Was U.S. Civil War a just war?

[Ghosty]

Again, as Catholics, and from a true Catholic theological and cultural perspective, and from within a country whose culture and politics has always despised Catholicism, the question should be; what war, if any, that the U.S. has fought, been just?

In answer to this interesting spin-off of the thread’s topic, I’ll say both WWII and the modern war against the Taliban government in Afganistan were Just Wars. This isn’t to say that all actions taken in those wars were just (WWII especially is a laundry-list of grave offences against God and man on both sides), but I’m sure that wars themselves were just causes.

WWII was not justified just because “the Nazis were really evil”; evil exists in every age. WWII was justified because the Axis powers were not just evil, they were bent on spreading their power over the world. Nazi Germany would not stop, and anyone who tried to negotiate with them was first to be invaded. Against an enemy like that there is no choice but a battle to the death (in terms of military and national might, not “total war” in which civilians are killed in firebombings and other attrocities). Japan was a similar entity, bent on expansion and military aggression; it almost became a national religion for them as they followed the “divine” Emperor. They had to be stopped and even broken, militarily speaking. Again, this does not in any way justify the total destruction of civilian populations, most notably the nuclear attacks that ushered in a new era of warfare.

The war against Afganistan, though apparently not regarded as a “real war” in the popular mind, was a completely legitimate action. A powerful organization from within Afganistan, and supported by the government of Afganistan, made an open and obvious attack against the U.S., and had the temerity to not only hit military targets, but civilian centers. The U.S. government gave the Afgani government a chance to respond and let us in/help us take apart that organization; the Taliban hemmed and hawed and twiddled their thumbs. A government is worthless if it can’t defend its people, and our government stepped up to the plate and moved in to obliterate those who had openly and intentionally targeted our civilian population. I would go so far as to say that not only was our invasion of Afganistan justified, it was an obligation of our government to invade. Even WWII, as justified as it was, began for us when a military target was hit (Pearl Harbor). On 9/11 they hit mothers and fathers who were only being mothers and fathers, not soldiers, and any national government is obligated to respond to such an act, and to not respond would have been* unjust*, IMO.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Zooey]

The high-priests of the Enlightenment have done yeoman work to convince us that the U.S. Civil War was over slavery, it is a simple matter to see that the Civil War was an economic war, just as every other war we’ve waged, and there are plenty of statements from blessed Abraham Lincoln to prove he didn’t give two hoots about slaves.

Including his infamous 1858 speech, when he proposed that all black persons in America be put aboard ships & returned to Africa, because he “never believed that the white race and the black race should live side by side”.
The “Great Emancipator” had some alarmingly racist views. It would be interesting, perhaps, to consider Lincoln’s opinions alongside those of General Thomas [Stonewall] Jackson, C.S.A., who, with his wife, spent much time & effort given over to the education of slaves in & around their Virginia home…Jackson, in fact, sent a proportion of his earnings each payday, home to his pastor to be used “for the spiritual & educational uplift of our negro brethren”…
Bibles & schoolbooks, people. The Confederacy’s greatest general was sending a title of his pay for the education, both secular & Christian, of Virginian slaves…While the president of the Union was working out a plan to sell these same people to slavetraders in Africa, to prevent the “superior” white race from being in contact with black people.

 

[LRThunder]

There is also the point that slavery was still part of Yankee thinking.** Grant held slaves whom he refused to free, even after the end of the War**!

As well as leave the new freedmen with no way to support themselves. (Tho **Lincoln **did propose sending them back to Africa, into the hands of the same slavetraders who sold them in the 1st place.)
I respectfully disagree.

Something frequently & conveniently ignored.

It was illegal. Much of Lincoln’s actions in office were grounds for impeachment, which is what the **moral **path of action for the north would have been! He was a war criminal. Had he not been shot, he could have been, should have been tried, found guilty, and removed from office–with criminal charges awaiting him.

Lincoln did what he had to do at the time to preserve the Union. Such actions can not be tolerated now, but if secession was seen in a more favorable light then, then why not Lincoln’s actions at that time?

In any case, Kentucky seceding might not have hurt the Union too much, but if Maryland had seceded, Lincoln would’ve found himself surrounded by the enemy given that Virginia, a Confederate state, was to the south and Maryland, was to the north.

 

[Jerusha]

WHEW!!! What a nasty counteroffensive.

 

[Phillip_II]

What the heck!!!

I didnt make any claim that the Brits were the first to question the morality of slavery, nor could I because I know that isnt true.

I dont see any need for this attack on me (or my ansestor) and suggest that you get off your high horse and most definatly stop trying to put words into my mouth.

What you wrote is really of no relevence to what you replied to.

One of the reasons modern presidential candidates and especially their debates are so painfully boring is that nobody can speak off the cuff anymore. Everything has to be nice, nice, nice… There is no rule anywhere that says being “nice” in a conversation/argument is the best way to win your case. On the contrary, when a statement deserves to draw fire, it should draw fire and the person making the statement should have checked their ego prior to voicing it.

