How would you change history?

[TheWesley]

Oh, this isn't actually about history or a viable proposal for the time or anything, just a pixie-dust idealized conception of freedom that not everybody shares, which you've decided to crowbar into a different era. And people whine about althisters taking over the forum.

You're clearly not American. Freedom is an absolute moral right and part of the inalienable natural rights of man.

I was trying to demonstrate to the second quote's typer that the United States does not follow that principle with anything like consistency.

Suppression? What with? The militia, which were under control of the traitor governors? The Army, which was tiny, spread out in garrisons and focused on Utah, the Plains "Indians", and Mexico, and nearly destroyed by Twiggs' surrender? And James Buchanan was supposed to order this to happen?

By raising armies on a large scale, like Lincoln would actually use. It is also worth pointing out that the Militia also believed in the legitimacy of secession (or why would they have supported it?)

Uh, to a very large extent, they did, save for the garrisons that either escaped to the North or who, as in the cases of Ft. Sumter and those Floridian forts, resisted the rebellion.

Checking just in case but- sources?

Mhm. I have zero interest in discussing some nebulous founding principles of any government, so go have fun with that.

Normally I don't discuss such nebulous matters either, but I wanted to refute the mentioned quote.

 

[Dachs]

By raising armies on a large scale, like Lincoln would actually use. It is also worth pointing out that the Militia also believed in the legitimacy of secession (or why would they have supported it?)

Rebels tend to believe that what they're doing is right. So? That doesn't mean that they thought everybody else would think they were right too, especially the central government they fulminate against.

Checking just in case but- sources?

You can read about the Twiggs disaster in virtually any good history of the ACW; I know it's in Eicher's book, for instance.

 

[TheWesley]

Rebels tend to believe that what they're doing is right. So? That doesn't mean that they thought everybody else would think they were right too, especially the central government they fulminate against.

As you admit, though, practically all the militia were under the control of the Governors. That demonstrates that during the relevant period secession was a widely supported concept.

You can read about the Twiggs disaster in virtually any good history of the ACW; I know it's in Eicher's book, for instance.

1- Wikipedia mentions 20% of the army being under the command of David E.Twiggs- a serious disadvantage, but not enough that the army was "virtually destroyed". (To be fair, at Gettysburg a third of the Confederate Army was destroyed and it doomed the Confederates- but the U.S had superior industrial power even post-secession to the Confederates as was demonstrated)
2- Even if 20% does count as "virtually destroyed", how do you explain Lincoln being able to wage the Confederate war without that 20%?
3- If the Confederates were expecting war, how come they didn't launch a preemptive strike or fortify the border?

 

[Plotinus]

You assume that freedom requires an independent nation-state. How did you establish that?

I did not assume any such thing. I said only that freedom is incompatible with being subject to an occupying force of the kind used by the British empire. Your criticism would be correct if the only possible alternatives were either an independent nation state or subjection by an occupying force, but clearly these are not the only possible alternatives. Others include a state that is a member of a federation and a complete lack of statehood altogether. For example, I think we can agree that the people of (say) California are free, although California is not an independent nation state, since it is also not a subject nation - it is a free and equal member of a federation of states. One could not say the same thing of Ireland or India in the imperial period.

1- Again, how do you establish that premise?

"Free" has all sorts of different meanings. Clearly someone who lives under an overlord could have all kinds of freedoms; for example, they may be free from the fear of crime if the overlord is extremely good at eradicating crime. But they wouldn't have what the word "freedom" generally means in a political context, namely self-determination, in the sense of the ability to choose their own government and political institutions. An overlord imposes or is imposed upon the people.

2- Given that you are to an extent nationalist (or else you would not consider it slavery to live under a foriegn government), I should point out that for nationalists the use of "we" in that fashion is normal

I am absolutely not a nationalist, and what I have said here does not at all commit me to nationalism, for the reasons established above. Furthermore, I have not said anything remotely like the claim that it's slavery to live under a foreign government. I've lived under foreign governments myself and didn't consider myself a slave for doing so! I said that to have a foreign government imposed upon a people in the way that the British empire did is incompatible with those people being free. Moreover, I did not use the term "slavery" or any of its cognates. Clearly there are possible states other than freedom and slavery.

The use of the first person to refer to the actions of co-nationals in the distant past is just one of the things that marks out nationalism as irrational.

3- Have you considered he might be using rhethoric to exaggerate?

Exaggeration has no place in rational discourse.

Children and animals are not represented in government. Are you saying they aren't free?

I'm talking about entire social or cultural groups, not individuals. But to the extent that children and animals are less politically self-determined than human adults are, yes, to that extent they are less free, in the relevant sense. I don't see why that should be considered contentious.

