspect not

[Skibear]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident I think this is the attack you are talking about Pepe

And Hitler's quote was:
"I shall give a propaganda reason for starting the war; whether it is plausible or not. The victor will not be asked whether he told the truth."
(though obviously he said it in German so probably he said something like "Ich gebe einen propagandagrund für das beginnen des krieges; ob es oder nicht plausibel ist. Den victor wird nicht gefragt, ob er die wahrheit sagte" )

[pepe4158]

Ha-ha yeah the attack on the radio station....yes he was attempting to para-phrase his idol, Napolean was what I was alluding to.......but to the bitterness of the south to the north.

I think your failing a bit to grasp the eloquence of southern society, especially the military ruling elite.
Lee, Jackson, and Stuart were fine gentleman.....expecting any invading army to act with civility and professionalism.
Raping and pillaging the north would NEVER had been considered by the courtly Lee, he wanted only to defeat their standing army, but leave their civilian population untouched as much as possible. He had a sort of gentlemans code of professional honor.
So when the north (eka Sherman) did just that (burning and pillaging eka Genghis Khan) they were horrified by such barbarism and acts of cruilty against their general populations. Hence the bitter attitude to yankee tresspassors and trouble makers for years to come.

I joke a bit with Jab...in our game, the difference of the two armies, the southern army was a homogeneous type of army, that spoke the same language, all had the same religious beliefs, and pretty much all thought the same.
The northern army was a collection of polor opposites, many spoke different lanquages, most were VERY new immigrants, all of different religious backgrounds, and a more diverse collection, brought in to serve as one unified army, at the time couldnt have been found.

[Skibear]

Shermans march to the sea and his wanton rampage is a pretty good case study. If it was the northern armies attempt to bring the south back into the fold, it was a pretty brutal way to go about bringing your countrymen back into the family. Talk about tough love...
But from the very start then the north had to increasingly act like the south was not a rebellion, but a belligerant state in its own right. I think Lincoln tried hard at first to act like it wasnt a war between two countries, but the tactics he had to use like the blockades, and the huge mobilisations, and the homogeneous southern states, made it clear that it was a war with another nation state really. And in which case what business of his was it to invade them, subjegate them against their will? Killing several hundred thousand in the process. Its seems like madness from afar really. If any state tried something like this on such a scale today the UN and every civilised power on earth (and plenty of uncivilised ones) would be going nuts.

[W.Barksdale]

And in which case what business of his was it to invade them, subjegate them against their will?

There were no invasions by Union troops until after the rebels started the war by firing on a Federal fort. This was not a war between two nation-states it was a war of different views of America.

[pepe4158]

Yes....Sherman hee-hee. Hmm cant recall if he was in fact a southener (like Gen Thomas), but did you know his home was in the south at Louisiana? His responses, when questioned by southern paper men, whether his actions were that of a, 'christian' are interesting.

N many high ranking union officers were southeners, the most notable that saw action being the two admirals Foote n Faragaut.

As for the bruatilty used by the north, sure its not the first time brutality was used to quell insurection.....isnt Europe ripe with many cases itself?

Its just an interesting study that the south at the time was the US ruling military elite, and more in common with European thinking then the multi-culturalistic north. It was surely one of the most earliest clashes between multi-culturalism versus an own specific cultural identity.

[kgostanek]

It seems to me that from looking way back then the CSA acted on their right to rebellion, same as the 13 colonies had done no so very long before. It was perfectly within their rights to rebel, so long as they could keep their freedom by resisting the unionist governments attempts to bring them back into the fold.

You're right: the Emancipation Proclamation is probably the best argument ever that such a rebellion should be legal and so Jefferson (a man whose wisdom I value), would probably agree that even a homegrown tyranny not only allows, but necessitates secession. I do not think he would have supported the Confederacy, however. Here's what I think the big secret of the Civil War is:

Lincoln chose to say the war to preserve the union, but for another purpose. While it is true that the South claimed their secession was for states' rights and not slavery, their stance was irrational and schizophrenic. States' rights is only a condition that occurs when we protect individual rights. When political policy presupposes that a person owns himself only and cannot be owned, states' rights simply appear as political power decentralizes. As in a physical, chemical, biological, or economic system, the states' rights property supervenes upon the properties of the basic unit. In other words, if we create a society composed of a federal government, which is composed of state governments whose citizens all possess the self-ownership property, the higher-level states' rights property would necessarily result and be visible. So, although the South nominally cited states rights as their reason, and not the ownership of what may not be owned, it could be dismissed as a valid reason.

