Not really philosophy, better posted on a history board.

I heard that the American Civil War was in some sense the second American Revolution, please clarify this. — Linkey

It would be better seen as the third iteration of the English Civil War. The struggle between aristocratic and plebian democratic forms occurred in the fight between the King and Parliament. The fragility of democratic process can be seen in how Cromwell went from being an MP to becoming a Dictator. War, itself, is a kind of tyranny.

The American Civil War was also the collision of two incompatible forms of economic expansion. The first fights occurred in Kansas and Missouri between slave holders and farmers who paid for labor. John Brown was forged in that violence before he brought it to Harper's Ferry.

An excellent introduction to that history is The Cousins' War, by Kevin Phillips

I heard that the American Civil War was in some sense the second American Revolution, please clarify this. — Linkey

The idea is encapsulated in, and can be found therein with a careful reading of, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. - And btw, all of Lincoln's published speeches and letters worth reading, including his Cooper Union Address, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and his House Divided speech.

The idea is that before the Civil War, it was the United States are, and after, the United States is.

The Constitution, c. 1792, was held by many to be about and concerning the powers of the new Federal government, and not (at all) the states. That is, the several states were still sovereign. This resulted in a tension that still exists today - arguably necessarily. Slavery was a major source of tension, and having boiled for about 65 years, it exploded into the Civil War. Among the results were the Civil War amendments, 13, 14, 15 (if memory serves), which established federal control over some things, and laid the groundwork for more control over more things.

And it might be argued that as the revolution of 1775 established the separation from England, it did not altogether establish a nation, and that the Civil War finally did.

Short answer, but you can do a lot of research into the history of the thing. Even much material on Youtube. Caveat, starting almost with the end of the Civil War in 1865, a lot of people tried, have tried, and are trying to whitewash the role of the Southern states before and during the war, and after the war.

Not really philosophy, better posted on a history board. — Lionino

Sorry, I am a newbie here, maybe the thread can be moved?

The idea is that before the Civil War, it was the United States are, and after, the United States is. — tim wood

Then, if we are still using analogies, maybe it can be said that the civil war was just a war?

Then, if we are still using analogies, maybe it can be said that the civil war was just a war? — Linkey

Meaning?

Power grabs by elites are often a source of civil wars but they are by no means the only way such wars start. Ethnic conflict is a pretty common cause, particularly in the modern era due to electoral systems of governance taking root. Once you have an electoral system, shifting demographics result in shifting control of the state. See: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yugoslavia, the collapse of the Austrian Empire, etc. Religion can play a similar role, e.g. by far and away the most destructive wars in French and German history (killing far larger shares of the population than both World Wars combined) centered around religious disputes (the Huguenot Wars/Thirty Years War).

I don't really have a go to book on the American Civil War to recommend unfortunately. But, any way you cut it, slavery was very much the defining factor in the war. This is explicitly how secessionists framed their actions in their own words. The issue of slavery was filtered through institutions though. For instance, slave owning states had votes allocated to them based on their slave populations, which ties the issue to control of the legislature and presidency (since the US doesn't do popular vote presidential elections). Economic undercurrents mattered too, but again, these related deeply to slavery. And then obviously there was a strong movement of abolitionists who found the institution of slavery abhorrent who exerted influence as well.

Meaning? — tim wood

Before the Linkoln's speach, the States were "states" in the meaning of "countries" to a relatevely big extent. And a war betreen these countries started.

Um, no. A grain of truth, maybe, but don't confuse a grain with a pile of grains. Not the same thing. I suggest suspending judgment in favour of some reading, and let your reading range. Soon enough you will soak up enough to have a beginning understanding and be able to more closely direct your efforts. And no K in Lincoln - for a number of reasons.

I mean that, as far as I can see, civil wars and “Smutas” are an attribute of an authoritarian society, not a democratic one. — Linkey

A democracy (whether sound or flawed) can be split on a key issue, like which religion should be dominant or which claimant has a right to rule, or whether a large segment of the population should be owned like beasts of burden. This particular split was inevitable. It written into the constitution. As industry and trade developed, the southern states, being almost entirely agricultural and focused on export, considered themselves unfairly taxed on imported manufactured good. And the agricultural economy had the single advantage of inexpensive captive labour. That was something the southern states would not give up, and were determined to spread through new territories beyond Missouri as the nation expanded westward. Th federal government would not allow that - could not allow it, lest the slave states outnumber and overwhelm the the free states.

My question is: when the southern states seceded from the northern states and mobilized, was that the decision of the people of those states? — Linkey

I don't know how representative the vote was, but the leaders certainly had general support. Most of the people wanted to retain their accustomed lifestyle; the whites obviously wanted to retain their racial ascendancy and privilege - many still do. The peasants certainly didn't want a whole lot of liberated slaves competing for their pay or having the vote or being allowed to own property. There wasn't much popular support for secession at first (at least in South Carolina where the movement started) as long as the question was one of states rights; the change came when Lincoln was elected president and the institution of slavery was seen to be imperilled.

