![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
forsythI saw something the other day, on another blog, that saddened me. And made me wonder WTF?
In this case, it was people who were arguing, seriously, that the South had seceded legally and the North invaded without provocation. There was only one guy arguing the obvious "Uh, the South was wrong" position. He was at a disadvantage, though, because it was a comment thread that started "ignoring the moral issue of slavery, and this and that and..." and narrowed it down to just the legal issue. Which is stupid. The Civil War was over many many things, the "State's Rights" the South were fighting for was, essentially, slavery. That was the biggest one. Slavery was the entire basis of the Southern economy. You can't sit back and argue "Well, if you ignore this and that and this, then..." because the issue is much bigger than that. The issue isn't just a legal one, it was a moral one, an economic one, a tension one, and there were many things that led up to the Civil War, the biggest of all, though, was slavery. And then the Southern states seceded, and seized US Government forts and ammo dumps, an act of war, and... The point is, the issue ISN'T something you can zoom in on a narrow issue of "legality" of secession, because then you miss most of the picture. And when you ignore most of the picture, you can do silly things like convince yourself it was the "War of Northern Aggression."
And the main point was, when somebody tries to artificially narrow an issue down to leave out unpleasant parts of it, don't let them. Don't fight the question on their ground, fight them on yours. Setting the terms of debate is important. In politics and in much else.
In this case, it was people who were arguing, seriously, that the South had seceded legally and the North invaded without provocation. There was only one guy arguing the obvious "Uh, the South was wrong" position. He was at a disadvantage, though, because it was a comment thread that started "ignoring the moral issue of slavery, and this and that and..." and narrowed it down to just the legal issue. Which is stupid. The Civil War was over many many things, the "State's Rights" the South were fighting for was, essentially, slavery. That was the biggest one. Slavery was the entire basis of the Southern economy. You can't sit back and argue "Well, if you ignore this and that and this, then..." because the issue is much bigger than that. The issue isn't just a legal one, it was a moral one, an economic one, a tension one, and there were many things that led up to the Civil War, the biggest of all, though, was slavery. And then the Southern states seceded, and seized US Government forts and ammo dumps, an act of war, and... The point is, the issue ISN'T something you can zoom in on a narrow issue of "legality" of secession, because then you miss most of the picture. And when you ignore most of the picture, you can do silly things like convince yourself it was the "War of Northern Aggression."
And the main point was, when somebody tries to artificially narrow an issue down to leave out unpleasant parts of it, don't let them. Don't fight the question on their ground, fight them on yours. Setting the terms of debate is important. In politics and in much else.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 07:32 am (UTC)1) Slavery became an issue in the Civil War because Lincoln chose to make it an issue to prove the moral right was on their side. Admittedly, it was one of the major things that the South was trying to protect by seceding, but it was not what the war was about. Plain and simple, the war was about whether states have the right to leave the Union. It's quite possible slavery would have endured if the southern states hadn't seceded.
2) The North's economy got a few minor benefits from the slave trade. Like, oh, say, the money brought in by many slave traders. Ok, I understate. While not utilizing slave labor heavily like the South, the North's economic power was largely built on selling slaves to the South.
3) Did they seize US Gov't forts and ammo, or did they seize their own? In a divorce, without prenups, most states order a fair split of equity. This may or may not happen in the courts, but it's the ideal. If half the country split from the other half (without a war), would they or would they not have the right to a certain amount of the national resources?
If you dismiss the legitimacy of an argument out of hand, you're doing silly things and ignoring most of the picture. You're seeing "OMG SLAVERY BAD." It was.
War might not have been the most appropriate way to have ended it, and it might not have been necessary.
I may be mistaken, but I believe that when the southern states seceded, they were outnumbered by their slaves. It's quite possible that if the North and smirked and stepped back and withheld their share of the formerly-national resources, the whole problem would have cleaned itself up in a few bloody slave revolts.
Do I think the North was wrong? No. I also don't think secession from the Union WAS legal as such, anyhow. But neither do I think that it's 'obvious' just because it's unpopular to think otherwise.
And yes, I honestly think Lincoln was more concerned about the authority and integrity of the Federal government than concerned about civil rights.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-14 01:48 am (UTC)And I wasn't excusing the North on the slavery front either, the North used the South's textiles and (less so) food and other natural resources in the factories and such. Which were not happy or safe places to work, in any way, shape, or form, either.
As for the forts, militarily, and maybe even ethically, that could be justified, in part by what you mentioned, but on the technical legal level these people were arguing, it's definitely not legal. The forts are/were Federal property, on land owned, or at least leased, by the Federal government. And even assuming they were seperate countries, just seizing them without any negotiation would be a definite act of war. Yes, that's reducing it to a "he did it first!", but.
I'm dismissing the legitimacy of the "legal to seceede" argument out of hand because it leaves out most of the picture.
But I'll gladly admit my mystification in general at the people who idealize the Confederacy and think of it as something to honor, and my disbelief of their arguments, because, yes, I do think it's silly. And it's also 150 years ago almost. And because the government's also run by people who're pretty close to being Confederates these days, anyway.