 

[TheWesley]

I did not assume any such thing. I said only that freedom is incompatible with being subject to an occupying force of the kind used by the British empire. Your criticism would be correct if the only possible alternatives were either an independent nation state or subjection by an occupying force, but clearly these are not the only possible alternatives. Others include a state that is a member of a federation and a complete lack of statehood altogether. For example, I think we can agree that the people of (say) California are free, although California is not an independent nation state, since it is also not a subject nation - it is a free and equal member of a federation of states. One could not say the same thing of Ireland or India in the imperial period.

1- Granted that there are alternatives, you still assume that an "occupying force" is incompatible with freedom. Why?
2- For purposes of law, the British Government in India was legitimate. Why call it an "occupying force"?

"Free" has all sorts of different meanings. Clearly someone who lives under an overlord could have all kinds of freedoms; for example, they may be free from the fear of crime if the overlord is extremely good at eradicating crime. But they wouldn't have what the word "freedom" generally means in a political context, namely self-determination, in the sense of the ability to choose their own government and political institutions. An overlord imposes or is imposed upon the people.

Neither of us (unless you happen to be an absolute monarch) have self-determination either- we can't choose our leaders, we can't choose our Constitutions, and we can't choose our political institutions. In order for the concept of "self-determination" to work as it is understood, borders have to be arbitrarily drawn in order to justify communities "making" such decisions as so-called self-determination.

Most governments in the time of the British Empire, and large numbers of governments nowadays, are undemocratic- clearly, the people do not choose their own government (including Ireland and India pre-conquest). Even in democratic governments, Constitutions are usually not amendable without a percentage of the vote larger than a majority.

I am absolutely not a nationalist, and what I have said here does not at all commit me to nationalism

You seem to support not only the idea of nationalities as a natural part of the world and the world as inherently divided into nation-states (as shown by the fact you did not think of the possibility of a non-national state), but the idea that one nationality dominating a state makes the other ones if not slaves, then at least "un-free". How is that not nationalist?

I am absolutely not a nationalist, and what I have said here does not at all commit me to nationalism, for the reasons established above. Furthermore, I have not said anything remotely like the claim that it's slavery to live under a foreign government. I've lived under foreign governments myself and didn't consider myself a slave for doing so! I said that to have a foreign government imposed upon a people in the way that the British empire did is incompatible with those people being free. Moreover, I did not use the term "slavery" or any of its cognates. Clearly there are possible states other than freedom and slavery.

Most governments are imposed- why should there be a difference between a "foriegn" government and a "native" government in terms of lack of freedom? As long as the government is undemocratic, there is none.

The use of the first person to refer to the actions of co-nationals in the distant past is just one of the things that marks out nationalism as irrational.

Agreed, although it should be pointed out that it is used in other contexts (also ones which are irrational).

Exaggeration has no place in rational discourse.

True, but when it's there it should be attacked as exaggeration rather than crticised as if serious.

I'm talking about entire social or cultural groups, not individuals. But to the extent that children and animals are less politically self-determined than human adults are, yes, to that extent they are less free, in the relevant sense. I don't see why that should be considered contentious.

My point to LightSpectra was that whilst people in the British Empire were nowhere near free, that is true of large minorities in practically all human societies (however the arbitrary borderlines are drawn) due to the fact that children have so few political rights. It was a poorly made one, but perfectly reasonable.

 

[aronnax]

by 800, the Byzantine Republic founded gunpowder ( around 50 years eariler than the chinese)

by 1500, the Byzantine Empire was a world power, at a barely Renascence era.

by 2000, Byzantium was still a world power, but they haven't been to mars yet.

so my history is more realistic because of a slight technological lead, not an insane one like yours.

oh, democracy was adopted in 1840. not 500 AD or something. slavery too.

You make me laugh.

A republic Byzantine... discovering gunpowder against all odds... Be a world power in the 1500s! What's next? They invent the jet pack in the 1900s and build a bridge to Atlantis? Haha.. keep them coming. This is fun amusement.

 

[Plotinus]

1- Granted that there are alternatives, you still assume that an "occupying force" is incompatible with freedom. Why?

Because it achieves and maintains its position through force, of course. Those who are occupied do not have the option of changing this situation.

2- For purposes of law, the British Government in India was legitimate. Why call it an "occupying force"?

I don't know what your argument here is meant to be. The British government of India was certainly legal and legitimate from the viewpoint of British law, given that it was instigated by parliament. Why that should mean it wasn't an occupying force, though, I cannot fathom. I don't see the relevance.

Neither of us (unless you happen to be an absolute monarch) have self-determination either- we can't choose our leaders, we can't choose our Constitutions, and we can't choose our political institutions. In order for the concept of "self-determination" to work as it is understood, borders have to be arbitrarily drawn in order to justify communities "making" such decisions as so-called self-determination.

