One day, Paul, I hope you stop summarising, and tell us what you really mean.
One question- does this history lesson have a point? Perhaps that there are many paths to Hell on Earth?
I was hoping that your discussion of Bavarian history might include Count Rumsford. An 18th-century American exile empowered by the Elector of Bavaria to implement sweeping reforms, Rumsford claimed that most philosophies of government aim to make people virtuous, which will render them happy, but he would first make people happy and that would lead them to virtue.
The story I heard was that he took the local large population of beggars and thieves, gave them work, training, shelter, food and education, and largely succeeding in transforming them into useful citizens. I always wonder if this was a fluke -- he was dealing with early 19th-century Southern Germans, who seemed naturally inclined to orderliness and industry, as well as the docility necessary to cough up the taxes to fund his experiment -- or if his example had useful lessons for future generations.
Paul, I agree with you about the Ludwig von Mises' Institute's approach to the Civil War. To say it was not primarily about slavery is a bit like saying that the English Civil War did not involve the issue of religion. I am afraid that won't wash.
The issue is this: should an individual state, within a federal structure, be allowed to permit the enslavement of some of its people and prevent such people from fleeing to competing jurisdictions? (No). If the answer is no, then the demands by such states that they break away to form their own seperate political entity, with the enslaved folk trapped even more, is intolerable. Lincoln agreed with that viewpoint, a fact that makes me glad, whatever criticisms one can rightfully make about some of the other arguments/actions used by the North in the war. One does not have to be a starry-eyed defender of Lincoln to look with considerable scepticism on the arguments sometimes given by the Confederates.
Jonathan, first of all agree with you that the Civil War had to be fought and the slaves had to be freed. Now a question to anyone interested:
The issue is this: should an individual state, within a federal structure, be allowed to permit the enslavement of some of its people and prevent such people from fleeing to competing jurisdictions? (No). If the answer is no, then the demands by such states that they break away to form their own seperate political entity, with the enslaved folk trapped even more, is intolerable.Would it have to be seen differently if the South was not part of the Union to begin with? Should the North in that case have been indifferent towards state-sanctioned slavery just south of their border? Would this situation be fundamentally morally different? The US fought and defeated Nazi Germany, it occupied it in part to keep the Nazis or their likes from returning to power, but it didn't annex Germany - was it only due to geographical constraints? In short I wonder if it was possible to let the South break away after the slavery-supporting elements within it have been defeated. Paul, has anything like this ever been discussed at that time?
Salmon P. Chase was the "slaves lawyer" before the Civil War (and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court after it) and he held that "slavery" was a series of crimes - unlawful imprisonment and assault being two of them.
Whether any State has the right to "legalize" such crimes via the "institution of slavery" is a big point - I say NO.
As for whether a State has the right to "reclaim its freedom" - sure it does (I support the right of secession), as soon as it allows the people in the State to "reclaim their freedom".
By the way - Chase as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court convicted himself (in his prior capacity as Treasury Sec) for breaching the U.S. Constitution by issuing fiat money "Greenbacks" during the Civil War (the Congress having the power to "coin money" not return to the "not worth a Continental" fiat currency of the Revolutanary - and only gold or silver coin may be legal tender in any State).
Bavarian reformers - I DID mention that in the early 1800's Bavaria was dominated by reformers. I did not write about them much (or about 18th century reformers) because I was writing about how Bavarian history has diverged from Anglo-American history over the last one and half centuries (not how it was once much the same). Although the ultra reformers in Bavaria (with their dreams of destroying traditional religion and getting rid of private property) were dealt a heavy blow in the 1770's in Bavaria - where the Illuminati lost (and lost big).
By the way - before anyone mentions it, I do know that Doc Holliday got his medical training in Philadelphia not Boston, and was a man from Georgia (not that this means much - "Texas Jack" was from Virginia, and he sided with the Earps).
By the way to the revisionists ("the Earps were the bad guys they were trying to enforce gun control in Tombstone and ......") please avoid going into a time machine and meeting people like Curly Bill (Clanton enforcer and previously a servant of the Dolan- Murphy machine in the Lincoln County war in New Mexico) or Johny Ringo.
