Say, can you recommend a good English-language book on the civil war? It sounds fascinating. (I like Finnish literature but know very little about Finnish history (if that helps your reccommendings).
I am afraid I do not know any English-language books about the Finnish Civil War. Finland is still a bilingual country and Finland and Sweden have deep cultural bonds meaning that a lot of Finnish books get translated into Swedish, but not so many into English.
However, Wikipedia has a bunch of articles on the Finnish Civil War that are both long and well-written.
If you want something to immerse yourself in I can recommend Väinö Linna's trilogy Under the North Star (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_North_Star_trilogy). These are novels but very well known and should not be that hard to find in English. It is an epic story about a poor, rural Finnish family. Especially the second volume deals almost exclusively about the class conflicts of the early 20th century and the civil war, mostly seen from a red perspective. Even though they are made up I have the feeling that the capture the mood of early Finland very well. They are also good literature, which helps.
This is, of course, true. But there is still quite a lot of political overlap. Even in Democratic strongholds like San Francisco or New York City Trump got 10% of the vote in 2020. Just as Biden got 10-20% even in the most rural areas. And then there is the middle ground, suburbs and smaller towns, where both sides are well represented.
It is nothing like the elections in 1860 when Union states and Confederate states could just as well have been holding two different elections, since the candidates and the votes cast were completely different in the south compared to in the north.
In California, where I grew up, there is a large contingent of wealthy, city-dwelling or city-adjacent right-wingers. Their numbers are not enough to swing elections by direct votes, but they have a lot of money and civic clout.
Thanks for the article, this was educational and informative. Especially while looking at it from a third world perspective, where riots are not unheard of, when friends and neighbors usually commit unspeakable atrocities on each other - there's one simmering in the distant north east of my nation for over a year now. Civilization breaks down really quickly.
There is no reason for civil war in US right now. There is a lot of prosperity, enough freedom and independence among states that very few would want to fight over moving to a different state or working on local initiatives.
So regardless of what happens this election there won't be a civil war. A lot more things would need to happen before that. And US has a lot of potential to resolve and reform without violent conflicts
I am just an ignorant European and I have to admit that I do not even know what you are remarking on here. Is Dixie not a customary label on civil war era southerners? Or is it offensive? I think I am rather offensive than lexically incorrect, but I am not sure about that either.
No one is perfect, of course. But I believe the American bureaucracy handled the 2020 election turmoil in an impressively even-handed and non-corrupt way.
I feel strongly that in America, the false accusation of corruption (with the intent to erode trust in the civil service) is far more of a problem than actual corruption.
I know little about the Finnish Civil War, but I know about contemporary America and the American Civil War.
1. While the Confederate states were all situated in one compact geographic area, there was often considerable internal dissent within those states (and in the North) as to whether to support the Confederacy vs. the Union. In particular, in the South, it was hillbillies vs. planters and planter wannabes.
The hillbillies rarely owned slaves (they couldn't afford them, and the Appalachian terrain didn't lend itself to large-scale plantation agriculture) and considered the government on far-off Washington to be less likely to intrude on them than the government in the state capital.
In the case of contemporary America, take, for example, Illinois. Illinois is considered a Team D state for purposes of national and statewide elections, but that is because so many people live in Chicago and environs. Once you leave Chicago, most of the rest of the state is pretty red. A similar pattern can be seen in other states. Basically, the big cities and areas with large black or native populations (Latinos, less and less) are Democrat strongholds. Everything else is Republicans.
That said, the US military heavily recruits from minorities (who are looking for a bus ticket out of whatever hell they come from) and rednecks (who actually buy into the Eagle Flag Freedom bullshit). During the American Civil War, the standing army was quite small, but the officer class in particular was disproportionately Southern.
And keep in mind, in many red states, pretty much every male over the age of about ten owns firearms and there are LOTS of combat veterans.
1. I am vaguely aware of the social differences within Confederate states. But despite this, the Appalachian hillbillies seem to have rallied around the Stars and Bars in almost the same numbers as the planters and planter wannabees. While there might have been internal differences this does not seem to have affected cohesion, especially not in relation to the Yankees. This is also very visible in data from the 1860 presidential election, where Lincoln almost universally got less than 1% of the vote in the southern state.
