3 ms·

The takeaway, at least for me, is that both men were not that far apart on the topic of slavery, even though that's the primary lens through which Americans now

The takeaway, at least for me, is that both men were not that far apart on the topic of slavery, even though that's the primary lens through which Americans now view the conflict. Seems fair to assume the Confederacy would have abolished slavery on its own before long, as most of the world (excluding Africa and Mideast) did. Which leaves us with this question: Is membership in the Union voluntary, or compulsory? I'm not sure the answer provided by the civil war is morally correct. No state (no matter how virtuous or contemptible) lasts forever, and it sure would be nice if people could walk away without being shot.

clipsy 3y ago
> The takeaway, at least for me, is that both men were not that far apart on the topic of slavery No, this is complete nonsense. They both opposed slavery on a surface level due to beliefs that differed in deep and profound ways.
dangus 3y ago
But didn’t the Confederate army start the actual fighting of the civil war by firing upon Fort Sumter? > Is membership in the Union voluntary, or compulsory? I'm not sure the answer provided by the civil war is morally correct...it sure would be nice if people could walk away without being shot. Wait…are you saying the confederacy should have the right to secede peacefully? Do their slaves get that same right to walk away from their plantation peacefully? You see the irony here right?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  >But didn’t the Confederate army start the actual fighting of the civil war by firing upon Fort Sumter? It did. There was a lot of political tension before that point, but the Confederacy was the one that started the actual violence.
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  >Wait…are you saying the confederacy should have the right to secede peacefully? See, that's the problem with this question: the issues of self-determination are tied together with huge human-rights abuses here. What if, in the year 2025, the state of Maine wants to secede? Should they have that right? There's no slavery in Maine. If they don't have that right, why not? What philosophical principle does your argument rest on?
shiroiuma 3y ago
>The takeaway, at least for me, is that both men were not that far apart on the topic of slavery, even though that's the primary lens through which Americans now view the conflict. Hindsight is 20/20: the conflict was primarily about slavery. The Confederates said so themselves, and they even wrote it explicitly into their constitution. The northern states were pushing to ban slavery, and were refusing to honor the southern states' laws regarding escaped slaves, and the south could see that they were going to be forced to abolish slavery before long. So they rebelled. They've tried ever since to frame it as the more vague "states' rights" issue, but the real issue was slavery; it's the whole reason they wanted to secede. >Which leaves us with this question: Is membership in the Union voluntary, or compulsory? I'm not sure the answer provided by the civil war is morally correct. You make a good point here, one that I've wondered about for ages. I agree, political units should be able to voluntarily leave unions if they want, due to the principle of self-determination. Should Ukraine be forced back into a union with Russia? I don't think so. Similarly, if Kaliningrad wanted to secede and form a new country and then join the EU, they should have that right. So why shouldn't the southern US states be allowed to secede? At the time, the slavery issue dominated, as it was an obvious human rights issue. But suppose Florida in 2025 wants to secede and become a theocratic apartheid state with slavery legalized; should that be allowed? It seems like many would say no, because this would lead to human rights abuses and by keeping them in the union, that can be avoided. Or suppose California, Oregon, and Washington decide to all secede because they don't want to be in a union with the crazies in Florida and are sick of having the world's 5th-6th largest economy but not having universal healthcare or high-speed rail because the other states are dragging them down and taking their tax money; should they be allowed to leave and form a new country? In practice, it seems that political units only succeed in seceding when 1) they have a violent conflict and win (e.g. American revolution), or 2) the larger entity either agrees (e.g. Czechoslovakia, Brexit) or just doesn't have the power or political will to stop it (e.g. USSR, British Empire).

clipsy 3y ago

> The takeaway, at least for me, is that both men were not that far apart on the topic of slavery No, this is complete nonsense. They both opposed slavery on a surface level due to beliefs that differed in deep and profound ways.

dangus 3y ago

But didn’t the Confederate army start the actual fighting of the civil war by firing upon Fort Sumter? > Is membership in the Union voluntary, or compulsory? I'm not sure the answer provided by the civil war is morally correct...it sure would be nice if people could walk away without being shot. Wait…are you saying the confederacy should have the right to secede peacefully? Do their slaves get that same right to walk away from their plantation peacefully? You see the irony here right?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
shiroiuma 3y ago
>But didn’t the Confederate army start the actual fighting of the civil war by firing upon Fort Sumter? It did. There was a lot of political tension before that point, but the Confederacy was the one that started the actual violence.
shiroiuma 3y ago
>Wait…are you saying the confederacy should have the right to secede peacefully? See, that's the problem with this question: the issues of self-determination are tied together with huge human-rights abuses here. What if, in the year 2025, the state of Maine wants to secede? Should they have that right? There's no slavery in Maine. If they don't have that right, why not? What philosophical principle does your argument rest on?

shiroiuma 3y ago

>The takeaway, at least for me, is that both men were not that far apart on the topic of slavery, even though that's the primary lens through which Americans now view the conflict. Hindsight is 20/20: the conflict was primarily about slavery. The Confederates said so themselves, and they even wrote it explicitly into their constitution. The northern states were pushing to ban slavery, and were refusing to honor the southern states' laws regarding escaped slaves, and the south could see that they were going to be forced to abolish slavery before long. So they rebelled. They've tried ever since to frame it as the more vague "states' rights" issue, but the real issue was slavery; it's the whole reason they wanted to secede. >Which leaves us with this question: Is membership in the Union voluntary, or compulsory? I'm not sure the answer provided by the civil war is morally correct. You make a good point here, one that I've wondered about for ages. I agree, political units should be able to voluntarily leave unions if they want, due to the principle of self-determination. Should Ukraine be forced back into a union with Russia? I don't think so. Similarly, if Kaliningrad wanted to secede and form a new country and then join the EU, they should have that right. So why shouldn't the southern US states be allowed to secede? At the time, the slavery issue dominated, as it was an obvious human rights issue. But suppose Florida in 2025 wants to secede and become a theocratic apartheid state with slavery legalized; should that be allowed? It seems like many would say no, because this would lead to human rights abuses and by keeping them in the union, that can be avoided. Or suppose California, Oregon, and Washington decide to all secede because they don't want to be in a union with the crazies in Florida and are sick of having the world's 5th-6th largest economy but not having universal healthcare or high-speed rail because the other states are dragging them down and taking their tax money; should they be allowed to leave and form a new country? In practice, it seems that political units only succeed in seceding when 1) they have a violent conflict and win (e.g. American revolution), or 2) the larger entity either agrees (e.g. Czechoslovakia, Brexit) or just doesn't have the power or political will to stop it (e.g. USSR, British Empire).