Opinions: Reasons for the Civil War

Ask practically anyone at all - even people who don't live in the U.S. - what the American Civil War was fought over, and you will get a quick and simple answer: slavery.

Was it?

Certainly the issue of slavery was a big part of the Civil War equation, but it is a bit far-fetched to imagine tens and hundreds of thousands of northern white men leaving their homes and families to put their lives on the line for years on end, because they knew the cause was just, and they were willing to die for the freedom of their black brothers and sisters in the South.

Give me a break.

In the same vein, I can't really imagine tens and hundreds of thousands of Southern boys going off to fight and die for the right of some rich slave owners to own slaves, either. These people who went off to fight didn't own slaves. Or even a winter coat. Some of the generals and politicians did, but not the boys with no shoes, for whom it was probably rare to even interact with slaves. But these men went off willing to fight, just as the Northern men did. Why, then?

Other people say the Civil War was fought over the principle of what came to be known as "States Rights" - the contention that the Federal Government was usurping the constitutional sovereignty of individual states more and more with each passing year. Many people in the South felt the North was bullying them with unfair laws and taxes, and generally conspiring to screw them over, and that it was getting progressively worse with every passing year. These people say (with some truth, frankly) that the situation finally became intolerable. Just as certain British laws and taxes had become intolerable to their ancestors, four-score and seven years earlier, so, too, had the Federal Government - the NORTHERN government - become a hated symbol of oppression in the South.

The Civil War didn't resolve that way of thinking, of course; it is still very prevalent in our politics even today.

Were either of these things the reason the U.S. had a civil war?

If we take the word of the man who was the U.S. President during the Civil War, the reason the war was fought was "to preserve the Union" and nothing else. To quote him:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."

And then he added:

"I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."

This was in August of 1862. A few weeks later he signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Apparently he thought freeing the slaves would injure the South's war effort. So did many others. Of course the Proclamation meant nothing until the North won the war.

What do I think personally was the reason for fighting the Civil War? I've tried to read books on both sides and try to understand both sides over the years. My inclination is to take Lincoln's statement at face value and say the Civil War was fought to preserve the Union.

The only minor tidbit, though, is that the U.S. Constitution doesn't forbid states from leaving the Union. It only says Congress shall prescribe by law the manner in which new states are admitted. And all Congress required was a blood test and a 3-day waiting period. (Actually, it requires most of the other states to agree to let the new state join the club.) Neither says anything about having to stay 'til death do them part. I guess no one contemplated that, once admitted to Heavenly Union, no state would ever contemplate giving up such divine bliss.

Legally, then, the South was right.

Moral? I suppose it would be that "being legally right" doesn't always mean you get to do it unmolested. The North had more than a little invested in the South over the years - not just money but many other things - and felt the country - as a whole - now sort of "owned" the South, in a manner of speaking. In the larger scheme of things, everybody owned everybody else, and nobody was just going to be allowed to take their ball and go home. Sometimes, even though it is your ball, someone bigger and stronger sometimes comes along and forces you to stay in the game instead of going your own way with your ball. Or your slaves, either, as far as that goes.

What do YOU think the cause of the Civil War was?

Taxes, Tourists, Kias, Socialism and Stuff

For a large society to function properly, long-term, people must be able to earn an income to live on which is independent of the government. Or, conversely, a government must be able to get an income from outside sources other than it's own people.

Government cannot really solve unemployment by simply hiring everyone to work for the government. To avoid stagnation and the eventual gridlock that is pure socialism, there must be an influx of actual "new" capital into the system.

There are two groups of people who are working for the government. First, there are actual workers who go to work each day doing the business of the government. Second are the people who are receiving monthly checks from the government as benefits or help of some kind.

Mostly, a government gets the money to meet these various "payrolls" by (1) making some of it's citizens pay certain taxes, and ALL of it's citizens pay other types of taxes; and (2) by taxing everyone indirectly through the back door by making their money worth less.

We certainly have socialism, to a degree, a large degree, in the United States. That is as it should be, I believe (except I think the proportion is too large right now.) Certainly, some things can only be done by government, and, just as certainly, our more unfortunate brothers and sisters need us to help them get by. We help these fellow citizens by each of us giving some money to the government, and then having the government pass out that money in proportion to need. (Like Karl Marx said.) That's socialism pure and simple, and there is nothing wrong with it unless and until it gets totally out of hand.

Where the danger comes in is when the government tries to take too much upon itself and forgets that "fresh" capital - that which is not simply being recirculated by the government - is necessary for the survival of the system. The second thing that must happen in order for the system to survive is for the government to keep the money supply reasonably finite and not expand it until it is worthless.

What is "fresh" capital? Fresh capital is "outside" capital. It is money a person earns or receives from sources other than the government. And it is money received by governments that they get from sources other than their own citizens - for example by selling natural resources it owns. Examples? When tourists from Japan and Germany visit the U.S. and spend money to eat and sleep and travel and to get into our national parks, that's fresh capital. When Saudi Arabia sells oil to the world that it gets from under it's ground, that's fresh capital for Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia doesn't have to tax its citizens highly (or even at all, probably) because it has this fresh source of income. Saudi Arabia also, one assumes, does not have to make it's money worth less and less every day by "creating" more and more of it on the printing presses. [Incidentally, pure socialism would probably work in Saudi Arabia since the government is making enough money - now, at least - from the outside. Unfortunately a "royal" few are keeping most of it.] When a Canadian farmer sells wheat to some country elsewhere in the world, that's fresh capital for Canada. When China sells plastic toys to the world, that's fresh capital for China. When South Korea sells Kias in the U.S. (as President Obama noted in his recent jobs speech) that's fresh capital for South Korea. I might add that when a country agrees to protect South Korea or Canada so they don't have to pay for the size of army they would normally have to pay for, that is also fresh income for South Korea and Canada (or whatever countries do that.) North Korea could probably cut the size of its military by about 80% and use that money to buy food for its people, and all it would take is for North Korea to start being nice to the rest of the world. There are all kinds of possibilities for "fresh" capital generation. Don't buy U.S. Savings bonds - that's silly to lend yourself money and then pay yourself interest. Invest in British municipal bonds and make Londoners pay you interest instead. See? Fresh, non-governmental, capital for you and me.

