US Army War College Considers Removing Paintings of Lee & Jackson and that is a good thing.

[2sense]

@Mr.Miskatonic

But at the same time I can blame someone who has limited food for eating everything on 1 day with the assumption that the food might be taken by rats if he paces himself. The planters weren’t going to give things up? Fine. Figure something out: evolve, reform, plan. But don’t act like spoiled children.

Why would you blame the person? Their behavior makes sense given their assumptions. My point is that given their assumptions secession was the right move for the planters to make. Now if the reality is that there are no rats then you can question the assumption that they would eat the food. But the reality of 1860 was that if they wanted to keep slavery the planters were going to have to go to war for it. They did and they did.

Yes, choice. They were digging their own graves by doing this. Had they not been so aggressive their way of life might have kept up for ages, mostly from inertia. But by so blatantly trying to seize power they brought the issue to a head much sooner than it might have otherwise. They were a drowning man trying to save himself by flailing around his arms rather than trying to tread water.

It’s a lot easier to tell others to embrace change than it is to do so yourself. How would you feel if they passed and enforced a law saying that people like you can’t use advanced technology of any kind? Would you and yours be evolving, reforming, and planning your exciting new lives alongside the Amish just because the government has a preponderance of forces? Somehow I doubt that.

It was commonly believed back then by both proponents and opponents of slavery that it needed to expand to continue. This was largely due to the degradation of soil that goes along with intensive single crop agriculture. New plantations sprang up to produce the cotton and tobacco that older plantations no longer could. But there was a political aspect as well. If all new states were free states then eventually the slavers wouldn’t be able to maintain the balance in the Senate. This is why the planter elite fought so hard to carve out new slave states starting with Missouri in 1820.

Expansion into new territory was vital but slavery wouldn’t really be safe until it extended once again into all states in the Union. Obviously that led to a lot of controversial acts (such as the Dred Scott decision) that brought things to a crisis more quickly but with their way of life on the line the planter elite was never going to back down just because the going got rough. You don’t seem to understand that without slavery there would no longer be a planter elite. At least not one that could command the power and respect they were used to. They saw themselves as Masters. Masters need slaves.

If they had handwaved or poopoo’ed the anti-slavery speakers they would have gotten a lot less antagonism. But that is not how barbarians in mansions operate.

I strongly object to this attitude. Painting groups as insane or evil is a way of ignoring their actual motivations. If you are uncomfortable discussing the reality that regular ordinary Americans could and did commit the atrocity of slavery then this thread is not for you. What the Southern leaders of the 1860s was reprehensible, yes, but it had been going on since time immemorial and was as American as apple pie. This nation was built on the backs of slaves.

The slavers couldn’t ignore their opponents for one simple fact: their opponents were right. Whites north and south told themselves comfortable lies to justify slavery. How stupid blacks were. How they were content as natural slaves. How their inherent value as slaves would prevent cruel treatment. Abolitionists’ best weapon was the truth. They told the truth about black intellectuals. They pointed out how many risked life and limb to reach freedom. They told and retold the awful stories of bondage. White Americans today see freeing the slaves as a great accomplishment of theirs but in reality it all depended upon the slaves themselves. If African-Americans had accepted slavery… If they had just knuckled under and not fought back when and where they could… Then the stories told by the abolitonists (many of whom were themselves black of course) wouldn’t have had the authenticity that they did.

First of all: one of the things that drove people to the Republicans was that the Democrats splitting themselves they way they did. Douglas on his own could have probably done a lot better than a split party. He had more influence in the North than many give him credit for.

Do you have any reason to believe this is true? Douglas didn’t do particularly well in any Northern state outside New Jersey (which he won). He even lost in Illinois by 5 points. In any case, I’m not sure how important that would be. Lincoln’s election demonstrated the political reality of the growing power of the free states and gave the ardent secessionists (who had been around for some time) the opportunity to lead their states out of the Union. If it took longer for a political party not entirely dedicated to preserving slavery to elect a president it would only lessen the chances that secession would succeed.

