Confederations

Discussion regarding the Outsider webcomic, science, technology and science fiction.

Moderator: Outsider Moderators

Nemo
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: Confederations

Post by Nemo »

Absalom wrote:
Siber wrote:Also from what I've read since of the constitution/structure of the CSA, I'm not sure it really was that much of a confederation by any of the definitions people have offered. Admittedly that's just from Wikipedia browsing, so that could easily be wrong.
Yeah, I understand that one of the founding principles of the CSA was that the central government should enforce slave-owning rights even when a slave was brought into a state where slavery was illegal: this was what Southerners of the time meant by "state's rights". The Republican take-over of the south appears to have clouded this issue.
Ehh, don't confuse the catalyst for the reactant.


So much of what happened is viewed with a modern lens that slavery and racism seem to trump all other concerns. One must remember that the Democrat party is the offspring of the Anti-Federalist movement. These people opposed the centralized power of the Federal government since its inception and ratification. This opposition is why we even have a Bill of Rights, the constituent nation-states only approved the Constitution on the condition of its creation. This political body foresaw a creeping accumulation of power into the hands of the central authorities, especially the courts and the Presidency.

The general attitude amongst the South was divided between one of gradual emancipation and continued slavery. The gradual emancipation view, shared by men like Washington, Lee, Jackson etc., took some hard hits following Nat Turner's rebellion and the Harper's Ferry raid. Abolitionists viewed these as natural events, just deserts, or even treated the offenders as heros with flags at half staff and church bells rung in memoriam in the case of Brown. Nat Turner particularly stung because this was an intelligent, educated slave who, by his own admission, said his slave owners treated him kindly - before he led a rampage butchering men women and children. This resulted in a series of draconian laws designed to prevent slave education. The abolitionists, seeing the lack of internal will, then sought to use the central authority to force emancipation on the slave holding states. This played into the Anti-Federalist/Democrat view as an abuse of power from the Federal government since there is no such enumerated power in the Constitution, and stoked fears of further revolts and massacres from the slaves, whom, in many areas, had a greater population than whites.


TLDR: The abolitionist effort through the Federal government proved the point the Anti-Federal Democrats were making since 1787. Thats where the "states rights" issue comes in. Do the ends justify the means? Answer almost always depends on which side of the gun you stand.

discord
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: Confederations

Post by discord »

nemo: as i understood it the south was well on it's way to get rid of slavery, and it was a passing trend, not good business practice in terms of profit, when the north guys said 'comply!' the south just opposed them because they did not like the north guys telling them what to do.

the american civil war had very little to do with slavery and all about centralizing power.
that is how i see it anyway.

User avatar
Grayhome
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:11 am

Re: Confederations

Post by Grayhome »

Crash course does a decent job of breaking down the history of the Civil War in their US History playlist, link below (episodes 18-22).

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... 3eG7ObzO7s

Nemo
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: Confederations

Post by Nemo »

discord wrote:nemo: as i understood it the south was well on it's way to get rid of slavery

I'd definitely have to disagree with that. The powers that be were trying to expand slavery into the new states in the west to protect it as an institution. Virtually any effort in the South to push for emancipation died with the Nat Turner rebellion. The educated men of the time knew of John Locke's writings and the Revolutionary spirit that gained independence. Their own ideology says man must be free, and is not only right to but has the Duty to use force of arms to ensure such. Teaching an enslaved populace that outnumbers us two or three to one they should use force of arms to ensure freedom? Lets not do that, shall we! Thus those the draconian laws barring the education of slaves I mentioned before. Things had really ground out to a stalemate, at best, thus the abolitionist attempt to promote or enforce change through the power of the Federal government. The 'nice' ones at least.


Crash course does a decent job of breaking down the history of the Civil War in their US History playlist

Crash course indeed. They spend the first several minutes casually dismissing any and every facet other than slavery and racism. Presenting only a single aspect of motivation may make for a tidier narrative that is simpler to teach, but it turns human history into a Saturday morning cartoon caricature of mustachio twirling villains. Dehumanizing and delegitimizing people you disagree with is a natural response, be they Confederates or Nazis, but it does little to instruct us in how to avoid falling into the same pattern of mistakes. So let me answer the question: "A state's right to what?!"

Sovereignty. National sovereignty. A modern parallel would be the United States of Europe the European Union. Its a balancing act between the ability of the parliament in Brussels to govern Europe as a unified whole and the will of the individual national entities to remain distinct. This is simpler to perceive with Europe because of the differing languages and varying customs of the people, but the principle at work is the same. In the US system this balance was created by assigning areas of responsibility and restricting the Federal government from acting outside that area. What is a governing entity that ignores the restrictions placed upon it at its own will and discretion? If its a king you call him a tyrant, if its a democracy you call it a ______?




