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.
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.
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.
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.