The U.S. Civil War and the FSLN

Submitted by fyl on 4 October, 2004 - 18:47.

I was just thinking about the paralles between the US Civil War and the Sandinista Revolution. Maybe you already thought of this too. If not, you are likely thinking I am crazy.

Let me start off by talking about what made me think of the possible parallels. It is the issue of the right kind of government for the population. I assert that there is no one right kind of government much like there is no one right religion or hair color.

Think about religion. If we had a "world vote" on the best religion, Christianity would not come out very high on the list. While people reading this site (and people living in Nicaragua) are likely to think of Christianity as "very popular", on a world scale this just isn't the case.

Today, we can change religion or hair color with minimal consequences but picking a different government is a lot more complicated. Does it have to be? Yes is the answer because it is not a personal choice. While your neighbor might have green hair and/or be Hindu, it is not easy for you to not share the same government.

Looking at the US Civil War, it was not about slavery as some texts like to say. Abraham Lincoln, the President of the United States, had slaves. It was about representative government. Or, more specifically, the fact that the best government for the people in the big cities of the northeast was not the best government for the rural, agriculture-based southern states.

An argument to support my assertion is that after both battles of Bull Run (Manassas) the Confederate Army could have pretty much marched into Washington, D.C. Why didn't they? The most plausable reason is that they didn't want to take over the U.S. They just wanted to run their part of the planet in a manner that made the most sense to them.

The big distinction here is that the majority of the people in the north worked in cities. They produced products for others to buy. Or, they were overhead of some sort.

In the rural south, the land, supervised by a small quantity of people produced products--mostly food and raw materials for clothing. Not better and not worse. Just different.

Jumping forward to Nicaragua of the late 20th century you had a country run by an externally-installed family dynasty. The U.S. Marines made this possible be defeating a rural populist movement. The FSLN took up this cause and, in 1979, removed the dynasty.

That should be the end of the story. That is, a dictator was replaced by a popular movement. But, it is not. Setting corruption aside (it is likely equal in all the various political movements) the Somoza dynasty was more representative of the industrialized cities whereas the FSLN got its main support from the more rural population.

How could a dictatorship be representative? Why not? Somoza wanted to amass "things". He couldn't do that alone but by supporting ventures that maximized capital inflow, he could increase his wealth along with the wealth of others. Those people that were getting wealthy along with him were much more likely to be involved in industry than in small-scale farming.

In the rural south, the land, supervised by a small quantity of people produced products--mostly food and raw materials for clothing. Not better and not worse. Just different.

By now you have either decided I am wacko and stopped reading or you see where I am going. For those of you that remain here, the parallel is obvious. Managua in particular and other cities to a lesser extent (because they are "more rural" than Managua) generally do not support the FSLN. They support the government they see as more representative of the needs of the city-dweller.

On the other hand, rural Nicaraguans have very different needs. They need land, ways to get their products to market and the general kinds of support an agrarian industry needs. Again, no right or wrong--just different needs.

Hugo Chavez in Venezuela seems to recognize this. He is not anti-business but he sees the need to support the rural population. Not doing so has a very bad consequence--they move to the cities and become the unemployed poor. Chavez recognizes that it is more cost-effective to support the people in place rather than have to deal with increased city poverty and crime.

It is not easy to divide Nicaragua into industrial and agrarian regions like there was in 1861 in the U.S. Thus, there is no way to draw a line and make two countries. That's where my parallel falls down. But, that is also where people from all political parties can see the problem in the terms of the U.S. Civil War and, hopefully, see the solution in the terms of the Chavez government in Venezuela.

‹ Proportional Representationup

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Long comments

Submitted by Huehuete Bob on 2 May, 2006 - 09:31.

All these long comments are making me crave some Etiqueta Negra.

Corrections

Submitted by BillAndJohn on 27 April, 2006 - 18:47.

Abraham Lincoln did NOT own slaves. Hamilton didn't either; Jefferson did. The US Civil War was not "about" slavery in the sense that the war was not fought (other than by the minority of Unionists who were Abolitionists) to free the slaves. Lincoln framed the issue not so much in terms of the moral wrong slavery meant for blacks, but in terms of the risk to free white men of allowing slavery: if slavery for blacks is legal, the argument went, the liberties of all are at risk. So you could say the US Civil War was "about" whether freedom could be denied to some, or whether all have fundamental dignity and rights. The false claim that Lincoln owned slaves makes about as much sense as suggesting that Sandino was a tool of the US. And if one's "facts" aren't facts, it's hard to credit theories that rely on them.

Bill and/or John - Wrong

Submitted by Miskito Alan on 27 April, 2006 - 19:04.

Miskito Alan &#174

Lincoln stated many times that his goal was to save the "Union".

If he had to free all slaves, some slaves, or no slaves that he would do so to save the union.

