Did the North's Civil War victory cause the abortion epidemic?

[consumedconvert]

Somebody taking the other side!

So … how do you feel about the second half of the OP, that this “tragic, pathetic, and unnecessary” event set a precedent that, through an excessively powerful central government, has allowed abortion to become a more widespread evil than it would have if a successful secession had happened?

And …

Given the Distributist philosophy that you’ve strongly promoted in other threads and on your blog, I’m just curious if you feel that an America in which much stronger state’s rights existed would permit a distributist system as well as you feel our current system would? At first thought, it seems the answer would be “no” as having such autonomy at the state level would seem to effectively turn them more strongly into competitors with one another, creating a de facto “capitalist” society. I haven’t given this much thought (and don’t want to express my opinion one way or the other about distributism) - just curious to see your thoughts as most of your blog appears to be written with the government understood to exist as it does today.

Before I respond, I feel I should almost halfway apologize to the OP for starting a new slightly off-topic thread in this genre, on the grounds that it may split one very interesting conversation into
two mediocre ones. My thread was inspired by yours, but I felt my line of intended discussion was off-topic enough to put me in danger of highjacking your thread. If I was wrong to do so, I apologize.

I should fess up that the blog is not mine; it is simply one I find extremely interesting.

Great quesitons!

First of all, I think it is apparent that the big shift from small, local government to large federal government occurred in the Civil War. That is when the absolute preeminence of the fed over the states first became accepted. Without Lincoln (whom I respect in many ways), this simply would not have happened, IMHO. We would have no federal income tax (originally prohibited by the constitution), the President’s cabinet would be less half the size it is now, and while federal government would still probably be too large, it would not be nearly as large as it is now.

Now the entire Western world, with few exceptions, has accepted abortion. It seems apparent to me that the more industrialized parts of the nation have always been much more accepting of modernism and thus modern paganism than the more agrarian parts of the nation. So my guess would be that many Northern and especially Northeastern states would accept abortion, whereas most Southern states (which would have almost certainly retained much of their quasi-aristocratic farming culture) would not. My guess is also that most Midwestern states would not accept abortion, unless influenced by the presence of a large city (like, alas, Chicago).

Thus IMHO the civil war is, at most, a secondary cause of the allowance of abortion throughout some US states; but a much stronger secondary cause of Roe V. Wade itself (which asserts the preeminance of fed over state).

 

[consumedconvert]

And regarding your second excellent question…

(Tired of hearing from me yet? )

I do certainly believe that distributism would have a much greater chance–and in fact be practiced throughout much of the nation(s) de facto–in a continent where the civil war had not occurred.

One obvious reason is that much of the nation would remain agrarian, and locally so. The local aristocracy in the South would have remained local, and (I believe) the yoman farmer would regain at least some ground when the slave system collapsed under its own weight.

The culture itself, however, would have been more favorable to distributism. People who look to small local governments for protection and policies are used to thinking more locally; conversely, a local government would be much more favorable to local businesses and local ownership than the presently near-omnipotent fed. It is likely that states would compete on a wide scale; Beer brewers in WI would compete with beer brewers in IL and AL, every state would vie for having the best local businesses.

Thats’ my two cents anyway.

 

[grandfather]

When trying to understand why different phenomena come about in a civilization it is always helpful to try to trace the historical development of ideas that manifest themselves into social reality.
It is ideas more than events that shape our social consciousness and that is what shapes our laws. The root of the illegitimate sanctioning of abortion by the civil government, of by and for the people is the Protestant Reformation. I could connect the dots, but have to rush off.

 

[consumedconvert]

When trying to understand why different phenomena come about in a civilization it is always helpful to try to trace the historical development of ideas that manifest themselves into social reality.
It is ideas more than events that shape our social consciousness and that is what shapes our laws. The root of the illegitimate sanctioning of abortion by the civil government, of by and for the people is the Protestant Reformation. I could connect the dots, but have to rush off.

