Why bring this up now? You do not mention the change in history in recent years, encouraging us to re-think what Reconstruction was all about, which now seems that just a few years after winning the war the North allowed the old Southern power structure to move back in place, and stop any racial reconciliation.
Hi Alex, I am not a historian but you make a strong argument that there were two causes, one south and one north, and they have tended to get conflated in modern times. But I find it hard to buy that the north was somehow the aggressor here or equate them with Russia which attacked another independent country. Yes Ukraine was once part of the Soviet Union but I think your analogy kind of fails a bit there. Yes, the north was fighting to preserve the nation, the United States, but it was in response to a sessesionist movement and the north has nothing to apologize for, in my humble opionion.
Thanks for your comments Adam I was particularly wondering what you would say and hoping you would say something.
I think if you follow the logic of your last sentence, you will conclude that the United States was doing exactly what Russia is doing with Ukraine. It was stopping with force part of the country from seceding. The southern states declared themselves independent from the United States just as Ukraine declared itself independent from Russia. I think that by definition makes the United States the aggressor. Whether it’s something you apologize for then is another question.
This is interesting. My schools taught the war from the norths perspectivet and side.
So to me this was a not a question. It was a obviously neccesary to respond to south carolina seceding. Was seceding against the Constitution? It was only 70 years old itself. Had it ever been considered that a state would want to secede? Is it like the scotus. it wasnt even considered that 6 SOBs would use its power to install a king?
This decade (of trump) has exposed an imperfect Constituion. The USA is now hard pressed to create a more perfect union without creating a more perfect Constitution.
Your comment is interesting. Thank you for posting it.
As to our imperfect constitution, it certainly is. One problem with it in my opinion is that it’s far too difficult to change. 3/4 of the states and 2/3 of both houses of Congress is a really high bar. It turns the constitution into a suicide pact.
Ah I kind of wanted to keep going with Russia and Ukraine. I will agree with your stated facts. But the south did first attack Fort Sumter so I would argue they were the aggressors. The north was just defending itself. But yes, sure the north could have let the south secede. Many thousands of lives would have been saved. But we also have to ask at what cost?
No, Ukraine, like many other former republics, has been internationally recognized as an independent country. That was never the case with the southern states. I know you’re not justifying Russia’s actions but by your logic if they attempted to reconstitute the former USSR country by country via aggressive warfare which you deem simply “nationalism” akin to the North’s position vis a vis the Civil War I fear you’re drawing a false equivalency.
So if England had recognized the Confederate States of America, then by your logic, that would mean the actions of the United States to stop the southern states from seceding and forming the Confederacy would have then been illegal? While it is helpful to the nation declaring independence to be recognized by other nations, I don't see how that changes the status of the actions of the nation attempting to not let a part of it secede. It is true that Ukraine seceded and declared independence more than 30 years ago, but in the grand scheme of things, that is not that long.
Perhaps it would be more helpful to leave Russia aside, and just look at the facts. Can we agree that the Southern states attempted to secede, and that what was left of The United States went to war to stop them? If we agree on that, why isn't it appropriate to call the United States the aggressor? After all, it did not have to go to war with the Southern states. It could have simply let them depart.
Alex, I enjoy your writing and am happy that you're corresponding from a second "P," Portugal, following Prague. Your points about the U.S. Civil War are interesting, but I agree with @AdamRabiner that your Russia / Ukraine analogy is not apt to the US Civil War.
Many countries that had been absorbed into the Soviet Union and then subsequently decided upon independence, as allowed by the then USSR three decades ago, would be under threat of invasion by Russia under your analogy.
The Soviet Union dissolved. Russia doesn't have the unilateral right to remake an equivalent of the USSR now by force, no matter how much Russia's president misses the good old days of the Cold War era USSR.
Many countries could claim Ukraine as their own under your theory. Many countries could claim parts of the US under your theory, for that matter.
Thank you for reading Kathy! I enjoyed your comment.
I don’t want to get sidetracked on the comparison with Russia. It’s a comparison, not an exact fit.