Nonsense. The South could have accepted a fate and slavery would have probably gone on for decades before the practice became obsolete, unprofitable, or unworkable on its own (what would the Boll Weevil do to slavery?). Instead they gambled on a series of idiot moves and destroyed themselves in a moronic ‘blaze of glory’. While I am glad it turned out that way (ended slavery much sooner than a slow fade would have) I’m not going to say the South was making smart decisions.

Who would these men be who were clinging to the twilight of the “peculiar institution”? Would they be the commanding men widely known and respected? Would they be another George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or Henry Clay? Of course not. They would be regarded as some strange backwards people. That may be an option in the broad sense of the word but it was never realistic. The reality was that the only chance the planters had to keep their way of life was to fight. So they fought.

[Human_Action]

@2sense

The preponderance of forces indicates only that the Confederacy could not conquer the North and not that they would inevitably be conquered. Other nations have gone to war without a chance of total victory in hopes of a political settlement. I was going to use Japan as an example but the United States themselves faced worse odds when they seceded from the United Kingdom.

That’s a very different situation, though, a colony breaking away from a distant empire, as opposed to a secession from a perpetual union with a shared border.

@2sense

Southern leaders can be forgiven, I think, for not understanding that technological improvement in logistics had greatly increased the size of armies that could be fielded and thus allowing the North to reach the force to space ratio they needed to suppress the rebellion.

Even if we’re to be so forgiving, they can’t be forgiven for betraying democracy for their own provincial self-interest.

@2sense

And your “solution” ends with the planters giving up their slaves. Again, that’s no choice at all. Better to fight and lose than to just give up.

No, it’s not better to fight and lose than to hold out for the best deal you can get. Such a compromise would have left the planter elite as landed, aristocratic elites, but since they couldn’t have everything they wanted forever, they started a war they had no chance of willing. It was irrational; since you mentioned Japan, it’s not far off from the irrationality of Japan’s aims in World War Two, right down to a sneering contempt for the other side’s stomach for war.

[iiandyiiii]

@2sense

I’m not arguing for the morality of secession. I think that’s what Zoe wants to argue about but I was only pointing out the logic of doing so. If Southern states were going to leave the Union over slavery then this was the time to do so. It hadn’t been politically feasible before and waiting would only make the North stronger.

That’s fine, although you also say:

And your “solution” ends with the planters giving up their slaves. Again, that’s no choice at all. Better to fight and lose than to just give up.

It’s not “no choice at all”. Ending slavery, however financially damaging, was the only moral choice possible. Not being monsters is the only moral choice possible.

[2sense]

@Human_Action

That’s a very different situation, though, a colony breaking away from a distant empire, as opposed to a secession from a perpetual union with a shared border.

How is that difference relevant to the point that nations can and do rationally go to war with no hope of total victory?

Even if we’re to be so forgiving, they can’t be forgiven for betraying democracy for their own provincial self-interest.

Again, I’m not making any moral arguments.

No, it’s not better to fight and lose than to hold out for the best deal you can get. Such a compromise would have left the planter elite as landed, aristocratic elites, but since they couldn’t have everything they wanted forever, they started a war they had no chance of willing.

How elite would planters be without their slaves? They were already being sidelined by what (to their horror) was becoming the mainstream American ethos of freedom and enterprise. What respect would they command huddled on their unproductive plantations unable to command the labor of their inferiors? I mean, you are right in that they might have gotten a better deal for themselves by forgoing war than eventually came out of Reconstruction but in both cases their way of life was gone. This is what they were unwilling to give up.

And the Confederate States didn’t need to win. They only had to avoid losing.

[2sense]

@iiandyiiii

It’s not “no choice at all”. Ending slavery, however financially damaging, was the only moral choice possible. Not being monsters is the only moral choice possible.

Again, I’m not making any moral arguments. I believe slavery was an abomination. I’m not saying that the South was right to want to preserve the institution. I’m saying that given their determination to do so it made sense to secede when they did.