I agree — it is the root of all sorts of relativism. If the Church can’t tell you what is right, who can? Only yourself.

 

[awfulthings9]

The root of the illegitimate sanctioning of abortion by the civil government, of by and for the people is the Protestant Reformation. I could connect the dots, but have to rush off.

When you have more time, I would love to see the dots connected.

 

[RomanCrusader]

The abortion holocaust is not the result of the Union Victory. It is the result of the evil spirit that appeared in the 1960s and began to ravage society, creating a pleasure-focused mentality. Had the Civil War not happened, that spirit would still have showed up.

 

[awfulthings9]

The abortion holocaust is not the result of the Union Victory. It is the result of the evil spirit that appeared in the 1960s and began to ravage society, creating a pleasure-focused mentality. Had the Civil War not happened, that spirit would still have showed up.

By “spirit”, do you mean an actual entity? Or “spirit” as in attitude, like, "They were in the Christmas “spirit”?

If it is an entity, I would be curious as to what that is based on, other than your own theory. Has the church released some declaration along these lines?

Either way, keep in mind that the original post is not arguing that the Union victory caused the widespread acceptance of abortion, but that the victory set the political precedent that makes fighting (through political channels) this acceptance on a state-by-state level harder than it would have been otherwise. So, even if the spirit factor you described has a role in the spread of abortion acceptance, it does not negate the proposition in the original post.

 

[RomanCrusader]

By “spirit”, do you mean an actual entity? Or “spirit” as in attitude, like, "They were in the Christmas “spirit”?

If it is an entity, I would be curious as to what that is based on, other than your own theory. Has the church released some declaration along these lines?

Either way, keep in mind that the original post is not arguing that the Union victory caused the widespread acceptance of abortion, but that the victory set the political precedent that makes fighting (through political channels) this acceptance on a state-by-state level harder than it would have been otherwise. So, even if the spirit factor you described has a role in the spread of abortion acceptance, it does not negate the proposition in the original post.

By a spirit I mean the mentality of the time.

However, I would guess that it was demonic in some way, with perhaps one demon in particular encouraging the hippies. Just a personal theory.

 

[pnewton]

My though it “yes” on both accounts. I will come back and try to post more later, but I think the war was illegal and slavery could have been abolished peacefully. I also believe set the stage for the current system of oppression by a strong federal government. The frightening thing is the continual growth of the federal government, its increased control on personal lives and contiuning restrictions of basic rights.

 

[LilyM]

Who said we would be living in the Confederate States? I personally think their system of economics, government, and social standards would have caused it to either shrivel or die long ago. If not, I would have the perfect freedom to move out of the Confederate States.

What’s the real difference now? You have perfect freedom right now to move out of the United States, and to a country where abortion on demand is NOT the law. There are at least some countries out there where it isn’t. What you suggest (moving from Confederate states to other parts) would be roughly the same as it is currently to move from Canada or Mexico to the US or vice versa. No more or less easy.

If you choose to stay in a country you gotta accept its legal system warts and all, or fight by all ethical means to change what you don’t like.

If I may draw an analogy with Australia … prior to 1901 this country consisted of 6 distinct colonies of Britain, which then joined together as the Commonwealth of Australia. There was much debate at the time as to whether, for example, New Guinea, New Zealand or Fiji should join in, and whether some of the areas now part of Australia (namely Western Australia and Far North Queensland) should remain independent.

It’s all a load of very loose speculation at best as to what our societies would currently be like if these borders were different. Not worth the breath or the exertion it takes to discuss them really. The US and Australia are as they are, and both are highly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

 

[steveandersen]

By “spirit”, do you mean an actual entity? Or “spirit” as in attitude, like, "They were in the Christmas “spirit”?

If it is an entity, I would be curious as to what that is based on, other than your own theory. Has the church released some declaration along these lines?