That may be true as far as it goes, but it is trite, given that on the definition assumed here self-determination is impossible in a society of any size. But we can still distinguish usefully between a society that itself has self-determination and one that doesn't. We can, for example, say that in the former individuals have as much political self-determination as is possible in a society of that size; thus you and I have as much say over our governments and political institutions as anyone else does, and as much as is possible without inequity.

Most governments in the time of the British Empire, and large numbers of governments nowadays, are undemocratic- clearly, the people do not choose their own government (including Ireland and India pre-conquest). Even in democratic governments, Constitutions are usually not amendable without a percentage of the vote larger than a majority.

No doubt, but I'm not sure why that is relevant.

You seem to support not only the idea of nationalities as a natural part of the world and the world as inherently divided into nation-states (as shown by the fact you did not think of the possibility of a non-national state)...

First, I don't know how you can be so sure of what I thought of or didn't think of. I don't write down everything I think. Second, even if I hadn't thought of the possibility of a non-national state, that wouldn't demonstrate that I think nationalities are natural. I would like to see the reasoning by which you get from the failure to consider the one possibility to the assertion of the other rather strong claim.

...but the idea that one nationality dominating a state makes the other ones if not slaves, then at least "un-free". How is that not nationalist?

It's got nothing to do with nationality. It's one group of people turning up and taking over control of a society through force, implicit or explicit. It would be just as bad if said group came from within the society (via some kind of military coup, for example).

Most governments are imposed- why should there be a difference between a "foriegn" government and a "native" government in terms of lack of freedom? As long as the government is undemocratic, there is none.

Then I would agree with you, as indicated above.

True, but when it's there it should be attacked as exaggeration rather than crticised as if serious.

I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that they mean what they say, rather than try to second-guess them.

My point to LightSpectra was that whilst people in the British Empire were nowhere near free, that is true of large minorities in practically all human societies (however the arbitrary borderlines are drawn) due to the fact that children have so few political rights. It was a poorly made one, but perfectly reasonable.

Yet surely you do not think that the disenfranchisement of children is morally or politically indistinguishable from the disenfranchisement of (say) Indians, the poor, women, black people, or other social groups who have been disenfranchised in the past. Or do you? If you do, I would be interested to hear the argument for that. If you don't, then perhaps you could clarify what this point is supposed to prove.

 

[TheWesley]

Because it achieves and maintains its position through force, of course. Those who are occupied do not have the option of changing this situation.

All states are mainted by force- all governments I know of consider rebellion to be treason, including if carried out by a majority of the people.

I don't know what your argument here is meant to be. The British government of India was certainly legal and legitimate from the viewpoint of British law, given that it was instigated by parliament. Why that should mean it wasn't an occupying force, though, I cannot fathom. I don't see the relevance.

The idea of an "occupying force" implies illegitimacy, which was my original argument. I should also point out that by your logic all governments are occupying forces, as I have demonstrated above.

That may be true as far as it goes, but it is trite, given that on the definition assumed here self-determination is impossible in a society of any size. But we can still distinguish usefully between a society that itself has self-determination and one that doesn't. We can, for example, say that in the former individuals have as much political self-determination as is possible in a society of that size; thus you and I have as much say over our governments and political institutions as anyone else does, and as much as is possible without inequity.

1- My argument is that the idea of self-determination and "freedom" in the sense you speak of are themselves trite.

2- Your definition of "societies" is itself arbitrary. As demonstrated by the sheer number of conflicts over borders (Tibet as an "integral" part of China, questions of an independent Pakistan nation-state, whether it covers what is now Bangladesh, and disputes with India, the collapse of Yugoslavia despite it's having been formed by nationalist ambition, etc), the borders between them are not clear. From a rational perspective, what point is there in making the distinction between them? (As opposed to between states)

No doubt, but I'm not sure why that is relevant.

It demonstrates that nothing approaching a state of total freedom exists- even the ideal of people determining their own governments does not occur in the real world (including in states percieved to be democratic).

First, I don't know how you can be so sure of what I thought of or didn't think of. I don't write down everything I think. Second, even if I hadn't thought of the possibility of a non-national state, that wouldn't demonstrate that I think nationalities are natural. I would like to see the reasoning by which you get from the failure to consider the one possibility to the assertion of the other rather strong claim.

I may be over-sensitive to such ideas, but they tend to be overly common- people talk of such ideas as "Englishmen" and "Americans" as if they were natural rather than social constructs.

It's got nothing to do with nationality. It's one group of people turning up and taking over control of a society through force, implicit or explicit. It would be just as bad if said group came from within the society (via some kind of military coup, for example).