The South's insistence on preserving slavery made the states' rights justification empty. At that time, the South resembled Old Europe, not a constitutional republic. The planatation owners were the nobles, a Southern Aristocracy, and their "subjects," black slaves, were even less than European peasants or serfs. It is not just that their natural right to self-ownership was not protected, but officially taken, so that they were property in the same way as an inanimate object is: to be bought, sold, or discarded. In my view, Americans - largely Southerners - who advocated both states' rights and slavery (my man Jefferson, I believe, would have rejected slavery and stuck to the Union were he there) didn't really deserve constitutional protection anyway.

The North, however, really did invade to abolish slavery, although saying so would have made it difficult to accomplish the task. More accurately, they invaded to expand Enlightenment principles (for which they had their own failures that continue today), which they believed natural and granted to every human at birth by God. Any political situation that does not protect natural rights is, by definition, an ongoing state of civil war. A war, in general, is a situation where an argument is resolved by force. To the slaves, working for free, along with all of the abuse, was not good enough. But once you point the rifles at someone when they didn't point their rifles first, a state of war exists.

Civil War was so waged in the slave states long before 1861. The only reason that it didn't look like "war" as we know it, is that the slaves were so overwhelmingly outmatched that any slave army would have been defeated before it was even recognizable as such.

When the attempts of the North to resolve the South's civil war threatened the slave-states enough and seceded, the abolitionist North became obligated, by their sense of duty as free citizens, to take up arms. Otherwise they would simply watch the slave war shamefully across an open border. So, although the North didn't start the war, they sure as hell finished it.

[soloswolf]

burning and pillaging eka Genghis Khan

That is a tad strong. The two can't even be compared!

He was from Ohio, btw.

[kgostanek]

Yes....Sherman hee-hee. Hmm cant recall if he was in fact a southener (like Gen Thomas), but did you know his home was in the south at Louisiana? His responses, when questioned by southern paper men, whether his actions were that of a, 'christian' are interesting.

Like Grant, he was an Ohioan. In their photos, Sherman and John Brown must be two of the craziest looking dudes in American history.

[soloswolf]

States' rights is only a condition that occurs when we protect individual rights. When political policy presupposes that a person owns himself only and cannot be owned, states' rights simply appear as political power decentralizes. As in a physical, chemical, biological, or economic system, the states' rights property supervenes upon the properties of the basic unit. In other words, if we create a society composed of a federal government, which is composed of state governments whose citizens all possess the self-ownership property, the higher-level states' rights property would necessarily result and be visible. So, although the South nominally cited states rights as their reason, and not the ownership of what may not be owned, it could be dismissed as a valid reason.

This entirely subjective and moreover assumes a number of ideals that man will likely never achieve.

The North, however, really did invade to abolish slavery, although saying so would have made it difficult to accomplish the task. More accurately, they invaded to expand Enlightenment principles (for which they had their own failures that continue today), which they believed natural and granted to every human at birth by God.

When the attempts of the North to resolve the South's civil war threatened the slave-states enough and seceded, the abolitionist North became obligated, by their sense of duty as free citizens, to take up arms. Otherwise they would simply watch the slave war shamefully across an open border. So, although the North didn't start the war, they sure as hell finished it.

Do you really believe this?! I hate to seem cynical, but that is an utter fantasy.

To awnser your post title question directly: No. Largely because it it assumes we had an 'enlightened' government in the first place, which we didn't and don't. The war, like any war shows that people can rarely put themselves in anothers position. More than anything it shows how economies drive nations more than anything else.

[W.Barksdale]

The North, however, really did invade to abolish slavery, although saying so would have made it difficult to accomplish the task

Everyone is entitled to their opinion however ignorant and oblivious they may be.