Either way, keep in mind that the original post is not arguing that the Union victory caused the widespread acceptance of abortion, but that the victory set the political precedent that makes fighting (through political channels) this acceptance on a state-by-state level harder than it would have been otherwise. So, even if the spirit factor you described has a role in the spread of abortion acceptance, it does not negate the proposition in the original post.

Is that what the OP was asking

I though he was just blaming the valiant boys in blue

Clearly there have been tremendous advantages to centralized national policies, a strong central government, and a strong executive.

There have also been tragedies.

There are just so many factors that affected politics and government between then and now that it is difficult to know.

BUT the trend towards stronger central control and greater individual rights was started before the Civil War so I think that legally we would have probably reached a similar place.

thorwign a gigantic

 

[brotherhrolf]

Some things to consider - less than 10% of Southerners owned slaves. Although they were in a minority there were black slave owners. The Irish immigrants dug the canals in New Orleans because slaves were too valuable to subject them to malaria and yellow fever. Five thousand Irishmen are buried in a mass grave in New Orleans who dug those canals.

The North had an economic stranglehold on the South prior to the War of Northern Agression. How many of you know about the high tarrifs which were inflicted upon the South?

What about this? “The United States are…” Ever hear that? Quite common before the War. Think about that.

When Lee invaded Pennsylvania he gave specific instructions that the civilian population was not to be menaced. What can you say about “just war” when Nathaniel Banks ordered Irish troops to burn St. Mary’s Catholic Church in New Roads, Louisiana. The Irish troops refused and came very, very close to mutiny. What can you say about Sherman’s March to the Sea?

I don’t think we can connect the Civil War to abortion in any other way except that the roots of the abortion controversy are firmly placed in the North and not the South. I don’t see it as North vs. South but rather liberal vs. conservative. And let not the pot call the kettle black - shall we talk about the treatment of Irish and Italian immigrants in the North as opposed to say, New Orleans?

Just some things to think about.

 

[consumedconvert]

What about this? “The United States are…” Ever hear that? Quite common before the War. Think about that.

Salient point, I have noticed. Interesting how governmental polity changes people’s thinking.

 

[JRKH]

Alternatively titled, “Was the South Right?”

My post proposes two questions, the first necessary for addressing the second.

Question one: Was the North justified in using force to keep the Southern states in the Union?

For question two, I’ll point out that many hold the theory that, should states have the right to decide the legality of abortion on an individual basis, it would inevitably spell the death of the institution through the nation as a whole. Here is Jimmy Akin’s analysis of this theory.

Question two: Did the defeat of the Southern states set a precedent of control within the central government that makes individual states virtually impotent in trying to make independent legislation that criminalizes abortion?

In other words, would Roe Vs. Wade have been meaningless if the Southern states had successfully ceded from the Union, establishing the autonomy of the individual states?

I just scanned the responses so this may be a repetition…

I will answer the second question first. In a very round about way, yes the union victory did set a precedent for the superiority of the Federal Government over the State Government.
However, this is not a good point for fixing Abortion because the Federal Government did not really become involved in “social engineering” until the 20th century with some worker protections etc. and it wasn’t until after the “New Deal” era that the feds got heavily involved in social legislation. (I’m generalizing here but I think it is pretty accurate.)

As far as the first question goes, yes they did. The US constitution was established because the previous governance, the “Articles of confederation” was not working. the federal Government was too weak, and the Union was headed for disintigration. The states met to iron out the problems and decided to chuck the whole system in preference to an actual “Union”. All states had to ratify this new constitution in order to join.

As far a the first question leading to the second, it is a mute point because if the south had won the war, there would be no US and thus no Roe V Wade. But what there would be is anybody’s guess.
A southern victory would have established the precedent of a states right to secede. Once that right is established, there is little difference between the USA and the CSA. Neither would likely be able to remain democratic and enforce states remaining in the Union or Confederacy. Of course the Confederacy would be particularly suseptable, but the Union would not be immune. The New England States had threatened seccession in the 1830’s I believe.
The upshot of this would be a completely different world history, particularly in the 20th century. Just imagine, no US in the world wars.