[lance_strongarm]

@LinusK

It was never about state’s rights, any more than the Revolution was about colony’s rights. The South seceded because they believed they had the right to leave the Union, and the war was fought because the North invaded the South.

Yes, the South seceded because it wanted to preserve slavery. It didn’t just do it to prove it could.

As for the war that resulted, the South probably should have known that war would happen, and it fired first (as Lincoln was careful to make sure of by holding off). While the North did occupy parts of the South after secession but before hostilities began, the war started not because the North “invaded” the South, but because the federal government was already there and refused to leave (specifically, Fort Sumter).

If they South had really wanted to solve things, it could have called for a new constitutional convention to rewrite the Constitution to its liking, or to call for its explicit, mutually-agreed right to secede.

[Human_Action]

@2sense

How is that difference relevant to the point that nations can and do rationally go to war with no hope of total victory?

Because not all cases are equal. The American colonies could go to war without hope of total victory, because all they had to do was be a sufficient nuisance to the sprawling British Empire, and thus not justify the expenditure of blood and treasure to keep it.

The Confederacy faced a far, far tougher challenge. The north was committed to preserving the Union as an end in itself, unlike England, which desired colonies only for economic purposes. The north also had the motivation of moral outrage over slavery. The north didn’t have an empire to run, of which the south was a small part, the Union was the whole shebang. The north and south shared a border, so there was no chance of the issue of secession fading anytime soon.

Add it all up, and it was not an instance of going to war without hope of total victory being rational.

@2sense

Again, I’m not making any moral arguments.

Forget the moral dimension, then. Lincoln was right, by canonizing secession, the Confederates would have sealed their own fate, as the next conflict within the CSA would have lead to another secession, and so on. This is another instance of irrational, short-term thinking: what good is seceding to keep your slaves (for the sake of argument, in actual fact they’d have kept their slaves longer by not seceding), if the result is political chaos, instability, and vulnerability to foreign aggression?

@2sense

How elite would planters be without their slaves?

Pretty damn elite, they had the land and the capital, and all political power. We already know the north was willing to look the other way on denying freed blacks the vote, the right to serve on juries, and equal public accomodations, so there’d still be an impoverished, oppressed underclass to toil in the fields, as sharecroppers or wage laborers.

@2sense

They were already being sidelined by what (to their horror) was becoming the mainstream American ethos of freedom and enterprise. What respect would they command huddled on their unproductive plantations unable to command the labor of their inferiors? I mean, you are right in that they might have gotten a better deal for themselves by forgoing war than eventually came out of Reconstruction but in both cases their way of life was gone. This is what they were unwilling to give up.

And that’s pretty darn far from a rational decision, is it not? You’re attributing their motives to irrational psychological factors.

@2sense

And the Confederate States didn’t need to win. They only had to avoid losing.

And avoid seceding from one another. Also, avoiding losing wasn’t feasible.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

2sense I fail to see why the South had any other choice? They tried so hard to get more that they ended up losing it all. It is as simple as that. Now, slavery was inevitably doomed in any case but that doesn’t mean that the Southern elitists absolutely had to take every horrific step that would make a despot blush in order to preserve slavery.

The Confederacy was a bunch of tantrum-prone children, and they paid for it. Not enough IMO but that is another story.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Human_Action

The Confederacy faced a far, far tougher challenge. The north was committed to preserving the Union as an end in itself, unlike England, which desired colonies only for economic purposes. The north also had the motivation of moral outrage over slavery. The north didn’t have an empire to run, of which the south was a small part, the Union was the whole shebang. The north and south shared a border, so there was no chance of the issue of secession fading anytime soon.

The US also didn’t have much in the way of long-standing rivalries with other nearby nations (France, Netherlands) to mess things up. We weren’t chummy with England but they weren’t keen on declaring war on us for war’s sake, and Mexico had its own troubles to deal with.

