![[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: 2004-12-14 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.