Contemporary America is of course geographically sorted too. But not to the extent of the 1860s. The conditions are also completely different today. In the 1860s politics was at its core local while today they are very much national. In this, contemporary America is much more similar to Finland in the 1910s than America in the 1860s. America in the 19th century was too large to have any meaningful national politics. While Finland in 1918 was small enough that all 3 million Finns could obsess over the same political issues. Just as modern Americans, thanks to modern communications, can obsess over the same political issues.
2. I must admit I know very little about the US military. I thought that US officers saw it as a mark of honor to be apolitical and subordinate to the civilian leadership. If that is not so then some equations might have to change.
Using ballots as a proxy for support is mistaken, as Lincoln wasn't on the ballot in most of the South.
EDIT: also, using election results as a proxy for mass opinion in the antebellum South is problematic, because poll taxes and voter registration laws made it (intentionally) difficult for poor whites in the South to vote.
To give the example of Lousisana, I don't remember if there was still a property requirement, but you had to pay a hefty poll tax and register a year in advance at the County courthouse. Voting also only took place at the couty seat. The upshot was that you not only had to pay to be able to vote, you had to plan ahead and be able to take two days off of work (one to register, one to vote), unless you lived near the courthouse.
This was not much of an option for the average frustrated hillbilly.
Say, can you recommend a good English-language book on the civil war? It sounds fascinating. (I like Finnish literature but know very little about Finnish history (if that helps your reccommendings).
I am afraid I do not know any English-language books about the Finnish Civil War. Finland is still a bilingual country and Finland and Sweden have deep cultural bonds meaning that a lot of Finnish books get translated into Swedish, but not so many into English.
However, Wikipedia has a bunch of articles on the Finnish Civil War that are both long and well-written.
If you want something to immerse yourself in I can recommend Väinö Linna's trilogy Under the North Star (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_North_Star_trilogy). These are novels but very well known and should not be that hard to find in English. It is an epic story about a poor, rural Finnish family. Especially the second volume deals almost exclusively about the class conflicts of the early 20th century and the civil war, mostly seen from a red perspective. Even though they are made up I have the feeling that the capture the mood of early Finland very well. They are also good literature, which helps.
Thank you!
FYI that is the wrong map of Finland in 1917. At that time Finland had land access to the Barents Sea.
Actually, no. Petsamo was not part of Finland until 1921 with the ratification of the Treaty of Tartu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tartu_(Finland%E2%80%93Russia)
In January 1918, which the map depicts, Petsamo was still Russian and Finland did not have land access to the Barents Sea.
Thank you for the update
The geographical sorting in the US is almost entirely rural vs urban.
This is, of course, true. But there is still quite a lot of political overlap. Even in Democratic strongholds like San Francisco or New York City Trump got 10% of the vote in 2020. Just as Biden got 10-20% even in the most rural areas. And then there is the middle ground, suburbs and smaller towns, where both sides are well represented.
It is nothing like the elections in 1860 when Union states and Confederate states could just as well have been holding two different elections, since the candidates and the votes cast were completely different in the south compared to in the north.
In California, where I grew up, there is a large contingent of wealthy, city-dwelling or city-adjacent right-wingers. Their numbers are not enough to swing elections by direct votes, but they have a lot of money and civic clout.
Thanks for the article, this was educational and informative. Especially while looking at it from a third world perspective, where riots are not unheard of, when friends and neighbors usually commit unspeakable atrocities on each other - there's one simmering in the distant north east of my nation for over a year now. Civilization breaks down really quickly.
Yep. For what it is worth (I'm not a US citizen), I agree totally with your conclusion.
There is no reason for civil war in US right now. There is a lot of prosperity, enough freedom and independence among states that very few would want to fight over moving to a different state or working on local initiatives.
So regardless of what happens this election there won't be a civil war. A lot more things would need to happen before that. And US has a lot of potential to resolve and reform without violent conflicts
Dixies?