Such an argument is admittedly consistent, but logically leads to the conclusion that all governments are illegitimate.

Then I would agree with you, as indicated above.

To be honest, my argument is more that freedom is impossible and other things are to be valued. The question I assume is likely to be disputed is if all governments are of necessity maintained by force.

I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that they mean what they say, rather than try to second-guess them.

I'll leave this point, as it would be another argument alltogether.

Yet surely you do not think that the disenfranchisement of children is morally or politically indistinguishable from the disenfranchisement of (say) Indians, the poor, women, black people, or other social groups who have been disenfranchised in the past. Or do you? If you do, I would be interested to hear the argument for that. If you don't, then perhaps you could clarify what this point is supposed to prove.

The only difference is that children eventually get the vote- assuming for the sake of argument (in the real world, it is not my posistion) that freedom is an inherent human right, all of them are morally wrong.

 

[Mathalamus]

You make me laugh.

A republic Byzantine... discovering gunpowder against all odds... Be a world power in the 1500s! What's next? They invent the jet pack in the 1900s and build a bridge to Atlantis? Haha.. keep them coming. This is fun amusement.

hey its is only about 50 years ahead of its original time. it slowed down in the 1960s but the Republic is still 10 tom 20 years ahead. mars was landed by a human in 2004. had NASAs space funding been very high, this is a very realistic thing.

by the way the Byzantines in the OT invented grenades. in the 8th or 9th century. source in spoilers.

Spoiler :

Grenade: Grenades appeared not long after the reign of Leo III (717–741), when Byzantine soldiers learned that Greek fire could not only be projected by flamethrowers, but also be thrown in stone and ceramic jars.[22] Larger containers were hurled by catapults or trebuchets at the enemy, either ignited before release or set alight by fire arrows after impact.[23] Grenades were later adopted for use by Muslim armies: Vessels of the characteristic spheroconical shape which many authors identify as grenade shells were found over much of the Islamic world,[24] and a possible workshop for grenade production from the 13th century was excavated at the Syrian city of Hama.

 

[Dachs]

As you admit, though, practically all the militia were under the control of the Governors. That demonstrates that during the relevant period secession was a widely supported concept.

Secession was a widely supported concept in the traitor states, I agree. That is, after all, why they are called the 'traitor states' - because they tried to secede. How is that relevant to the state of mind of everybody else in the Union? Obviously the fact that the rebellion was ultimately crushed with popular support, and that the war effort had substantial popular support in the northern and western states (albeit sometimes wavering) for the entirety of its run, indicates that, no, the traitor states' secession wasn't seen as legitimate by everybody else in the Union. Hence my point - of course the rebels would have to arm themselves from the start, because there was simply no chance that they would be permitted to get away with what they tried to do without at least some kind of fight.

1- Wikipedia mentions 20% of the army being under the command of David E.Twiggs- a serious disadvantage, but not enough that the army was "virtually destroyed". (To be fair, at Gettysburg a third of the Confederate Army was destroyed and it doomed the Confederates- but the U.S had superior industrial power even post-secession to the Confederates as was demonstrated)

You asked for a reason why there was no instant response by the American federal government to the rebellion. The loss of the majority of federal troops serving in the traitor states - i.e. with Twiggs - was the most important of these. Buchanan's failure to effectively delay the rebellion politically and/or begin military countermeasures and build up the now-emasculated Army was another key reason for this. Dude, we're talking about 1861 here. You can't honestly expect to claim that "industrial mobilization" would have made a federal response to the rebellion more rapid, that sort of crap takes time, as does the act of raising troops in the first place. Considering the total lack of readiness for the war, the serious loss suffered in Texas, and the lack of any effective response by the Buchanan administration, the fact that combat operations were beginning in spring 1861 (when the secessions themselves only started in December 1860) doesn't sound unreasonably slow on the part of the Lincoln administration or on the part of the traitor states, who had to create almost entirely extemporaneous military formations.

2- Even if 20% does count as "virtually destroyed", how do you explain Lincoln being able to wage the Confederate war without that 20%?

A fifth to a quarter of the prewar Regular Army is a miniscule number compared to the federal army that obtained even a year after the secessions started, in winter 1861, much less to the total size of the Grand Army of the Republic that ultimately won the war in 1865. That is because the overwhelming manpower and industrial advantages you mentioned earlier (but seem to nonsensically not apply here?) permitted the United States federal government to raise an extremely large army - it just took time. In the winter and early spring of 1861, this was time that the federal government lacked; overwhelming manpower and industrial capacity advantages are irrelevant in the short run, so the raw numbers of the troops immediately at hand was the key factor, and losing a quarter of those men, even temporarily, is a crippling loss when you consider the already-small size of the Regular Army and the extremely large territories it would have to subdue in the event of rebellion.

