this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2025
185 points (96.5% liked)

History Memes

3267 readers
1242 users here now

A place to share history memes!

Rules:

  1. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.

  2. No fascism, atrocity denial or apologia, etc.

  3. Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.

  4. Follow all Lemmy.world rules.

Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Ultimately the strong rule over the weak but even then it was considered in bad taste to do so without layering some abstract moral principles on top first.


I actually do believe in moral principles despite being facetious, and I think opposition to slavery is a very powerful principle. I'm a lot less impressed by preserving the union. Frankly I don't understand how it motivated ordinary northerners to fight. If they weren't abolitionists then why did they care whether or not the southern states seceded?

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The preservation of the Union was powerful for several reasons:

  1. This was at the height of 19th century nationalism - the sense of the 'nation' as a singular 'tribe' was an emotive call. To hear that others would turn against your 'tribe' and take what it, and your family, had spent generations building, was a very deep and real offense. There is a sense that this 'national project' falling apart entirely would render meaningless generations of work and idealism and sacrifice.

  2. There was a serious suspicion that allowing secession would mean the complete dissolution of the Union. I don't remember if it was Grant or Sherman who said it, but one of those two generals noted that allowing secession would ultimately reap the reward of total national chaos, a la Mexico (which had been having civil wars and insurrections like they were going out of style).

  3. The fact that secessions was quite explicitly due to the fact that a democratic election didn't go the Southerners' way was deeply offensive to democratic and republican norms of Americans at the time; and the fact that many secession votes were held under armed guard by secessionist militias was, furthermore, an additional offense that gave a very real sense that the plantation class was dragooning the South into a war for the plantation class's interests. Not coincidentally, this was largely the view of Southern Appalachia, where slaver power was weak, and Unionist guerillas were widespread.

Also, I'd like to note that a great many volunteers for the Union were ardent abolitionists even at the start, and that abolitionist sentiment actually became significantly stronger as the war wore on. There's a really great letter from an enlisted Maine boy at the start of the war I like to bring up:

What a splendid cause is this on which we are engaged. I think it is the grandest that ever enlisted the sympathies of man. Nobler even than the Revolution for they fought for their freedom while we fight for that of another race. I firmly believe that the doom of slavery is fixed and if it is not wholly rooted out by the present war, measures will be taken to wipe it out forever. If such an event can be consummated by any sacrifice of mine, it shall be cheerfully made. I could die for this as readily as I could lie down to rest at the close of a day of wearisome toil. Men have called this age dull. They can do so no more ... War is bad, heaven knows, but slavery is far worse. If the doom of slavery is not sealed by the war, I shall curse the day I entered the Army, or lifted a finger in the preservation of the Union. Of the old Union we have had enough and more than enough.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

It's strange to compare the sentiment you describe in section 1 to what I feel in the present day. I'm interested in the well-being of the USA, because I live here, because I have a lot to be grateful for, and because I believe in (what I consider) the American ideal. But I'm also acutely aware that there are many people very different from me in this country. People who don't want the same things as I do; people who wouldn't like me; people whom I wouldn't like. If they wanted to secede, I wouldn't be shocked. I might even support them in the unlikely circumstances where their plan was workable in practice. Am I just unusually receptive to that sort of thing (I lean libertarian so I tend to sympathize with people who insist on doing things their own way) or am I part of a broader post-nationalist movement?

(Off topic but funny, IMO: When someone joked about seceding after an election didn't turn out the way that most people in our region wanted, a friend of mine replied that rather than seceding from the union, we should secede the union from us. We would stay the USA and former rest of the country would have to find some new identity.)

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

(Off topic but funny, IMO: When someone joked about seceding after an election didn’t turn out the way that most people in our region wanted, a friend of mine replied that rather than seceding from the union, we should secede the union from us. We would stay the USA and former rest of the country would have to find some new identity.)

I've had that thought myself tbqh