Paul Poast Profile picture
Jan 8, 2022 22 tweets 7 min read Read on X
Why did 🇺🇸 have a civil war?

And why is one unlikely today?

[THREAD] Image
This 🧵is motivated by the #January6thAnniversary-inspired takes on whether the US is on the verge of ANOTHER civil war.
The short answer is "NO".

The longer answer is "No, but the potential for lower-level political violence is real."
The US Civil War was a BIG war. How big? Larger than any European war (such as the Crimean War) fought between the Napoleonic wars and World War I. Image
It was so large that there's still debate about exactly how many hundreds of thousands were killed.
npr.org/2012/05/29/153…
Knowing why it happened and why it was so large helps us understand why it's VERY unlikely to happen again.
Why it happened is captured in a word: Slavery.

In more words: the war was how the Northern states prevented the Southern states from leaving the United States so that they could preserve slavery. Image
More precisely, slavery is why the secession crisis of 1860-61 took place.

As American Civil War historians will point out, one must separate the Southern decision to secede and the Northern response to that decision.
link.springer.com/chapter/10.100…
Why did the Southern states secede? The Southern states operated on a slave-based agrarian economy. Image
When Abraham Lincoln won the Presidency in 1860, the Southern states feared that he would seek to end slavery as a legal institution in the United States.

After all, the Republican party platform referred to the slave trade as "a crime against humanity"
loc.gov/resource/lprbs…
So some of the Southern States, starting with South Carolina in December of 1860, declared their intent to leave the Union. Image
As their declaration of Secession makes clear, the decision was indeed motivated by the need to preserve slavery.

Sure "states rights" are mentioned. But the right to do what? Hold slaves.

Source: avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/c… Image
Officials in South Carolina (and other states, including Northern ones) thought they could leave the Union because, from their perspective, the Constitution was more "international treaty" than "founding document"
academic.oup.com/past/article/2…
Understanding that slavery was the driving issue is absolutely critical for understanding why this "crisis" and "dispute" became a "war".
That's because, from the Southern states perspective, property and land were at stake.

As I shared recently in @WarOnTheRocks, land is KEY to explaining many/most wars.
warontherocks.com/2021/12/this-l…
The need to protect land is a key reason why those who actually fought for the Southern Confederacy were largely slave holders (not everyone in the South owned slaves).

cambridge.org/core/journals/…
This "territoriality" mindset influenced the decision making in the North as well. From the North's perspective, you're talking about losing a huge chunk of your land. Image
From Lincoln's perspective, the issue wasn't about slavery per se, but about preserving the Union.

As Lincoln remarked in August 1862, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it."

abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speech…
Lincoln's views on slavery's role in the war would eventually change. I discussed that in a 🧵on #Juneteenth last year
Since you are dealing with large segments of land, it's really not surprising that both sides developed large, standing armies (to either take or hold the land)
amazon.com/Yankee-Leviath…
And those large armies, in turn, engaged in devastatingly deadly battles Image
In sum, the secession crisis of 1860-61 became a "war" in large part because the dispute was over land (not over election outcomes, economic anxiety itself, or ideology). The North and South were fighting over who controlled the land and how it could be used.

[END]

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Paul Poast

Paul Poast Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ProfPaulPoast

Sep 7
Which of these two men is most responsible for World War II?

Short answer: not Churchill

Long answer: [THREAD]
Image
Image
To be clear, in this thread I am dealing with the onset of the war in Europe. The War in Asia was just as important and obviously connected to Europe. But that is for another thread. For now, I do highly recommend Paine's book "The Wars for Asia"

amazon.com/Wars-Asia-1911…
The historiography on WWII is massive. But in terms of responsibility for the war's origins, there are essentially two extreme views.

Call them the Mueller Thesis and the Taylor Thesis
Read 19 tweets
Aug 17
Solving the "Europe Problem" has vexed US foreign policy since the beginning.

[THREAD] Image
As I wrote last week, a key trait of US "grand strategy" since the founding of the Republic was "Go West" either by expanding US territory west or seeking to maintain trade with China.

But the other key trait of US grand strategy has been to keep the European powers from standing in the way.
Read 14 tweets
Aug 10
Since the founding of the republic, US foreign policy has been about one thing:

Go west (and don't let Europe get in the way).

[THREAD] Image
I'll write more about "don't let Europe get in the way" in another 🧵. This one will focus on the "Go west" part (which will also touch on the Europe part).
One could go so far as to argue that the Republic itself was founded because of a desire to go west. Specifically, the colonials were forbidden to go west of the 1763 Proclamation line. Image
Read 20 tweets
Jun 15
When you hear "Liberal International Order", just think "the G-7, for better and for worse"

[THREAD] Image
While some scholars and policy makers like to speak of the "Liberal International Order" as the collection of post-World War II international institutions....
cambridge.org/core/journals/…
...the phrase itself is much more recent in origins, largely a product of the mid-1990s. Image
Read 19 tweets
Jun 8
Are the "opportunity costs" of arming Ukraine too high?

Short answer: no

Long answer: compared to what?

[THREAD]
For those not aware, I am asking this question because of a new International Affairs piece that makes the argument "yes, they are too high"

academic.oup.com/ia/advance-art…
Overall, their argument is that the resources going towards Ukraine would be better allocated to address other pressing global challenges.
Read 24 tweets
Jun 1
In international politics, population is destiny.

[THREAD] Image
As I wrote in my latest for @WPReview, shifting patterns in population growth will inevitably influence international politics.
worldpoliticsreview.com/global-demogra…
This isn't a new idea. It's one found in classic works on change in world politics.

amazon.com/War-Change-Wor…
Read 14 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(