3- If the Confederates were expecting war, how come they didn't launch a preemptive strike or fortify the border?

Uh, the Confederates started the war.

 

[TheWesley]

Secession was a widely supported concept in the traitor states, I agree. That is, after all, why they are called the 'traitor states' - because they tried to secede. How is that relevant to the state of mind of everybody else in the Union? Obviously the fact that the rebellion was ultimately crushed with popular support, and that the war effort had substantial popular support in the northern and western states (albeit sometimes wavering) for the entirety of its run, indicates that, no, the traitor states' secession wasn't seen as legitimate by everybody else in the Union. Hence my point - of course the rebels would have to arm themselves from the start, because there was simply no chance that they would be permitted to get away with what they tried to do without at least some kind of fight.

1- Whilst claiming that their secession was illegitimate, Lincoln originally claimed that he would not supress the so-called traitor states. This only changed after the Fort Sumter incident. (Even Lincoln would describe the Fort Sumter as politically useful, showing that he was not certain of being able to make a war seem just)

2- When Lincoln attempted to invade the Confederates, several states seceded in response. This demonstrates that in what is generally understood as "The South", the idea of secession as legitimate had a significant amount of support.

3- Whilst admittedly most did not, several newspapers did move Confederate-related matters to their foreign affairs section. Whilst it was admittedly a smaller amount, at least small numbers of "Northerners" supported the idea of secession.

You asked for a reason why there was no instant response by the American federal government to the rebellion. The loss of the majority of federal troops serving in the traitor states - i.e. with Twiggs - was the most important of these. Buchanan's failure to effectively delay the rebellion politically and/or begin military countermeasures and build up the now-emasculated Army was another key reason for this. Dude, we're talking about 1861 here. You can't honestly expect to claim that "industrial mobilization" would have made a federal response to the rebellion more rapid, that sort of crap takes time, as does the act of raising troops in the first place. Considering the total lack of readiness for the war, the serious loss suffered in Texas, and the lack of any effective response by the Buchanan administration, the fact that combat operations were beginning in spring 1861 (when the secessions themselves only started in December 1860) doesn't sound unreasonably slow on the part of the Lincoln administration or on the part of the traitor states, who had to create almost entirely extemporaneous military formations.

To be fair, upon further research it seems Buchanan did not actually want to stop the secession- he believed that whilst secession was illegal so was attempting to supress it.

However, if he did want to why not divert troops from the Mexican and Canadian borders? Lincoln had sufficent forces to at least be able to bluff a threat to declare war if the Confederacy was recognised, and Mexico at least was in no posistion to invade. It would have a significant propaganda advantage in terms of seeing the South as the enemy.

A fifth to a quarter of the prewar Regular Army is a miniscule number compared to the federal army that obtained even a year after the secessions started, in winter 1861, much less to the total size of the Grand Army of the Republic that ultimately won the war in 1865. That is because the overwhelming manpower and industrial advantages you mentioned earlier (but seem to nonsensically not apply here?) permitted the United States federal government to raise an extremely large army - it just took time. In the winter and early spring of 1861, this was time that the federal government lacked; overwhelming manpower and industrial capacity advantages are irrelevant in the short run, so the raw numbers of the troops immediately at hand was the key factor, and losing a quarter of those men, even temporarily, is a crippling loss when you consider the already-small size of the Regular Army and the extremely large territories it would have to subdue in the event of rebellion.

It may not be enough to subdue the Confederate states, but it could have been enough to wage the war and gain a military advantage whilst the C.S.A was still mobolising.

Uh, the Confederates started the war.

1- Technically, they were trying to retake their land- they had already offered to buy it at a fair price, but Lincoln refused them.
2- If they were expecting war as an inevitability, the South could have been far more effective- if the Union army was crippled as you say, they could have swept westwards and gained large enough amounts of land to be able to focus on the Eastern front during the main part of the war.

 

[LightSpectra]

1- Technically, they were trying to retake their land- they had already offered to buy it at a fair price, but Lincoln refused them.

I hate this argument so much. Why is it "their land"? Because they said it was? It was federal property. The rebels attacked it, so they began the war and demonstrated their violent nature.

 

[Dachs]

1- Whilst claiming that their secession was illegitimate, Lincoln originally claimed that he would not supress the so-called traitor states. This only changed after the Fort Sumter incident. (Even Lincoln would describe the Fort Sumter as politically useful, showing that he was not certain of being able to make a war seem just)

2- When Lincoln attempted to invade the Confederates, several states seceded in response. This demonstrates that in what is generally understood as "The South", the idea of secession as legitimate had a significant amount of support.