Forget the moral dimension, then. Lincoln was right, by canonizing secession, the Confederates would have sealed their own fate, as the next conflict within the CSA would have lead to another secession, and so on. This is another instance of irrational, short-term thinking: what good is seceding to keep your slaves (for the sake of argument, in actual fact they’d have kept their slaves longer by not seceding), if the result is political chaos, instability, and vulnerability to foreign aggression?

One thing that I think was a shame is that the Western parts of the Western souther states (besides Texas) didn’t break off on their own as well. These were folks who hated slavery (not because they liked slaves but because slavery kept them poor) and didn’t much like the elitist crown who horded power in the CSA. If they had some decent leadership the CSA might have been split in the middle right from the start.

[lance_strongarm]

@Human_Action

The Confederacy faced a far, far tougher challenge. The north was committed to preserving the Union as an end in itself, unlike England, which desired colonies only for economic purposes. The north also had the motivation of moral outrage over slavery. The north didn’t have an empire to run, of which the south was a small part, the Union was the whole shebang. The north and south shared a border, so there was no chance of the issue of secession fading anytime soon.

Add it all up, and it was not an instance of going to war without hope of total victory being rational.

I don’t agree. The South had a shot at winning.

The people in the North might have rebelled against the war effort and just said “let them go,” withdrawing political or financial support for the war. They could have elected an anti-war Congress in 1862. The North had to resort to a draft in 1863, and this did cause alot of backlash, including riots.

The other hope of the South was foreign intervention, such as by the British or French, which is tried to get.

[Human_Action]

@Mr.Miskatonic

The US also didn’t have much in the way of long-standing rivalries with other nearby nations (France, Netherlands) to mess things up. We weren’t chummy with England but they weren’t keen on declaring war on us for war’s sake, and Mexico had its own troubles to deal with.

A good point.

@Mr. Miskatonic

One thing that I think was a shame is that the Western parts of the Western souther states (besides Texas) didn’t break off on their own as well. These were folks who hated slavery (not because they liked slaves but because slavery kept them poor) and didn’t much like the elitist crown who horded power in the CSA. If they had some decent leadership the CSA might have been split in the middle right from the start.

Agreed, it’s a real shame that the small slaveholding elite was able to command the loyalty of more or less every Southerner, when their interests were not being served by secession.

[Dissonance]

@LinusK

It was never about state’s rights, any more than the Revolution was about colony’s rights. The South seceded because they believed they had the right to leave the Union, and the war was fought because the North invaded the South.

It never ceases to amaze me how impervious to facts some people are to cling to the entirely untrue belief that the North started the war. The war was fought because the South opened fire on Fort Sumter, full stop. The CSA was the aggressor in starting the war, not the victim.

[Human_Action]

@lance_strongarm

I don’t agree. The South had a shot at winning.

They had some calculable chance, if everything broke their way, but surely there’s some minimum prospect for success needed before war becomes rational?

@lance strongarm

The people in the North might have rebelled against the war effort and just said “let them go,” withdrawing political or financial support for the war. They could have elected an anti-war Congress in 1862. The North had to resort to a draft in 1863, and this did cause alot of backlash, including riots.

Sure, they could have, but was there any reason to suspect they would just say “let them go”?

@lance strongarm

The other hope of the South was foreign intervention, such as by the British or French, which is tried to get.

Going to war without allies, in the hope of winning them over during the war, especially when the conflict isn’t time-sensitive or immediate, is foolish in the extreme. Both Britain and France were officially neutral before the war began. Now, if the Confederates had actually secured foreign support before firing on Ft. Sumter, I’d agree with you that there was hope.

[lance_strongarm]

@Human_Action

They had some calculable chance, if everything broke their way, but surely there’s some minimum prospect for success needed before war becomes rational?

Yes, there is. I’m just saying the South’s situation met that minimum. In fact, when states began seceding, it wasn’t even clear that there would be a war over it at all.

Sure, they could have, but was there any reason to suspect they would just say “let them go”?

