"May 18, 1865: Was the war a victory for democracy?" Topic

Interesting letter…

"The New York Times comments on a letter to the London Times, in which the writer argues that ""Sir, the North has succeeded, but not because it is a democracy; the South has failed, but not because it is an aristocracy." The New York Times disagrees with this estimation. The entire letter is available here — one quote that struck me was "The North may not have fought for emancipation — some of them did, some of them did not; but beyond all question the South, to a man, were fighting for slavery; for even in the last agony of their struggle they refused to pay the price of emancipation as the possible instrument of independence."
Full text here
gathkinsons.net/sesqui/?p=7713

Amicalement
Armand

Essentially, the victory was Federal Government over State's Rights. The American Civil War cemented the role of the national government as overseeing the statrs, rather than just faciliating between the states and dealing with foreign policy. The dominance of federal importance over state importance began it's ascendancy, such thst with just a few generations, the state militias, whose federal mandate was to protect the states from federal abuses, were rolled into the federal army reserve. Who watches the Watchmen? Big Brother loves you.

Punkrabbit- Oh please. Union victory in the ACW means
that the USA since then is comparable to the conditions in "1984"? Really?

The authors above were in a time when those who wrote the papers were the "elites." They did not represent the common man.

Ironically, if you read the letters and journals of the everymen who fought the war on the northern side, abolition was very much on their minds and their motivation to enlist, re-enlist and fight. The Republican party, the party of Lincoln, was formed in Wisconsin by abolitionists. Lincoln, it is true, might have not emancipated the slaves if he could have otherwise held the Union together, and in that sense, was political not ideological, but it is clear he was also an abolitionist and ending slavery was on his agenda.

I think it is also incorrect in regards to the south. 4% of southerners owned slaves. Not a majority. Of those who owned slaves, only a fraction of that small percentage owned many. The leadership of the south were plantation owners and had a vested interest in slavery. However, the rank and file, the everymen of the south, were often poor, sharecroppers whose next meal was often fewer and more far between than the slaves of their leaders. Confederate soldiers were not fighting for tyranny. They were, in their minds, fighting the second American revolution against a tyrannical centralized Federal government…not for slavery.

Now, if the article meant to discuss the elites of the societies, it was right on, otherwise it was propaganda.

Lastly, I found it interesting that the NY Times was addressing what Brits wrote about what the NY Times called "The Rebellion" which is ironically what the Brits called our American Revolution (in both cases to downplay what the "Rebels" felt they were fighting for).

Well… I can't talk about contemporary politics, so I can simply point to 1865 as the foundation that led up to now…

Well… I can't talk about contemporary politics, so I can simply point to 1865 as the foundation that led up to now…

Which is a pretty good foundation.

Strictly speaking – no. If we take democracy to mean government by independent individual vote, then both sides were democratic by nature. However, the USA (and also the CSA) were never really democracies in the ultimate sense – they were (and are) representative republics. It was primarily a victory for a strongly federalist model of that political system, which at the same time proved the most significant victory for personal human freedom that the country had so far seen, slavery being the ultimate casus belli.

"Democracy" is a word thrown around much too lightly, and with far too much reverence. Believe me, none of you would be happy in a true democracy. Imagine two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

It was also the start in a few decades afterward of inequality and Jim Crow laws, once the South kicked the Northern occupation force out. Long live Southern rights!!! So much for Federal power over the states.

The South was not for States Rights. Just look a 1850 compromise. where slave owners could go into Northern states where slavery was gone to take back runaway slaves. Also the Constitution of the CSA said no state could abolish slavery, on their own. So much for States Rights.

Prior to the war. folks who spoke about the coutry would say "The United States are…" After the war, they would say "The United States is…"

That sums it up nicely. State's Rights were suppressed and the foundation laid for an intrusive, beastly, and over-reaching central government. These United States are rapidly approaching the very situation our ancestors fought against to gain their independence from Great Britain.

So yeah. The war was a defeat for the Republic, and a victory for the pro-aristocratic supporters.

Actually … not to mess up a nice metaphor … however although Shelby Foote popularized the urban myth about the ACW being the turning point in the grammatical usage of the United States is/are, it turns out that it was simply part of the overall evolution of American English towards a simplified use of the singular for collective nouns.

Rather pointedly, the plural usage is still evident in the language of the 13th (anti-slavery) Amendment, written immediately after the end of the ACW.

Here's a nice summary of the actual history:
link

@Flashman: I was a kid/grew up in the 70s and early 80s. At that time, given the omnipresence of the Cold War, everything was put into the context of sais Cold War.

