The Dismantling of Confederate Remnants Continues

[Lexicus]

Then why weren't they allowed to be their own nation, with (forced by the North) banished slave-status? Seems suspect to claim the war wasn't fought primarily to ensure the US would have its manifest destiny stuff. And US kept genociding people long after its civil war

The war was fought because, in Lincoln's words, "both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came."
And the reason one party would make war rather than let the nation survive is, as that party so helpfully explained in documents that survive to the present day, they perceived that if the nation survived, it would at some point survive without the institution of slavery.

 

[Kyriakos]

The war was fought because, in Lincoln's words, "both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came."
And the reason one party would make war rather than let the nation survive is, as that party so helpfully explained in documents that survive to the present day, they perceived that if the nation survived, it would at some point survive without the institution of slavery.

That doesn't mean anything in regards to self-determination of the South states. Again, the re-unified US went on to kill even more natives, to stretch from sea to sea. The North wasn't some paragon of virtue at all, and it sounds very unlikely that the soldiers or their leaders were fighting to free slaves (valiant) rather than to force keep their empire (rather jerkish) which soon would unleash more gore on the natives and steal their lands

 

[Lexicus]

That doesn't mean anything in regards to self-determination of the South states. Again, the re-unified US went on to kill even more natives, to stretch from sea to sea.

You don't even have your history right. The US already stretched from sea to shining sea at the time of the war

The North wasn't some paragon of virtue at all, and it sounds very unlikely that the soldiers or their leaders were fighting to free slaves (valiant) rather than to force keep their empire (rather jerkish) which soon would unleash more gore on the natives and steal their lands

I'm sure someone who frames the issue of slavery as "self-determination of the Southern states" probably cares a great deal about the welfare of the native Americans

 

[Perfection]

Then why weren't they allowed to be their own nation, with (forced by the North) banished slave-status? Seems suspect to claim the war wasn't fought primarily to ensure the US would have its manifest destiny stuff. And US kept genociding people long after its civil war

The US would have collapsed without the South. The Midwest was completely dependent on the Mississippi River. The South decided that slavery was more important than the preservation of the union so the US had a cause of both morality and necessity.

However my point was to contrast the CSAs cause for independence vs the USAs.

 

[Kyriakos]

I'm sure someone who frames the issue of slavery as "self-determination of the Southern states" probably cares a great deal about the welfare of the native Americans

Which is exactly my point about the North

 

[Kyriakos]

The US would have collapsed without the South. The Midwest was completely dependent on the Mississippi River. The South decided that slavery was more important than the preservation of the union so the US had a cause of both morality and necessity.

My "rather than promoting" bit was to contrast the CSAs cause for independence vs the USAs.

It is my understanding too, for even the letter to France re the purchase of land tied to the river sort of implied a threat of war if France would not sell the land to the USA. Napoleon did far more, though..

 

[Lexicus]

Which is exactly my point about the North

Well, since I and most other people with sense argue that emancipation came from political-economic motives and not moral superiority I don't really get your point.

However my point was to contrast the CSAs cause for independence vs the USAs.

Well, the British were less for slavery than the colonists so I'm not sure I can get on board with this.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, since I and most other people with sense argue that emancipation came from political-economic motives and not moral superiority I don't really get your point.

That it is hypocritical to name the South or those who fought the civil war there as unworthy to keep their monuments. If you agree that the North had no moral superiority then it sort of becomes a charade to use this pseudo-narrative to cause even more polarization with low-quality debate (trolling) in current US. The North went on to massacre (even more) indians, after it fought the great war against those who were against human rights in the South. Cause that wasn't their issue that much, but keeping an economically strong US regardless of having to face wars of civil conflict with half of that former US.

 

[Lexicus]

That it is hypocritical to name the South or those who fought the civil war there as unworthy to keep their monuments. If you agree that the North had no moral superiority then it sorts of becomes a charade to use this pseudo-narrative to cause even more polarization with low-quality debate (trolling) in current US.

I didn't say the North had no moral superiority. And I disagree that it is 'hypocritical', at least in my case - though I very much doubt the people involved in the efforts to get rid of these monuments are invested in these arguments about the Civil War.

For my part I don't want any monuments to the Indian Wars either. Generally speaking, I don't like militarism, or monuments associated with making war, at all. My position there is Yoda's: "Wars not make one great."

 

[Kyriakos]

I didn't say the North had no moral superiority. And I disagree that it is 'hypocritical', at least in my case - though I very much doubt the people involved in the efforts to get rid of these monuments are invested in these arguments about the Civil War.

For my part I don't want any monuments to the Indian Wars either. Generally speaking, I don't like militarism, or monuments associated with making war, at all. My position there is Yoda's: "Wars not make one great."

While i tend to agree with what you typed, i am sure you realize that it is problematic to take monuments down on account of how "some" people (usually the worst) may interpret them. Many (and i suspect far the most?) in the South likely view those as monuments of their own self-determination, instead of pro-slavery ones.

 

[Lexicus]

While i tend to agree with what you typed, i am sure you realize that it is problematic to take monuments down on account of how "some" people (usually the worst) may interpret them. Many (and i suspect far the most?) in the South likely view those as monuments of their own self-determination, instead of pro-slavery ones.

