From another angle, the South couldn’t make it work without becoming another Union, to which the Northerner could say “See?” Don’t misunderstand me, this isn’t a pro Union thing.
But it is the basic point that actual practical unity is necessary when you have big neighbors. GKC got some things wrong; small nations are easier to gobble up. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was a serious power, when it got chopped up at the end of WWI, its constituent countries were now easy prey for three quarters of a century. The CSA functioned too close to this to really win, it actually proved some of the pro-Union point, we all have to stay onside and coordinate to function.
That was part of the concern with the War of Independence, if the British could peel off a state here or there we would be in trouble. In the event of future conflict, if your enemy can make side deals with your neighbors in practice, what good is the paper that says it’s not allowed? Even without foreign influence, any bad enough problem gets attempts to hedge, free riders, etc.
It’s a thorny problem, taken too far and you get totalitarianism, but take libertarian-esque thinking too far and you can’t be sure of the man next to you either.
Excellent post. I think men like Davis and Lee were in the right. I’m as much of a localist as they come and I even think states is too much and power should be delegated to the county level. But during wartime, a certain pragmatism must be taken up and I probably disagree with other localists who believe only militias are necessary. My stance is that a nation does need a professional standing Army, Navy, and Air Force. Though the Navy and Air Force should be a little stronger. And national guards are basically militia, so both a professional force and “irregulars” can coexist.
Now, I want to leave a link to a very interesting video on Woodrow Wilson and The Confederacy:
I tend to agree, especially in the context of America I’m very Jeffersonian. I’m somewhat indifferent to the size of the standing military, I can see the logic both ways. But yeah, there had to be the understanding that in the CSA the states simply had to submit to the central government if they wanted to survive. I would imagine Davis, in weaker moments, probably grumbled to himself about sending all the troops back to their native states and letting everyone fend for themselves since they didn’t want to play ball.
From another angle, the South couldn’t make it work without becoming another Union, to which the Northerner could say “See?” Don’t misunderstand me, this isn’t a pro Union thing.
But it is the basic point that actual practical unity is necessary when you have big neighbors. GKC got some things wrong; small nations are easier to gobble up. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was a serious power, when it got chopped up at the end of WWI, its constituent countries were now easy prey for three quarters of a century. The CSA functioned too close to this to really win, it actually proved some of the pro-Union point, we all have to stay onside and coordinate to function.
That was part of the concern with the War of Independence, if the British could peel off a state here or there we would be in trouble. In the event of future conflict, if your enemy can make side deals with your neighbors in practice, what good is the paper that says it’s not allowed? Even without foreign influence, any bad enough problem gets attempts to hedge, free riders, etc.
It’s a thorny problem, taken too far and you get totalitarianism, but take libertarian-esque thinking too far and you can’t be sure of the man next to you either.
I absolutely agree. That’s a great analysis, thank you for that.
Where have you been my nigga?
I had deleted my account, but then I got really antsy to write again, so here I am.
Feels good to be back ngl
Excellent post. I think men like Davis and Lee were in the right. I’m as much of a localist as they come and I even think states is too much and power should be delegated to the county level. But during wartime, a certain pragmatism must be taken up and I probably disagree with other localists who believe only militias are necessary. My stance is that a nation does need a professional standing Army, Navy, and Air Force. Though the Navy and Air Force should be a little stronger. And national guards are basically militia, so both a professional force and “irregulars” can coexist.
Now, I want to leave a link to a very interesting video on Woodrow Wilson and The Confederacy:
https://youtu.be/yO39YjcpT6s?si=ClGbm9MlBTBTTpAI
P.S. The uploader ThejayLino is an American Syndicalist wih a Neoconservative foreign policy outlook. Just a heads up.
I tend to agree, especially in the context of America I’m very Jeffersonian. I’m somewhat indifferent to the size of the standing military, I can see the logic both ways. But yeah, there had to be the understanding that in the CSA the states simply had to submit to the central government if they wanted to survive. I would imagine Davis, in weaker moments, probably grumbled to himself about sending all the troops back to their native states and letting everyone fend for themselves since they didn’t want to play ball.
I’ll give it a watch, thanks!
You’re welcome. Anytime. 👍 TheJayLino is also here on Substack under the same name.