War Between The States vs Iraq War (Hypocrisy?)

[ParanoiA]

Participating in a related conversation, someone brought this up and I found it fascinating. Turns out, yet again, I'm a hypocrite. And so are some of you, maybe.

 

For a brief recap...the Confederate States of America were established after secession, which was not unconsitutional since there was no language forbidding secession. They had their own government, currency, military - they were as legitimate as the United States. The "attack" on Ft Sumter, then, was the ejection of an illegal occupation following a diplomatic effort to claim their infrastructure. The CSA had even sent delegates to make some sort of restitution for the federal property gained by secession, but Lincoln would not recognize their existence, so compensation was precluded.

 

Technically, and quite realistically, the "Civil War" or the "War Between the States" was an illegal war waged by Lincoln. His troops were occupying foreign territory after repeated diplomatic efforts to remove them, and force was used by the foreign power justifiably.

 

Yet, we revere Lincoln. We celebrate his achievements mainly due to the ends - the noble cause of ending slavery, preserving the union (or re-merging the union). We let the ends justify the means.

 

However, most of us are disgusted by Iraq, the illegal war, and the atrocities, even though here, again, we have similar positive ends to observe. A legitimate democracy in exchange for their despotic thug tyrannt, liberating and raising the standard of human rights and ending the outright violations of it.

 

Another noble cause, brokered by an illegal war. Only this time, we're roasting our president for it instead of celebrating his "strength and vision" for a just world, yadda yadda yadda.

 

Do it in 1861 and you're a hero. Do it in 2003 and you're a bum?

 

I just find these kinds of moral dilemmas fascinating. I'm indicting myself here too. I do celebrate Lincoln, and I do resent Bush.

 

Is it possible that posterity will elevate Bush like we have Lincoln? Will the ends justify the means for them too?

Edited January 1, 2009 by ParanoiA

[Pangloss]

How does that make opponents of the Iraq war hypocrits?

[Severian]

I quite agree, but then I am not American. When you view the history of your own country you have to be very careful not to be taken in by the propaganda.

 

While Lincon did not have slaves himself (and opposed slavery) he was still clearly racist (which was probably a symptom of the times, but still):

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." (Lincoln, 1953, v3, p145-6)

 

Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, etc all kept slaves.

 

On a similar note, did you watch Firefly? I always thought the civil war in that TV show was intended to provoke thought about the US civil war. The winning faction were "preserving the union" but clearly the bad guys since they used extreme authoritarianism to supress the masses; while the losers (the "Browncoats") were trying to secede and were clearly the freedom loving good guys. Despite it being set in the future, it had a cowboy "feel" to it, and it was fairly obvious that the bad guys were the Union while the Browncoats were the Confederates.

Edited January 2, 2009 by Severian

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

On a similar note, did you watch Firefly? I always thought the civil war in that TV show was intended to provoke thought about the US civil war. The winning faction were "preserving the union" but clearly the bad guys since they used extreme authoritarianism to supress the masses; while the losers (the "Browncoats") were trying to secede and were clearly the freedom loving good guys. Despite it being set in the future, it had a cowboy "feel" to it, and it was fairly obvious that the bad guys were the Union while the Browncoats were the Confederates.

 

Except that they've got the details off -- the Confederates should be the authoritarian ones The Confederacy was the first to establish a forced draft, among other things, and Texas nearly started a war against the Confederacy because it was being too dictatorial in its approach to fighting the war.

[ParanoiA]

How does that make opponents of the Iraq war hypocrits?

 

That's only half the question. Not saying that we're hypocrites as much as I'm pointing out that if we simultaneously support Lincoln's decision for war in 1861 and oppose Bush's decision for war in 2003 based on its illegality, then apparently we're not being consistent with our obligation to the legal status of wars. That's a hypocritical dynamic, and one that may be perfectly acceptable, but we must accept it. That's all. Thought it was interesting.

 

I quite agree, but then I am not American. When you view the history of your own country you have to be very careful not to be taken in by the propaganda.

 

That's certainly true. But you know, I've noticed a lot more critical history in circulation than what I remember in years passed. At the risk of sounding like Limbaugh, we have had a bit of a 'Bash America' syndrome here in america, with a weird anti-pride side effect to boot. But you're right, we all have to filter the bullshit.

 

Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, etc all kept slaves.

 

However, Adams and Hamilton did not and Franklin later freed his slaves. One of things I try to remember when reading about this period of history is that our founders found themselves as well throughout this experience. Jefferson's original Declaration of Independence would make us all far more proud than the molested version we ended up with. And their message about freedom, liberty and self governance is just as romantic as it is realistic, even if they didn't live up to it fully, themselves. The message is beautiful even if the messenger is...say...a sinner.

Edited January 2, 2009 by ParanoiA

[Sisyphus]

The hypocrisy depends on believing that both wars are similarly worthwhile ends and both wars are similarly illegal, and opposing one primarily because it's illegal while supporting the other primarily because of its ends. But I'm sure you'll agree that there's quite a bit more to it than that. For one thing, I don't find them similarly illegal (and I don't buy the automatic legitimacy of the CSA), and I don't find the ends even remotely equivalent. But even then, neither situation is black and white, and I don't pretend they are.

[Mr Skeptic]

I wouldn't compare the Iraq War with the Civil War.

I'm not sure that you could call the civil war illegal. Was there an agreement that states which seceded would not be attacked? Also, Lincoln did not mislead his people into attacking the Confederates based on made-up charges (did he?). Lincoln succeeded at liberating the slaves (which made up a huge percentage of the population in the south) and at unifying the nation, both of which history has judged as worthy accomplishments.

 

Bush's war is not yet concluded and has not been judged by history yet. We were told that there were weapons of mass destruction and Bin Laden in Iraq, playing upon our anger from the Twin Tower attacks. The goal of "liberating" Iraq came later, and I don't think anyone would have supported a war to liberate Iraq. A good many Iraqis did not want to be "liberated" (don't know the true proportion due to the thick propaganda). In any case, there were better places to liberate.