We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Alternate histories David Friedman has a thought-provoking item up on whether politicians in the 1850s would have acted differently had they known of the carnage that was to be caused by the US Civil War of the following decade. He runs some interesting scenarios.
Counter-factual history is a genre in fiction, of course. I remember Philip Chaston wrote about this issue some time ago. Sean Gabb, one of the current leaders of the Libertarian Alliance, has thoughts related to this about the Second World War (as readers may recall, I find his revisionist perspective unconvincing, as does Patrick Crozier).
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Come on! It is mathematically provable that most of the pension and social security schemes in the West are unsustainable Ponzi schemes — destined to fail with dire consequences. Yet our politicians do nothing to avert this perfectly predictable coming disaster.
Is there any evidence that politicians would change their behavior about any other matter either, even if they knew what the consequences would be?
The comments to David Friedman’s piece are really good.
Alice, I am not sure your comparison to social security etc. holds good. Many, perhaps most, people do not understand money or numbers and hence do not understand why social security is a Ponzi scheme or why a Ponzi scheme is unsustainable.
In contrast “600,000 people will die” is something everyone understands.
That said, Friedman and commenters put forward some good arguments as to why his initial scenario (which was more science-fictional than JP’s paraphrase suggests) might not result in the war being prevented even if the prediction were believed.
There are always more than one way to skin a cat. In the Civil War scenario, nobody (except me) suggests the obvious: assassinate General Lee and some other excellent rebel officers and promote General Grant faster.
And the converse, from the Southern side: assassinate Grant (or Lincoln earlier, perhaps even prior to the 1860 election).
Not exactly related,
But one of my favorite bits, is how a number of people, on the net, call me old, even though I’m not, I’m actually rather young, but I have a small understanding of history, and I always take an iconoclastic role, for the purpose of humor.
Anyways “the bit” is based on the understanding, that others have built, that I’m some sort of old school general/military historian, and I ALWAYS refer to The Civil War, as “The War of Northern Aggression.” Even though my ancestors hadn’t landed on American shores till more than 40 years later (in all but one case)
But Apparently, according to everyone I interact with, I have only been on the “right side” once, in Afghanistan, even though I never served in war in reality, but the joke is that I have taken part in every war in history, on the wrong side.
Doesn’t look quite as funny as I type it that way. Hrm, guess I have to work on relating “had to be there” stories.
How about an alternate history in which George Soros gets caught in occupied europe as a jew and sent to the concentration camps, never to emerge?
There would be some significant late 20th century, and early 21st century events that would never come to pass, including the election of Barack Obama, Moveon.org would remain a little known left wing pressure group, Fenton Communications would fail, and the scam that is global warming would have long since been debunked.
@Douglas: Well, it wasn’t a Civil War properly so called: the Confederacy wanted to leave the Union, not control it. That said, referring to Northern Aggression is loaded, and possibly inaccurate (who shot first at Fort Sumter, again?)
Once, in Geneva, I saw a historical plaque mentioning that here was the place that the UK and the USA settled their last differences* arising out of “la Guerre Secessionale.” “The War of the Secession” strikes me as the best way to describe it.
*i.e. the Trent Affair
The Trent Affair was the _first_ difference the US and UK had _during_ the War. The last was the US claim against the UK for allowing the CSA to use British ships and crews as privateers against American ships.
These “Alabama Claims” were resolved by a tribunal which sat in the “Salle de l’Alabama” (as it was thereafter known) in the Town Hall of Geneva. The UK paid $15.5M.
xj – what you say is the mainstream view, but it can be challenged.
For example, the invasion of Kentucky – BY THE CONFEDERATES.
Kentucky was supposed to join the Confederacy (there was even a star on the battle flag for it – 11 States tried to leave the Union, but there are 13 stars on that flag, Maryland was the other one they were expecting). However, the State government of Kentucky did not leave the Union – so the Confederates sent in troops to “protect” Kentucky.
In response the Commonwealth of Kentucky declared formally for the Union. Yes “Redneck versus Redneck”.
What is now West Virginia also rose against the Confederacy – the mountain men of West Virginia had the “ignorant” notion that the war was about slavery (they did not have Murry Rothbard and co to tell them what it was “really” about) and they did not hold with slavery.
People as far south as the Mississippi hill country felt the same (several counties rose against the slave owner dominated government).
Also what were Confederate troops doing invading places like Colorado? Oh yes they did – although it seems to have gone down the memory hole.
As for what the Union should have done:
Not Grant – he was O.K. but most Generals can win when they have all the advantages on their side (I say “most”, as there are some who can not).