Any money you get from sources outside your government is fresh capital. Any money your government gets from sources besides its own citizens is fresh capital. Fresh capital is an object of desire. Fresh capital creates "real" jobs and makes you pay less taxes and makes your money worth something.

In my opinion, one major goal of a government should be to facilitate the influx of fresh (non-tax) income. In my opinion, when the government "borrows" more money and uses that money to hire people (even through private companies) to build bridges and roads, those are fake jobs. They are fake because the workers are getting paid by the government (by proxy) and because the contractors are getting paid by the government (directly.) Good has happened but nothing fresh has really been produced. All this is just another example of the government "churning" tax money.

In order for socialism to work (we have already agreed - at least I've said it - we need some socialism) there must also be some capitalism, some incoming of NEW money. How do we do this? Well, tourism was a good example. Work it more. The government should facilitate tourism more, and it should also encourage private travel companies to aggressively seek out tourists from overseas. Each state has unique attractions. Each state should be working hard to get foreign tourists to come there, not only American tourists. Some already are, of course, but all could probably do more. And food. We need to go back to selling food to the world. We need to stop paving over farmland and start growing crops that other people in other countries want to buy.

And we need to start manufacturing goods for sale again. Somehow we (and most of the rest of the Western World) have got this complex in our heads that cheap is the answer and only China can do that. Well, cheap is NOT the only thing! Innovative quality products are the thing. We can sell farm tractors to the world even if they may be more expensive than China's tractors, if they last longer or if they can do things China's tractors can't do. Inventive countries can always stay ahead of, and beat, copycat countries.

The other night, President Obama made a speech to the nation about how to create jobs. One of the good points he made is that our goal should not be to see who can get to the bottom by making things cheaper than everyone else, but by aspiring to get to the top by making things that are better and and more innovative and thus more valuable to buyers around the world.

Wake up and smell it

A philosophy is one's system of beliefs with regard to reality. There is only one true reality - that which is - but everyone has their own view of the world, and thus anyone can play the "magical reality" game. Barack Obama comes to mind as someone who should be mentioned here as a fine example of a magical reality kind of guy.

Well, by gosh, a philosophy seeks to understand and even explain the nature of our existence. By "our" I mean, of course, "your" - I already know the nature of my own existence. Poverty. They say (and by "they" I mean Wikipedia) that our philosophy - our belief system - becomes our personal standard through which we perceive and process ideas. In this sense, you could say that philosophy is the foundation of knowledge. I'm not sure I would say that, but smart people have said it. You are smart, so you may say that too. Barack and company destest knowledge and sound ideas, so "they" wouldn't say that.

Basically, what we want to know is, what the heck is going on and what our place is in the world. Maybe in the universe even. Somebody once said that once you start philosophizing about your purpose in life, in the universe, then you are sick. So it's a catch-22. Was it Freud? Sounds like something he would say. Somebody smart like him, anyway.

Anyway, I started out wanting to do a little post on Objectivism, a word (and philosophy) coined by Ayn Rand to explain her philosophy of life (or personal crazy sickness) because... well, because the word existentialism had already been taken, I guess. Actually, I don't have to guess - Ms. Rand admitted those very words herself. BTW, please don't get Ayn Rand mixed up with Georgia O'Keefe.

Why did I want to make a little post on the subject of Objectivism? You might well ask. I don't really know. Just because it is the weekend and J.E.B. Stuart still hasn't returned in the other series of posts anyway. Besides, Ojectivism is REALLY interesting (just not that interesting on a blog, sadly) and has the added appeal of probably pissing off liberals. Win-win. But I ramble. I know I do. Getting back on topic now. Very soon.

Gary Cooper WAS Howard Roark in "The Fountainhead." I tell you this else no one but the Rocket Scientist would have gotten the connection of the clever picture insert. Well, A. would have gotten it, because A. knows most everything and is good at free association.

Incidentally - as if you weren't impressed enough already - there is an Ayn Rand Society, which is affiliated with the American Philosophical Association (A. Phil Ass) which you also may not have heard of (your loss) because there are only a few members. Ayn Rand, Georgia O'keefe and her buddy D.L. Lawrence (and almost surely his philosophical gardner) and myself and probably Soubriquet. Most assuredly NOT Adullamite. All are dead. Well, not ALL. But the famous ones are.

Objectivism promotes the values of love, friendship, wealth, and comfort. Sadly, Ayn realized none of these things, but hey. I personally like Objectivism because it emphasizes reason and clarity, both of which I could be a universal model. in.

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." —Ayn Rand.

Sort of like President Obama's philosophy of life, only backwards. I was reminded of the man's hatred of self-reliance as I watched his jobs speech the other night. Pretty darn good speech, by the way. I mean, pretty good for a socialist. Count me in on that more spending and higher taxes thing. Put me down for another $75. And tax the living crap out of the small businessmen who create jobs; that'll do the trick. That's fair. Heck, more than half of Americans pay zero income taxes now. You call THAT fair? Everybody should pay SOMETHING. Oh, god, I kid you.