What I have not heard anyone rebut is that the south tried to secede, and the United States used force to prevent it. Can anyone argue that this was not the case? If you acknowledge that, then the rest of my argument to me follows naturally.
Getting back to Russia and Ukraine, I do read Timothy Snyder. And I really back Ukraine in its fight against Russia.
Thanks Alex. To your point about the US Civil War, yes, the South wanted to secede, and the North did not want them to. The South attacked first, and the North responded. Whether their differences could have been resolved without a war, we'll never know.
As to why the states had their differences that resulted in war, I think many reasons can be in play simultaneously. Lincoln had multiple concerns to address, and preserving the union was paramount for him. The fact that he articulated his top priority as the most important doesn't make the other priorities unimportant. It doesn't change the fact that the Civil War was fundamentally a disagreement over continuing slavery as an economic system within a country that claimed freedom and democracy as its fundamental values.
Very few conflicts are about only one thing. As you noted, ending slavery was not Lincoln's top most priority during the Civil War, yet it was still an important priority that he was able to address while also preserving the Union.
Thank you Kathy for your comments. Very well written.
I agree with you that wars are about many things and sorting out which was the most important is difficult.
I do think your comments raise some questions that can be countered by logic. If Lincoln said he would accept the Union with slavery, that suggests he would not accept the South leaving the Union even if it did not have any slavery. If Lincoln's and the North's other leaders priorities were keeping the Union, and getting rid of slavery, why didn't they explore simply working out a deal to buy all the slaves' freedom from their owners? It would have been a lot cheaper, not to mention less bloody, than fighting a war. I don't think that occurred.
Another thought that comes to mind from reading your comment is that Lincoln's concern included "preserving the union." This is often said. Red flags go up for me when I see the word "preserving" related to a war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Preserving is a very neutral, almost pacific verb. I certainly don't think of a giant war as "preserving" something. Might I suggest that something is being hidden underneath this verb "preserve," and a more active verb would be appropriate? I'm not sure what it is, but I don't think preserve is correct.
Neil Postman, the late writer I like a lot, had a great essay in which he said we should avoid "euphemisms" because they are a way of concealing things from ourselves and others. I think this idea that Lincoln "preserved the Union" is a euphemism for something far more bloody and violent.
So those are my thoughts to your thoughts. Thanks again for the thoughtful comment.
Alex, I appreciate your thoughtful response to my comment. I take a different view of the logical arguments about the Civl War. You posit that "If Lincoln said he would accept the Union with slavery, that suggests he would not accept the South leaving the Union even if it did not have any slavery." I think that's right, but I think it's also beside the point.
To carry your argument successfully, we would have to conjure up a different and equally important divergence of views between the northern states and the southern states that would have caused the southern states to want to secede. Much as I might like to imagine a world where that intensity of dispute could have been been generated by, say, women's rights, that topic wouldn't have risen to such a high level in the 19th century (and I'm glad women's rights advanced without another civil war). There simply wasn't another difference of views large enough at the time to have created the southern states' desire for secession.
As to Lincoln's use of the word "preserve" related to keeping the union intact, I take your point about the word potentially being a euphemism. Lincoln was a skilled advocate and orator. I think he used words and every other tool at his disposal in the pursuit of his goals. That doesn't make his goals nefarious.
We could substitute a less charged word such as "maintain" or "continue" but I don't think that fundamentally alters the debate.
Wars always take longer and are bloodier and more expensive than people contemplate at the outset. When the southern states fired on Ft. Sumter their common narrative was that the northern army would fold in short order. Had the southern states been able to foresee the massive loss of life and the nearly complete destruction of their cities and farms they might not have taken those opening shots.
Why bring this up now? You do not mention the change in history in recent years, encouraging us to re-think what Reconstruction was all about, which now seems that just a few years after winning the war the North allowed the old Southern power structure to move back in place, and stop any racial reconciliation.
My short answer Paco is when is it not a good idea to tell the truth?