Check History

Nothing to do with slave ownership

Submitted by cjtowerman on 27 April, 2006 - 23:19.

He did say that (more or less), but the thing said has nothing to do with whether or not he personally owned slaves. There is no debate on the matter, in that no one familiar with slavery or the Civil War disputes this. Lincoln did not own slaves, and is actually more famous for his claim that: "I have always thought that all men should be free; but if any should be slaves it should be first those who desire it for themselves, and secondly those who desire it for others. Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.” Anything alleged to follow from the claim he did own slaves, may or may not follow, but certianly does not based on the false claim he was a slave owner -- which he was not.

What you say is true but . . .

Submitted by BillAndJohn on 27 April, 2006 - 20:31.

. . . when I "check history" I find Lincoln's explanation in his second inaugural address was that slavery somehow was the cause of the war. You know the famous words:

"One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it."

Anyway from your silence on the subject I assume you concur that Lincoln did not own slaves, contrary to what fyl stated.

You are correct

Submitted by fyl on 28 April, 2006 - 07:37.

Did some looking. Lincoln did not own slaves. It was his wife's family that did.

No - Not Me

Submitted by Miskito Alan on 27 April, 2006 - 21:16.

Miskito Alan &#174

I do not speak for "fyl".

Yep - Any Excuse is Great

Submitted by Miskito Alan on 27 April, 2006 - 21:14.

Miskito Alan &#174

USA (America) will protect the military/industrial complex.

Kill USA military people in the CSA, Vietnam, Korea, Nicaragua, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Salvador, Panama, frigging Granada, Cuba, Iraq, Somolia (worse yet), Africa, and the upcoming war theatre in Iran and people wonder why they call it theatre.

fyl good open debate thinking!

Submitted by sboyd30@hotmail.com on 13 March, 2005 - 22:25.

and to all who have responded.
Jefferson was a good man who believed in people. Hamilton was a jerk who wanted to be like king George.
Robert E Lee could have moved into the north but out of respect and wrong-fully thinking like a gentleman and thinking the score is settled stopped his advancement.
But I am not sure from talking to people and reading almost all relevant material that we had a civil war in Nicaragua.
Most people lived and died ilrelavant to social or political situations.
The most important analysis is that one group wanted the other group out of power. The group in power had support of the US. The other had no support except within the group. Both sides gained fighers who really did not want to fight. Many males of fighting age fled to CR to not be involved. Most of the fighting was to remove Somoza is best considered to be similiar to a gang fight in NY. Limited casualties and damage. When Somoza left the next step was US intervention by the powers to be. I remember reading this as a kid and could only comment who is the desicion maker here. The country only wanted to be free from a dictator and overall the US does not like a dictator. A free Nicaragua is similiar to a free America. As I got older I learned all you have to do to find who is to blame is follow the money.
Even without full approval, the Sandanistas would be attacked. Large amounts of money were diverted through groups who wanted to insure continued income from Nicaragua. What most people do not know is that Nicaragua is actually the riches of all Central American countries and that this needed to to be maintained tapped. In some respects Nicaragua can thank the Samoza family because he never pushed for crazy levels of production. He was a cheap Dictator. To the south was CR who was already Democratic, the government cost more than a Samoza. The payoff for their support was high and will forever make many Nicargueseans feel different towards the Ticos. To the north is EL Salvador and for money they allowed more anti-sandinista bases. I can tell you that El Salvador is still living in the 19TH century and this money did no good. What a problem country.
The causualties and problems in the war were over-estimated by the press and by the CIA. Hey they were all trying to make more money.
It was never about the people from a CIA perspective but money. The myths continuebut Nicaragua still has great people.

I like your analisis.

Submitted by NICAH2O on 7 October, 2004 - 00:03.

I Know I've disagreed with you in the past, this time however, I must admit the similarities are there. I think you have come to a very objective conclusion.

I would still give Chavez and Venezuela a few more years before I can say his is the right kind of Government.

Chavez

Submitted by fyl on 7 October, 2004 - 05:59.

I'm open to hear about alternatives. Flight from the countries has proven to be a serious problem. The United States shows us that as well as most Latin American countries.

One of the hardest things for people to see is how pushing cash in the hand of someone who has lived their life and likely their family for generations in a self-sufficient manner. In the U.S. this was done with the native Americans and then we looked at them and decided they were alcoholics that could not manage their money, for example. A short-term view supports that.

As much as I don't like this concept, government helps people manage their lives. Take education. You could not hand a six year old (or the parent of a six year old) 12 years of school tuition and expect much in the way of education. Thus, it just becomes an issue of how a government can best represent the needs of the majority.

Jefferson vs Hamilton

Submitted by Millsapsmissions on 3 November, 2004 - 15:47.

