>>
>> I think this topic shows how far neo-confederate propaganda has
>> penetrated popular thought.
>
>You sure got that right. "Leftists" arguing for Southern Secession!
>Now, unfortunately, I've seen it all.
>
>--
>Now wait just a damn minute...
>We have argued that the war was fought to settle the conflicting
interests of two contending ruling classes. We argue that the good
that
came out of it could have been achieved by other methods, that
wouldn't
have killed 3% of the US population. For this we are confederate
sympathizers? You remind me of the people who insisted that anyone
opposed to the Vietnam War was a closet Stalinist.
>Jim Baird
I did not call anyone any names, merely commented on the penetration of propaganda. And this argument is essentially the neo-confederate line, that civil war was not about slavery, that slavery would have ended even if the South had been allowed to withdraw, and that there would be less racism. Now as to your specific points
1) I'm not going to deal with absolutist pacifism, the argument that no war is ever justified under any circumstances in any depth. It is just not worth the time. I will make some very shallow points on this topic. I do wonder if Cuba should have relied on non-violent defense against the Bay of Pigs invasion? I also cannot help wondering if the genocide against American Indians would not have been even more successful than it was if they had relied on nothing but non-violent defense. Lastly I wonder if we have the right to proscribe absolute principles for people who face murder and torture. It was one thing to renounce the right of self-defense for oneself, quite another to do so on behalf of someone else.
2) In terms of the argument that slavery would have been eliminated more thoroughly or in a better way if it had been done differently... This type of what-if speculation is completely non-falsifiable. You can never prove what would have happened one way or another. See the Pigs and Wings thread. Or as my late father would have said "If your grandma had balls she'd be your grandfather".
Still, I can't completely resist looking at the historical evidence to guess what would have happened.
I don't think if the U.S. had said "erring brother go in peace" that the South would have immediately attacked Mexico. Instead I think that they would have found an excuse within a few months to attack the United States, and I think those few months of delay might have made it much more difficult to defeat them, and in fact the South might have won!
What is my evidence for them wanting to attack the U.S.? The statements they made at the time showed they anticipated a quick and easy victory. They virtually all the good generals, had grabbed the U.S. treasury, had most of the U.S. weapons of war. You can find their writing at the time of succession quite full of boasts as to how easily they would "lick" the union -- before the first shot was fired.
Now why would defeating them have been so much harder if the Union had waited? As I said, the South started out with the money, the guns, and all the good generals. The North had basically two advantages: More people, and more productive capacity. The productive capacity was a long not a short term advantage: they had to survive the initial months of the war for this to do the Union any good. If the South had managed a quick victory, or had (as it tried) managed to grab Maryland, and Washington D.C. at the beginning of the war it might have won before the North could get it's immense factories on a war footing.
The one *immediate* advantage the North had was population. But this was an advantage only so long as people became soldiers. People both North and South volunteered for militias or armies as soon as Lincoln was elected. (Everyone knew that his election meant war. Conscription came later.) But in the North, many volunteers signed up for three and four month enlistments. By the time war came, some of the three month enlistments were already up. In short if Lincoln had listened to those who wished to delay war, he would have lost half his army before a shot was fired. Also there is some real question whether he could have instituted conscription, without a war.
Another problem: If the North had recognized the confederacy initially, Britain might well have followed suit. One thing that ultimately let the North defeat the confederacy was the refusal of Britain to trade with it. This was due to a number of factors.
One of the most important was the overwhelming active support by the British working class for the Union. See Eric Foner on this. For that matter see Karl Marx. This might not have changed if the war had been delayed.
But the British working class did not have the vote, nor much trade union success at that time. It could not by itself determine British foreign policy. If the war had started with the Confederacy recognized as a legitimate nation by the Union, and with more military victories they initially had might not the British empire have ignored the working class, (and John Stuart Mills). For that matter might not working class support for the the union been weakened, seeing the war as a fight between two slave holding nations? Could Britain really have resisted the temptation to play the great game, supporting first one side then another until it had the chance the reconquer it's lost colony in all but name.
If the war had started with fewer union troops, and British willingness to trade with the South, at the very least victory would have been much harder, and at worst might actually have gone to the South.
If the South had won would the decedents of Slaves have been worse off today than they are in are real world? I have little doubt of this. Yes slavery would have ended eventually, around 1890 or so, but in a country dominated by a slavocracy. There would have been no reconstruction to reverse. White privilege would have been far worse than it is . I suspect that people without skin privilege would just be winning the right to vote now, with the fight against the criminal injustice system and economic discrimination decades away. It is always an act of extreme optimism to believe that things couldn't be worse.
For those who think the civil war was not about slavery, as a non-marxist I am going to use some very appropriate marxist jargon. The north may not have cared about slavery in fighting the civil war, but *objectively* the civil war was a fight about slavery.
At any rate I don't want to spend any more time playing in alternate universes. Anyone who wants to read about an alternate universe where the South won the civil war should dig up an old novella "Ring the Jubilee" (far better than the contemporary crap Harry Turtledove churns out on the subject.) If you want to read something less gloomy, get hold of "Fire on the Mountain" by Terry Bisson about an alternate universe in which John Brown succeeded at Harpers Ferry, and the Civil War occurred as a successful slave revolt. The South was torn from the U.S. to become socialist N'Africa (not historically plausible (to say the least) but a wonderful lift when your sprits are depressed .). It is set in the alternative socialist U.S. of 1959. As just one minor pleasure to savor, Elvis's father is unmarried and childless running a successful gas station. ...
Terry Bisson BTW is an openly Marxist contemporary SF writers.
_____________________________________________________
Gar W. Lipow 815 Dundee RD NW Olympia, WA 98502 http://www.freetrain.org/