3- Whilst admittedly most did not, several newspapers did move Confederate-related matters to their foreign affairs section. Whilst it was admittedly a smaller amount, at least small numbers of "Northerners" supported the idea of secession.

So, how does any of that prove what I said to be wrong? You've highlighted public opinion in the traitor states (irrelevant), the issue of short-term justification for suppression (quite valid...for the short term; the federal government's unwillingness to yield federal property would make any non-military settlement with the traitor states virtually impossible in the medium term, so it has little meaning for the issue of whether the federals were going to respond militarily), and the issue of minority opposition to the war in the northern states (relevant, but already accounted for in my previous post; I don't claim that, to a man, the people of the northern states were opposed to secession).

To be fair, upon further research it seems Buchanan did not actually want to stop the secession- he believed that whilst secession was illegal so was attempting to supress it.

However, if he did want to why not divert troops from the Mexican and Canadian borders? Lincoln had sufficent forces to at least be able to bluff a threat to declare war if the Confederacy was recognised, and Mexico at least was in no posistion to invade. It would have a significant propaganda advantage in terms of seeing the South as the enemy.

That. Takes. Time. And in fact, it's what actually happened - but only after a few months. For reals.

It may not be enough to subdue the Confederate states, but it could have been enough to wage the war and gain a military advantage whilst the C.S.A was still mobolising.

Again, the federals were able to use their still-extant (but much smaller) numerical preponderance to secure advantageous border positions, especially in what's now West Virginia and in the Ohio River region, but it took enough time to gather sufficient troops for all the operations that they didn't start in earnest until the summer of 1861. We aren't talking about a time when the US government can put 10,000 boots on the ground anywhere in the world in less than two days, we are talking about a time when the railroad and steamship are the fastest modes of transportation and they only cover a relatively minuscule part of the country.

1- Technically, they were trying to retake their land- they had already offered to buy it at a fair price, but Lincoln refused them.

Oh, this nonsensical justification. If you offer to buy something, and the seller doesn't sell it to you, that doesn't give you any sort of claim on it. It doesn't matter what price is offered - if the owner of a property legally acquired refuses to sell that property, it continues to belong to the owner. Edmund Ruffin's rallying cries to fire up the assembly of rebels at Charleston don't actually have any legal force.

2- If they were expecting war as an inevitability, the South could have been far more effective- if the Union army was crippled as you say, they could have swept westwards and gained large enough amounts of land to be able to focus on the Eastern front during the main part of the war.

Yeah, just because the federals didn't have the manpower to suppress the entire rebellion doesn't mean the rebels had the manpower to invade the northern states either. They had to spend time mustering in units, distributing arms, creating a system of command and control, and organizing logistical support. And when they finished that, then they invaded New Mexico and Arizona, with the well known result.

 

[TheWesley]

So, how does any of that prove what I said to be wrong? You've highlighted public opinion in the traitor states (irrelevant), the issue of short-term justification for suppression (quite valid...for the short term; the federal government's unwillingness to yield federal property would make any non-military settlement with the traitor states virtually impossible in the medium term, so it has little meaning for the issue of whether the federals were going to respond militarily), and the issue of minority opposition to the war in the northern states (relevant, but already accounted for in my previous post; I don't claim that, to a man, the people of the northern states were opposed to secession).

1- Public opinion was used to demonstrate that secession was not a novelty- it was something which was believed to be perfectly valid.
2- Theoretically, the most freedom-compatible course (which I was originally debating about) would be to cede the property.
3- I was pointing out that the minority existed, as it was worth mentioning.

That. Takes. Time. And in fact, it's what actually happened - but only after a few months. For reals.

If so, apologies- I didn't happen to know that.

Again, the federals were able to use their still-extant (but much smaller) numerical preponderance to secure advantageous border positions, especially in what's now West Virginia and in the Ohio River region, but it took enough time to gather sufficient troops for all the operations that they didn't start in earnest until the summer of 1861. We aren't talking about a time when the US government can put 10,000 boots on the ground anywhere in the world in less than two days, we are talking about a time when the railroad and steamship are the fastest modes of transportation and they only cover a relatively minuscule part of the country.

Sources? I'm slightly doubtful about this, as it seems a foolish course of action given Lincoln's rhethoric until post-Fort Sumter.

I hate this argument so much. Why is it "their land"? Because they said it was? It was federal property. The rebels attacked it, so they began the war and demonstrated their violent nature.

Oh, this nonsensical justification. If you offer to buy something, and the seller doesn't sell it to you, that doesn't give you any sort of claim on it. It doesn't matter what price is offered - if the owner of a property legally acquired refuses to sell that property, it continues to belong to the owner. Edmund Ruffin's rallying cries to fire up the assembly of rebels at Charleston don't actually have any legal force.