The U.S. War Between the States and Nicaragua analogy was interesting. Some parallels, yes. I see a parallel thread in the political and ideological struggles between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton during the early years of the U.S. republic. Jefferson was the agrarian "live close to the land" decentralized less-is-more government advocate while the Federalist Hamilton favored big-city industrialization and centralized government. Jefferson often noted that one of his greatest accomplishments was the founding of the University of Virginia to serve as an educational focal point of his agrarian, aristocratic society (he drew heavily from the Plato). In short, the South became Jefferson's legacy and the North became Hamilton's. It was only inevitable that these two almost polar-opposite worlds would clash and so in just 50 years the war broke out.

So, as far as Nicaragua goes...

Was Somoza a kind of Hamilton? Sandino a latter-day Jefferson? There's where my analogy falls to pieces. But, nonetheless, is all interesting to ponder.

Internal vs. External influence

Submitted by fyl on 7 November, 2004 - 10:11.

While I agree that the Jefferson vs. Hamilton issue is real, the biggest difference I see between that an most modern day struggles like this is that of external influence. I don't know that Hamilton was motivated by external pressure but I doubt it just because the communications delays would make that difficult.

Sandino's initial fight and the FSLN overthrow of Somoza was very different as it was about allowing the people of Nicaragua decide their fate rather than an external government. Certainly this was what the south had in mind in 1860 but they didn't want the Hamilton-ish north to agree with them. They just wanted to do their stuff their own way.

This made me think of why US farmers today vote so different than Nicaraguan farmers do today. The best answer I have is that here the farmers are on their own. In the US there are lots of government aid for farmers including virtually free use of BLM land, crop subsidies and payments for now growing crops.

Solution to a problem?

Submitted by NICAH2O on 7 November, 2004 - 14:36.

Sandino's fight was one of a patriot and and idealist. The FSLN war was one of socio-economic and democratic changes at first. Then turned into political power and communist views and all three were very different from the other.

How about letting CAFTA help industrialize/modernize Nicaragua in it's own ways (at this point anything is better than nothing) then help change the Nicaraguan government to aid the Nicaraguan farmers the same way the USA subsidizes it's farmers?

CAFTA? Ha!

Submitted by fyl on 7 November, 2004 - 15:37.

I doubt you knew Sandino, Jefferson or Hamilton. And, as I understand it, you ran away from Nicaragua when power was taken away from the US as to running Nicaragua. A US-created war and US-backed election manipulation reduced FSLN power in Nicaragua. If the Sandinstas were Communists (an unreasonable assertion but no matter) then it sounds like Nicaraguans wanted a Communist government and, somehow, you feel the US has the right to prevent that.

THE FSLN installed democracy in Nicaragun with proportional representation and multiple political parties. I get the feeling that this scares people in the US because it starts illustrating how little control the average person in the US has over their own political process.

Even the debate in Costa Rica about CAFTA shows it to be a way for the US to get into markets (telecommunications and drugs are the big ones in Costa Rica) and then use other controls to prevent the Central American countries from reaching the US market. With Mexico, two examples are health regulations to prevent food exports to the US and immigration regulations that prevent Mexican truck drivers from delivering products.

If your goal is to get Nicaraguan farmers to vote for "Nicaraguan Republicans", maybe subsidies make sense. Nicaragua needs a lot but what it doesn't need is an IMF/World Bank/CAFTA-controlled economy. If you have read the CAFTA accord you are well aware that what it is NOT about is "free trade". It is a very complicated agreement to manipulate trade.

I am in favor of a free market economy. I wish the US would consider such a thing itself. As we started with farm products, take a look at not just the manipulation of the market with BLM land access, price supports and payments to not grow products but include transportation subsidies, trade tariffs and favorable tax breaks for corporate farming.

It continues to amaze me that the people that claim they are for freedom support systems that manipulate markets. Or, maybe killing people around the world (Iraq right now) makes better TV and they just don't know. The more time I spend in Nicaragua the more I realize the average Nicaraguan knows more about world politics than the average US-ian.

The big issue.

Submitted by NICAH2O on 8 November, 2004 - 01:02.

The big issue here is not my lack of knowledge of Nicaraguan or U.S. history, but your impotence to change/alter the ways of the US government to your likings. The more I read your posts the more convinced I am that the US government most have taxed you a little too much before retirement.

Nicaraguans did not know what they wanted in 1979, and Sandino was no longer around to form and uprising against the Marxist freeloaders Fonseca and Ortega. We thought we were gaining autonomy and freedom by getting rid of a U.S. backed dictatorship. In stead, we ended up with communist control freaks as head of government. At least while Somoza was still in power Nicaragua was respected by the rest of Central America, now Costa Rica looks at Nicaragua the same way the US looks at Mexico; down, way down. In short, we gained sovereignty but lost respect, economic growth, sence of identity and not to mention an entire generation.