However, if you do come upon Johny Ringo make sure you are armed and never turn your back on him - there is no recorded case of Johny Ringo shooting an armed man (not in the front anyway). Like many of the "Cowboy" gang Ringo had a yellow streak a mile wide.
If anyone feels like disputing the yellow streak nature of the "Cowboys" (those proud liberators of other peoples cattle - whose defenders used to claim "they only stole cattle from Mexicans and they only had fun with Mexican women" before it became a bit un P.C. to make that "defence") then read up on how Virgil Earp became a cripple, and how Morgan Earp died.
"You did not tell us what the political and cultural consequences for Bavaria of its different history".
Well I did put in a question mark in my bit of typing (it got lost in the wash), but actually I want to leave that to other people to tell me.
I suppose I should point out that Dizzy's Act of 1867 did not restore the vote to all the "pot wallopers" (just those over a certain position in life - owning or renting houses that only a skilled working could afford).
There was no "system" before 1832 (at least as regards the towns - the county vote was a standard). In some towns (such as Preston) any man who had a fire and pot to bang on it (hence "pot walloper") had the vote - in other towns far fewer did.
It was a matter of the querks and chances of history - much as there is no American "health system" now (every time use the word "system" about American health care it sets my teeth on edge - because it is just the wrong word to use). This does not mean that the mess of subsides and regulations in the United States is a good thing (far from it) - but a "health system" will be even worse.
As for Bavaria - O.K. I will "spill the beans" on my hopes.
I hope that Bavaria will be part of what the Pope (and others) call the "saving remanent" - i.e. that some memory of civilization (of Western culture) will be remembered there as things fall apart in the West (as seems likely).
Of course I hope that a new Dark Age will not come - but it may well.
As for whether Bavaria's different history over the last one and half centuries will mean that it can be part of a "saving remanent" - I do not know enough to judge (I hope others do).
But it would be nice to think that some memory (some tradition) of the West would remain even in a future world mostly given over to horror.
As for Britain - here people can not even remember the rhymes that once every child knew. This is a land without hope.
Golly, this "comments" part is better than most of the better blogs !. Thank you, one and all.
Conventional thinking is a contradiction in terms.
Idealism is the seed from which disenchantment grows.
Trust is a four letter word, spelled with five, to trick us.
To understand the Earps, "Ned Buntline" was a pen name, of an interesting fellow, who wrote fiction, and, often lived it.
Aside: There was once a story about the actor, Hugh O'Brien, having shot himself in the tush while demonstrating his facility with a revolver. Disappeared.
Once knew a Cherokee, who was a police firearms instructor. "They're all a bunch of cowboys" he said.
Since I live in the home "town" where the police invented the "cop killer blank" and "sem-auto underload", I've no doubt he was right.
Johnathan,
Not far from where I live there is a museum that was a station on the underground railroad. Fugitive slaves would arrive hidden in wagons of grain or other goods and they would be concealed in an underground tunnel until they could continue to the next hiding place on their way out of the United States.
Why? Wisconsin was not a slave state. Answer, The Fugitive Slave Act. The National government was not necessary to end slavery precisely because it was necessary to preserve it. Were it not for those enlightened politicians (never let a crisis go to waste?) there would not have been a crisis to fix. Those slave states would have held slaves like a colander holds water. Creating a crisis that they can 'fix' it is not unique to this current government.
As for Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation specifically did not free slaves in the four non-seceding slave states and those under Union army control.
The states affected were enumerated in the proclamation; specifically exempted were slaves in parts of the South then held by Union armies. Lincoln's issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation marked a radical change in his policy; historians regard it as one of the great state documents of the United States.
Lincoln had been reluctant to come to this position. He initially viewed the war only in terms of preserving the Union. As pressure for abolition mounted in Congress and the country, however, Lincoln became more sympathetic to the idea. On Sept. 22, 1862, he issued a preliminary proclamation announcing that emancipation would become effective on Jan. 1, 1863, in those states still in rebellion.