[pepe4158]

ohio born probably, but made his home in Lousiana (ha-ha I thought someone would make it an issue )

My point being, there was NOT on a personal level...this supposed animosity between the north and south, there was ony a cultural divide between societies.

1.Picketts dear friend, was none other then A. Lincoln, who he recieved his nomination from the point from n all fellow southeners knew you did NOT offend Abe in G. Pickett's precense (deul time).
2. When Arminstead was shot dead at Gettysburg, he gave his greatest position while dying to a union soldier (his own personal bible), to give to his closest friend, none other then union Gen W.S. Hancock
3. Longstreets closest friend, who he latter tried to rebuild the south with, was none other then U. Grant.

[pepe4158]

Aron tho....this is what I constantly debate....the crux of the matter did however in the final breakdown, come down to the slavery issue.

Yes the rights issue was there, but thats a platitude arqued by intellectuals on some congressional floor hall....the average soldier doesnt care about that n he is the one expected to actually pick up a gun n fight,die, n kill.

The northern man in the combat field, actually did believe the war was all about the south wanting to keep slaves and he had a principle to prove all men were equal. Whether that was the truth is a moot point, it was his, 'truth.' and to him perception was reality.


I remember in one book I read, a fictional conversation between union officers and a captured southern officer....goes like this:

Northern officer: (thinking......hmmm hes a nice enough fellow, why is he fighting so hard to keep slaves anyway , think Ill ask him) so says. 'by the way, why are you fighting so hard to keeps slaves anyeway?

Southern officer: Oh were not fitin to keep slaves, wez fitin for our rats

Northern officer: (thinking rats....huh?....oh he said rights) hmmm well what rights have I offended?

Southern officer: Well I duno, but I must have some I dont knowd about?

You see my point is, while yes while all the abstract morale arguments are true, for the common man actually fighting the war (northerner) all they understood was the slavery issue.

[soloswolf]

The book is The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara.

Common people don't understand anything beyond the scope of what they are told. With the media of the day, that was not much and little of it was impartial. (Strangely similar to today...)

Belief is fluid. Those men believed very different things in their houses prior to going to their recruitment camps and further, their first battle. The discussion (in theory) is about the government through the lens of the war, not about common soldiers.

Every war shows the highs and lows of men. From the common soldier to the highest offices. People are people, they will do what they need to.

[Brochgale]

Taxation is a contract between people and thier elected reps. We pay our taxes based on the assumption that our reps will look out for our interests - economic, health, defense etc. Unfortunately the reality is far from this ideal?

Most politicians are now self serving careerists who live in a bubble seperated from reality? USA/UK/Europe - it does not matter where - there is not much differnece between most of them and the press and media only serve to keep the gravy train running for these parasites?

Enlightened govt is a utopian ideal? Most politicians hate any kind of written costitution/

In politics - nothing changes. Lincoln was a tyrannt. Davis a compromise selection as CSA President but just another tryrannt. For me history is just a selection of choices - which tyranny do you prefer to live in and which are you prepared to kill and die for. There are many flaws with my country but I would kill and die for it if push came to shove. I am not talking about the UK or Europe either but Scotland.

I dont suppose for a second that most men who fought and died in the American Civil War thought much about Politics and governement and all that goes with it but fought side by side with thier brothers, thier fathers and thier neighbours?

The American Civil war from one perespective was just the settling of argunents that lingered on unresolved from the time the Brits got kicked out. That is my opinion but it is just an opinion - I exercise it because generations before won - I doubt if they thought much about it though.

My fathers and grandfathers fought because it is what they did. I have to admit they were pretty good at it as they fought and lived and won? They did not fight to make thier land more enlightened. They just did not like the other guys form of enlightenment?