I realize that it is problematic to have monuments to men who fought for the right to own other human beings.

There is probably a discussion to be had about to what extent destroying these monuments is just whitewashing a nasty history (and present for that matter).

I'm curious to hear what @Sommerswerd has to say about that.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Well, it may feel ok to recall of nice "gotchas", in the future when this kind of trolling debate and polemics will likely lead to US not being one country anyway. So in a way this poor view and debate may reverse the actual result of the civil war.
Still, got to have those "gotchas".

 

[Lexicus]

^Well, it may feel ok to recall of nice "gotchas", in the future when this kind of trolling debate and polemics will likely lead to US not being one country anyway. So in a way this poor view and debate may reverse the actual result of the civil war.
Still, got to have those "gotchas".

And how many Ottoman-era monuments were destroyed by the Greeks I wonder?

 

[Traitorfish]

 

[Kyriakos]

And how many Ottoman-era monuments were destroyed by the Greeks I wonder?

The ottomans and greeks were in civil war? Anyway i am a bit impressed by how you even wrote that, given i am sure the non-parallels are glaring. A more reasonable attempt at parallelism would be monuments of communists in post-civil war Greece, no? And those are an issue, though both the communist party and communist speeches/rhetoric aren't outlawed, nor are their views of the civil war. That said, it is a subset of communism-rise civil wars, in Europe and elsewhere, so again very different from the US civil war.

 

[FriendlyFire]

The ottomans and greeks were in civil war? Anyway i am a bit impressed by how you even wrote that, given i am sure the non-parallels are glaring. A more reasonable attempt at parallelism would be monuments of communists in post-civil war Greece, no? And those are an issue, though both the communist party and communist speeches/rhetoric aren't outlawed, nor are their views of the civil war. That said, it is a subset of communism-rise civil wars, in Europe and elsewhere, so again very different from the US civil war.

No one told Greece to invade Asia Minor and genocide /ethnic cleansing the Kebabs
Anyways its the Balkans, Ethnic cleansing and wars seems to be a main feature of the region, and Greece hands are not so clean

 

[innonimatu]

The US would have collapsed without the South. The Midwest was completely dependent on the Mississippi River. The South decided that slavery was more important than the preservation of the union so the US had a cause of both morality and necessity.

The US would not have collapsed. The northern states could keep their union. What would have collapsed was the imperial project of consolidation a hold on the vast territory from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and increasing that territory. The imperial USA . Kyriakos is right that such a project involved conquering and subduing the native inhabitants of those lands. In the US version of it, as in other imperial projects, denying them political rights. In effect, slavery by a different name. They were not worked to death but they were force-marched around to death, or starved to death. They were an obstacle to remove, an inconvenience, savages". The slaves had to be cared for because they were valuable, these natives were below even that consideration... those that escaped were the ones who fled to such marginal lands that they were not worth the trouble of stealing while eliminating its inhabitants. Don't whitewash your history.

The expansion of the US westwards, like the expansion of Russia eastwards, was as bloody and inhumane as the empire-building of the contemporary west european powers. Those lost their empires because they were not contiguous, and the US itself then attacked their "colonialism". But what the government of the US did well into the 20th century was the same thing. And its civil war was one fought about how that empire would be ruled, not between some "good guys" concerned with "human rights" (those had already been invented) and some "bad guys" who were somehow intrinsically "evil". The empire the leaders of the south envisioned would be worse by out standards, but let's not pretend that the others were good guys. They were all human and flawed, very much a product of their time. And we're not that different even today...

 

[Lexicus]

Those lost their empires because they were not contiguous, and the US itself then attacked their "colonialism"

I'd agree with everything you're saying, except that specifically it was the procedure for adding new states to the Union on an equal basis with already-established states, and much heavier settler-colonialism than the Europeans ever practiced, not just because it was contiguous.

The empire the leaders of the south envisioned would be worse by out standards, but let's not pretend that the others were good guys. They were all human and flawed, very much a product of their time. And we're not that different even today...

Right, hence the North's moral superiority and my view that the outcome of the Civil War should be celebrated as progress in spite of everything you've said in that post.

 

[jackelgull]

it so hard to believe that one side can have the moral high ground without being perfect? Is it hard to believe that there can be wars other than WW2 where the victor matters in terms of the advancement of human equality?

If nothing else, the Reconstruction should prove that the Civil War was more than cynical maneuverings of Machiavellians dressing up imperialist ambitions in a noble cause. You don't build schools and get teachers for people who have served their purpose and thus are of no more use.

 

[innonimatu]

I do agree that one side had better morals (as we see those things now) than the other on at least the issue of slavery. And that they, out or necessity or good intentions, managed to behave reasonably as victors in that war. But there was dressing up. There were opportunists. And there was a sense of "burden of the moral man" being used as justification for waging war that is not, in its logic, different from the contemporary "let's bomb country x into freedom". I can even find some wars to justified, still remaining wary of celebrating them as moral victories.

And a civil war that remains a troubling memory after 150 years was perhaps more one of those "regrettable necessities" that a "moral triumph"?