You can tell me to get off my “high horse” and I take nothing personal because I’m fully confident of my views. In the case of my statement against yours concerning the British abolitionists, I’m making a rhetorical statement regarding the blindness of this country (the U.S.) towards the accomplishments of anyone other than the Brits, and your opening paragraph attributes the whole abolitionist movement “globally” to the Brits, why do you say what the heck to my jumping on that? You think because of the tone I’m attacking you personally (along with your relative), when I am attacking your point, not your person.

Why should the tone of a blog have be that of lazy conversation beneath a shade tree, rather than a that of fiery exchange in the Senate?

 

[Elric]

One of the reasons modern presidential candidates and especially their debates are so painfully boring is that nobody can speak off the cuff anymore. Everything has to be nice, nice, nice… There is no rule anywhere that says being “nice” in a conversation/argument is the best way to win your case. On the contrary, when a statement deserves to draw fire, it should draw fire and the person making the statement should have checked their ego prior to voicing it.

But which part of my statment deserved to draw fire?

I certainly didnt state that the British were the first to abbolish slavery, I didnt even hint at that.

I only said that England did abbolish slavery and my ansestor was part of that abbolition movement. They also wanted to make abbolition global (which they did) and pettitioned France to abbolish slavery.

What part of that was your reply actually debating?

You can tell me to get off my “high horse” and I take nothing personal because I’m fully confident of my views. In the case of my statement against yours concerning the British abolitionists, I’m making a rhetorical statement regarding the blindness of this country (the U.S.) towards the accomplishments of anyone other than the Brits, and your opening paragraph attributes the whole abolitionist movement “globally” to the Brits, why do you say what the heck to my jumping on that? You think because of the tone I’m attacking you personally (along with your relative), when I am attacking your point, not your person.

Im not from the US (or the UK) and dont suffer from the blindness that you suggest. I am well aware of the faults of both countries and know that not everything came from them (or my own country).

My opening statment did not attribute the global abbolitionist movement to the Brits, it attributes it to people who were for the abbolition of slavery rather than a country.

Why should the tone of a blog have be that of lazy conversation beneath a shade tree, rather than a that of fiery exchange in the Senate?

Thats all well and good, but that doesnt include putting words in other peoples statments and accusing them of stating things that they didnt state.

If you want to argue that the Brits were not the first to abbloish slavery, you will have to find someone else to argue with. Because I agree that they were not. England were not responsible for global abbolition (I never stated that they were), it was groups like the one that Thomas Clarkson was involved with that had that goal.

 

[Zooey]

WHEW!!! What a nasty counteroffensive.

Jerusha, we have looked at this men for too long through the propagandized lenses of those who, following the war, sought to demonize southerners, whilst raising Lincoln to mythological status.
I well remember getting one of my first "D"s in junior high school, when I refused to pay homage to Lincoln. He was, IMHO, a bad president and an evil man. I did not say this in so many words, but I made it very clear that I had no patience with the demigod-like portrait that the teacher was determined to paint of him…While, at the same time, sneering at Lee & Jackson, two of this country’s finest Christian gentlemen, both of whom opposed slavery.
Lee proposed before the Confederate government, that slavery should be ended. Jackson demurred only because he was deeply concerned for the welfare of the slaves if they were to be released without education in some kind of employable skill.
Well. I got the “D”. Time has revealed more than I could imagine about Lincoln; the sins I laid at his door then, are nothing compared to what we are now able to read in his own words. (The 'Net has put an end to the sequestration of books containing inconvenient truths).

I have said it before: My ancestors fought in the Army of Northern Virginia. Not one of them ever owned slaves. They were not fighting for slavery. They were fighting to protect their homes & families from falling under slavery of another sort: the chains of massive federal powers, which, we can now see, lead to a host of ills, not the least of which is abortion on demand. (Something that SCOTUS could not have done, had the north lost the war).
And what did war do for the slaves? It took from them the title of slavery, but it locked them into a system (impressed by carpetbaggers from the north) which kept their descendents as second class citizens for generations.
At least, Lincoln’s demonic dreams of deportation died with him. We can only have nightmares about what else might have been forced upon us all, had he been able to push his plans for apartheid through the congress.

The whole story of the War for Southern Independence is the story of a battle between a philosophy that enshrined a pseudomonarchical view of the presidency at all costs, and a group of men, women, & children who had not listened in vain to the stories of their forebears, fighting to throw out one “monarch” and his band of bully-boys; they were not about to enthrone another.
What can I say?? The victor wrote the history books. But the truth did not change, in spite of that.
God bless all here.

 

[Jerusha]

Personally, I would rather see all white American racists deported to Europe, but after the events of WWII, they wouldn’t have them, either.

