#@uppermandible | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

thenuanceddebater · 8 years ago

Text

Civil War Response to @uppermandible

So, for whatever reason, I can’t reblog the response @upermandible made to my Civil War post which you can find here. I don’t know why that is, but assuming that I wasn’t blocked and that it’s a tumblr glitch, I’ll do the response here instead.

so because the union made a law that nobody could leave it the south was just supposed to sit there and take its unfair treatment?

No, but this law “the Union” made (which actually comes from the Constitution which was ratified by both the North and the South) means that the Confederacy has no legitimate right to secede under US law. That means that every single action the Confederacy takes is an act of rebellion against the United States, and that under US law the Confederate States of America doesn’t actually exist. Hence, why the term “Civil War” is still applicable legally speaking. You don’t seem to understand this based on the initial analogy you used (which discussed divorce-- which is a legal matter) and based on your later thoughts in this response as well.

lets remember that the southern states were disproportionately footing the bill for federal expenses, and were being locked out on how that money was spent, because they had less power in the federal government than the northern states

Disproportionately footing the bill for what exactly? They were being taxed based on population. They artificially exapnded their population numbers through the 3/5 Compromise in the US Constitution. They also agreed to the form of government that was now instituting the bills they didn’t like very much. Also, if you really want to pretend that economics and taxation (or even tariffs) were the primary cause of the Civil War, you’re going to need a heck of a lot of evidence. Since most of the documents of secession didn’t actually mention economics, taxes, or tariffs in the slightest. Do you know what most of them did mention? Slavery. And mistreatment because of slavery. So, please provide me with some primary sources that prove your position here. Otherwise, I’m going to dismiss your argument based on the evidence that actually exists. Oh, and this entire thing is just one gigantic switching the goalpost from “the Confederacy was legitimate in attacking Fort Sumter” to “the Confederacy had moral and understandable reasons for attacking Fort Sumter”. Moral and understandable reasons =/= legitimate.

the south was not going to be able to afford much of what the federal government was pushing for, and they were otherwise helpless to stop it. their only recourse to this was simply to pack their shit, show Lincoln their favorite finger, then make like horse turds and hit the trail.

You... are aware that the South was wealthier than the North prior to the Civil War, right? Much of that wealth was in land and slaves, but still the South was not a poor area of the United States. Also, none of this makes the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter legitimate. That’s not how legitimacy works. You can tell whatever sob story you want about oppression, but legally speaking oppression does not guarantee legitimacy (especially when that oppression is mostly imagined as opposed to actually extant).

throughout the interim leading up to the firing on fort sumter, the union was increasingly aggressive to the seceding states. deploying troops to occupy Kentucky, blockading the south, etc.

...And we’re just going to completely ignore how the Confederacy was attempting to seize federal forts and weapons? Because that doesn’t fit the narrative? Okay. Oh, and also Kentucky declared neutrality at the beginning of the war, but after an attempt by Confederate General Leonidas Polk to take the state failed, they petitioned the Union Army for help. So, that goes against your narrative as well. Especially because Kentucky didn’t come fully under Union control until 1862- well after Fort Sumter fell and the Civil War began. So, maybe check your facts on that one. They seem to be a little off.

As for blockading the South, you are aware that seeing as the Confederacy had absolutely no legal legitimacy whatsoever it was considered an “area in rebellion” and thus was automatically considered essentially at-war with the United States right? The idea of the blockade was to bring the areas in rebellion back under US control without actually engaging in pitched-battle against American citizens. And again, the United States wasn’t the only side being aggressive. You can’t look at the facts of the situation and tell me that the Confederacy was peaceful and the Confederates were a bunch of angels. Well, I mean you can. But you’d be really, really wrong.

Most the war was fought in the south.

Over the course of the war the union lost 642,427 of its 2,672,341-strong military. the confederacy lost 483,026 of its 750,000-strong military.

Irrelevant information is irrelevant. None of this means anything when discussing whether or not the Confederacy’s secession is legitimate. Although, it is worth pointing out that the Union had the harder victory objective, and the South only needed to fight a defensive war.

