Why Did We Fight the Civil War?
Nov. 6th, 2002 12:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shannon_aTo be honest, I've never completely understood why a very bloody Civil War was fought in the United States.
Yes, there was the issue of slavery. It was a an absolutely terrible thing that still has awful repercussions on our country. It was something that the United States rightfully should have put all of its political power toward ending and repairing afterward.
But, from what I've read, slavery wasn't the primary reason for fighting the war. It was really the secession of the South that did it, that sent this country into five years of bloody, back-stabbing fighting.
I suppose, again, slavery came into the north's reaction to succession. The south was trying to take itself away from the power of the north to legislate. And perhaps tempers were so high by then that violence was seen as the only alternative to end slavery after that legislative power was broken. I don't know. But there were clearly other options--economic and political weight which could have been brought to bear against an independent Confederate States of America until they decided to recognize basic human rights for their citizens.
In the big picture, though, it seems mostly the succession itself, not the underlying problems, that lit the spark of war. And that's what I don't get.
Why didn't those southern states have the right to leave this union? What right did the United States have to bring them back in? Were we so insecure in our existance as a state less than a hundred years after this country's creation, that we couldn't abide by it splintering?
I'm not a confederate apologist. Not even close. Not even close to close. I find both past and present racial attitudes throughout much of the South disgusting. I get our moral need to end the practice of slavery, just not the moral need to subject the South to a Union that they no longer felt a part of.
There's a point here.
Last night the United States pushed itself even further to the conservative side of the political spectrum. The Republicans did win the Senate and now have a lot of power, spearheaded by a single man who I very strongly do not trust.
On the other hand, in California, it looks like the liberals managed to sweep all seven seats of power (governor, lt. governor, secretary of state, treasurer, attorney general, and insurance commissioner are all won; controller is still up in the air, but the Democrat has a .4% lead with 99.99% of the precints in). In Berkeley, the progressives took at least a 6-3 lead in the City Council over the moderates with the election of a progressive mayor. (Conservatives must call themselves "moderates" in Berkeley to have any chance of election.)
California's out of sync with the nation, or the nation's out of sync with California, as you prefer. The bottom line is that there's a clear schism, which seems to have been growing at least since The Powers That Be in Washington ignored the energy crisis in California last year. It's probably really been growing since the first computer company started up in a garage, since the Summer of Love filled the Haight-Ashbury with a new way of life, since the University of California first opened its doors in Berkeley a century ago.
And what would happen if California decided to secede? Or if the whole west coast did? If we decided that the politicians of Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, Kansas, and so many others didn't and couldn't represent our own morals and needs?
Would Washington threaten us with nuclear bombs? Would they send in the national guard?
Or have we perhaps learned something since 1865?
Yes, there was the issue of slavery. It was a an absolutely terrible thing that still has awful repercussions on our country. It was something that the United States rightfully should have put all of its political power toward ending and repairing afterward.
But, from what I've read, slavery wasn't the primary reason for fighting the war. It was really the secession of the South that did it, that sent this country into five years of bloody, back-stabbing fighting.
I suppose, again, slavery came into the north's reaction to succession. The south was trying to take itself away from the power of the north to legislate. And perhaps tempers were so high by then that violence was seen as the only alternative to end slavery after that legislative power was broken. I don't know. But there were clearly other options--economic and political weight which could have been brought to bear against an independent Confederate States of America until they decided to recognize basic human rights for their citizens.
In the big picture, though, it seems mostly the succession itself, not the underlying problems, that lit the spark of war. And that's what I don't get.
Why didn't those southern states have the right to leave this union? What right did the United States have to bring them back in? Were we so insecure in our existance as a state less than a hundred years after this country's creation, that we couldn't abide by it splintering?
I'm not a confederate apologist. Not even close. Not even close to close. I find both past and present racial attitudes throughout much of the South disgusting. I get our moral need to end the practice of slavery, just not the moral need to subject the South to a Union that they no longer felt a part of.
There's a point here.
Last night the United States pushed itself even further to the conservative side of the political spectrum. The Republicans did win the Senate and now have a lot of power, spearheaded by a single man who I very strongly do not trust.
On the other hand, in California, it looks like the liberals managed to sweep all seven seats of power (governor, lt. governor, secretary of state, treasurer, attorney general, and insurance commissioner are all won; controller is still up in the air, but the Democrat has a .4% lead with 99.99% of the precints in). In Berkeley, the progressives took at least a 6-3 lead in the City Council over the moderates with the election of a progressive mayor. (Conservatives must call themselves "moderates" in Berkeley to have any chance of election.)
California's out of sync with the nation, or the nation's out of sync with California, as you prefer. The bottom line is that there's a clear schism, which seems to have been growing at least since The Powers That Be in Washington ignored the energy crisis in California last year. It's probably really been growing since the first computer company started up in a garage, since the Summer of Love filled the Haight-Ashbury with a new way of life, since the University of California first opened its doors in Berkeley a century ago.
And what would happen if California decided to secede? Or if the whole west coast did? If we decided that the politicians of Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, Kansas, and so many others didn't and couldn't represent our own morals and needs?
Would Washington threaten us with nuclear bombs? Would they send in the national guard?
Or have we perhaps learned something since 1865?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-11-06 04:46 pm (UTC)California
P.S. Do not call the "moderates" in Berkeley conservatives they are all part of our local and very nasty machine politics.
P.P.S. I and some of my friends would resist violently if necessary any attempt dismantle the U.S. By enemies foreign or domestic.
Re: California
Date: 2002-11-06 08:26 pm (UTC)Go back and look at the previous post, and you'll see that I compared Bush, jr. to another charismatic demagogue, Adolf Hitler. That's it.
There are lots of fine Republicans out there. George Bush, jr., and those he's gathered around him aren't in that class.
Re: California
Date: 2002-11-07 12:34 am (UTC)Re: California
Date: 2002-11-07 01:12 am (UTC)Re: California
Date: 2002-11-09 04:38 pm (UTC)