So you can see that extrapolating a 1970’s supreme court decision from a 1860’s war result is rather stretching it.

Peace

James

 

[LRThunder]

My though it “yes” on both accounts. I will come back and try to post more later, but I think the war was illegal and slavery could have been abolished peacefully. I also believe set the stage for the current system of oppression by a strong federal government. The frightening thing is the continual growth of the federal government, its increased control on personal lives and contiuning restrictions of basic rights.

I don’t think the North had much of a choice, but to go to war.

Of the Confederate States, 7 left the United States all because Lincoln was elected President. In fact, the Democratic Party split along geographical lines. Had they not done that, Lincoln probably wouldn’t have won.

Even with the secession, there probably wouldn’t have been a real call for war…until South Carolina fired on Ft. Sumter, either an act of war ala Pearl Harbor, or an act of insurrection/rebellion. The federal government, right or wrong, had no choice but to respond. When Lincoln issued the call for troops, that was when the final four states left and joined the Confederacy.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Are you inferring that had the South won the Civil War (not the “War of Northern Aggression”) what governmental enditity that would exist in the place of The United States would be better?

The two issues are not related due to the large timeframes between the two and totally different times in the history of the US.

What else would have changed if we would be living in the Confederate States of America now? Quite a bit, intertwining it with the abortion issue alone is misrepresenting history both in the 1960’s and 1860’s.

Why stay in the US at all ?​

If it hadn’t been for the migration of tribes from Siberia 15,000 years ago, there might still be mammoths on the other side of the Bering Straits (as they are called). As mammoths can’t vote, Roe v. Wade would not have passed, & most of the US would be a marshy bog infested by dragonflies. And Britain would still be Top Nation

 

[awfulthings9]

What’s the real difference now? You have perfect freedom right now to move out of the United States, and to a country where abortion on demand is NOT the law. There are at least some countries out there where it isn’t. What you suggest (moving from Confederate states to other parts) would be roughly the same as it is currently to move from Canada or Mexico to the US or vice versa. No more or less easy.

If you choose to stay in a country you gotta accept its legal system warts and all, or fight by all ethical means to change what you don’t like.

If I may draw an analogy with Australia … prior to 1901 this country consisted of 6 distinct colonies of Britain, which then joined together as the Commonwealth of Australia. There was much debate at the time as to whether, for example, New Guinea, New Zealand or Fiji should join in, and whether some of the areas now part of Australia (namely Western Australia and Far North Queensland) should remain independent.

It’s all a load of very loose speculation at best as to what our societies would currently be like if these borders were different. Not worth the breath or the exertion it takes to discuss them really. The US and Australia are as they are, and both are highly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

Yes … and I wasn’t arguing differently. If you go back and read the post to which I was responding, he made the comment that I would be living in a confederate state now. I was simply pointing out that that wasn’t necessarily true. Your post makes it seem like there was a whole dimension to my response that wasn’t intended.

 

[awfulthings9]

Is that what the OP was asking. I though he was just blaming the valiant boys in blue.

No. That’s incorrect. I know … I’m the OP. Here’s the relevant portion of my original post:

For question two, I’ll point out that many hold the theory that, should states have the right to decide the legality of abortion on an individual basis, it would inevitably spell the death of the institution through the nation as a whole … Question two: Did the defeat of the Southern states set a precedent of control within the central government that makes individual states virtually impotent in trying to make independent legislation that criminalizes abortion?

And even if I were implying differently, the “valiant boys in blue” would be no more to blame than our soldiers today would be to blame for any disagreement one has with the Iraq War.

Clearly there have been tremendous advantages to centralized national policies, a strong central government, and a strong executive.

I wouldn’t argue differently. What this thread is looking at is unforseen side-effects. For anything we gain, something must be lost.

