Civil war in USA (19th century)

[Linkey]

It seems strange for me, why the American Civil War happened in the 19th century. I mean that, as far as I can see, civil wars and “Smuta” are an attribute of an authoritarian society, not a democratic one. I understand the mechanism of the Time of Troubles in Russia in 1612 or the Three Kingdoms in China: this situation occurs because any aristocrat wants to become a monarch, and the legitimacy of power is determined not by elections, but by the fact that the ruler is in power.

Why then did turmoil also occur in the USA? My question is: when the southern states seceded from the northern states and mobilized, was that the decision of the people of those states? Did people in these states vote to secede? Or was secession simply the decision of the ruling governors?

I heard that the American Civil War was in some sense the second American Revolution, please clarify this.

[swansont]

There are different versions of democracy, so having a conflict over which version to implement does not inherently mean you don't have a democratic society.

[MigL]

In the simplest terms, the American Civil war was a clash of ideologies; whether slave labor should be allowed to continue as a major factor in the Southern economy.
Both sides were democratic and used the Constitution, but in the southern States "We, the people ..." did not include Black slaves.
( actually they were considered 3/5ths of a person for a state's population to determine representation and taxation )
This rift in ideology led to the secessionist Confederacy of the southern states, and war with the northern Union.

[Linkey]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

In the simplest terms, the American Civil war was a clash of ideologies; whether slave labor should be allowed to continue as a major factor in the Southern economy.
Both sides were democratic and used the Constitution, but in the southern States "We, the people ..." did not include Black slaves.
( actually they were considered 3/5ths of a person for a state's population to determine representation and taxation )

 

For me, this is a too simple explanation. I believe that in a theoretical ideal democracy the civil wars are inpossible - the people in different regions of the country would simply vote for some compromise decision.

[exchemist]

5 minutes ago, Linkey said:

 

For me, this is a too simple explanation. I believe that in a theoretical ideal democracy the civil wars are inpossible - the people in different regions of the country would simply vote for some compromise decision.

That strikes me as an unjustified assumption. People can vote for war if they feel suitably motivated, for instance by persuasive leaders.

If different parts of a country are sufficiently alienated from one another and those separate parts have a system to vote independently, they might even vote to go to war against the others.  

And then again, no country has a theoretical ideal democracy in the first place. 

[swansont]

18 minutes ago, Linkey said:

 

For me, this is a too simple explanation. I believe that in a theoretical ideal democracy the civil wars are inpossible - the people in different regions of the country would simply vote for some compromise decision.

What if you are in the minority, and the majority has no interest in such a compromise?

[zapatos]

24 minutes ago, Linkey said:

I believe that in a theoretical ideal democracy the civil wars are inpossible

You are naive to think 19th century USA was an ideal democracy.

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

In the simplest terms, the American Civil war was a clash of ideologies; whether slave labor should be allowed to continue as a major factor in the Southern economy.
Both sides were democratic and used the Constitution, but in the southern States "We, the people ..." did not include Black slaves.
( actually they were considered 3/5ths of a person for a state's population to determine representation and taxation )
This rift in ideology led to the secessionist Confederacy of the southern states, and war with the northern Union.

You Canadians are so NICE! In even simpler terms, the South wanted to keep their slaves, the North wanted to do more business with countries opposed to the slave trade. There were folks on both sides who felt that slavery was wrong in principle, but the South relied more heavily on owning both the resources and the labor for production. The North was more interested in preserving the union of the states than in emancipating slaves. We even kept the concept of slavery and use it in our prison system, and people of African descent are still persecuted and not treated the same way white people are. But the North won because the states are still united as a country... sort of.

[TheVat]

In our federal system there is always a potential for interstate conflicts.  States will resent federal control over matters where they prefer some autonomy.  Especially where profit is concerned.  In the Civil War, the economics of slavery (and other states rights) was such that landowners in the South felt it was advantageous to expand the slavery system into the western territories, while the North, especially the new Republican Party which had gained majorities in almost every N. state, were determined to open those territories to free labor alone.  The GOP was founded by Abolitionists, some more radical than others but they all agreed that chattel slavery could not be allowed to expand beyond the South.

Democracy is inherently messy.  Especially given the natural tendency towards what DeToqueville called "the tyranny of the majority." (which our Constitution keeps evolving to prevent) If the minority that is experiencing that tyranny is concentrated in a state or cluster of states, then attempts at secession are always a possibility.  If you want tidiness and purity, you need a totalitarian dictator.  

 

[MigL]

"Democracy is the worst form of government ... except for all the others that have been tried."

W Churchill's cynicism is only exceeded by our own Phi.
Besides, I did say 'in simplest terms', and did not go into the nuances.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

You Canadians are so NICE!

Thank you.
It's about time you said something nice about me 😄 .

[pzkpfw]

Makes me wonder if no true Scotsman would have a civil war?

[swansont]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

Democracy is inherently messy.  Especially given the natural tendency towards what DeToqueville called "the tyranny of the majority." (which our Constitution keeps evolving to prevent) If the minority that is experiencing that tyranny is concentrated in a state or cluster of states, then attempts at secession are always a possibility.  