I do appreciate they included the "mystery document" from Giddings. Exposes some of sentiment of period abolitionists. Its natural to defensively reject and recoil from that kind of language. For some reason, "Youre bad. Youre all bad and should die. And you will die. And Ill be watching, and Ill hail it!" just never seems to sway people. Especially when theres a real fear it will come to pass. And people say politics these days is too partisan, hah!

So theres an anti-slavery political force that is willing to be complicit in wholesale murder and genocide in the name of doing the right thing. Now you have a President who was elected without even appearing on the ballot in your state. Or several of the states, 10 was it? If your voice matters so little what lies in store for you in the future?



Now, for Lincoln, the war was not about ending slavery. It was all to maintain the union.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

And despite Crash Course or even most every history book saying so, the war wasn't technically sparked solely by the attack on the incomplete Fort Sumpter. See, the CSA declared independence and seceded months advance of that. The commanding officer consolidated his forces and turned his guns on the city. From December until April the CSA went to the Buchannan and Lincoln administrations to get them to withdraw the forces, and instead they were sent resupply. It was Lincolns intent to provoke a war so as to muster support for it in the North. No baseless claim, there are letters stating as much.

User avatar
Grayhome
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:11 am

Re: Confederations

Post by Grayhome »

Yale has another very good (if slightly dry) playlist covering the American Civil War, I greatly enjoyed it.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... 9F2D39E590

User avatar
NuclearIceCream
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 12:32 am

Re: Confederations

Post by NuclearIceCream »

Im super tempted to watch that but holy crap. That will take over 27 hours to get through.

Nemo
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: Confederations

Post by Nemo »

I watched a couple. It really doesn't need to be 27 hours if all his lectures follow a similar format and flow. Don't know Yale's course structure but I assume hes padding class time a bit on account of the course work the students are required to do outside class. Don't have the will power to sit through the whole thing as I've yet to see anything new or engaging, myself.


Or maybe there was and I missed it, dunno. Grayholme said he was dry, honestly its more like a mental cinnamon challenge.


I'd recommend Tocqueville's Democracy in America Volume 1 chapter 18:

THE PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CONDITION OF THE THREE RACES THAT INHABIT THE TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES


I find it remarkable how well he was able to describe not just how things were but how he expected them to turn out. By and large he was spot on. An excerpt:
SITUATION OF THE BLACK POPULATION IN THE UNITED STATES,30 AND DANGERS WITH WHICH ITS PRESENCE THREATENS THE WHITES

Why it is more difficult to abolish slavery, and to efface all vestiges of it among the moderns than it was among the ancients --In the United States the prejudices of the whites against the seem to increase in proportion as slavery is abolished-Situation of the Negroes in the Northern and Southern states --Why the Americans abolish slavery--Servitude, which debases the slave, impoverishes the master--Contrast between the left and the right bank of the Ohio--To what attributable-The black race, as well as slavery, recedes towards the South --Explanation of this f act--Difficulties attendant upon the abolition of slavery in the South--Dangers to come--General anxiety--Foundation of a black colony in Africa--Why the Americans of the South increase the hardships of slavery while they are distressed at its continuance.

The Indians will perish in the same isolated condition in which they have lived, but the destiny of the Negroes is in some measure interwoven with that of the Europeans. These two races are fastened to each other without intermingling; and they are alike unable to separate entirely or to combine. The most formidable of all the ills that threaten the future of the Union arises from the presence of a black population upon its territory; and in contemplating the cause of the present embarrassments, or the future dangers of the United States, the observer is invariably led to this as a primary fact.

Generally speaking, men must make great and unceasing ef- forts before permanent evils are created; but there is one calamity which penetrated furtively into the world, and which was at first scarcely distinguishable amid the ordinary abuses of power: it originated with an individual whose name history has not pre- served; it was wafted like some accursed germ upon a portion of the soil; but it afterwards nurtured itself, grew without effort, and spread naturally with the society to which it belonged. This calamity is slavery. Christianity suppressed slavery, but the Christians of the sixteenth century re-established it, as an exception, indeed, to their social system, and restricted to one of the races of mankind; but the wound thus inflicted upon humanity, though less extensive, was far more difficult to cure.