[kgostanek]

Okay, guys, I just enjoy debate. I am truly open to quality arguments. I'm really just trying to have a discussion without all of the "you are ignorant" or "you don't know what you're talking about", or "you're oblivious" statements. I interpret those things as "I don't like what you said." If you see a flaw in my thinking or my facts or have an alternative explanation, then make a case for it. If you can't then, as you say Barksdale, you are still entitled to it, but it may not be of any use. I don't have a superiority complex. In fact, I expected to give an explanation, hash it out with experts on the war, and either reject or improve my own explanation, for no particular reason. If you have regional loyalties or sensitivities, stay out of the discussion.

This entirely subjective and moreover assumes a number of ideals that man will likely never achieve.

Maybe we won't ever achieve these ideals but identifying those ideals and taking action toward them have successfuly addressed the tragic human condition. Consider how those ideals have made the problems of Western Civilization so trivial compared to the rest of the world's problems.

It is not subjective - the supervenience theory that is. Now, I made a model just to interpret mechanisms for insight purposes only. Dismiss it if you will, but what I said about supervenience has a lot of merit. "Supervenience" is a philosophy concept that applies to lots of practical things, most obviously natural sciences, but also economics. I think it can be applied to politics to understand the war too, but only as a model. In economics, a model might identify some variable that affects the prices of oil and give us insight into how it works. But because there are so many variables, it's complicated to understand one event because there are so many, but we do know how that one variable influenced it. Some models become very accurate and make awesome predicitions. Maybe this is what you mean by subjective, but I think I am being objective. Supervenience is a concept that helps us make good models.

Take an atom of some chemical element. If we were to look deeply into the physics of that atom and understood the physical properties of all of its components and their states, we could predict that element's chemical products exactly. So, we can say that chemical properties supervene on physical properties. And so we have two different types of scientists that specialize on those properties that are completely interdependent. In the same way, chemical properties produce biological properties which also produce psychological properties. Some people say properties "emerge."

It also applies to political and economic behavior. For instance, the properties that the Enlightment thinkers attribute to free men, which we can consider the most basic particle, will produce a social and economic organization that has its own identifiable properties and is predictable if we randomize initial conditions. If we take a collection of humans and give them (or protect with a constitution) self-ownership properties, a free-market economic system will necessarily organize (Also, a system that does not possess the free market properties will absolutely not contain individuals who possess the self-ownership property. The degree of devience from a free market voluntary exchange economy will predict the degree of deviation of self-ownership). You know, Adam Smiths "invisible hand". the observation that what appears to be disorder on a low-order produces a logical system.

Maybe it is true that the South believed in states' rights. But let's take any country that is an alliance of relatively independent states and they elect some president top represent them all. Suppose that some states are making some of their residents act against their will because their livelihoods depend on it. You know, its hard give up comforts for principles. If the majority of this hypothetical collection of states were to elect a leader who held them to the principles of the agreement that bounded them in the first case, the states' whose economy depended upon ignoring those principles might reject their original contract to form their own that did not require those particular principles. They recognize that their right to autonomy would be violated if they were to capitulate. So, in a sense, the reason is states' rights. But why stop being concerned about rights at the state level? Isn't this an arbitrarily important choice? What about all levels of political organization?

By supervenience, if we guaranteed self-ownership rights on the most basic political and economic unit, the individual, all levels of political organization would necessarily inherit those rights.

So, in the Civil War, the South's "states' rights" was a total superficiality. In the UN, don't dictators like Kim Jong Il bitch when the world's representatives expect something of him? I'm sure he'd be pretty pissed too if the UN went in and reorganized his society along more enlightened lines.

Do you really believe this?! I hate to seem cynical, but that is an utter fantasy.

Yes, I believe it.

To awnser your post title question directly: No. Largely because it it assumes we had an 'enlightened' government in the first place, which we didn't and don't. The war, like any war shows that people can rarely put themselves in anothers position. More than anything it shows how economies drive nations more than anything else.

First of all, we (including lots of Europe) did, and still do, have an enlightened government relative to all other governments that have ever existed. Let me ask you this, what degree of enlightenment demarcates the line between fantasy and non-fantasy? Lots of things drive nations: Islamic statism, communism, and fascism all have economies and pursue economic interests. But most of their behavior and economic organization is a function of political ideology.

