What were the Independents Really Fighting For?

POSTED BY: Ty
UPDATED: Saturday, August 9, 2003 14:22
VIEWED: 11782
PAGE 3 of 6

The reason why the southern rebel gets glorified is he fought for a lost cause. We still honor Custer for the same reason, valiantly fighting and dying and losing sucks. No body would do it if we did not honor those who did.

But getting back to the Civil War debate, the reasons on both sides were complex. Slavery was just salt in a festering wound, and there were economic interests on both sides. But the North was not all about invasion and subjugation. (Nor even freeing the slaves) It was about preserving the union.

The fundamental aspect of democracy is that of majority rules. The minority, or losing side, does not run off, form their own government and leave. They accept the decisions of the majority.

Besides which, almost 90 years earlier we made a big stink about how everyone was created equal, yet allowed the continuation, with government sanction, of a system which made some more equal than others. Slavery was a fundamental hypocrisy in the nation's origin.

Lincoln is on record as saying that if the choice came between freeing the slaves and destroying the union, he was going to keep the union together. The south did not have the numbers in Congress nor against the northern legislatures to prevent the ratification of any kind of Immancipation Proclamation. So they ditched democracy and split off on their own.

And shot up a fort full of American soldiers in the process.

If Lincoln or the North had allowed that to pass, there would be no United States at all. And we would be a continent suffering from the same warfare that ravaged much of Europe through most of its history. I would hate to think how things would be different if the North had lost, (which it almost did, despite an advantage in men and material)

It should also be pointed out that in order to repress slave revolts, the South had some pretty draconian laws on their books against whites. They could not teach blacks how to read or write, and gun ownership was restricted in the south. Most of the early gun control cases come from southern courts.

The bits and pieces we see of the Alliance, we see an aristocracy, and an open slave trade. We see Simon and River's father more upset about his entry into a police station being part of his record, than what they are doing to his child.

"my kind of stupid"

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Excellent posts, Drakon, but I'll have to take exception to a few of your points.

First, this isn't a democracy. This is a representative republic designed in part to maintain barriers against the fickle whims of the majority. Pure democracy can easily become a ruthless form of majoritarianism that can justify any variety of atrocity based on the mood of the side that has fifty-one percent of the vote.

One of the ironies of the nineteenth century was the political organization represented by the man many people call our greatest president ever was also the same institution responsible for Manifest Destiny, the Indian Wars, and the excesses of industrialization. The same people who extoll Lincoln will declaim these things in a heartbeat. It was the Whigs, who became the Republicans shortly before Lincoln's election, who followed Henry Clay's blueprint for expansionism and mercantilism.

The results? The American southwest taken from Mexico. Two invasions of Canada in the nineteenth century, with the intent of conquering part or all of another sovereign nation. The extermination of the native tribes as subhumans. The usage of European and Chinese immigrants as a disposable labor source, to be treated even worse than your average southern plantation slave. (Bad as slavery was, slaves cost money- immigrants were free and essentially a renewable resource.)

Have things worked out in the end? Sure. But what Lincoln and his ilk did was barbaric, and they were operating out of greed, hunger for power and hunger for control. The war gave birth to much-lamented military-industrial complex, saw the legitimization of total warfare tactics including the sanctioned use of atrocities by Union forces against Southern civilians, and as noted by Miss Sarah it crushed once and for all the concept of state sovereignty.

As for Fort Sumter, that was a calculated move on Lincoln's part, leaving the garrison in place knowing that if the Confederacy fired the first shot it would go a long way toward validating a punitive campaign and keeping Europe from extending recognition to the new nation. It wasn't a case of the Confederacy announcing "Hey, we're outta here. (BOOM!)"

If there had been a peaceful secession, I doubt that North America would have been plagued by continental wars of the European fashion, but we'll never know what would have come of that course. On the other hand, a Union loss probably would have led to further wars.

There ain't nothin' I can't overcome or come to know. So lay your heavy load down on me, strip everything I have away. I am not your prisoner, I am not afraid.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

And just to show that I can veer somewhere near the point of the thread, I'll point out a couple of bits I've noted with regard to the Alliance.