This is starting to get off the point (that the United States does not stand for freedom), but as a soverign state the C.S.A had the right, if not of compulsory acquisition (which they were reasonable about), then of forcing United States troops off their land.

Yeah, just because the federals didn't have the manpower to suppress the entire rebellion doesn't mean the rebels had the manpower to invade the northern states either. They had to spend time mustering in units, distributing arms, creating a system of command and control, and organizing logistical support. And when they finished that, then they invaded New Mexico and Arizona, with the well known result.

1- As they must have known, an army can live off the land.
2- Command&control is not absolutely necessary when attacking a weaker force.
3- This was several years after the war begun, so whilst it may demonstrate the reasons against a surpise attack it isn't a point in favor of your claims.

 

[LightSpectra]

This is starting to get off the point (that the United States does not stand for freedom), but as a soverign state the C.S.A had the right, if not of compulsory acquisition (which they were reasonable about), then of forcing United States troops off their land.

Why was it their land? Because they said it was? Because it was close to other land that belonged to them? The fact is that the Confederacy was an illegitimate government to begin with, and cared little for independence or freedom given the consistent grievous violation of rights of the people who did not want to join them. The Confederates began the war, they lost it.

 

[TheWesley]

Why was it their land? Because they said it was? Because it was close to other land that belonged to them? The fact is that the Confederacy was an illegitimate government to begin with, and cared little for independence or freedom given the consistent grievous violation of rights of the people who did not want to join them. The Confederates began the war, they lost it.

1- It was part of a state which had joined the C.S.A.
2- Illegitimacy is arguable, but the dispute here is who started the war.
3- I am not saying the Confederates were for freedom, but the United States did not stand for freedom.

 

[LightSpectra]

1- It was part of a state which had joined the C.S.A.
2- Illegitimacy is arguable, but the dispute here is who started the war.
3- I am not saying the Confederates were for freedom, but the United States did not stand for freedom.

I - So? If I found some upstarts in California that wanted to form the Independent Republic of Google, could I then justifiably attack the citizens of California on the grounds that they're trespassing upon the state which had validly seceded?
II - The Confederates, clearly.
III - Why? Because they decided not to surrender to violent rebels who attacked and arrested their civilians and soldiers?

 

[TheWesley]

I - So? If I found some upstarts in California that wanted to form the Independent Republic of Google, could I then justifiably attack the citizens of California on the grounds that they're trespassing upon the state which had validly seceded?
II - The Confederates, clearly.
III - Why? Because they decided not to surrender to violent rebels who attacked and arrested their civilians and soldiers?

1- The hypothetical Independent Republic of Google would not (in modern times) have rasied an army, economy, and government and for practical purposes taken over lawmaking functions.
2- The Union had tresspassed on what was by that point Confederate territory (and come to think of it, which under Tenth Amendment rights the states could have confiscated anyway), thus starting the war.
3- If they had stood for freedom, they would have seen the large amount of popular support for secession and accepted it where it was the will of the people. (As long as they did not keep slaves, of course)

 

[Plotinus]

All states are mainted by force- all governments I know of consider rebellion to be treason, including if carried out by a majority of the people.

All right, let me be clearer. Yes, all governments are maintained by force in the sense that they will meet any attempt to remove them by force with force of their own. However, most governments, at least most in vaguely enlightened countries, are not such that they will meet all attempts to remove them (whether by force of not) with force of their own. If Labour lose the next election they are unlikely to respond by calling out the army and putting David Cameron under house arrest. That is what distinguishes a democratic government from one like Robert Mugabe's, which is maintained by force alone since it meets all opposition with force.

So if you're trying to show that all governments are equally culpable when it comes to the use or threat of force, you haven't done so. If you're not trying to show that then I'm not sure what the relevance is of whatever it is that you're trying to show.

The idea of an "occupying force" implies illegitimacy, which was my original argument. I should also point out that by your logic all governments are occupying forces, as I have demonstrated above.

Not so, for the reason given above.

1- My argument is that the idea of self-determination and "freedom" in the sense you speak of are themselves trite.

I don't see an argument to this effect. At any rate you haven't addressed what I said about the degrees of self-determination.