I think so. Nations will go a long way to avoid war, and the people up North weren’t all on a crusade to free slaves, so perhaps they’d see secession as a solution to the problem as much as the South did, even if Lincoln didn’t.

Going to war without allies, in the hope of winning them over during the war, especially when the conflict isn’t time-sensitive or immediate, is foolish in the extreme.

No it’s not. Sometimes allies don’t come on board until you’re in the middle of the war.

Both Britain and France were officially neutral before the war began.

Well, yeah, because there wasn’t much to do to take sides, since there was no war yet. Other than giving diplomatic recognition to the Confederacy or selling arms, neutrality was the status quo.

Now, if the Confederates had actually secured foreign support before firing on Ft. Sumter, I’d agree with you that there was hope.

What they would have liked is for the war to trigger the support.

[lance_strongarm]

@Dissonance

It never ceases to amaze me how impervious to facts some people are to cling to the entirely untrue belief that the North started the war. The war was fought because the South opened fire on Fort Sumter, full stop. The CSA was the aggressor in starting the war, not the victim.

Yes, and this was something that Lincoln understood would be important, so he was very careful to avoid firing the first shot.

Some people even held out hope for a peace settlement after Ft. Sumter was fired on, since there were no casualties among the Union soldiers during the bombardment.

[Human_Action]

@lance_strongarm

Yes, there is. I’m just saying the South’s situation met that minimum.

To the point that it was their optimal strategy?

@lance strongarm

In fact, when states began seceding, it wasn’t even clear that there would be a war over it at all.

Considering that many Confederate states boycotted the Peace Conference of 1861, others confiscated federal property, then fired on a federal fort, if avoiding war at all costs was their strategy, they did a miserable job of it.

@lance strongarm

I think so. Nations will go a long way to avoid war…

Not generally to the point of losing a massive chunk of territory and federal property.

@lance strongarm

…and the people up North weren’t all on a crusade to free slaves, so perhaps they’d see secession as a solution to the problem as much as the South did, even if Lincoln didn’t.

Any reason for the South to believe this, though? I’m not asking for a Gallup poll, obviously, but if you were a Southern politician trying to convince his colleagues that the North wouldn’t go to war over secession, is there anything specific you could point to to bolster your arguments?

@lance strongarm

No it’s not. Sometimes allies don’t come on board until you’re in the middle of the war.

Sometimes; not often. If your plan hinges on allies that you don’t currently possess, then starting a war is foolish. Especially this war.

This bears repeating: the timing was entirely up to the Confederacy. There was no manumission act pending in Congress, no universal Northern sentiment that Southern slaves ought to be freed. All that’d happened was a President who ran of a platform of not interfering with slavery in the states, but opposing the expansion of slavery into new territories, had been elected. That is all. There was no pressing, immediate call for secession. The Southern states had plenty of time to pursue a claim that they had the right to peacefully secede in the Supreme Court, woo allies, build up their war-making ability, and so forth. They chose not to use that time, because as Mr. Miskatonic said, they were tantrum-prone children. Further, they believed they possessed a superior fighting spirit and moral superiorty, which transcended considerations of materiel and physical reality in general.

I haven’t read it yet, but this book argues that the Confederacy acted and fought as they did because of their Celtic heritage, which left them “imprisoned in a culture that rejected careful calculation and patience.”

@lance strongarm

Well, yeah, because there wasn’t much to do to take sides, since there was no war yet. Other than giving diplomatic recognition to the Confederacy or selling arms, neutrality was the status quo.

And neutral nations won’t help you win a war, especially when you’re under blockade.

@lance strongarm

What they would have liked is for the war to trigger the support.

Naturally. But what they would have liked and what was real were never very close together.

[lance_strongarm]

@Human_Action

To the point that it was their optimal strategy?

Hindsight is 20/20.

Considering that many Confederate states boycotted the Peace Conference of 1861, others confiscated federal property, then fired on a federal fort, if avoiding war at all costs was their strategy, they did a miserable job of it.