Hi Alex, I am not a historian but you make a strong argument that there were two causes, one south and one north, and they have tended to get conflated in modern times. But I find it hard to buy that the north was somehow the aggressor here or equate them with Russia which attacked another independent country. Yes Ukraine was once part of the Soviet Union but I think your analogy kind of fails a bit there. Yes, the north was fighting to preserve the nation, the United States, but it was in response to a sessesionist movement and the north has nothing to apologize for, in my humble opionion.
Thanks for your comments Adam I was particularly wondering what you would say and hoping you would say something.
I think if you follow the logic of your last sentence, you will conclude that the United States was doing exactly what Russia is doing with Ukraine. It was stopping with force part of the country from seceding. The southern states declared themselves independent from the United States just as Ukraine declared itself independent from Russia. I think that by definition makes the United States the aggressor. Whether it’s something you apologize for then is another question.
This is interesting. My schools taught the war from the norths perspectivet and side.
So to me this was a not a question. It was a obviously neccesary to respond to south carolina seceding. Was seceding against the Constitution? It was only 70 years old itself. Had it ever been considered that a state would want to secede? Is it like the scotus. it wasnt even considered that 6 SOBs would use its power to install a king?
This decade (of trump) has exposed an imperfect Constituion. The USA is now hard pressed to create a more perfect union without creating a more perfect Constitution.
Your comment is interesting. Thank you for posting it.
As to our imperfect constitution, it certainly is. One problem with it in my opinion is that it’s far too difficult to change. 3/4 of the states and 2/3 of both houses of Congress is a really high bar. It turns the constitution into a suicide pact.
Ah I kind of wanted to keep going with Russia and Ukraine. I will agree with your stated facts. But the south did first attack Fort Sumter so I would argue they were the aggressors. The north was just defending itself. But yes, sure the north could have let the south secede. Many thousands of lives would have been saved. But we also have to ask at what cost?
No, Ukraine, like many other former republics, has been internationally recognized as an independent country. That was never the case with the southern states. I know you’re not justifying Russia’s actions but by your logic if they attempted to reconstitute the former USSR country by country via aggressive warfare which you deem simply “nationalism” akin to the North’s position vis a vis the Civil War I fear you’re drawing a false equivalency.
So if England had recognized the Confederate States of America, then by your logic, that would mean the actions of the United States to stop the southern states from seceding and forming the Confederacy would have then been illegal? While it is helpful to the nation declaring independence to be recognized by other nations, I don't see how that changes the status of the actions of the nation attempting to not let a part of it secede. It is true that Ukraine seceded and declared independence more than 30 years ago, but in the grand scheme of things, that is not that long.
Perhaps it would be more helpful to leave Russia aside, and just look at the facts. Can we agree that the Southern states attempted to secede, and that what was left of The United States went to war to stop them? If we agree on that, why isn't it appropriate to call the United States the aggressor? After all, it did not have to go to war with the Southern states. It could have simply let them depart.
Alex, I enjoy your writing and am happy that you're corresponding from a second "P," Portugal, following Prague. Your points about the U.S. Civil War are interesting, but I agree with @AdamRabiner that your Russia / Ukraine analogy is not apt to the US Civil War.
Many countries that had been absorbed into the Soviet Union and then subsequently decided upon independence, as allowed by the then USSR three decades ago, would be under threat of invasion by Russia under your analogy.
The Soviet Union dissolved. Russia doesn't have the unilateral right to remake an equivalent of the USSR now by force, no matter how much Russia's president misses the good old days of the Cold War era USSR.
Many countries could claim Ukraine as their own under your theory. Many countries could claim parts of the US under your theory, for that matter.
For more detail about Ukraine's history from a a historian who specializes in the region I suggest Timothy Snyder's recorded lectures from his course The Making of Modern Ukraine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJczLlwp-d8&list=PLh9mgdi4rNewfxO7LhBoz_1Mx1MaO6sw_ as well as his"Thinking About..." substack.