I heard that the American Civil War was in some sense the second American Revolution, please clarify this. — Linkey

I suppose that could be inferred from the taxation-representation POV. But even that's bogus, when you consider that white men in the South were already over-represented.

The Southern states had a powerful stake and influence upon Federal policy. The compromises made in the Constitution continued right up to the outbreak of war. A clear indication of that is how many of the military leaders on both sides were trained at West Point.

A great book that discusses these matters and more is Battle Cry of Freedom, by James McPherson.

The Southern states had a powerful stake and influence upon Federal policy. — Paine

Indeed they did, and this influence continued long after the Civil War was over. 70 years later, the southern block of senators and congressmen (from formerly slave states--the "solid south") were able to exclude blacks from some of the premier New Deal programs -- particularly housing programs (the FederalHousing Act), Social Security, and Unemployment Insurance. The exclusion of blacks from home purchase programs was explicit. The SS and UI programs excluded farm workers and household help (maids) from coverage. Most blacks worked on farms or as household help.

The post WWII housing programs that enabled millions of Americans to establish a property stake in the suburbs and build family wealth excluded blacks, specifically. Housing programs provided rental housing for blacks. Some of the rental housing was quite good, but within 30 years, the huge urban rental housing projects were in a spiral of deterioration owing to bad rental policies and neglect of maintenance by city housing programs.

Slavery was a social arrangement, of course, and a central, critical feature of Southern state societies. It was also a tremendously important part of the American economy -- North and South, both. Roughly 12% of the whole American workforce was slave. The slaves produced about 12% of the nation's output (though a much higher percentage of output in southern states).

Some authors claim that 50% of the economic value of output was slave produced. This is unlikely, because the products slaves produced -- mostly agricultural products -- did not have a high per-pound value. A bale of cotton became much more valuable after it landed in an English mill and was turned into cloth, and more valuable still when the cloth was cut up and sewn into clothes. But all of that did not happen in the south, or in the north either.

The slave economy wasn't isolated in the south. Banks, importers, exporters, insurers, shippers, and so on were located in Philadelphia, New York, Providence, and Boston (and some other northern cities). Southern plantations and companies depended on northern companies for all sorts of financial services.

There was friction between free labor and slave labor systems--mainly between the north and south, but also within the south. Support for slavery was not universal in the south. Support for secession was also not universal in the south.

Reconstruction after the Civil War largely failed. Blacks were subjected to systematic repression after the Civil War until roughly 1970, by which time major civil rights legislation had passed on the federal level, and courts had ruled various forms of segregation unconstitutional. I am white, and have never lived in the south, so I am not in a position to judge what conditions are now from a black person's perspective.

An excellent clarification of the situation before and after.

I would like to add some observations but will wait to see if the original poster of the discussion has something to say.

I have a question: how much were the taxes in the north states and in the south states prior to the war? Maybe the latter were higher?

I mean that, as far as I can see, civil wars and “Smutas” are an attribute of an authoritarian society, not a democratic one. — Linkey

A democracy (whether sound or flawed) can be split on a key issue, like which religion should be dominant or which claimant has a right to rule, or whether a large segment of the population should be owned like beasts of burden. — Vera Mont

This is true, for example Switzerland, a quite stable democracy, had it's later Civil War in 1847 the Sonderbund War. Hence being a democracy (or a democratic confederacy/federation) doesn't mean that political deadlocks cannot turn into Civil Wars. Especially the case of succession can brings these things on. The insurgency in Northern Ireland successfully has been portrayed by the UK as "the Troubles" still had it's roots in a quest for secession. The UK has successfully avoided the secession of Scotland and in Spain with constitutional crisis of 2017-2018 came close to military action. So just being a functioning democracy doesn't mean that there cannot be civil wars, even if it still holds that if the majority of the people are happy with their economy and position, no need to go on to the barricades and grab those rifles.

:up:

This is true, for example Switzerland, a quite stable democracy, had it's later Civil War in 1847 the Sonderbund War. Hence being a democracy (or a democratic confederacy/federation) doesn't mean that political deadlocks cannot turn into Civil Wars. Especially the case of succession can brings these things on. The insurgency in Northern Ireland successfully has been portrayed by the UK as "the Troubles" still had it's roots in a quest for secession. The UK has successfully avoided the secession of Scotland and in Spain with constitutional crisis of 2017-2018 came close to military action. So just being a functioning democracy doesn't mean that there cannot be civil wars, even if it still holds that if the majority of the people are happy with their economy and position, no need to go on to the barricades and grab those rifles. — ssu

Ok, I understand you, and I want to add something. With democracy, the "tyranny of the majority" is theoretically possible: roughly speaking, if 90% of the population votes to make the remaining 10% slaves. And theoretically, it is possible to find a solution to this problem: if each voter, when voting, indicates on a ten-point scale how important this decision is to him personally, and if it is possible to achieve the honesty of this assessment. The same scheme can solve all the problems of separatism in democratic countries. Do you guess what I mean?

