The Civil War

[nsacpi]

As do I. I point you to the Marshall Plan and other foreign aid handed out after WWII along with other coordinated attempts to make allies out of former enemies.

I point you to Germany after WWI as a data point to. Draconian punishment led to resentment that festered.

I agree that the Marshall plan and other forms of assistance were important. But so was the docility of the German and Japanese populations after World War II. The magnitude of the psychological impact of the devastation suffered by them was very important in turning them in a new direction. You can only understand the change in thinking by reading memoirs (and interestingly enough works of fiction) of the people who went through the last phases of World War II in Germany and Japan.

 

[striker42]

I agree that the Marshall plan and other forms of assistance were important. But so was the docility of the German and Japanese populations after World War II. The magnitude of the psychological impact of the devastation suffered by them was very important in turning them in a new direction. You can only understand the change in thinking by reading memoirs (and interestingly enough works of fiction) of the people who went through the last phases of World War II in Germany and Japan.

I don't think bombing Dresden was necessary to achieve the docility. Half a decade where your country is fully dedicated to war and the loss of an entire generation of young men will make any country sick of fighting. By the end of WWII there was hardly a family in Germany that hadn't lost someone in the fighting (and I mean someone who was in the armed forces). The same again was true of the US at the end of the Civil War.

Targeting civilian populations isn't necessary to achieve tractability. When the military can no longer fight and a side is defeated, the fatigue of the long conflict will open the door to reconciliation. Take out Dresden and the years of fighting and death still result in a Germany that's sick of war. Take out Sherman's burning of homes and crops and you still have a South that knows it's defeated and is ready for the bloodshed to end.

 

[The Tariff King]

I've lived in the South my entire life, and one thing I'll never understand is this.


Why did conservatives freak out when kaepernick was kneeling and protesting "the flag", but don't get offended and freak out at **** like this?

 

[Runnin]

I've lived in the South my entire life, and one thing I'll never understand is this.


Why did conservatives freak out when kaepernick was kneeling and protesting "the flag", but don't get offended and freak out at **** like this?

Because conservatism itself is driven by the fear of racial integration and deep seated notions of white supremacy/racism/white tribalism, etc. It all comes from the same inter-connected view of the world.

 

[striker42]

Going past the flag stuff (as this isn't what this tread is about), I'd like to pose another question that is implicates the Lost Cause.

What was the Civil War fought over?

Lost Cause adherents would reflexively say "States Rights". On the other side would be the immediate response of "Slavery". Personally, I think anyone who can explain the cause of Civil War in on or two words is vastly simplifying it.

The analogy I use is divorce. Slavery was the cause of the Civil War in the way that money is the cause of many divorces. Money problems are at the heart of may marital fights, they cause stress, and strain the relationship. But to say a divorce is over money is simplifying it. While money may be at the core of the fights and stress, those things cause their own damage. Loss of trust, hurtful things said, etc. Eventually the bad blood that's created snowballs with even the most insignificant things causing tremendous irritation. Until finally the marriage falls apart.

I think the same is true with the Civil War. Slavery was as the root of so many political fights between the North and South. Over the decades it caused damage to the relationship. Trust eroded, offenses were taken, etc. Bad blood formed and the resentment spread to other areas. Eventually the relationship itself was too poisoned to survive.

I don't think a fight over slavery alone would have broken up the Union. History demonstrated many times that such disputes could be resolved. Only once the relationship was so strained and trust so nonexistent that compromise became impossible could fights over slavery break the Union.