There have also been tragedies.

There are just so many factors that affected politics and government between then and now that it is difficult to know.

But historians make generalizations all the time about shifts in national temperment, policy, and philosophy. We should be able to exercize our minds with the same type of discussion, even if we are all amateurs (at least I am).

BUT the trend towards stronger central control and greater individual rights was started before the Civil War so I think that legally we would have probably reached a similar place.

BUT the Civil War is that point where such a strong central control was challenged most definitively. That challenge was answered with a Northern victory.

thorwign a gigantic

huh?

 

[awfulthings9]

Some things to consider - less than 10% of Southerners owned slaves. Although they were in a minority there were black slave owners. The Irish immigrants dug the canals in New Orleans because slaves were too valuable to subject them to malaria and yellow fever. Five thousand Irishmen are buried in a mass grave in New Orleans who dug those canals.

The North had an economic stranglehold on the South prior to the War of Northern Agression. How many of you know about the high tarrifs which were inflicted upon the South?

What about this? “The United States are…” Ever hear that? Quite common before the War. Think about that.

When Lee invaded Pennsylvania he gave specific instructions that the civilian population was not to be menaced. What can you say about “just war” when Nathaniel Banks ordered Irish troops to burn St. Mary’s Catholic Church in New Roads, Louisiana. The Irish troops refused and came very, very close to mutiny. What can you say about Sherman’s March to the Sea?

I don’t think we can connect the Civil War to abortion in any other way except that the roots of the abortion controversy are firmly placed in the North and not the South. I don’t see it as North vs. South but rather liberal vs. conservative. And let not the pot call the kettle black - shall we talk about the treatment of Irish and Italian immigrants in the North as opposed to say, New Orleans?

Just some things to think about.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the assumption through most of this post is that the OP is connecting the abortion crisis with the injustices of the Civil War (and its causes, such as slavery). That isn’t the point of the thread. Maybe I’m misreading here, but there’s a lot thrown together, so I got a little lost.

 

[awfulthings9]

I just scanned the responses so this may be a repetition…

I will answer the second question first. In a very round about way, yes the union victory did set a precedent for the superiority of the Federal Government over the State Government.
However, this is not a good point for fixing Abortion because the Federal Government did not really become involved in “social engineering” until the 20th century with some worker protections etc. and it wasn’t until after the “New Deal” era that the feds got heavily involved in social legislation. (I’m generalizing here but I think it is pretty accurate.)

Good analysis.

As far as the first question goes, yes they did. The US constitution was established because the previous governance, the “Articles of confederation” was not working. the federal Government was too weak, and the Union was headed for disintigration. The states met to iron out the problems and decided to chuck the whole system in preference to an actual “Union”. All states had to ratify this new constitution in order to join.

Yes, but as pointed out earlier, at least three states only ratified under the condition that they could secede if the federal government got too much overreach. By the nature of the equality given to the others who joined, all had that right, so the intend of the constitution cannot be shown to enforce an inseperable union.

As far a the first question leading to the second, it is a mute point because if the south had won the war, there would be no US and thus no Roe V Wade. But what there would be is anybody’s guess.

I think that is the point … that no court system would exist which could enforce something so broadly. So it isn’t a moot point.

A southern victory would have established the precedent of a states right to secede. Once that right is established, there is little difference between the USA and the CSA. Neither would likely be able to remain democratic and enforce states remaining in the Union or Confederacy. Of course the Confederacy would be particularly suseptable, but the Union would not be immune. The New England States had threatened seccession in the 1830’s I believe.

The upshot of this would be a completely different world history, particularly in the 20th century. Just imagine, no US in the world wars.

No argument. Of course, nobody in the thread has argued that secession was preferable, only that there were side-effects in thwarting it.

So you can see that extrapolating a 1970’s supreme court decision from a 1860’s war result is rather stretching it.

But I can’t see that, as I pointed out in this response.