Re: American Revolution vs. Latin American War of Independence
Latin American War of Independence was, perhaps, just a concatenation of rebellions, led by many creoles, notably Simon Bolivar. The purpose if it was to get rid of the strict regime of the Spanish empire.
Wiki calls it "Latin American Revolutions" but my textbook specifies that it is in fact the "Latin American War of Independence". You may read about the history of that here.
Re: American Revolution vs. Latin American War of Independence
Ahh... I see. I had no idea all those revolutions were regularly lumped together. It seems rather contrived to me. May I ask the name and publishing info of your textbook? Have you seen this nomenclature elsewhere?
Re: American Revolution vs. Latin American War of Independence
He seems extensively published, but I can't really discern why he might have used the war of independence term.
Anyway, I'm sorry to have focused so narrowly. The general question of the what makes a revolution vs. what makes a war of independence is definitely a fascinating one. My early US History teacher in college noted that the rebel leaders in what would become the United States were basically asking to be treated as they had been before George started micromanaging them. Hence revolution: all the way around in order to get back to the starting point.
Bolivar had no such agenda. I think the Latin American wars aimed not only to sever colonial ties and achieve national self-determination, but also to overthrow the current ruling class.
Re: American Revolution vs. Latin American War of Independence
What is ETA?
My OP died because I do not think it is irrelevant anymore. But certainly we could discuss what makes a war "revolutionary" and what makes it "war of independence" in this thread, if you would like.
Re: American Revolution vs. Latin American War of Independence
I'll write a short paragraph on this matter before going away to read and listen to British news. Usually I write 3-paragraph or 5-paragraph essay or even an extended one on matters that are within my fields of interest but right now I cannot resist the temptation to listen to genuine British tongue from BBC.com...
Here goes the short paragraph:
One knows that the term "revolution" means "change". Understanding of the meaning of this term is crucial to understand the difference between a "revolutionary war" and a "war of independence". The American struggle for independence from Great Britain was considered a "revolutionary war" because of the ideals for which the founding fathers and the patriots were fighting. These ideals then established the foundation of the US Constitution. When compared to the Latin American "war of independence", one sees that the Creoles (American-born Spaniards) wanted to fight just to throw out the peninsulares and absolutist Spanish regime. Overall, one can say that the Creoles then, after gaining their independence, did not make another social changes, such as freedom of speech, press, woman rights, etc., like the Americans did. One can conclude that the Latin American struggle for independence was only a "war of indendence" because the Creoles did not make any change to the society. However, we can give the name "revolutionary war" to the American struggle because the Americans not only fought for their own independence and self-rule but also for other important Enlightenment ideals as well.
OK, the above may not be a very well-written paragraph (that is because I am really tempted to watch BBC.com right now), but I am sure you get the main idea.
By this standard, was the Civil War an example of a war for independence by the South, or a revolutionary war? I think it was the latter, but it surely does not seem that the South was fighting for important Enlightenment ideals. However, it was fighting for a different set of ideals than was extant.
Re: American Revolution vs. Latin American War of Independence
The term "revolution" has come to mean "change" in this context, but it didn't always. I don't think, for example, that the proto-United States revolutionaries would have described themselves as seeking what we today would call revolutionary change. The demands they made of the British crown were basically roll-backs to the pre-George III status between colony and mother country.
Having said that, I think fundamental change vs. self-government could well be practicable defitions. I like davidm's Civil War example because it's a tricky one.
You touched on this, Philosophy, but what about an internal vs. external oppressor standard? So for example the French Revolution was an internal struggle to wrest control of government out of the hands of the aristocracy, while Toussaint was looking to kick the French out, so it was a Haitian War of Independence.
By this standard, was the Civil War an example of a war for independence by the South, or a revolutionary war? I think it was the latter, but it surely does not seem that the South was fighting for important Enlightenment ideals. However, it was fighting for a different set of ideals than was extant.
Southerners of the time frequently compared their struggle to that of the American Revolution/War of Independence as did northerners. However both claimed to be upholding the principles that the Founding Fathers fought for and not trying to create something new.
My favorite name for the conflict is 'The Late Unpleasantness,' because it is so wonderfully Victorian.
__________________
Much of MADNESS, and more of SIN, and HORROR the soul of the plot.
You touched on this, Philosophy, but what about an internal vs. external oppressor standard? So for example the French Revolution was an internal struggle to wrest control of government out of the hands of the aristocracy, while Toussaint was looking to kick the French out, so it was a Haitian War of Independence.
Yes, indeed. The French Revolution was quite an internal struggle so, therefore, according to that standard of yours it can be classified as a revolution. One interesting fact is that the Haitian War of the Independence you just mentioned there somewhat encouraged the Creoles to fight for their own independence...
By this standard, was the Civil War an example of a war for independence by the South, or a revolutionary war? I think it was the latter, but it surely does not seem that the South was fighting for important Enlightenment ideals. However, it was fighting for a different set of ideals than was extant.
Southerners of the time frequently compared their struggle to that of the American Revolution/War of Independence as did northerners. However both claimed to be upholding the principles that the Founding Fathers fought for and not trying to create something new.