Looking forward to reading more from you on your new adventure as well as your developing thoughts about the US Civil War.
Thank you for reading Kathy! I enjoyed your comment.
I don’t want to get sidetracked on the comparison with Russia. It’s a comparison, not an exact fit.
What I have not heard anyone rebut is that the south tried to secede, and the United States used force to prevent it. Can anyone argue that this was not the case? If you acknowledge that, then the rest of my argument to me follows naturally.
Getting back to Russia and Ukraine, I do read Timothy Snyder. And I really back Ukraine in its fight against Russia.
Thanks again for your comment and for reading.
Thanks Alex. To your point about the US Civil War, yes, the South wanted to secede, and the North did not want them to. The South attacked first, and the North responded. Whether their differences could have been resolved without a war, we'll never know.
As to why the states had their differences that resulted in war, I think many reasons can be in play simultaneously. Lincoln had multiple concerns to address, and preserving the union was paramount for him. The fact that he articulated his top priority as the most important doesn't make the other priorities unimportant. It doesn't change the fact that the Civil War was fundamentally a disagreement over continuing slavery as an economic system within a country that claimed freedom and democracy as its fundamental values.
Very few conflicts are about only one thing. As you noted, ending slavery was not Lincoln's top most priority during the Civil War, yet it was still an important priority that he was able to address while also preserving the Union.
Thank you Kathy for your comments. Very well written.
I agree with you that wars are about many things and sorting out which was the most important is difficult.
I do think your comments raise some questions that can be countered by logic. If Lincoln said he would accept the Union with slavery, that suggests he would not accept the South leaving the Union even if it did not have any slavery. If Lincoln's and the North's other leaders priorities were keeping the Union, and getting rid of slavery, why didn't they explore simply working out a deal to buy all the slaves' freedom from their owners? It would have been a lot cheaper, not to mention less bloody, than fighting a war. I don't think that occurred.
Another thought that comes to mind from reading your comment is that Lincoln's concern included "preserving the union." This is often said. Red flags go up for me when I see the word "preserving" related to a war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Preserving is a very neutral, almost pacific verb. I certainly don't think of a giant war as "preserving" something. Might I suggest that something is being hidden underneath this verb "preserve," and a more active verb would be appropriate? I'm not sure what it is, but I don't think preserve is correct.
Neil Postman, the late writer I like a lot, had a great essay in which he said we should avoid "euphemisms" because they are a way of concealing things from ourselves and others. I think this idea that Lincoln "preserved the Union" is a euphemism for something far more bloody and violent.
So those are my thoughts to your thoughts. Thanks again for the thoughtful comment.
Alex, I appreciate your thoughtful response to my comment. I take a different view of the logical arguments about the Civl War. You posit that "If Lincoln said he would accept the Union with slavery, that suggests he would not accept the South leaving the Union even if it did not have any slavery." I think that's right, but I think it's also beside the point.
To carry your argument successfully, we would have to conjure up a different and equally important divergence of views between the northern states and the southern states that would have caused the southern states to want to secede. Much as I might like to imagine a world where that intensity of dispute could have been been generated by, say, women's rights, that topic wouldn't have risen to such a high level in the 19th century (and I'm glad women's rights advanced without another civil war). There simply wasn't another difference of views large enough at the time to have created the southern states' desire for secession.
As to Lincoln's use of the word "preserve" related to keeping the union intact, I take your point about the word potentially being a euphemism. Lincoln was a skilled advocate and orator. I think he used words and every other tool at his disposal in the pursuit of his goals. That doesn't make his goals nefarious.
We could substitute a less charged word such as "maintain" or "continue" but I don't think that fundamentally alters the debate.
Wars always take longer and are bloodier and more expensive than people contemplate at the outset. When the southern states fired on Ft. Sumter their common narrative was that the northern army would fold in short order. Had the southern states been able to foresee the massive loss of life and the nearly complete destruction of their cities and farms they might not have taken those opening shots.
Another question is why did south carolina decide to secede? congress?