Originally posted by Ned
From the South's point of view, the Civil War was a complete catastrophe. Their civilization and way of life were extinguished.
More than 500,000 Americans lost their lives, and tens of thousands more were maimed and crippled. As well, the property damage in the South was tremendous.
This is one of those wars that should have been avoided. There had to be a solution to the problems of states rights and slavery that would have acceptable to all. The referee, of course, was the Supreme Court. I am only surprised that the South chose to the fight on the battlefield rather than in the Supreme Court, where, as you say, they were doing quite well.
We have discussed here in other threads that it a just war requires more than a just cause. It requires the party initiating the hostilities have a very good chance of winning. I would think that it was obvious that the South had no realistic chance to win an armed conflict with the North. Thus it seems to me they should have been trying to avoid conflict at all costs. This is why I find it hard to believe that they never even tried resolving this disputes in the Supreme Court.
From the South's point of view, the Civil War was a complete catastrophe. Their civilization and way of life were extinguished.
More than 500,000 Americans lost their lives, and tens of thousands more were maimed and crippled. As well, the property damage in the South was tremendous.
This is one of those wars that should have been avoided. There had to be a solution to the problems of states rights and slavery that would have acceptable to all. The referee, of course, was the Supreme Court. I am only surprised that the South chose to the fight on the battlefield rather than in the Supreme Court, where, as you say, they were doing quite well.
We have discussed here in other threads that it a just war requires more than a just cause. It requires the party initiating the hostilities have a very good chance of winning. I would think that it was obvious that the South had no realistic chance to win an armed conflict with the North. Thus it seems to me they should have been trying to avoid conflict at all costs. This is why I find it hard to believe that they never even tried resolving this disputes in the Supreme Court.
The best solution to the slavery question would have been for the Federalist north to allow the society in the south to evolve naturally rather than to impose its will on sovereign states. The Northern claim to the moral high ground must be viewed with a grain of salt. The North allowed and even participated in slavery for many years and had little to lose economically by its abolition. Slavery's deep roots stretched world wide and existed for thousands of years before the North determined to use violence to abolish an institution that any sane man knew was dying by stages.
As to the issue as to whether the South had a realistic chance to safeguard its independance against Federal agression, of course there was a realistic chance. The fact that it took five years and the death of one half millon to resolve the conflict is confirming evidence.
A just war is not determined by the chance of victory or defeat. To fight for freedom even in the face of insurmountable odds is not merely just, but an example of the utimate nobility of the human soul.
Comment