After Lee turned down the offer of the command of the Union Army it should have been offered to…….
General George Thomas of Virginia – one of the best Union Generals (who most people have never heard of). Then it would have been clear to anyone that the war was not one of Northern aggression.
Of course it would also have been better if Lincoln had NOT been President.
If the Republicans had selected Salmon P. Chase in 1860 there would have been no room for the “he is a Henry Clay Whig – the war is about taxes on imports, and internal improvements” case.
One would not have needed access to the Confederate records in Richmond (not all of which burned) to know that “freedom” was the last thing people like Jefferson Davis wanted, the Confederates not only dreamed of a great Latin American empire, they also imposed taxes and regulations (including trade regulations) on civil society at a level even Lincoln did not consider.
The whole of the history of this period has been distorted by an unholy alliance.
On one side we have Rothbardian libertarians – totally committed to the view that Uncle Sam is always wrong. Whoever is fighting against the United States (even Adolf Hitler or the Communists in Vietnam) MUST be correct (by definition – it is a priori history and politics).
So no suprise that the Rothbardians grab anything bad about the Union side (and there was a lot of bad in Lincoln’s side) and IGNORE the bad in the Confederate side.
Make no mistake – I AGREE that Washington D.C. is vast bloated government, and I would SUPPORT any State that tried to leave the Union in order to gain greater freedom.
But this is 2010 – to claim that the Federal government was vast in 1860 is BULLSHIT.
And to claim that Jefferson Davis and co were not racist slave owners who could not care less about freedom (and I mean freedom for white people as well as black) is BULLSHIT as well.
However, the Rothbardians did not make up the history they follow – they are not guilty of that.
They are tapping into a much older tradition.
A tradition that goes back to, among others, President Woodrow Wilson (a total shit in every way – as his early book “The State” shows).
Now Wilson wrote the main academic history of the United States – he did NOT support secession (indeed he supported ever greater power in Washington D.C.), but he was a racist to his core (for example he introduced a lot of the segregation into government service).
See what is comming?
Yes – the Civil War could not really about slavery and black rights (as if black people could have equal rights in the mind of a man like Wilson) it had to be about something else.
So it became a “reactionary” revolt against the forces of ever bigger government, “progressive” forces.
The Rothbardians (whether they know it or not) are not revisionists at all – they are just following Wilson’s FALSE (but mainstream academic) view of history.
The only difference is that what Wilson thought was good (what he pretended had been the Union cause in 1861 – but what actually he himself was working to create in the 20th century) they think is bad.
OK, Paul, so if the US Civil War wasn’t about slavery or black rights (on the part of the North) or personal freedom or smaller government (on the part of the South), then what was it about?
It was about slavery Laird. Look at the letters and journals of the Union leaders (even Lincoln) and that becomes clear – building a vast new government, or even getting more corporate welfare money by taxes on imports was NOT what occupied their minds (slavery did).
Wilson (and Rothbard) were wrong.
The difference being that Wilson knew what he was saying was not true – after all it was Wilson who led the struggle to remove positive references to black individuals in American history, not just in the Civil War – but from the start of the United States. He knew all about previous works of history (that had included them) – that was what he was working to remove (I did mention that he was a total shit – did I not?).
As for personal freedom – the only two Southern political leaders who cared about that (even for white people) were the Vice President and also Governor Vance of North Carolina (the only State in the Confederacy where something like the rule of law, at least for white people, continued).
None of the others did – including Jefferson Davis (whatever he liked to say years afterwards).
I’m disappointed, Paul. You know so much more about history than I do, and I always read your historical posts with great interest, but you’re just wrong here. Slavery simply wasn’t a key driver of the Union side. Oh, it may have been a motivating factor for some individuals (the John Brown abolitionists, primarliy in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania), but not for the political leadership. General Grant is reported to have said “If I thought this war would free the negro I would put my sword in its scabbard and go home.” Lincoln himself said that if he could keep the union together without freeing any slaves he would gladly do so; he even countermanded General Hunter’s preemptive manumission of the slaves in a few southern states. The Emancipation Proclamation itself was a fairly late event during the War; if the objective had been the elimination of slavery Lincoln would have issued it on the day after Ft. Sumter (and, in any event, would have had it apply to all of the states, not merely those engaged in active insurrection).
No, I think the key driver of that war was a desire to keep the nation intact because that would mean greater economic and (eventually) political power on the world stage. And the growth of federal power, at the expense of the states, was an integral part of that.
But I don’t disagree with anything you said about the evil Woodrow Wilson.