First off, we have seen examples of compassion and courage from Alliance officials, specifically the captains of the Alliance cruisers in Bushwhacked and Serenity. "Let's go save those people." is not the sentiment of a blood-drinking babykiller.

On the other hand, it's rather chilling that Mal didn't bat an eye at Saffron's description of her ex as a guy who orchestrated biowarfare attacks on civilian communities in order to get goodies for his artifact collection. The implicit suggestion is that such behavior (biological attacks on civilian targets) was something that not only happened during the war, but was apparently routine.

Now for my part, I don't particularly like that element of Trash because frankly I think that such barbaric tactics would likely lead to a much stronger resistance movement than has been shown. I seriously doubt people like Mal would try to settle into a 'normal' life after a war like that. At the very least, there would be a lot more savage hatred of the Alliance than has been shown so far.

There ain't nothin' I can't overcome or come to know. So lay your heavy load down on me, strip everything I have away. I am not your prisoner, I am not afraid.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thanks for your kind words. Now on to your exceptions.

First, I realize that this is a liberal (in the classic sense) representative republic. And agree with your complaint against pure democracy. I was trying to simplify it for an already long post. My point still holds. Even in a representative republic, the losing side does not up and dissolve the entire nation when it does not get its way.

You claim that it was "greed, power and control" that motivated the Whigs and the Republicans in the mid 19th century. While I doubt that there were not some who were so motivated, there was also a desire to live up to the ideals we told everyone we were about. To prove that our nation could govern itself, without the imposition of an aristocracy. If the South had won, it would prove the experiment a failure, with dire consequences for the rest of history, not only to us, but to the rest of the world as well.

While it may have been barbaric, judging from this far removed age, at the time I am sure they were veiwed differently. There is a tendency in history to decry our ancestors as barbarians, and complain about them taking actions we never would have. But we do not have the advantage of living in their times. We stand on their shoulders, not the other way around.

As for dealings with Mexico, it should be pointed out in the case of Texas, that it was a nation of its own, and fought for its own independence from Mexico, before joining the Union. Granted many of the leaders of that rebellion were Americans prior to becoming Texans, but they still fought and died for their nation, just as our ancestors fought the British.

The rebellion of Texas and its subsequent annexation into the US 10 years later, led to the Mexican American war. It should be noted that there were several attempts to purchase the land from Mexico prior to this. Mexico rebuffed, there was a disagreement and it was settled by a force of arms.

It should also be noted that when the first Americans arrived in Texas, and California shortly after Mexico gained its independence, they were welcomed with open arms.

Additionally, the terms that concluded the war required the US to pay 15 million dollars for the land. This was with American troops in Mexico City, dictating the terms. Why, if the Americans were so greedy and controlling they did not annex the entire country?

As for California, it should be remembered that the Mexican American war was fought and they lost. And the territory was ceeded to the US in exchange for peace.

And as far as the Indian wars are concern, you are going to have that kind of friction any time you have a clash of cultures so disparate as was evident between the native Americans and the European immigrants. The tools and technology, as well as numbers were on the side of the Europeans. It may be sad and regrettable, but that is life.

As to the disposable immigrant laborers, it should be pointed out that these were NOT slaves. No one was pressing them into leaving China, or Europe. They came here because as bad as things were here, they were far worse back there. (This is also why we never had an aristocracy here, all the aristocrats stayed home.

As to Canandain invasions, I am not sure which incidents you are talking about. The war of 1812, we were at war with England, of which Canada was still a province of England. As to the Oregon territory, it was jointly occupied by both American and Birtish explorers and settlers bu terms of an 181 treaty, and the boarder was peacably settled by treaty in 1846.

Whether Lincoln's leaving of the garrison was a ploy or not, does not relieve the rebels of the responsibility for firing the first shot. It may have been a baited trap, but the rebels bit. That insured there would be no peaceful secession, not the leaving of the garrison, but the rebel attack on that garrison.