The problem is your use of “they” as if they were all under unitary control an of the same mind. They were 11 angry states, with angry citizens, working loosely together with a young and disorganized military force, and not all them had the same strategies in mind.

Not generally to the point of losing a massive chunk of territory and federal property.

But “territory” means something different in a confederation of sovereign states. The Northern states didn’t lose any territory.

Any reason for the South to believe this, though? I’m not asking for a Gallup poll, obviously, but if you were a Southern politician trying to convince his colleagues that the North wouldn’t go to war over secession, is there anything specific you could point to to bolster your arguments?

Well, I’m sure I could find lots of debates in newspapers and such, but here’s a start:

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/civil_war_history/v056/56.2.green.html

There was as peace conference after all, and even members of Lincoln’s cabinet argued for compromise. Going to war wasn’t a given after secession. It’s clear there was ambivalence on the North’s part.

Sometimes; not often. If your plan hinges on allies that you don’t currently possess, then starting a war is foolish. Especially this war.

Again, there were potential allies that might only join the fight when there was a fight to join.

The French didn’t immediately come to the aid of the rebels in the American Revolution either, but they did, and it was key to victory.

This bears repeating: the timing was entirely up to the Confederacy.

That’s true. Perhaps the fact that the southern states felt confident in seceding anyway boosts my idea that it saw war as unlikely and winning one likely.

I haven’t read it yet, but this book argues that the Confederacy acted and fought as they did because of their Celtic heritage, which left them “imprisoned in a culture that rejected careful calculation and patience.”

Sounds like an excellent hypothesis, because rushing in with manly pride and a war whoop, despite the odds, was certainly part of this on the South’s part.

[Human_Action]

@lance_strongarm

Hindsight is 20/20.

Is that a “no”? Remember, I’m claiming that secession was an irrational overreaction, and that they had better alternatives, not that the Confederates had no rationale at all for their actions.

@lance strongarm

The problem is your use of “they” as if they were all under unitary control an of the same mind. They were 11 angry states, with angry citizens, working loosely together with a young and disorganized military force, and not all them had the same strategies in mind.

It seems fairly obvious that the leaders of South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, and Arkansas weren’t committed to a peaceful solution, since they boycotted the peace conference. Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina were more conciliatory, certainly.

@lance strongarm

But “territory” means something different in a confederation of sovereign states. The Northern states didn’t lose any territory.

The states didn’t, but the United States, a sovereign power in its own right, did.

@lance strongarm

Well, I’m sure I could find lots of debates in newspapers and such, but here’s a start:

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/civil_war_history/v056/56.2.green.html

There was as peace conference after all, and even members of Lincoln’s cabinet argued for compromise. Going to war wasn’t a given after secession. It’s clear there was ambivalence on the North’s part.

The idea of permitting secession was a non-starter, as your (appreciated, thanks) cite makes plain:

While offering a variety of different answers, historians often have missed the basic issue: whether North and South went to war over slavery or state’s rights, economic or cultural factors, the war was due to secession and the North’s unwillingness to tolerate it.

The peace conference, and efforts at compromise, centered around the states rejoining the Union. That was the point of the Crittendon Compromise, to lure the seven states back.

@lance strongarm

Again, there were potential allies that might only join the fight when there was a fight to join.

Maybe, but it’s an awful risk to take.

@lance strongarm

The French didn’t immediately come to the aid of the rebels in the American Revolution either, but they did, and it was key to victory.

Sure, though I’d posit that the French going to war with England in 1778 was a much safer bet than England or France going to war with the United States in 1861, due to the respective political climates of the times.

@lance strongarm

That’s true. Perhaps the fact that the southern states felt confident in seceding anyway boosts my idea that it saw war as unlikely and winning one likely.

More the latter, I suspect, given the evidence: theft of munitions from federal arsenals, boycotting the peace conference, firing on Ft. Sumter, disdain for Northern fighting spirit.

While they undoubtedly believed they could win, they were irrational in doing so. That is the sum of my thesis.

