It is still a hard one to figure out.
One of the dividends of winning the Cold War was internal division. With no outside enemies or competing ideologies, we were left to become irritated with each other, Newt Gingrich leading the way. It is a general feature of humanity that we are competitive and find points of irritation with each other if there are no supervening projects or conflicts to bind us together. One would think large projects like climate change might be such an overwhelming common challenge and project, but no, it doesn't seem have the immediacy and social drama we need. Thinking and caring deeply about the biosphere is a specialized affair.
No, our divisive dramas are much more trivial. But in the US there is a pattern, and that is the role of the South as a political / cultural block. It is reminiscent of the process leading up to our first Civil War, where a morally progressive North irritated and alienated a traditional and depraved South. Not that both sections of the country were not fully complicit in slavery, dispossession of the native peoples, and other forms of oppression. It was a matter of degree. But at some point of cultural and moral advancement, it becomes untenable to express our greed and competitiveness in terms of slavery. Slavery requires, as Harriet Beecher Stowe illustrated, a comprehensive deadening of moral sensibility, even while one's senses of honor, greed, religion, not to mention social propriety, may remain fastidious. Dedication to social competition rather than social justice is the order of the region.
I have been listening to a lengthy podcast narrating the events of the Civil War, which is particularly strong on the introductory phase, explaining various proximate and deep causes of the conflict. What strikes me again and again is the contingency of the whole thing. And its nobility, in a way. The North could easily have washed its hands of the whole conflict, and let the South secede and go its own way. That is what the South was counting on, and many foreign countries, and many (Democrats) in the North as well. As the Union was battered in battle after battle, the mood in the North came perilously close to letting go.
It took two converging arguments to hold the Northern coalition together- union and abolition. Each one was somewhat abstract and each one alone would probably not have been sufficient to force a war. Abolition was a minority position all the way through the war, and evidently afterwards as the South slid back into de facto slavery. Yet it fired a key segment of the Northern population with great fervor, to take an active interest in what the South was doing, and force an end to slavery rather than let it continue in an independent breakaway nation. There were religious arguments, and arguments of simple humanity, but why young men from Maine should kill those in Virginia about it was not entirely obvious.
The case for union was even more abstract. The union of the states was ostensibly a voluntary affair, and while no mechanism was offered to secede, no formal bar to secession was enshrined in the constitution either. The logic of union was that a nation made up of voluntary associations that could crumble at will was no sound nation at all, and not the kind of country that the prosperous, growing, Manifest Destiny United States was supposed to become. Lincoln labored long and hard to articulate this argument, in his debates and other speeches, including eventually the Gettysburg Address.
But I think it remains difficult to grasp, even in retrospect. The Southern states felt understandably snookered into a constitutional deal that did not explicitly say it was a one-way trap, but turned out to be one, depending on the (military) willingness of the North to keep them in chains, as it were. The Northern states had many commercial, cultural, and other reasons to regard the South as an indissoluble part of the nation, (most Founders were Southern, for one thing), but fighting a war over it? That was a lot to ask, especially when the result would be at best the forced subservience of half the states and population- what kind of union is that? On the other side, the South didn't fully realize that once you start a war, positions harden and emotions heighten, such that the North felt increasingly bound to see it through to the bitter end. A bit like Ukraine today.
Which feeling was stronger, that of Southerners for preservation of their independence, prerogatives, and economic basis, that of Northerners in their revulsion over the retrograde moral environment of slavery? Or that of Northerners over the preservation of the unique constitutional / democratic experiment as a precious, indissoluble inheritance? The motivations of the South were clear enough, however base. But the motivations of the North, while understandable, seem insufficient to fully justify an extremely bloody war (not that they imagined that extremity at the outset). Thus I see the Northern policy as in some degree idealistic and noble, going far beyond the minimum needed to keep its business going and people happy.
The North could never have kept the union together and abolished slavery without a war. Some in the North were more abolitionist than pro-Union, and some more pro-Union. Despite the manifest breakdown in North-South relations and the various ante-bellum compromises that kept the union together, keeping those factions aligned was very difficult, before the war, during the war, and through the endless aftermath of reconstruction, Jim Crow, and the Civil Rights movement, and now Southern Republicanism (of all things!) and Trumpism.
Was the outcome beneficial, in any historical sense? It is very difficult to know how the counterfactual would have turned out. The South might have become a vast banana republic, incorporating Cuba and other territories to its own south. The North would doubtless have continued its ascent to be an industrial collusus and leader of the next century. They might well have remained at peace, despite many points of competition and contention, and traded so that the North would have retained effective access key raw materials from the South. Slavery would have continued, and it is very hard to tell for how long and in what form.
This is where the diplomatically inclined would jump in to say.. it would have been better to negotiate a deal and avoid war. There is always a deal out there that is better than war, which is an ultimate failure and disaster. Compromise after compromise had been made before the war, and shattered by increasingly divergent views on states rights, voting rights, and human rights. If every party had clairvoyance about the future course of events, they might have seen a better way. But we are not clairvoyant, and war is a way to change the conditions of the future rather than to split differences. Wars are certainly the last resort, but remain the final way to decide fundamental existential and power issues, and to change the basis of the future. That is the simple fact of the matter, in a world that is fundamentally competitive. In the words of Vegetius, "Let him who desires peace prepare for war".
Do we today have the capacity to conceive of and adhere to such esoteric and high principles as actuated the North in the last civil war? Our recent president tried to stage a coup, and we can hardly bestir ourselves to care about it. The Supreme Court is impersonating the Taney court, finding that our constitution does not, in fact, protect elementary human rights, such as privacy. We are facing climatic catastrophe that is leading to mass migration, war, and challenges to our fundamental basis of existence, (farming, and addiction to fossil fuels), not to mention imperiling the biosphere at large. And we can hardly bestir ourselves to care about it. Again, half the country, centered in the South, feels morally condescended to and responds with spite and revanchism. Again, the rich fight with every tool to keep things the same and shut our eyes to the dangers ahead.
While the political dramas of today will likely pass away without taking to arms, despite the militant recklessness of the Southern end of the political spectrum, it is hard to be as optimistic about our other challenges. When the US looks ahead today, it sees change, constraint, and decline. It is a hard future to face, and many quail from doing so, (whatever their vacuous and delusory slogans). But face it we must, lest it turn from a challenge into a rout.
No comments:
Post a Comment