User avatar
Grayhome
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:11 am

Re: Confederations

Post by Grayhome »

Here's something from Khan Academy.
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ ... il-war-era

Absalom
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:33 am

Re: Confederations

Post by Absalom »

Nemo wrote:
discord wrote:nemo: as i understood it the south was well on it's way to get rid of slavery

I'd definitely have to disagree with that. The powers that be were trying to expand slavery into the new states in the west to protect it as an institution. Virtually any effort in the South to push for emancipation died with the Nat Turner rebellion.
In truth, both are correct. Slavery was doomed for economic reasons: it had already almost died, and only persisted due to the cotton gin (which both sped the separation of the seed from the cotton, and apparently allowed different species to be economically processed), but was still expected to go under due to economic forces. At the same time, it was accepted as part of Southern culture, and technically probably would have continued for decades after both the war, as well as any predominate downfall. If the war hadn't happened then sooner or later it would have been abolished, but it probably wouldn't have happened until either slavery had become much less common, or had even been relegated to the realm of personal slaves only.
Nemo wrote:If its a king you call him a tyrant, if its a democracy you call it a ______?
If Aristotle, a democracy; though obviously you get the point across easier if you turn "Tyrant", "Dictator", or the equivalent into the plural.
Nemo wrote:I do appreciate they included the "mystery document" from Giddings. Exposes some of sentiment of period abolitionists. Its natural to defensively reject and recoil from that kind of language. For some reason, "Youre bad. Youre all bad and should die. And you will die. And Ill be watching, and Ill hail it!" just never seems to sway people. Especially when theres a real fear it will come to pass. And people say politics these days is too partisan, hah!
It would be perfect material for an elementary school poli-sci class, too bad that's not going to be mandatory for the foreseeable future.

User avatar
Grayhome
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:11 am

Re: Confederations

Post by Grayhome »

This one is good. It goes into detail on the inherent strengths and weaknesses of the Confederate States of America: social, cultural, economic, demographic, etc. The Confederation style of government discussed at length.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy3OWWWARvw

Nemo
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: Confederations

Post by Nemo »

Absalom wrote:In truth, both are correct.

Its possible for something to be eminent without it being imminent. Im only objecting to the latter notion. The downward economic force was noted by the people of the day, absolutely. Its even noted in the section of Democracy I noted above, expressly in the section covering the two banks of the Ohio river. But slavery remained entrenched in spite of that for a number of reasons. Not least of which is the lack of a good way out.
It is evident that the most southern states of the Union cannot abolish slavery without incurring great dangers, which the North had no reason to apprehend when it emancipated its black population. I have already shown how the Northern states made the transition from slavery to freedom, by keeping the present generation in chains and setting their descendants free; by this means the Negroes are only gradually introduced into society; and while the men who might abuse their freedom are kept in servitude, those who are emancipated may learn the art of being free before they become their own masters. But it would be difficult to apply this method in the South. To declare that all the Negroes born after a certain period shall be free is to introduce the principle and the notion of liberty into the heart of slavery; the blacks whom the law thus maintains in a state of slavery from which their children are delivered are astonished at so unequal a fate, and their astonishment is only the prelude to their impatience and irritation. Thenceforward slavery loses, in their eyes, that kind of moral power which it derived from time and habit; it is reduced to a mere palpable abuse of force. The Northern states had nothing to fear from the contrast, because in them the blacks were few in number, and the white population was very considerable. But if this faint dawn of freedom were to show two millions of men their true position, the oppressors would have reason to tremble.

fredgiblet
Moderator
Posts: 983
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:02 pm

Re: Confederations

Post by fredgiblet »

Krulle wrote:That graph also shows clearly why the Chinese diplomats have difficulty taking the US-view: the US diplomats see China as a newcomer on the platform of political strong nations. The Chinese see the low influence they had after their lost wars versus the British Empire as an exception in their history, and they are now returning to their rightful place the barbaric British took from them by military power. In their view, "we westerners" are the newcomers.
This is quite true, and explains a lot of their actions. They went through a "Century of humiliation" and wish to never see that again.

Kharanax
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 10:53 am

Re: Confederations

Post by Kharanax »

FYI: Canada is technically a Confederation within a Constitutional Monarchy. We seem to be fairly stable, even if we also have our dissidents.

Provinces can't secede easily, and areas of responsibilities are either federal or provincial. Health is primarily a provincial responsibility, whereas defense is a federal responsibility. While this does create a patchwork of laws that aren't the same across the country, it does give the chance for provinces to each try different things, and eventually take the best practices and harmonize them. (At least, in theory).

Now, Canada did go through some difficult times in terms of national unity in the past century, but things are quieting down gradually as the average age of Separatist supporters in Québec grows much higher. Most people 45 and under don't care to break up the country.

User avatar
Eluvatar
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 8:15 pm

Re: Confederations

Post by Eluvatar »

I'm just going to drop a link here regarding the civil war.

Post Reply