Which is why Larry Flynt noted “Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper” (others have made similar observations over the years)

 

4 hours ago, Linkey said:

I believe that in a theoretical ideal democracy the civil wars are inpossible

What are the characteristics of this ideal democracy?

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

What are the characteristics of this ideal democracy?

Small undiscovered island. Population of 1. No bell required. No one extra to toll it...

...also the ideal authoritarian regime though...

[MigL]

Democracy was thought to be the system of governance most resistant to corruption and totalitarianism.

Then D Trump came along on Jan 6.

[iNow]

The electoral college is more of a root cause for that than democracy, IMO

Also, gerrymandering and a lack of ranked choice voting FWIW

[Linkey]

On 5/14/2024 at 12:48 AM, swansont said:

What are the characteristics of this ideal democracy?

This is simple - any decision in the country must be made through a referendum. Now, it is possible to perform referendums online, so the humanity has a possibility to build a quite good democracy.

I also have an idea, that in a really ideal democracy, one more principle must be implemented: each person should mention the importance of the decision on vote for himself, and this information must be honest. I mean, with modern democracies it is theoretically possible, that 90% will vote for making the remaining 10% slaves. This was impossible if the voters indicated (honestly) on a ten-pointed scale, how important is this decision for themselves.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Linkey said:

This is simple - any decision in the country must be made through a referendum.

Is that actually workable? How many decisions are made in government every day? I used to work for the government - would my decision to buy some widget have to go through a referendum?

What good is a system that’s unattainable?

2 hours ago, Linkey said:

Now, it is possible to perform referendums online, so the humanity has a possibility to build a quite good democracy

So democracy wasn’t possible until the last couple of decades?

Does everyone have internet, and if they do, do they all have the ability to do this?

 

[iNow]

Referendum decision making in governance is the fastest way to agree to increase government spending on social programs by 5,000% or more while in parallel agreeing to bring taxes down to zero. Because magic is how things get paid for apparently. 

[MigL]

Every "ideal' system is wonderful.
Democracy, dictatorships, even a monarchy; as is capitalism, communism and even fascism.
They all have 'advantages', and while you can try to minimize the disadvantages, some unscrupulous people always choose to take advantage of those disadvantages for their own gain.

Unfortunately 'ideal' is not attainable.

Edited May 16 by MigL

[dimreepr]

On 5/13/2024 at 7:41 AM, Linkey said:

It seems strange for me, why the American Civil War happened in the 19th century. I mean that, as far as I can see, civil wars and “Smuta” are an attribute of an authoritarian society, not a democratic one. I understand the mechanism of the Time of Troubles in Russia in 1612 or the Three Kingdoms in China: this situation occurs because any aristocrat wants to become a monarch, and the legitimacy of power is determined not by elections, but by the fact that the ruler is in power.

Why then did turmoil also occur in the USA? My question is: when the southern states seceded from the northern states and mobilized, was that the decision of the people of those states? Did people in these states vote to secede? Or was secession simply the decision of the ruling governors?

I heard that the American Civil War was in some sense the second American Revolution, please clarify this.

For a start, the battles were considered a fine days entertainment, that seems to answer most of this; as for the rest of your question, it's a case of economic need; the south needed it's slaves/property, more than they needed a clean moral conscience, the north didn't.

The English avoided the need for a battle, by paying compensation to the slave owner's; a debt BTW that lasted well into the 1990's.

[TheVat]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

For a start, the battles were considered a fine days entertainment

No they weren't.  FFS, read some Civil War history.

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

No they weren't.  FFS, read some Civil War history.

From who's perspective?

[swansont]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

For a start, the battles were considered a fine days entertainment, that seems to answer most of this;

The US Civil War happened for entertainment? WTAF? 

[TheVat]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

From who's perspective?

Anyone even remotely involved in it.  A bitter bloody destructive war that shattered the nation, destroyed cities and vast areas of land and the South's economy, leaving dire poverty and hunger and around 2 million wounded on top of 600,000 dead.

Your question is like someone suggesting the Hutus in Rwanda took  machetes to their Tutsi neighbors and hacked them to death because it livened up block parties.  

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

For a start, the battles were considered a fine days entertainment, that seems to answer most of this; as for the rest of your question, it's a case of economic need; the south needed it's slaves/property, more than they needed a clean moral conscience, the north didn't.

The English avoided the need for a battle, by paying compensation to the slave owner's; a debt BTW that lasted well into the 1990's.

In your defence Dim, near the start of the war, there was a battle that, from some in the North's point of view prior to the battle...fit that description enough to bring sightseers.

"On July 21, 1861, Washingtonians trekked to the countryside near Manassas, Virginia, to watch Union and Confederate forces clash in the first major battle of the American Civil War. Known in the North as the First Battle of Bull Run and in the South as the Battle of First Manassas, the military engagement also earned the nickname the “picnic battle” because spectators showed up with sandwiches and opera glasses. These onlookers, who included a number of U.S. congressmen, expected a victory for the Union and a swift end to the war that had begun three months before."

https://www.history.com/news/worst-picnic-in-history-was-interrupted-by-war

Otherwise no. Far from it. 

Edited May 16 by J.C.MacSwell