Sherman’s army burned everything from atlanta to the coast.

...You are aware that the Union aren’t the only people who burned/ destroyed things right? And you are also aware that the burning of Atlanta wholesale actually wasn’t Sherman’s original plan (or even his plan at all), right? And of course you’re aware that Sherman didn’t in fact burn Savanna Georgia. So, that’s a little misleading.

very little mercy was shown to even civilians in the south by the union forces

Aaaaand this is downright false. Actually, even the wildest Union troops tended to act much, much better than expected in Confederate households and toward Confederate women. If you don’t believe me, I recommend you read diaries of Confederate matrons who were occupied by Union soldiers, or read some literaure collecting these accounts if you don’t want to track them down individually. I recommend When Sherman Marched North from the Sea: Resistance on the Confederate Home Front. That should clear up some of your misconceptions.

where even generals ordered that historical monuments to be vandalized

Not the monuments! Oh the humanity! Still, regardless of whether or not this is accurate (I really don’t know what you’re talking about- it’s general enough to refer to quite a variety of things) destruction of historical monuments is not the same as monumental cruelty to civilian populations. You’re going to need more than just assertions in order to prove that. Sorry.

even after the war the north took great pains to keep the south crippled

I mean, if you want to talk Reconstruction, we can talk Reconstruction. But, I’m not going to make this post even longer by detailing all the ways this statement is wrong when Reconstruction is unrelated to the Civil War and especially unrelated to the legitimacy of the Confederate Secession. Actually, most of your post is irrelevant to that point.

even today the south is still responsible for the bulk of federal funds while hardly having a say in how it’s spent.

...You actually can’t be serious with this. Texas (2), Florida (4) [(which isn’t really the South any more)] Georgia (9), North Carolina (10) and Virginia (12) are the Confederate states in the top 15 of states by GDP. Next is Tennessee and Louisiana at 24 which rounds out the Confederate States in the top 25 of states by GDP. South Carolina is 26, Alabama 27, Arkansas is 34, and Mississippi is 37. So, no. The South is definitely not responsible for the majority of federal funds. I have no idea where that nonsense is coming from. But it’s completely and utterly absurd.

it can be called the war of northern aggression because that is exactly how it went down.

...Except it didn’t. You failed in proving that. Sorry.

it can be called the war between the states because it was

I mean, sure. That’s a term that;s more popular in the South, but it’s not blatantly incorrect like “War of Northern Aggression”, though the framing is a little off. Also, fun fact: It was called “The Great Rebellion” in the Union during the war.

civil war isn’t really accurate because the confederate states of america was a sovereign nation.

...No it wasn’t. Not legally. If the Confederacy won the Civil War, it’s possible that the war would have been seen as the Confederacy’s Revolutionary War, but they lost. The Confederacy had no legal legitimacy and was not recognized by the United States government as a legal nation. It was an area in rebellion. Simply declaring that you are now a sovereign nation doesn’t actually make you a sovereign nation. Just like simply saying you’re divorced doesn’t actually make you divorced. So, seeing as it was a gigantic rebellion the term Civil War suits it quite nicely.

And before you even try the American Revolution argument, the United States was not legitimate prior to the Revolutionary War. The Founding Fathers knew this. That’s part of the reason why signing the Declaration of Independence was so courageous. Victory in the Revolutionary War is what made the United States a legitimate nation. Without that victory, even though the Americans did have legitimate political grievance with the British Empire (as they actually were unrepresented unlike the South) they would not have created a legitimate nation through the Declaration of Independence.

All in all, this was a pretty weak rebuttal. You shifted the goalposts, made assertions without evidence, and got your facts wrong. You’re going to need to do a heck of a lot better if you want to continue the debate. Because this? This was nowhere near good enough. And I think you know that.

#nuance #rebuttal #civil war #war of northern aggression #nonsense #idiocy #history #historical inaccuracy #shifting the goalposts #and failing at it #@uppermandible

9 notes · View notes