So, when we studied history, the Athenians, with their "every able man" meeting in the Agora to debate and vote on every issue versus the "monarchical" "totalitarian" and militaristic Spartans, it was clear who was presented as the more favorable…Athens.

Imagine my shock later to find that the founding fathers had looked at the same two states with wildly different understandings (as evidenced by their own writings even in the context of the work they were doing developing our system of government). Sparta, with its elected legislative (such as it was) and executive branches who then governed on behalf of the people while Athens, argued, bickered, fought, cajoled and bargained often dragging every little issue into hours or days of debate.

Sparta was their choice. Spartan representation is closer to US and Athenian pure democracy was seen as chaos.

Funny thing history…

Concur. The nation was established as a Republic and not as a democracy. Although many small towns up here in Maine still use Town Meetings for the major things like voting on the town budget, school budget, appropriations, etc, once you get a place with more than 2-3 thousand citizens, pure democracy becomes unwieldy.

A Republic is much more governable while still maintaining the ability to respond to the citizen's concerns and needs. The problem comes when such a central government grows too large and powerful. Currently we are at the poijt here in the states and I, for one, believe we ned to seriously cut back the size, scope and role of the current federal government.

I would say that the 13.2% of the American population that is no longer property and can now vote and hold office would say it was a victory for democracy…but I am sure our "lost causers" will bring up how the federal government's conferring of civil rights and human dignity on an entire people is actually oppressing us real 'mericans.

Of course it wasn't a victory for "Democracy", neither side was one. Additionally, a government imposing it's will by violence upon millions of people is not really a triumph for individual liberty.

It did generally work out pretty well though. Probably much better overall than if the CSA had been allowed to secede, though quite possibly not as well as if time had just been allowed to make slavery die out w/o murdering half a million people over the issue.

-Kle.

I would say that the 13.2% of the American population that is no longer property and can now vote and hold office would say it was a victory for democracy…

Only 6.6%, dude… women were still chattels, irrespective of how good a tan they had.
-Kle.

Markandy- Shhhhh…. that is why people dislike the Feds now too…

So yeah. The war was a defeat for the Republic, and a victory for the pro-aristocratic supporters.

I think you got the two confused.

Rebelyell- Nope. He meant what he said. Just realize that by "aristocratic" he means anyone who would not allow him to discriminate against "them", or prevent him from pouring toxic waste into the local river, or force him to run a safe place of work.

The dominance of federal importance over state importance began it's ascendancy

Then you can thank the slave-owning elite of the South for bringing this on, since only the Federal government had the power (just barely) to overthrow their tyranny.

From the other side of the pond, all this seems rather academic. North won, South lost, suck it up.

Klebert, I was actually referring to the contemporary population…I don't think anyone would call the post war period a victory for democratic principles (we are a democracy as all of our citizens vote, a Democratic Republic to be exact). It wasn't until the "oppressive" gub'mnt came in that the heroic, freedom-loving south learned the definition of participatory democracy. BTW I am a born and bred southerner (don't get much more southern than Macon, Georgia), but like a large portion of the southern population my forebears fought for the Union (1st Missouri)

Rebelyell- Nope. He meant what he said. Just realize that by "aristocratic" he means anyone who would not allow him to discriminate against "them", or prevent him from pouring toxic waste into the local river, or force him to run a safe place of work.

Nope. I mean that our Republic has been replaced by an over-reaching central government where certain country-club aristocrats, the self-appointed "betters" of our society, seem to think that they can take turns holding this or that office, and are somehow entitled to a privileged life due to attending just the right school, or just the right academy, etc. The folks who ran the confederacy were the same sort of "Planter Aristocracy" that now runs things.

But do go about your little slurs, and playing the proper zampolit to the plebes. It's nice to see that some folks are still toeing the party line.

Was the war a victory for democracy? Yes. No. Depends on your point of view and on what you mean by "democracy". The more I read on topics such as this, the more I am convinced they are less about the actual ACW and more about the people debating them. Like many conflicts the ACW wasn't "black and white" but instead was "shades of grey".

Bill N- You'd likely think different is someone owned your butt.

Which proves my point.

wwwaaaar waaarrr against all!

Bill N- You'd likely think different is someone owned your butt.

Someone does own his butt, and mine, and every other American's. Lots of someones, actually – for example, the insurance industry and it's government stooges.

-Kle.

Never had my children sold off as property by State Farm, but maybe it's different elsewhere in the country.