This sounds like an AI generated thing.

This sounds like an AI generated thing. — Paine

Well, I used the google translator since my English is not perfect...

What is your native language?

And theoretically, it is possible to find a solution to this problem: if each voter, when voting, indicates on a ten-point scale how important this decision is to him personally, — Linkey

Some similar schemes have been proposed for democratic voting procedures, effectively turning every election into a plebiscite on some key issue. The efficacy of such a system depends on voters being fully and accurately informed on the issues, and if that's in the purview of broadcast media, we in North America are toast.

What is your native language? — Paine

I am from Russia. Please note that I support Ukraine, I am even a russophobe.
If the English in my previous post was bad, maybe I should use ChatGPT more often for word translations. How reliable is it for this task, what do you think?

I am from Russia. — Linkey

That gives you a unique perspective on civil war and how it is taught in school a few generations after the fact. I know more about the US one, and how it's been represented in popular media - romanticized, for the most part, endlessly memorialized, fetishized and re-enacted, while it was by all practical accounts by far the most costly of all America's many conflicts in terms of human lives and suffering. I have an idea the Russian one was similar in destructiveness and long-term after-effects.
The American one was completely predictable. The French one was completely predictable. Was the Russian one similar?

I am from Russia. Please note that I support Ukraine, I am even a russophobe. — Linkey

No, Linkey, mate please. Don't feel bad about yourself in that way. There are members here who love Russia and Russian culture. Don't mix up things! Maybe politics in Russia are screwed, but your culture is awesome: pianists, painters, writers, scientists, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Shólojov, Chejov, etc...

If I were Russian, I would feel very proud of the heritage of my nation.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum! Not sure, but we have very few participants who are Russian.

This sounds like an AI generated thing. — Paine

I'm not sure what Paine meant, but you are doing the best you can to get over the language barrier. My impression of Google Translate is that the quality of its translation is not always very good.

Ok, I understand you, and I want to add something. With democracy, the "tyranny of the majority" is theoretically possible: roughly speaking, if 90% of the population votes to make the remaining 10% slaves. — Linkey

Theoretically it's totally possible. Of course in order to prevent this democracies do have constitutions and these can either not be changed or demand a 2/3 majorities to be changed etc. Then also come international agreements like the UN charter, which for instance in your example could make a lot of other sovereign countries be quite angry and suspect of the validity of this law and the leaders of that country. Not only having slavery, but having it even accepted by law would definitely get a response from other sovereign states.

But if we think about this on a purely theoretical level, having a law that all redheads should be imprisoned because they are witches is totally possible. There's no limitations on what kind of laws Parliaments make. That's why for a democracy to function, it does need the citizens to be informed. Usually people are and democracies function as a safety valve.

And welcome to the forum!

The Civil War to some extent disproved the tyranny of the majority concept because it was a suppression of majority rule that sustained slavery and that led to war.

The South went to great lengths to isolate itself from dissenting votes by declaring that state rights and local rule made Northern votes inapplicable. They also disallowed slave voting. Voter suppression is anti-democratic by definition, and that is what allowed slavery to persevere.

Voter suppression remains a tactic today of course.

Had there been free and open elections in 1860. one person one vote, slavery was doomed. In fact, the Civil War began at Lincoln's inauguration, letting the South know that their regional protections were falling fast so secession was the only option.

The war started when Lincoln sent supply ships to Fort Sumter, which had been a federal fort, now seized by SC. SC fired on the supply ships and Lincoln declared rebellion.

The war started when Lincoln sent supply ships to Fort Sumter, which had been a federal fort, now seized by SC. SC fired on the supply ships and Lincoln declared rebellion. — frank

In fact, the Civil War began at Lincoln's inauguration, letting the South know that their regional protections were falling fast so secession was the only option. — Hanover

Alright, we'll get the specific dates straight:

11/6/60 - Lincoln wins the election
1/5/61 - The South fires upon the North when it attempts to resupply Ft. Sumter, so the North abandons that effort.
3/1/61 - Jefferson Davis reinforces the defenses around Ft. Sumter.
3/4/61 - Lincoln is inaugurated.
4/4/61 - Lincoln sends reinforcements to Ft. Sumter
4/12/61 - The South fires upon the northern reinforcements and the Civil War officially begins.

My point remains that the reason for these hostilities leading up to the Civil War was that the Lincoln election spelled an eventual end to slavery and the only way to stop it was to fully remove the South from northern control, which was to remove those votes from influencing southern policies.

That is, in order for the tyranny to continue over the slaves, the vote had to be suppressed and manipulated so that the only votes that would count would be the ones supporting the current system. And that was my main point, which is that American slavery is not an example of how democracy fails, but it is an example of why democracy should not be suppressed.