The state's right thing is mostly a dodge. The issue was tarrifs, which the Constitution gave power to Congress to set. Slavery was also settled in the Constitution as well. The latter was perceived

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Again, I think you are looking at it through 21st century western eyes. There are still cultures that think nothing of gassing an entire town, or feeding political prisoners into industrial plastics shredders. And after a while you realize that if you leave them alone, you can live. You cause problems, you die. People will choose life over death almost all the time.

There is no mention as to the tactics used by the Browncoats.

Wars suck, a lot of bad things happen in war.

I don't think they are blood drinking baby killers either, at least not intentionally. My main objection to the Alliance is it won't work. No matter what the best intentions are, there is a severe information problem inherent in any command economy like that. Add to the fact you have an aristocracy, and people "knowing their place" it just furthers the blindness to problems as well as solutions, and makes the decision loop a lot longer.

But whether you starve because the Alliance forgot the food shipment, or intended to starve you out, is irrelevant. Bodies don't ask how they got cold.

"my kind of stupid"

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Oh oh, meaty reply for me to sink my teeth into. Too bad I'm leaving on Saturday, so we won't have time to properly hash this out over the course of a couple of weeks.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Drakon:
Thanks for your kind words. Now on to your exceptions.

First, I realize that this is a liberal (in the classic sense) representative republic. And agree with your complaint against pure democracy. I was trying to simplify it for an already long post. My point still holds. Even in a representative republic, the losing side does not up and dissolve the entire nation when it does not get its way.

---

But there are points at which the rule of the powers that be, whether majority-elected or 'divinely born' becomes too intolerable for those they rule. This is recognized in the Declaration of Independence. This is of course a very gray area because there are no rules of when it's 'the right time to revolt.'

Quote:

---

You claim that it was "greed, power and control" that motivated the Whigs and the Republicans in the mid 19th century. While I doubt that there were not some who were so motivated, there was also a desire to live up to the ideals we told everyone we were about. To prove that our nation could govern itself, without the imposition of an aristocracy. If the South had won, it would prove the experiment a failure, with dire consequences for the rest of history, not only to us, but to the rest of the world as well.

---

How would a new republic being born show the experiment to be a failure, precisely? Free people, electing to form a new government. (and before somebody jumps in on the issue, yes, the slaves didn't get a vote. I don't justify or excuse slavery in any way.)

Quote:

---

While it may have been barbaric, judging from this far removed age, at the time I am sure they were veiwed differently. There is a tendency in history to decry our ancestors as barbarians, and complain about them taking actions we never would have. But we do not have the advantage of living in their times. We stand on their shoulders, not the other way around.

---

Among other things, Sherman's March to the Sea promoted atrocities against civilians, and other events include the bombardment of Charleston, which at least on the Southern side of the war were viewed as atrocities and barbarism. I can full well agree with you on the point of people decrying our ancestors as barbarians via the prism of modern-day morality. But it was Lincoln's contention that the citizens of the Southern states were still American citizens. As such, he condoned the usage of military force and atrocity against noncombatant citizens. That's not even going into his various unconstitutional actions against residents of the border states and the rest of the Union, or his blatantly unconstitutional creation of West Virginia.

Lincoln violated nearly every amendment of a Bill of Rights created a bit after the four score and seven years the nation was founded. So the moral precedents were there, and he and his disregarded them.
(Side note- I really like the line about 'standing on their shoulders.' Sums up some of my feelings on history and where we are very nicely.)

Quote:

---

As for dealings with Mexico, it should be pointed out in the case of Texas, that it was a nation of its own, and fought for its own independence from Mexico, before joining the Union. Granted many of the leaders of that rebellion were Americans prior to becoming Texans, but they still fought and died for their nation, just as our ancestors fought the British.

The rebellion of Texas and its subsequent annexation into the US 10 years later, led to the Mexican American war. It should be noted that there were several attempts to purchase the land from Mexico prior to this. Mexico rebuffed, there was a disagreement and it was settled by a force of arms.

It should also be noted that when the first Americans arrived in Texas, and California shortly after Mexico gained its independence, they were welcomed with open a

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME