How Many Mississippi Voters Wish the South Had Won the Civil War?

[Eddie Teach]

But since this extends to the concept of secession as well, I'm not sure what your point is.

That as they are an idealized fiction they are amenable to being defined however those in power choose.

[Razgovory]

Human rights are not amenable to being defined away as a matter of convenience for those who feel that they were born with the right to enslave others.

Human rights only exist to the extent that humans recognize the concept of human rights.

Not according to the philosophy of the Constitution.

[Lettow77]

"3. The South falls down here as well. There is no reason to think that the new Southern nation would be an improvement on the USA, in fact, since the puropse of forming it is with the express intention of being allowed to continue enslaving millions of people, we can safely decide that no, the South would NOT be willing to respect the rights of their citizens. "

Er, but Berkut, those weren't citizens..

Which is why the south was full of fail.

Surely even you would acknowledge slavery as a moral disaster.

Yes- even I. The South was wrong to practice slavery, although at least it was comparatively humanitarian when set aside slavery as practiced further south in the western hemisphere. I do not believe the great sin of slavery made the South's pursuit of independence wrong or its national consciousness any less valid.

[Razgovory]

Actually, enslaving part of your population and not allowing them to have a political voice does make their national conscience less valid.

[Berkut]

"3. The South falls down here as well. There is no reason to think that the new Southern nation would be an improvement on the USA, in fact, since the puropse of forming it is with the express intention of being allowed to continue enslaving millions of people, we can safely decide that no, the South would NOT be willing to respect the rights of their citizens. "

Er, but Berkut, those weren't citizens..

Which is why the south was full of fail.

Surely even you would acknowledge slavery as a moral disaster.

Yes- even I. The South was wrong to practice slavery, although at least it was comparatively humanitarian when set aside slavery as practiced further south in the western hemisphere. I do not believe the great sin of slavery made the South's pursuit of independence wrong or its national consciousness any less valid.

So you acknowledge that the slavery was wrong, but do not think that the pursuit of "independence" in order to secure the future of slavery was wrong? Or that it's "national consciousness" was based on that "peculiar institution"?

[grumbler]

This discussion seems so venomous, it pains me to read it. You gentlemen are associates of the same forum- please don't be so pedantic and unpleasant to each other. It's a bit wearying- and as such i've bowed out of the conversation, until now, only to say that it really doesn't seem befitting for anyone to do.

I know grumbler has that reputation, but does anyone really enjoy this sort of thing? I think I used to, but I can't be sure.

  Irony isn't just the opposite of wrinkly.

[grumbler]

I do not believe the great sin of slavery made the South's pursuit of independence wrong or its national consciousness any less valid.

The great sin of slavery made the South's pursuit of independence and its national consciousness, period.  No slavery = no need for independence and no shared sense of guilt to tie Southerners together.

[Lettow77]

I've cultivated a reputation for pedantistry and nasty little back-and-forths? Well, I never mean't to-

But yeah Berkut- I acknowledge that slavery was wrong. I also acknowledge slavery was an enormous factor in the pursuit of independence, but I still believe in the southern people as a seperate culture and civilization, even if its differences are largely informed by the existence of slavery. Thinking of the South as a distinct entity, with differing values, needs and goals than America, I can't help but support it's independence.

Similarly, if I were a Chechnyan, I would support the independence of my state, even though I have no love for the islamic values the chechen rebels by and large fight for.

Edit: I'm not sure I agree that no slavery = / no distinctive South. That's what I have to say about that.

[Razgovory]

The problem is the South did not think of itself as a different civilization then or now.  The people of the United States shared a cultural heritage, the same language, the same history, and broadly the same religion.  The only real difference was that the South kept a colonial style economy while the North had changed into a modern Industrial Democracy.  No where is this better demonstrated then the places in the South where the "peculiar institution" had little strength.  In these places, Southerners were often loyal Unionists.  That fact puts lie to any notion of clashing cultures and civilizations.

[Lettow77]

 Those places generally had reasons for doing so that included economic resentment to planters, mining economic links to the north, and being disagreeable mountain folk.

Religous differences had always been somewhat pronounces, and came to a head in 1860. The South wasn't terribly different theologically from most of the North, but New England was off the wagon gained disproportionate influence.

I agree that the South doesn't think of itself as a different civilization now, of course. If it did not in 1860 is hard to say. Certainly i'd say it did by 1865. Still, even if it didn't, I would say that _I_ think that way, and lament the lack of national awakening in my countrymen. Sleepy ottomans, when they ought to be young turks. We could massacre Orthodox Christians or something.

[Razgovory]

You have it backwards, economic reasons didn't make Unionists in the South resentful of their countrymen.  Economic reasons made them loyal to their countrymen.  Economic reasons made the Southern Elite resentful of their countrymen.  They simply didn't see them selves as different peoples.  Probably because they weren't.  People from the South and the North had more in common with each other then most other peoples of other nations.  The people of the nation of England have far greater regional differences then the people of the United States.

[LaCroix]

You have it backwards, economic reasons didn't make Unionists in the South resentful of their countrymen.  Economic reasons made them loyal to their countrymen.

what about the economic reasons that turned northern men into confederate sympathizers?

[JonasSalk]

Actually, enslaving part of your population and not allowing them to have a political voice does make their national conscience less valid.

So the USA should still be part of Britain?

[Tonitrus]

Actually, enslaving part of your population and not allowing them to have a political voice does make their national conscience less valid.

So the USA should still be part of Britain?

No, because anything is valid if you win.

[Berkut]

Actually, enslaving part of your population and not allowing them to have a political voice does make their national conscience less valid.

So the USA should still be part of Britain?

Well, since it was pretty clear that Britain was perfectly ok with slavery in the colonies at the time, we can safely conclude that in fact the issue of slavery was not really relevant to the issue of American independence from Britain.

If the US was in fact attempting to free themselves from British rule in order to maintain slavery, then yes, it would be a huge mark against their ethical justification for rebellion. As it is, the hypocrisy of the "...all men are created equal..." rationalization for rebellion is in fact a moral black mark against the American Independence movement, albeit not a decisive one.