What wars in U.S. history have been just wars in your opinion?

[Atreus21]

The thing is, it's ahistorical to say that the Civil War was fought over slavery. It wasn't.

It was 'an issue' inreasingly between the North and the South, but slavery alone would not have led to the war IMO. It was an 'issue of convenience' since there was a war.

You can start with Lincoln's own statements that 'if he could preserve the union and end slavery, he'd do that; and if he could preserve the union and not end slavery, he'd do that.'

You can go on to Lincoln's longtime dream being to ship all blacks back to Africa; and that his moderated goal after that was to end slavery by the end of the century.

We like to find moral justifications for wars for all the killing, and so the war 'becomes' the urgent war to end slavery, that just couldn't because slavery was so bad.

But it wasn't that war.

That the seceding states were all slave states rebelling in reaction to the election of Lincoln, who had campaigned against the expansion of slavery to non-slave states, is very telling. Slavery may not have been the sole reason for war, but to entirely discredit it as a reason, in light of these facts as well as the Emancipation Proclamation, is a mistake.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I disagree. Self defense and the defense of others against unjust brutality are just causes for war. The actual determination of whether a given action is "just" may not be determined until considered by history, after the fact, but that does not change the fact that there are "just" causes for going to war.

Our entry into WW II was just and right. We were attacked by a nation who had already shown their imperialistic intentions throughout the Asia and the Pacific. Hitler's attrocities were already known, and he declared war on the U.S. the day after Pearl Harbor. In both cases, we didn't have a choice. War came to us, not the other way around.

Going after Milosovic in Yugoslavia/Serbia to stop his genocidal reign of ethnic cleansing was similarly just. That action was taken under a decision by the United Nations. It was not a unilateral action by the United States.

Yes, but you are only speaking of the justness of our involvement and in the examples you list I agree. The US was justified in the actions they took in our defense during WWII and in defense of our allies in the Serbian conflict. But that doesn't make them "just wars" IMO, where these wars started on just grounds?

Matter of semantics I suppose

 

[nageov3t]

Quite true. Slavery is a great way of wealth concentration but a lousy form of wealth creation because slaves will work only as hard as they absolutely have to work - why worker harder since there's little or no personal gain and you're only enriching your own persecutor? Here in East Tennessee we were union, because farms were small and the ground tends to be poor and thus slavery made no economic sense. Conversely in Middle and West Tennessee the land is flatter, farms were bigger, and slavery made more economic sense, so they were Confederate. Financial gain is, as always, a great incentive to do evil.

Imagine the ruin if the South had won though. As you said, slavery was doomed anyway, but could have lingered for decades more. World War One would probably have seen no American forces, and perhaps even split forces, one side fighting with Germany and the Central Powers. World War Two might well never have happened, but if so it might well have seen Americans fighting Americans as well; ethnic Germans being numerous in Northern states and Nazi classifications of levels of humanity appealing to the Southern bigotry, it's not hard to imagine one side or the other joining the Axis Powers. At the very least large numbers of American troops would have been retained at home to guard against the "other" America. By the North holding on until its economic strength built up its war machine, not only American but the whole world was blessed.

I read a pretty interesting alternate history book based on the idea that the north lost the civil war... the end result was no one to stop Japanese expansion in the Pacific and Germany inventing the a-bomb (and subsequently dropping it on London and Paris). no significant US involvement in WW1 led to no Treaty of Versailles which led to no Hitler which meant that all the German scientists who fled Germany to the US never left.

 

[feralkid]

I read a pretty interesting alternate history book based on the idea that the north lost the civil war... the end result was no one to stop Japanese expansion in the Pacific and Germany inventing the a-bomb (and subsequently dropping it on London and Paris). no significant US involvement in WW1 led to no Treaty of Versailles which led to no Hitler which meant that all the German scientists who fled Germany to the US never left.

That crap rots your brain.

 

[Craig234]

That the seceding states were all slave states rebelling in reaction to the election of Lincoln, who had campaigned against the expansion of slavery to non-slave states, is very telling. Slavery may not have been the sole reason for war, but to entirely discredit it as a reason, in light of these facts as well as the Emancipation Proclamation, is a mistake.

The South had its own culture, own identity, going back to the Constitution's creation, and that lasts to this day. Look at the votes on the Civil Rights Bill for just one example.

Slavery should not be overstated - it was an issue but not one either side would go to war over - nor understated - it was an ongoing source of political conflict, and it did play a role in the identity of states with the south, so as new states were added, if they were made slave states or free states helped push them to which 'side' they'd be closer to.