That's not quite correct. The Confederacy was self-conciously founded on one vital and revolutionary principle that put it at odds with those of the founders of the original union. In 1861 the Confederate vice president, Alexander Stephens, articulated this new principle in all its dunder-headed infamy. This new principle would serve as the "corner-stone" of the Confederacy, and hence this speech is known as the Corner-stone speech:
Quote:
The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
The great revolutionary principle of the Confederacy was to discard the "All men are created equal" promise of the Delcaration of Indpendence.
This puts the lie to the oft-repeated notion that the founding fathers cannot be found wanting because slavery and racism were thought to be entirely moral way back then so we shouldn't judge their choices by our exacting modern standards.
This puts the lie to the oft-repeated notion that the founding fathers cannot be found wanting because slavery and racism were thought to be entirely moral way back then so we shouldn't judge their choices by our exacting modern standards.
I think this is partly right, but in retrospect it looks as if the founders loathed slavery but still did not think that blacks were the equals of whites. This doublethink continued right up to the Civil War, and of course can be found even today among some people. It’s interesting to note the contortions one has to go through in order to simultaneously believe that “All men are created equal” and that all men are not created equal.
In his 1858 debates with Abraham Lincoln, Steven A. Douglas took the position that “All men are created equal” referred only to whites (and presumably men, and not women). Douglas said he believed that blacks bore no relations to whites whatever – presumably indicating he believed that they actually belonged to a different species. Lincoln rejected this. But note the contortions that Lincoln himself had to go through to justify his belief that “all men are created equal,” in light of his (publicly professed) claims that blacks were not equal to whites. Here are some relevant Lincoln quotes:
Quote:
I agree with Judge Douglas that he [a black] is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color — perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to eat the bread without leave of anybody else which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man.
And:
Quote:
I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.
And, specifically with respect to “All men are created equal”:
Quote:
I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say that all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral development, or social capacity.
One could wonder whether Lincoln believed his own tortured words. It might perhaps be possible that he did not believe the things he said, quoted above, but at that time, to publicly affirm a belief in the equality of all men (and women) would have been political suicide. Nevertheless, it is interesting, particularly in the first quote, how weasely Lincoln sounds: For example, what does it really mean to say that someone is not my equal “in color”? It seems a meaningless conception, but a conception that at least puts Lincoln on record as believing that blacks were not equal in some respect (however meaningless) to whites. Note also how he hedges on the more meaningful aspects of equality or inequality by qualifying his words with “perhaps.” Still, his later quotes are more categorical and hard to parse in any other way that as affirmations of white superiority.
Of course, Lincoln is a political icon, and until rather recently I think few historians wanted to dwell too much on the speech he gave in which he criticized “Mexican greasers” for having overlooked the existence of gold mines in California while praising “Yankees” for having discovered them; or the time he had a group of Indians into the White House, which for their benefit he described as the “wigwam,” and then lectured his guests on the spherical nature of the earth and informed them that if they wanted to get ahead in life, they had better buckle down and till the land. And it has only been relatively recently that historians have focused on the fact that Lincoln never abandoned his hope that freed blacks could all be deported, to Africa or Central America or somewhere, anywhere but the land in which they were born.
The schizophrenic nature of Lincoln’s thinking reflects the great intellectual crevice that must divide people’s minds when they try to reconcile “All men are created equal” with the conviction that all men are not created equal. The revolutionary conception of the Confederacy was to abolish this divide by discarding “All men are created equal” in favor of “All white men are created equal,” and, as Stephens did in his Corner-stone speech, to submit that there was a definitive hierarchy among men, with whites at the summit. And while of course the Confederacy did not prevail, the price that would eventually be paid for the maturation of this political conception would be seen in the holocausts of the 20th century, when “all men are not created equal” made it OK not just to enslave some groups of people but exterminate them as well.
The relevance for this thread, of course, is that revolutionary re-arrangements of political and social thinking might often be more calamitous than efficacious -- a good argument, perhaps, for sticking to overthrowing or withdrawing from governments (war for independence) rather than trying to re-write the rules of human political behavior from the ground up (revolution). Often what you end up with is a lot worse than what you had.
Lincoln was a politician. He said what he had to say, to get votes.
Who knows what he really believed?
This book seems to speak about what he really believed. It says that he believed slavery was an evil and had hoped to prevent its further expansion in the Union. He was a politician, but not in the sense that we typically take it today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyelzu
the civil war was the war of northern aggression, as the south had a right to secede from the union.
Briefly, I have two issues with the above statement lie:
1. Confederate troops first fired on Fort Sumter (hence southern aggression), and
2. the Confederacy was not a legal body; see US Constitution, Article I, Section 10:
Quote:
Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;...
Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
You can bet your ass Congress did not give consent for the southern states to "engage in War".
__________________
Through with oligarchy? Ready to get the money out of politics? Want real progressives in office who will work for the people and not the donors? Want to help grow The Squad?
What's especially weird is that the Confederacy incorporated the very same clauses into its own Constitution.
I don't know if it's that weird. They didn't want any further splintering of their own little group. That, incidentally, becomes an inconsistency in their reasoning. If those states were free to dissociate from the Union, then what would stop them from leaving the Confederacy if they later came to some disagreement with that body?
__________________
Through with oligarchy? Ready to get the money out of politics? Want real progressives in office who will work for the people and not the donors? Want to help grow The Squad?
"Revolutionary War" vs. "War of Independence"
Linear Mode