The influence of May Todd Lincoln is not to be discounted. He would never have won the presidency without her $ and influence. I still believe he took the only course left to him, as awful as it was, given the worse lawlessness that surrounded slavery.

After emancipation, if the Indian slaves were allowed to return to their homelands, the perfect analogy would be to help the African slaves return. However, many were too many generations removed for that to work. It was an idealistic plan that fell flat on its face. Given the abuses many whites have perpetuated other ethnicities over the centuries, and the influence of his wife, I can excuse Lincoln.

There is a strength in voluntary ethnic enclaves. :heaven: Apartheid and ethnic cleansing are a perversion of that.

As for Jackson, what he did to the Indians is beyond shame.

The only American leader I can have respect for is Jefferson, but his unabashed idealism and rampant optomism, by hindsight, were irrational.

 

[Zooey]

As for Jackson, what he did to the Indians is beyond shame.

We must be discussing two different Jacksons. Perhaps you refer to Andrew Jackson, later president?? He was indeed active in hostilities involving Native Americans, especially some of the southern tribes, where he was known as Old Hickory.
General Thomas [Stonewall] Jackson died in 1862, cut down by “friendly fire” when his own men mistook him for a union soldier. He had fought ably & well in the Mexican War, after which he became a teacher at Virginia Military Institute. Certainly, he had never had any dealings with the Indians, save perhaps, like most of us “hillbillies”, he would have traded with them, and perhaps gone hunting together.

 

[Jerusha]

OK. Misunderstanding, sorry.

'Hillbillies" are well known for their history of racial mixing.

 

[mary_bobo]

Personally, I would rather see all white American racists deported to Europe, but after the events of WWII, they wouldn’t have them, either.

The influence of May Todd Lincoln is not to be discounted. He would never have won the presidency without her $ and influence. I still believe he took the only course left to him, as awful as it was, given the worse lawlessness that surrounded slavery.

After emancipation, if the Indian slaves were allowed to return to their homelands, the perfect analogy would be to help the African slaves return. However, many were too many generations removed for that to work. It was an idealistic plan that fell flat on its face. Given the abuses many whites have perpetuated other ethnicities over the centuries, and the influence of his wife, I can excuse Lincoln.

There is a strength in voluntary ethnic enclaves. :heaven: Apartheid and ethnic cleansing are a perversion of that.

As for Jackson, what he did to the Indians is beyond shame.

The only American leader I can have respect for is Jefferson, but his unabashed idealism and rampant optomism, by hindsight, were irrational.

A little irrationality of this kind might be good for all of us right now.

 

[Jerusha]

The only American leader I can have respect for is Jefferson, but his unabashed idealism and rampant optomism, by hindsight, were irrational.

A little irrationality of this kind might be good for all of us right now.

If only they had written a plan for the gradual abolition of slavery into the constitution.

 

[JohnnyReb]

If only they had written a plan for the gradual abolition of slavery into the constitution.

The problem with that was that the Southern States would have never ratified the constitution. Had the founding fathers directly addressed the issue of the secession of states, the conflict may have been averted. Either go ahead and explicity say it is a no-no or give a procedure that states must follow to secede legally.

 

[RobHom]

Here is a link that will give some more information on the “why’s and wherefore’s”…

infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0857365.html

Historians are “still” arguing over why it happened, and the variety of opinions are quite vast.

I have my own thoughts, and though I have lived in the South for many years…I tend to keep them to myself.

Machinery produced by the Industrial Revolution would have eliminated slavery in short course, in any event. Owning slaves, feeding them, etc…was not cheap, and machinery would be less expensive overall.

 

[Jerusha]

As much as people want to condemn the South, the problem was the sickness of racism, and the dehumanizing effects of hereditary, race-based slavery. That racism was, and is, a problem throughout the US.

It was only when lawlessness surrounding it became so pervasive, and so widely-known (including Indian slavery) that abolitionist forces got enough momentum for the Civil War to happen.

My personal belief is that it was about racism.

Machinery produced by the Industrial Revolution would have eliminated slavery in short course, in any event.

Perhaps. However, Marx wasn’t 100% wrong.

More comments witheld. I’m in a bad mood today.

 

[estesbob]

Machinery produced by the Industrial Revolution would have eliminated slavery in short course, in any event. Owning slaves, feeding them, etc…was not cheap, and machinery would be less expensive overall.

Actually the opposite is true. It was the invention of the cotton gin athat made growing cotton much more efficient and more profitable than before. Machines that could efficiently pick cotton were not developed until the 20th century.

 

[Jerusha]

It was no longer called slavery. Debt to the company store, share-cropping, the abusive workplace, denial of an opportunity to work unless one accepts inferior status, mis-education (particularly in the teaching of distorted history, and other more subtle educational practices), denial of an education.

The Civil War ended an extremely abusive and overtly racist practice, which was only replaced by other, more subtle practices.