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.I heard that the American Civil War was in some sense the second American Revolution, please clarify this. — 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.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
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.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 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.I heard that the American Civil War was in some sense the second American Revolution, please clarify this. — Linkey
The Southern states had a powerful stake and influence upon Federal policy. — Paine
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. — ssu
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.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
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.I am from Russia. — Linkey
I am from Russia. Please note that I support Ukraine, I am even a russophobe. — Linkey
This sounds like an AI generated thing. — Paine
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.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
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.