I am just an ignorant European and I have to admit that I do not even know what you are remarking on here. Is Dixie not a customary label on civil war era southerners? Or is it offensive? I think I am rather offensive than lexically incorrect, but I am not sure about that either.
"Dixie" is used to name a place, but "Dixies" is not used to describe the people who live there.
And "Yankees" is used to describe a people but "Yankee" is not the name of a place. That sort of makes sense. Thanks for sorting it out for me.
I am shocked by the characterization of American bureaucracies as non-corrupt.
No one is perfect, of course. But I believe the American bureaucracy handled the 2020 election turmoil in an impressively even-handed and non-corrupt way.
I feel strongly that in America, the false accusation of corruption (with the intent to erode trust in the civil service) is far more of a problem than actual corruption.
Thank you, Anders! That was just the right level of explanation for us ignorant Anglos, and it has given me things to mull over.
I like "civil acrimony", too. I would have succumbed to the temptation to write "uncivil acrimony".
I know little about the Finnish Civil War, but I know about contemporary America and the American Civil War.
1. While the Confederate states were all situated in one compact geographic area, there was often considerable internal dissent within those states (and in the North) as to whether to support the Confederacy vs. the Union. In particular, in the South, it was hillbillies vs. planters and planter wannabes.
The hillbillies rarely owned slaves (they couldn't afford them, and the Appalachian terrain didn't lend itself to large-scale plantation agriculture) and considered the government on far-off Washington to be less likely to intrude on them than the government in the state capital.
In the case of contemporary America, take, for example, Illinois. Illinois is considered a Team D state for purposes of national and statewide elections, but that is because so many people live in Chicago and environs. Once you leave Chicago, most of the rest of the state is pretty red. A similar pattern can be seen in other states. Basically, the big cities and areas with large black or native populations (Latinos, less and less) are Democrat strongholds. Everything else is Republicans.
https://images.app.goo.gl/nT6GWS1xSSNsnuih9
You can spot the Rez in the west and upper midwest using this map.
2. The US military, at the general officer level is far from apolitical, although serving generals rarely openly engage in politics.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2024-09-23/why-former-u-s-military-leaders-endorsed-kamala-harris
That said, the US military heavily recruits from minorities (who are looking for a bus ticket out of whatever hell they come from) and rednecks (who actually buy into the Eagle Flag Freedom bullshit). During the American Civil War, the standing army was quite small, but the officer class in particular was disproportionately Southern.
And keep in mind, in many red states, pretty much every male over the age of about ten owns firearms and there are LOTS of combat veterans.
1. I am vaguely aware of the social differences within Confederate states. But despite this, the Appalachian hillbillies seem to have rallied around the Stars and Bars in almost the same numbers as the planters and planter wannabees. While there might have been internal differences this does not seem to have affected cohesion, especially not in relation to the Yankees. This is also very visible in data from the 1860 presidential election, where Lincoln almost universally got less than 1% of the vote in the southern state.
Contemporary America is of course geographically sorted too. But not to the extent of the 1860s. The conditions are also completely different today. In the 1860s politics was at its core local while today they are very much national. In this, contemporary America is much more similar to Finland in the 1910s than America in the 1860s. America in the 19th century was too large to have any meaningful national politics. While Finland in 1918 was small enough that all 3 million Finns could obsess over the same political issues. Just as modern Americans, thanks to modern communications, can obsess over the same political issues.
2. I must admit I know very little about the US military. I thought that US officers saw it as a mark of honor to be apolitical and subordinate to the civilian leadership. If that is not so then some equations might have to change.
Using ballots as a proxy for support is mistaken, as Lincoln wasn't on the ballot in most of the South.
EDIT: also, using election results as a proxy for mass opinion in the antebellum South is problematic, because poll taxes and voter registration laws made it (intentionally) difficult for poor whites in the South to vote.
To give the example of Lousisana, I don't remember if there was still a property requirement, but you had to pay a hefty poll tax and register a year in advance at the County courthouse. Voting also only took place at the couty seat. The upshot was that you not only had to pay to be able to vote, you had to plan ahead and be able to take two days off of work (one to register, one to vote), unless you lived near the courthouse.
This was not much of an option for the average frustrated hillbilly.