@lance strongarm

Sounds like an excellent hypothesis, because rushing in with manly pride and a war whoop, despite the odds, was certainly part of this on the South’s part.

In short: irrationality.

[lance_strongarm]

@Human_Action

Is that a “no”? Remember, I’m claiming that secession was an irrational overreaction, and that they had better alternatives, not that the Confederates had no rationale at all for their actions.

No, it’s not a no. I’m saying you can’t just declare a bright line between “rational” and “irrational.” You know the outcome now, but they didn’t.

The states didn’t, but the United States, a sovereign power in its own right, did.

But the states mattered much more then, which is why we had a constitutional crisis involving states in the first place. The question was whether the states should remain in union, and the states were the parties to decide that before they used the power of the federal government to pursue that policy.

The idea of permitting secession was a non-starter, as your (appreciated, thanks) cite makes plain:

You ignore the rest of my citation, and this sentence doesn’t support your claim. The North decided not to tolerate secession, but that consensus didn’t emerge until months later, along with the inevitability of solving it through war.

The peace conference, and efforts at compromise, centered around the states rejoining the Union. That was the point of the Crittendon Compromise, to lure the seven states back.

Yes.

Maybe, but it’s an awful risk to take.

Yes.

Sure, though I’d posit that the French going to war with England in 1778 was a much safer bet than England or France going to war with the United States in 1861, due to the respective political climates of the times.

Still, my point is made - sometimes going to war and then seeking alliances succeeds.

While they undoubtedly believed they could win, they were irrational in doing so. That is the sum of my thesis.

As I said, I don’t think there’s a bright line. Also, underdogs win wars sometimes, and it’s rational to consider that fact in your overall decision.

In short: irrationality.

Yes, that part is irrational.

(It’s also sometimes the thing that ends up winning a war when other things are equal).

[Human_Action]

@lance_strongarm

No, it’s not a no. I’m saying you can’t just declare a bright line between “rational” and “irrational.” You know the outcome now, but they didn’t.

Well, one does the best one can, after considering all the elements. This isn’t a hard science, after all.

@lance strongarm

But the states mattered much more then, which is why we had a constitutional crisis involving states in the first place. The question was whether the states should remain in union, and the states were the parties to decide that before they used the power of the federal government to pursue that policy.

And the Confederate states chose to a) make their stand over slavery right then, and b) resolve this crisis in an arena, warfare, where all the variables were aligned against them. A fine show of Southern bravado, but not wise policy, if the goal is the long-term prosperity of the planter class.

That this was motivated by cultural norms rather than reason is also illustrated by the stark contrast in approach between the Deep South and Border South states.

@lance strongarm

You ignore the rest of my citation, and this sentence doesn’t support your claim. The North decided not to tolerate secession, but that consensus didn’t emerge until months later, along with the inevitability of solving it through war.

I didn’t ignore it, it’s just extremely light on specifics. It says others “dallied with compromise” and such, but not what the offered compromises were. The major one, the Crittendon, was predicated on the seven breakaway states returned. Is that true of the other compromises your cite mentions? I have no way of knowing. That cite doesn’t support the idea that there was a sizeable let-them-leave faction.

@lance strongarm

Still, my point is made - sometimes going to war and then seeking alliances succeeds.

I didn’t deny that, I just said it was foolish. Sometimes buying scratchoffs gets you out of a financial jam, but it’s foolish as a policy.

@lance strongarm

As I said, I don’t think there’s a bright line. Also, underdogs win wars sometimes, and it’s rational to consider that fact in your overall decision.

It’s also rational to consider alternatives. Why not go to SCOTUS? Why not wait out Lincoln and see what the future brought? Why not start preparing for war, so as to be not so badly outclassed if war was to come? And so forth.

@lance strongarm

Yes, that part is irrational.

(It’s also sometimes the thing that ends up winning a war when other things are equal).

The Japanese in World War Two were counting on that too…just like with the Confederates, it turned out that all else wasn’t equal, and they’d gotten themselves into a war they couldn’t win.