Many people whine about our involvement in the Middle East for the oil. We do want oil over there, but we don't want it in the hands of states, but in the hands of private citizens. It just so happens that a hypothetical nation that is 100% economically free benefits from economic freedom elsewhere. Private ownership of oil fields is good for everyone but the despots. I don't know about you, but I would rather pay a high price for gas or find another means of transportation than support an invasion and seizure of the Saudi oil fields for the American government to nationalize and distribute oil. Most of us don't believe in that. I would, however, support an invasion (in principle, although it would probably be an ill-conceived plan) to sever the Saudi Government's monopoly (assuming it is the case, I don't know) on the oil fields to free them for privatization for political principle.

[Qman39]

I did not carefully read every post so I apologize in advance if this is repetititve. The argument as to whether the South had the "right" to secede has always been vexing to me. I hear what people are saying in pointing to the colonies break from England as historical precedent for secession. However, there are some important differences in my mind between the the two situations.

First, the colonists did not have representatives in the government and therefore were not empowered to affect meaningful change on their own behalf. This was not true of the South as they had meaningful representation in the government. Now, they might not have had enough political power to get their way but that is simply the nature of a democracy. I do not believe that you have the "right" to secede simply because the political situation doesn't favor a particular group at a given time. Imagine the chaos that could cause in these polarized times!

Second, all of the states had an opportunity to participate in the Constitutional Convention and knew the consequences of ratifying the document. This point obviously ties in with my first. Once you agree to be bound by a covenant such as a constitution you are implicitly, if not explicity, giving up some rights. The Founding Fathers (or Brothers if you are a fan of Joseph Ellis) knew that the infant republic couldn't stand up to the question of slavery in the early years. Hence, they pushed that issue off the agenda by making some sly compromises in the Constitution which essentially appeased the southern states and saved the question of a states right to determine its own fate for another day. (The book Founding Brothers really does an outstanding job of making this point and is overall a very good read for anyone interested in our history or political thought).

Based on those thoughts it has been my prevailing sentiment that the South did not in fact have the "right" to secede and by doing so actually did create an insurrection against the lawful government. Still, the arguments the other way are also compelling and I susupect I will continued to mull it over and go back and forth as my life goes on. Great thoughts from everyone on this interesting idea.

[soloswolf]

As 'The Dude' might say, I'm into the whole brevity thing.

I know you are trying to reinforce your point, but the waters are pretty muddy from my seat. There is little 'enlightenment' in the world from my view as well.

Have we changed? Of course. Have many improvements been made? Absolutely. But people are still just animals. We traded in our fur and claws for brains and thumbs, but we're still driven by base needs. Ideals are a luxury many can afford in the West. But that does not make us patently better than the rest of the world.

Everyone ought to try to do the best they can and live a good life for themselves and their kin.

But again, to your question: I don't see that we in the US, Europe, or anywhere else have achieved any national sense of enlightenment, nor do I feel that the Civil War was evidence of that enlightenment in a prior time.

[pepe4158]

The book is The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara.

.

Yes an A+ for the day Solo..I never asked the question, but your response is correct lol
It was Joshua Chamberlin and Captain Hawkins if I remember right?

But my point being, unless you sway the masses one way or another, nothing happens!.....Without a reason given to either side, ya got nothing!

The southerner was told he is defending his rights, and the northerner was told he is ending slavery so in a round about way I am sayng Kgo is right to point out the slavery issue.

[soloswolf]

It was Tom talking to a lower ranking Confederate soldier.

Capt. Hawkins is the captured officer on little round top after their charge down the hill.

Point out what about it? Was it a factor? Yep. One that the war was fought over it? Not in my opinion, no.

[pepe4158]

It was the rallying cry of the northern troops....so 50%I would reckon that makes it; lifted from a thread elsewhere:


Both North and South used music extensively during the Civil War to rally troops, as recreation, to march by, and many other reasons. Frequently both sides would borrow each other’s tunes or lyrics. It was not uncommon for each side to serenade the other, or for battle to stop while an impromptu concert was held.