As I told you before Phil; I am not pro-US government but please correct me if am wrong (again) that US controlled Puerto Rico, US controled Panamá and British controled Belize are not better off at least economically than let's say: sovereign Nicaragua of the 1980's.

On a lighter note; I also sense your immense desire of keeping Nicaragua the way it is now, and that I like. Why do you think am moving back in 2007? If not that!!!

Not even close

Submitted by fyl on 8 November, 2004 - 09:56.

First, I am far from retired. But, as for altering the US government to the ways of my liking, I agree. More specifically, to the likings of most US citizens--if they were told the truth.

My major concern is that the US government needs to not try to govern the rest of the world. And it regular use of lies to justify these external actions should upset any US citizen. From weapons of mass destruction to the war on drugs/terror/what-it-is-now, the US population is being manipulated. The sad part is that many US citizens are falling for it.

Next is the press. When the US wages a war against bin Laden or Sadaam Hussein, I feel it is the responsibility of the press to make people aware that these personalities were created by the US government to serve the interestes of the US government. This is clearly not unique--the Shah of Iran, Manuel Noriega and the Somoza Dynasty fit in to the long list as well.

I agree that Nicaragua did not know what it wanted in 1979 other than freedom from a US backed dictatorship. It had to learn. Now, it would have been difficult for Sandino to "form an uprising" against Carlos Fonseca in 1979 as he was killed in 1976 in the struggle. From "Fire from the Mountain" by Omar Cabezas:

In 1975-1976 a furious Somoza launched an all-out assault on the FSLN that claimed many victims, including Carlos Fonseca, who now became the revolutionaries' most honored martyr. The Guard killed Fonseca in the mountains and then carried his severed head to Somoza as proof, finally, of victory.

You seem to confuse Communism and Marxism. All indication is that Fonseca was a Marxist and there certainly were Marxist tendencies in the FSLN. Based on what had been happening under Somoza that comes as no surprise nor is it necessarily a bad thing. You see, in 1979, Nicaragua became a democracy. Under the control of the Sandinistas a new constitution was written and approved and a democratic structure was established. Considering the US started a war against this new government immediately it is amazing how many of these new freedoms remained.

As for regional respect, there are three ex-Presidents in jail right now in Costa Rica. Thus, I question whether having the respect of Costa Rica is a big plus. I agree that there is the same relationship between Costa Rica and Nicaragua as there is between the US and Mexico but I don't see where that makes Costa Rica or the US right.

The US owns Puerto Rico. The major reason it is not a state is because it would then have to comply with US labor laws. Right now, products can be "made in the USA" at Puerto Rico wages and labor conditions.

I don't know much about Belize. I considered visiting but, unlike Costa Rica or Nicaragua, everything I hear makes it sound pretty depressed. There are "tourist traps" and then very separate areas places the poor live.

Panama, much like Nicaragua under Somoza, was controlled for years by a US puppet, Manuel Noriega. When he stopped serving the interests of George H.W. Bush, he was removed. But, during the Noriega years, Panama did very well economically--primarily by laundering drug money and supporting a huge US presence.

The World Court decision found that the US war against Nicaragua was illegal and awarded about $16 billion in damages. The US has never paid that debt and it is rumored that part of the deal for "helping" elect Violeta Chamarro in 1990 was to get that debt forgiven. That is about two times Nicaragua's external debt. An extra $16 billion here could make a big difference.

As for keeping Nicaragua the way it is now, the answer is no. I would like to see Nicaragua define its own path. That is not happening here as US dollars continue to have significant influence on the government here.

FSLN and property rights

Submitted by haircuttingcowboy on 12 November, 2004 - 17:33.

Hi Phil, Dave here. Looking at Nicaragua for retirement. I appreciate and agree with your thinking on the heavy handed US influence on Central American governments via Cafta and devaluation of currencies. There appears to be serious economic trouble brewing as the us dollar continues to fall it takes the cordoba and the CR colon along with it driving down economies that are already fragile. But what about property ownership in Nicaragua. What is the remaining impact now on the FSLN land redistribution of the 80's? Is it mostly repaired or is there a great deal of confusion with regard to getting clear title on property in Nicaragua? Are there some municipalities that should be avoided regarding the purchase of land? And what impact will a strengthened FSLN have in the future? Could we possibly look forward to yet another land redistribution program? Appreciate your input.

dave

If there is a title ...

Submitted by fyl on 12 November, 2004 - 21:39.

The most common answer I hear is that if there is a title then you are fine. The confusion is apparently in property that was "redistributed" but the titles were never issued. A friend has a house that fits into that category. But, titles are recorded at the local level and, if it is on record, there should be no problems.