Which could be interpreted to say that Lincoln was interested only in forming a single nation and didn't cave on slavery until he was losing support for the unification war. There is a huge and ongoing effort to make Lincoln a hero but count me among the skeptics.
The American Civil War was about slavery in the same way that the Copenhagen treaty is about the environment and the stimulus is about saving the economy. Which is to say that it was a means to an end very different than the one that was publicly claimed.
Interesting piece, though I have to take issue with your comment that "it was just wrong (of Roosevelt/Truman) not to defeat the Communists as well - when America had the chance".
There was no chance. The American people wouldn't have sanctioned war with the USSR.
Mid nails it on the slavery issue. What he didn't address, in response to Johnathan's earlier post, was the "compact theory of government" issue. Remember, the United States was formed, not as a unitary nation, but as a coalition of 13 sovereign states. The original Articles of Confederation, and later the Constitution, spelled out exactly the limits of federal power. It was a partnership, a union of convenience to collectively manage issues of larger importance such as national defense. Implicit in such a union (and, indeed, explicit in a number of the states' ratifying resolutions) was the concept that any party unhappy with the arrangement could withdraw from it. The national government is a compact among the states, not an irrevocable merger of their political sovereignties. There is little doubt that such was the intent of the framers, but that is precisely what Lincoln abrogated.
Regardless of the evils of slavery (which no one today disputes) or its role as the proximate cause of the Civil War, the fact remains that the Confederate states had the legal and moral right to withdraw from a political union which, in their view, no longer served their interests. They were prevented from doing so by overwhelming military force.
Those of you on this site who argue the the UK should withdraw from the EU should bear this cautionary tale in mind. Two points to take from it: (1) Isn't that your theory: that the EU "constitution" (or whatever you call it) is a "compact" from which the participating nations can withdraw at pleasure? (If so, don't denigrate the Confederate states' attempt to use that same theory 150 years ago.) (2) If you allow Brussels 70 years to consolidate its power do you really think you'll ever be allowed to leave without a bloddy war of your own?
Even as late as 1929 the Federal government took up about 3% of the economy - so I have a problem with the legend that Republicans like Lincoln created a massive government (after the Civil War - there was a massive government during the war).
Yes the Republicans (especially ones that were Clay Whigs as Lincoln was) had big problems with them - but they were not modern mega government types.
It is like saying that because the Morgans were in favour of the Federal Reserve they would have supported the modern state - they did not, which is why the New Dealers destroyed the House of Morgan (the G.S. Act was basically a Bill of Attainder - as the main bank that was both retail and investment was the bank of the Morgans).
"If you give the government your hand it will take your arm" - yes I accept that, the Morgans were fools (and, yes, wicked fools) to support the creation of the Federal Reserve system (hoping to profit from it) - but they did not intend the modern state to come to pass, and neither did the other Republicans (I would still have been a "Bourbon" Democrat though - as the Canadian J.J. Hill was).
Secession - well Greenland has already left the E.U. (a little thing that hardly anyone has noticed - yet it sets an interesting precident).
America in 1861.
"I President of the United States do note with great regret the leaving of various States from the Union - of course now the futigive slave law is now null and void as these places are not longer States of the Union".
Let us see the South try to fortfy and keep people in a border that went through forests and mountains and planis and fields for thousands of miles - and all with 1861 tech.
Yes Laird and Mid are correct - the Civil War was not needed to break the back of slavery (and nationalism was mixed up in it).
Although that does not alter the fact that the Civil War did not need to be the horror fest it was (600, 000 dead and so on).
With Lincoln's overwhelming advantages he should have won that war with far less horror - he did not because of one brutal fact.
Not the genius of Robert E. Lee or whatever (although Lee and others were good soldiers).
There was so much horror because Lincoln simply was not much good as a war leader (he was in a different league to someone like Bismark - a lower league) - he made a mess of things time and time again, by his appointments and by a lot of other stuff.