Probably the most famous Civil War era song was Julia Ward Howe’s "Battle Hymn of the Republic", which used the tune of the abolitionist song, "John Brown’s Body". However, there were many other songs that both sides knew well

Hmmm I also found this, that most people might disagree with here that defend southern rights, but it is one opinion and view (makes too many sweeping statements for me but supports Kgo's position)

Military History Companion: American civil war
Sponsored LinksCivil War
Learn More About The History of The Civil War. Timeline, Videos & More.
http://www.History.com/CivilWar

American civil war (1861-5), the most important event in the history of the USA. It resulted from a fundamental disagreement between two sections, North and South, about the place of chattel slavery in the Union. Without the slavery question there would have been no war. The southern emphasis on ‘states rights’ was essentially a coded phrase for the defence of slavery. By the 1840s a pro-slavery ideology had grown up in the Deep South which argued that slavery was a positive good and by 1860 this had become popular throughout the entire South and imbued it with a strong feeling that the slave states enjoyed a unique culture. Increasing numbers of secessionists claimed that this culture could only be protected by gaining independence. The war itself was detonated by the refusal of the slave states to accept the decision of the 1860 presidential election, which had seen the first Republican candidate, Abraham Lincoln, sweep the northern states but did not gain a single electoral vote in the South. From December 1860-February 1861 seven states in the Deep South passed ordinances of secession, occupied federal installations, and called out their militias. These states set up their own Confederacy with a pro-slavery constitution headed by a Confederate president, Jefferson Davis, and this new government located its capital initially at Montgomery, Alabama. The rebel government was eager to remove the two remaining federal outposts on their territory, at Pensacola in Florida and at Fort Sumter in Charleston harbour. After a stand-off lasting four months, the Confederacy bombarded the latter on 12-13 April 1861.

[Skibear]

First, the colonists did not have representatives in the government and therefore were not empowered to affect meaningful change on their own behalf. This was not true of the South as they had meaningful representation in the government. Now, they might not have had enough political power to get their way but that is simply the nature of a democracy. I do not believe that you have the "right" to secede simply because the political situation doesn't favor a particular group at a given time. Imagine the chaos that could cause in these polarized times!

All interesting points. But surely the trigger for the seccession was the 1860 elections which saw results pretty much split north and south. On this basis the more numerous northern states elected Lincoln. The southerners must have seen the writing on the way that even if they all voted 100% for the candidate that supported the issues they felt important to them, then the Northern candidate would always win. Not as simple as that I know, but these must have been pretty frustrating times, and I can see that they would feel they didnt have a meaningful say in who was their president. They felt the north was a totally alien culture to them and wanted their own nation where they could live free from being told what to do (whatever the irony of that concept set against slavery was).

Remember this is before there had been much to bind the nation together really. There was no NFL, no cable TV showing episodes of whatever, no WW1 or WW2 to serve together in. The revolution was 76 years passed and the mexican wars no doubt made a few proud but were hardly a national experience. Many of the southern states like texas and louisiana were pretty new to the union anyway with very different cultures. The guys in the south led very different lives and so when the hotheads held their conventions to vote for seccession you can bet that it was a popular venture for the masses.
I believe the concept was moreso at the time than now that the USA was a federation of sovereign states that agreed to join together. Well, now citing irreconcilable differences they wanted a divorce. Lincoln was stubborn and wouldnt grant one (no pun intended...) and started thowing slaps.

Interesting to wonder what would have happened if fort sumter hadnt been fired upon. Lincoln really was in a tough political spot before then as to what to do. But once those shots were fired then good old fashioned war fever broke out, everybody wanted some action and once the wheels were turning it was impossible for either side to step down. No matter the rights and wrongs of the divorce, both sides got fighting and that became the issue in its own right.

Based on those thoughts it has been my prevailing sentiment that the South did not in fact have the "right" to secede and by doing so actually did create an insurrection against the lawful government. Still, the arguments the other way are also compelling and I susupect I will continued to mull it over and go back and forth as my life goes on. Great thoughts from everyone on this interesting idea.

I think that even at the time many in the north did acknowledge the souths right to revolution, but not to be sucessful. The right to self determination is a pretty strong right in my humble opinion.