It was more about power - especially the 'tyranny of the majority' where the majority north was abusive to the minority south to the point the south had that opinion that they might be a large minority but that has zero power in a 'majority vote takes all' system. The tussles over new states being slave or not was a reflection of the bigger power struggle.

The election of Lincolm was a trigger for war because it seemed to end 'power sharing' between the north and south, more than slavery.

Slavery was crucial to the South's economy at that time, and that was important, but its end was not imminent with Lincoln's election.

IMO, it had more to do with the South's view that it had no representation in the federal government and should do the same thing our founding fathers did when the colonies felt they had no real representation in England.

Remember, my point was that the Civil War was not a war fought because 'slavery was too big a wrong to wait longer to fix'.

 

[Atreus21]

The South had its own culture, own identity, going back to the Constitution's creation, and that lasts to this day. Look at the votes on the Civil Rights Bill for just one example.

Slavery should not be overstated - it was an issue but not one either side would go to war over - nor understated - it was an ongoing source of political conflict, and it did play a role in the identity of states with the south, so as new states were added, if they were made slave states or free states helped push them to which 'side' they'd be closer to.

It was more about power - especially the 'tyranny of the majority' where the majority north was abusive to the minority south to the point the south had that opinion that they might be a large minority but that has zero power in a 'majority vote takes all' system. The tussles over new states being slave or not was a reflection of the bigger power struggle.

The election of Lincolm was a trigger for war because it seemed to end 'power sharing' between the north and south, more than slavery.

Slavery was crucial to the South's economy at that time, and that was important, but its end was not imminent with Lincoln's election.

IMO, it had more to do with the South's view that it had no representation in the federal government and should do the same thing our founding fathers did when the colonies felt they had no real representation in England.

Remember, my point was that the Civil War was not a war fought because 'slavery was too big a wrong to wait longer to fix'.

*shrugs*

Well, one way or another, it brought about the end of slavery. Whether or not that was the original intention...well I think you can make a case either way.

The Lord works in mysterious ways. We can either do his work willingly as messengers, or unwillingly as tools, but his will is done.

 

[werepossum]

I read a pretty interesting alternate history book based on the idea that the north lost the civil war... the end result was no one to stop Japanese expansion in the Pacific and Germany inventing the a-bomb (and subsequently dropping it on London and Paris). no significant US involvement in WW1 led to no Treaty of Versailles which led to no Hitler which meant that all the German scientists who fled Germany to the US never left.

Quite possible.

 

[Anarchist420]

The Civil War was over Tarriffs. Lincoln makes that apparent in his first inaugural address. If the northerners really cared about the slaves, they would've handed over cash for the slaves and set them free.

 

[nageov3t]

That crap rots your brain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline-191

pure potboilers, but they were still enjoyable reads.

 

[werepossum]

The Civil War was over Tarriffs. Lincoln makes that apparent in his first inaugural address. If the northerners really cared about the slaves, they would've handed over cash for the slaves and set them free.

Perhaps, but arguably one has an obligation to end evil without necessarily rewarding those doing it.

 

[Fern]

If you're the one being attacked, and you haven't aggressed against anyone else, it's not that much of a question, is it?

Nope (and I'd say that whether or not you aggressed against anyone else).

Fern

 

[LumbergTech]

That the seceding states were all slave states rebelling in reaction to the election of Lincoln, who had campaigned against the expansion of slavery to non-slave states, is very telling. Slavery may not have been the sole reason for war, but to entirely discredit it as a reason, in light of these facts as well as the Emancipation Proclamation, is a mistake.

You should do some research on the Emancipation Proclamation....Its not all sweet and rosy as we have been led to believe.

 

[Mxylplyx]

You are 15-17 years old, live at home, and think you understand the world better than your parents. You stay up just about every night until 12-1 AM wasting time on the internet. You think you are better than your peers because they go about their happy day-to-day lives without realizing the deep, dark truths of the world that you have uncovered in the last 2 years while reading obscure blogs and sneaking schnapps from your parent's bar. On the weekends you go out and probably try to get people to buy you beer, then you play Xbox at your friend's house who's parents don't care enough to come check on your guys in the basement. You will go to a mid-range state school and major in liberal arts, after which you will work at Starbucks for several years until you have an epiphany and realize that you wasted most of your childhood years doing the above.

Am I in the ballpark?

The whole time reading that, I imagined Brad Pitt saying it in his fight club voice.