2- Your definition of "societies" is itself arbitrary. As demonstrated by the sheer number of conflicts over borders (Tibet as an "integral" part of China, questions of an independent Pakistan nation-state, whether it covers what is now Bangladesh, and disputes with India, the collapse of Yugoslavia despite it's having been formed by nationalist ambition, etc), the borders between them are not clear. From a rational perspective, what point is there in making the distinction between them? (As opposed to between states)

The use of vagueness of borders to assert the non-existence or arbitrariness of categories is an invalid move, although people often make it. The fact that the border between one category and another is fuzzy and hard to define does not mean that the category is a purely arbitrary or fictional one. For example, it is an absolutely objective fact that my father has grey hair and that I do not. There is nothing arbitrary about saying that someone whose hair is entirely grey has grey hair, and there is nothing arbitrary about saying that someone whose hair is not grey at all (as I fondly imagine to be my case) does not have grey hair. And yet the border between the two states is notoriously hard to pin down. There is no obvious point at which a person who is going grey can be said to start being grey-haired, because the transition is gradual. And we can think of many similar cases (a 20-year-old is young, and an 80-year-old is old, but where is the point of transition? a four-foot-tall person is short, and a seven-foot-tall person is tall, but where is the point of transition? etc.).

Now there are all kinds of paradoxes one can construct as a result of this, including many versions of the famous sorites paradox (a single grain of sand is not a heap; a pile of 1,000 grains of sand is a heap; adding a single grain to a pile that is not a heap will not turn it into a heap; it follows that if you add grains one by one to a single grain of sand it will not be a heap, but this is paradoxical). But these problems are caused by the difficulty of defining liminal cases and determining which categories they fall into. They do not disprove the existence of those categories, any more than the difficulty of saying whether partially grey person counts as being grey-haired or not disproves the existence of grey-haired people.

Similarly, the fact that one cannot clearly draw the borders of a society doesn't disprove the existence of that society. Indeed it's an obvious fact of life that societies exist from the experiential point of view. When I moved from London to Singapore I found many differences beyond the purely geographical and physical: linguistic, cultural, and practical. That is a different society. Whether or not there is an objectively existing entity to which the word "society" refers is an entirely different matter, a metaphysical one which is irrelevant to political discussions; even the most thoroughgoing nominalist can use the word "society" with meaning. The whole point of nominalism is to explain how terms of this kind can have meaning even in the absence of objectively existing abstracta. It seems to me that you're constructing nominalist-type arguments to disprove the objective existence of such abstracta, and then interpreting the conclusions in the way that a realist about such things would, with the result that you're denying the validity of such terms at all.

It demonstrates that nothing approaching a state of total freedom exists- even the ideal of people determining their own governments does not occur in the real world (including in states percieved to be democratic).

I don't see how an observation about the governments that existed in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries demonstrates anything of the kind. Still, I think what I've already said addresses your main point here.

I may be over-sensitive to such ideas, but they tend to be overly common- people talk of such ideas as "Englishmen" and "Americans" as if they were natural rather than social constructs.

Maybe so, but I think you're overlooking the fact that even social constructs are important and powerful. To put it bluntly, the mere fact that something is invented by people doesn't mean it's not real, as is demonstrated by the fact that I am managing to sit on this chair. Social constructs may not have the same kind of reality that physical artefacts do, but that doesn't stop them being real at some level, even if it is only the experiential one. If Blair is English and Bush is American, then that is a fact, even though it is a fact that depends upon human society. One does not distinguish between them in that way purely arbitrarily; one cannot with equal legitimacy say that Blair is American and Bush is English (unless one is trying to make some kind of satirical comment about the Special Relationship, but even then it is the fact that what you're saying is in the literal sense false that draws attention to its intent).

Such an argument is admittedly consistent, but logically leads to the conclusion that all governments are illegitimate.

Only if one combines it with the assertion that all governments maintain their power through force alone, which as I've indicated would clearly be a false assertion.

To be honest, my argument is more that freedom is impossible and other things are to be valued. The question I assume is likely to be disputed is if all governments are of necessity maintained by force.

Personally I agree with you that other things are to be valued above political freedom. But I disagree that political freedom is impossible even if it can never be absolute.

The only difference is that children eventually get the vote- assuming for the sake of argument (in the real world, it is not my posistion) that freedom is an inherent human right, all of them are morally wrong.

I don't think you've answered the question whether you think that the disenfranchisement of children is morally indistinguishable from the disenfranchisement of the other groups. Do you think that the fact that children eventually get the vote makes a moral difference to their disenfranchisement?

This of course overlooks the fact that there are obviously other salient differences too, such as the fact that children lack the ability to exercise the vote in an informed and responsible way. Give them the vote and you pave the way for the Chocolate Party to take permanent power. That seems to me a powerful moral, and not merely expedient, reason for denying them the vote, which does not apply to the other groups mentioned. So that's a significant difference quite distinct from the fact that children eventually get the vote.

 

[Kraznaya]

I would change history by deleting any mention of states' rights, Confederate "justifications" for succession or other lies from history textbooks.