Of course as Lincoln has been turned into a little plaster saint, one can not publically say the above without being shouted down.
By the way Midwesterner - I once met a very good reenactment society based on a Wisconsin Regiment.
Their tech level (the rifles the soldiers bought privately - and so on) and the different tactics that their better equipment allowed them to use, put them on a different level to a Confederate regiment (when the Confederates even had such things as boots or ammunition).
No disrespect meant to the Confederate soldiers - but regiments like that Wisconsin one could just shoot them to bits (even if it was equal numbers - and the Union had vastly more men). Historians and Confederate reenactors (often reenactors are good historians themselves) have said the same thing.
That the war lasted so long and contained so many Union defeats was an outrage from a military point of view.
Paul, if you haven't happened to read it yet, I highly recommend Reveille in Washington by Margaret Leech. I knew of but never really understood the spectacular f_-up that was the Union campaign during the war until I read this book. After reading it the incompetence seemed not only plausible but inevitable. I rate the book a 'must read' for anyone interested in the American Civil War. If you've read it already, I am curious what you think of it.
I have not read the work - I may well do so.
However, I do know that if one's advantage is firepower (not just in infantry fire - but also in artillery) one has to "train, train and then train some more" to make that advantage effective.
Even after Gettysburg, General Meade (a good commander - but underrated due to his never having written memoirs gloryfying himself) found hundred of Union rifles messed up - because the men did not know how to use them effectively.
Not just weapons training - one also needs extensive tactical training. And all this time spent training is not "wasted" as one is using the time to build up the legistical side of the war. Without ways of moving stuff (as well as people) to where one needs it, all the tactics in the world are a waste of time.
Instead there was endless "why are you not in Richmond yet" nonsense from the politicians (including Lincoln).
Defend, defend, defend - strangle the south simply by being all round it (blockage at sea and counter any move they make to invade the Union States) - only when ready does one move to the attack.
Less haste - more speed.
"Hidesight" - not at all, some Union top brass said all the above at the start of the war.
Well, so where is Bavaria now?
It is still a part of Germany, where the federal government has stripped the states of virtually all authority. While there has been some shuffling in 2006 ("federalism reform"), German states are much less autonomous than US states.
Southern, catholic-ish, conservative states can elect conservative/liberal governments all they want: at the federal level there will have to be compromises with the northern, protestant-ish, progressive, less prosperous but more numerous states.
Even so, calling Bavaria's ruling government "conservative" is a big stretch. PM Horst Seehofer is rightly known as a "Sacred Heart socialist". He would get on just fine with the late Sen. Ted Kennedy... tradition matters little when progressivism can take up the mantle of christian democracy so easily.
I would like to be able to argue with you lukas - but I can only dispute DETAILS (not the basic thrust of your comment). For example, I could say that comparing H.S. to Edward Kennedy is going too far - and I could point out that the Christain Democrats in Baden-Wurttemburg include many Protestants as well as Catholics.
However, you would (quite rightly) point out that I am just disputing details - the true horror of the modern world (the comming doom) remains.
Alas!
OK, so I probably did go to far in assimilating Seehofer to Kennedy. But I would ask you to note that he did promote a book written by none other than the leader of the populist hard left, Oskar Lafontaine. He might not be as socially liberal as Kennedy, but on economic issues the two are fairly close to each other.
And yes, Germany's north-south divide goes beyond religious issues (hence the "-ish"). Still religion is one of its defining components.
I'm not giving up all hope yet, though. Bavaria can survive without Berlin, but Berlin is lost without Bavaria. That alone is enough to keep Bavarian separatism alive and well.
Agreed lukas.
Of course one thing to watch is Bavarian schools.
In the past the left have been very unsuccessful in controlling Bavarian education - but government financed education is very vulnerable (very vulnerable indeed) to leftist control via both teacher training and administrative influence.
With "nonreactionaries" in charge of the CSU and the CSU being in a coalition anyway, the chances of more and more leftist control of education (and hence having influence over the minds and attitudes of the next gereration) grow.