As for your general question: this is difficult to answer in absolutes; however we live in a very individual-centered society that we don't appreciate the corporate responsibility that goes with living in communities, and the only really justifiable wars arise out of the sense of community and loyalty and courage.
As for the American Civil War: The "war of northern aggression" is probably the most accurate description, since the north was intent on forcing the states south of the Mason-Dixon line to concede to the union's demands that it (the Union) should contain the capital city, the production factories and the international relations, while the Union expected the South to continue to supply its produce to northern factories at rock-bottom prices. The issue of slavery was ignored for three-and-a-half years until Abraham Lincoln realised the political capital it would have in forcing a swift settlement. Though many African Americans relocated to New York and the neighbouring areas, so many of them lived in a state of such poverty and ruin that they regretted the move. It's also a little-known fact that many African Americans fought for the Confederacy. If you go to the FBI Museum in Washington DC, one of the items on display is a tattered Confederate flag belonging to an exclusively African American regiment, which was stolen by two con-men in the early 1990s.
2006-06-29 16:18:10
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
I see you need help with your history assignments. War is nothing more than the continuation of political policy. War is not always who's wrong or right...it's always about staying alive. I agree that the Union was justified in their war with the Confederacy...but not all wars should be made an exception to the rule.
2006-06-29 14:39:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
2 concepts proceed your question: individual rights (needed for man to function properly), and governmental bodies that act to protect individual rights. These are all too rare.
Any dictatorship, or in your example, the enslaving South, is already at war with reality and man. For any free (or significantly freer) state to come along and topple (wage war on) that dictatorship is ALWAYS justified. Whether it's in that free state's interest may be another matter.
2006-06-29 15:00:09
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Wars are needed as a natural part of human evolution. When you look at war from a long-range perspective, it becomes clear that, as destructive as wars are, their very destructiveness has served as the primary force for the evolution of the human race. By mercilessly elimnating those who were unable to survive in the theater of war, wars resulted in a constant upgrading of both the physiological and intellectual acuity of man.
Although many bright people perish in wars, the preponderance of the casualties occur among people with the limited intellectual capacity to understand the mechanics of wars and who are thus unable to avoid becoming casualties.
Who would seriosly dispute the fact that smart people have higher living standards than intellectually less endowed persons do? War elimnates the intellectually less fit and thus, in the end, raises the average intelligence and the living standards of society as a whole.
Throughout the ages, evolution took advantage of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse, war, natural disasters, disease and famine.
If we succeed in eliminating war, we are also eliminating war in its capacity as a powerful contributor to evolution by keeping the world population in check. We are now at 6 billion humans, scientific projections of growth predict 10 billion within 50 years...mostly in under developed countries. Humanity will reach the limits of available resources at 9-12 billion..this is not sustainable.
We can only speculate as to which path evolution will take in reducing the world from 10 to 3 billion. A battle for resources will favor those with higher levels of intelligence and rationality. Evolution never receds to irrationality, superstition and stupidity.
2006-06-29 14:47:42
·
answer #4
·
answered by Its not me Its u 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
contained in the strictest experience...Public opinion: conflict is justifiable even as the conflict is merely. adequate human beings must trust contained in the justness of the conflict. for instance, the yankee Civil conflict became justifiable, first for economic motives. each and every aspect had an economic argument. even as that overseas money ran out (no pun meant), it grew to change into about the union. and finally, even besides the undeniable fact that it did not commence out as a mission to free the slaves, the mission became replaced to make it so. That became Lincoln's trump card. From an ethical element of view, i do not trust there is justification for conflict. finally, wars under no circumstances end. Wars refashion the international. households are irreparably damaged, societies replaced, cultures lost. look....WWII gave us 50 years of chilly conflict, persevering with unrest in Isreal, Palestine and something else of the Gulf area, unrest in each and every of the former soviet block international places. and maximum folk have forgotten what it became about. we stumble on methods to justify wars because we are short-sighted.
2016-10-13 23:32:03
·
answer #5
·
answered by muniz 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
There is no such thing as a just war. One could only justify war on a cosmic level: as an aspect of the vast play of God.
2006-06-29 15:25:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by cosmicplaymates 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
There are no justifiable wars. We humans tend to be very impatient, wanting our way right now. It appears things like economic sanctions and diplomacy work if given the time to do so.
2006-06-29 16:28:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by calmliest 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Civil war was not just about freeing the slaves it was about preserving the union.
2006-06-29 14:30:07
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
nothing really justifies it.
history is written by the victor.
the cival war was a war between the north and the south. the south willingly participated.
2006-06-29 14:58:06
·
answer #9
·
answered by ladrhiana 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
no. it wasn't originally fought for blacks. that just became a later cause (which sounded heroic on the northern part). we draw our heroes from their deads... and money isn't as glorious as civil rights, FREEDOM, and LIBERTY. that war never should've been fought considering the dec. of indy states, "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL"!
2006-06-29 14:34:43
·
answer #10
·
answered by Friendly Neighbor 5
·
0⤊
0⤋