Skip to main content

Understanding the Causes of the War between the States

With the history of America's "Civil War" having recently reentered the political spotlight, it has become apparent just what precious little Americans know about their own country's history. Those who wish to truly understand the causes of the War between the States must first endeavor to understand the construction of the United States, that the United States were constituted as a Union of sovereign states. In this context, it is essential to understand that each state then reserved the right to secede from the Union, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, throughout the Constitutional Conventions, and upon ratification of the Constitution. 

One must also study the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, the addresses and the statements issued by Lincoln and his administration, the Corwin Amendment, the history of the American Colonization Society, the political and economic implications of the Morrill Tariff and westward expansion, the implications of a General Government becoming such a force within the states, and the events and circumstances surrounding the battle at Fort Sumter after the State of South Carolina had already declared its secession from the Union; after the State of South Carolina had already demanded that the Union Army vacate the fort; and after the State of South Carolina had already offered compensation to the Union in return. 

Ultimately, the Union Army’s continued occupation of Fort Sumter, its Southern blockade, its imposition of onerous tariffs, and its incursion into the Southern States constituted treason as defined in Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." And, where the term "United States" appears within the Constitution, it is in the plural, regarding the States severally in their sovereign capacity as declared in the Declaration of Independence, as acknowledged in the Treaty of Paris, and as reaffirmed in the compacts which formed the Union. 

Ultimately, at the very core of the matter we find this: Slavery was not the cause of the Civil War. It was, however, one of the political issues named among the States’ declared causes for secession. There is a difference. In fact, had the Civil War ended within two years after it officially began at Fort Sumter — or within the even shorter timeframe expected by Lincoln — nobody today would connect the war to slavery, specifically because it was a war waged by Lincoln to "preserve the Union" and, by that, to preserve the General Government’s major tax base in the South. 

It was only several years into the war, after the issue of slavery became expedient to the cause of the Federals, that the Emancipation Proclamation was issued as a war measure to foment unrest in the South and to conscript slaves into the Union Army. To believe that the Civil War for both sides centered on the issue of slavery is to believe that the Allies’ efforts in World War II were inspired by the Holocaust or the plight of the Jews. That is to say that both beliefs are naive, unfounded in both reason and history.

For those interested in discovering the true history and the various events comprising this critically important part of American history, please read America's Founders on the Matter of States' Rights and America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Deal with Tariffs

Over the course of President Trump’s two terms, there has been much talk around the matter of tariffs — taxes on imported goods. However, much of the talk seems to miss the point. After all, for those of us who seek the truth, it’s not really a question of whether tariffs are ‘good’ but whether they are preferable to other kinds of taxes — assuming, of course, that taxes are the rule, as certain as the eventuality of death. First, let’s establish the theory: beyond the generic purpose of revenue generation for the state, the institution of tariffs ordinarily serves to  reduce (or discourage) imports by making them artificially more expensive, while encouraging domestic production by making domestic products more appealing on a relative price basis. In the realm of foreign affairs, tariffs are instituted or threatened in the course of international trade negotiations in order to signal dissatisfaction with existing trade barriers and to push for more favorable trade terms; or in ord...

Fischer: Tortured in the Pasadena Jailhouse (featuring the Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin)

Buy your copy today of  Fischer: Tortured in the Pasadena Jailhouse (featuring the Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin) , available at  Amazon  and Barnes & Noble . The name Bobby Fischer reigns supreme in the world of chess, yet there was a time when it hogged headlines, struck fear into the eyes of the competition, and was on the lips of folks all across the globe. More than the face of the centuries-old game, there was a time when Bobby Fischer was synonymous with the cause and spirit of America, that his moves on the chessboard sought more than checkmate but to pit the strength of “raw-boned American individualism” against “the Soviet megalithic system” which had come to dominate the game of chess at the same time it dominated Cold War politics. Fischer’s triumph over the USSR's Boris Spassky in the ’72 World Chess Championship would ultimately be celebrated as a symbolic and diplomatic victory for the U.S., but, as time would tell, it would not mean the American...

The Cost of Government is What It Spends, Not What It Taxes

The cost of government is the quantity it spends, not the quantity it taxes; that cost representing the financial burden imposed upon those who pay the taxes and all who transact within that economy or through its common currency. Likewise, governments can either take the people’s money through taxation or they can take the people’s purchasing power through money-printing (or the like).  Therefore, the argument against tax cuts requires further context to appreciate why tax cuts have failed and will continue to fail to deliver economic growth, especially where those tax cuts promote or serve excess indulgence and cheap speculation. In short, it’s not that tax cuts are inherently destructive, or that reducing the tax liability of the wealthiest in society “doesn’t work”; rather, the fact is that the public debt is so high that the country simply cannot afford those tax cuts without defaulting on its debts or — which is the same — covering them through inflation (i.e. money-printing,...