The War’s Place in World History

Importance to Modern Politics

​

America’s war of 1861 can be seen as a precursor to the Great War of 1914 in a number of ways extending beyond advances in armament and munitions that altered the nature of warfare. It brought about and, to a large extent, was caused or facilitated by changes in society associated with broader democratic political representation, population migrations, international banking and finance, and political and religious nationalism.

​

The American War was a defining point in the history of Christianity and Western Civilization. It was the last of the great Civil Wars set off by the Reformation and Enlightenment, beginning with the Pilgrimage of Grace in 1536, proceeding through the 1549 and 1569 Risings in the West and the North; the 1641-45 English Civil War; the 1688-91, 1715, 1719, and 1745-46 Jacobite Wars; and the 1775-83 American Revolution which transformed the English-speaking world. Prior to these, England was a small decentralized Catholic Monarchy. At their close, the two centralized Anglo-American powers would span most of the globe and spread the principles of the Enlightenment throughout the world. (1 p. 236)

​

The name of the war itself is a source of controversy. The common name especially outside of the South, is the Civil War but this is a misnomer in that a civil war is by definition fought by two or more groups attempting to control the same land mass or political entity.  The war was actually a failed war of secession. In a war of secession the seceding side can achieve victory simply by not losing for a long enough period of time that the cost in blood and treasure becomes too high for the former political unit to remain one and this is a fair description of the American Revolution. The name that will be used here will be War Between the States which is simply a factual definition of what it was.

​

Since the 1960’s in most parts of the country the War Between the States has been presented largely if not entirely as a moral crusade to eliminate the institution of slavery where Northern abolitionists eventually prevailed against Southern “Slave power”. This was due to a fundamental change in the way history was studied and taught to emphasize philosophical concepts and ideas over more quantitative factors that also tended to reduce complex causes to single point conclusions (2 p. preface). Prior to that, numerous other factors were accepted as potential causes including tariffs, federalism and nationalism or states’ rights, changing demographics, deep seeded cultural differences, international banking, and a variety of other economic factors. To be sure, secession would have been significantly beneficial to the states of the Confederacy and equally ruinous to the North which would have to be the case to economically justify the expenditure of resources necessary to keep the union together.  

​

The change in the way in which the war was presented, not surprisingly, corresponded closely with political changes in the 1960’s and what was to become the two dominant American political worldviews and schools of historical interpretation. Because of the rather direct tie to modern politics, the interpretation of this war is by no means simply an academic debate of events from an increasingly distant past but is very relevant today.

​

On the Right, the libertarian and largely isolationist “Old Right” was being replaced as early as the 1950’s by the aggressively anti-communist “New Right” that eventually became driven by neo-Conservative philosophy and history associated with political philosophers Leo Straus, Harry Joffa, and the Claremont School. Neo-conservatives increasingly adopted a vision of US global dominance or hegemony based on the underlying proposition that “All men are created equal” and building on the legacy of US cultural, economic, and religious expansion that began with the War Between the States and grew steadily through the conquest of the West and Hawaii, numerous small military actions in the Pacific and Latin America, and culminating with WWI and WWII.  In referring to “US culture” this actually referred to New England culture which had through these changes become dominant to the point where the memory of other cultures were gradually being erased.

On the other end of the modern political spectrum was the “New Left” that was being built around post-modernism and critical theory associated with the neo-Marxist Frankfort school whose disciples were starting their long march through the institutions. Critical theory rapidly merged into Critical Race Theory with slavery in the American colonies being the “original sin” and America being seen as oppressor nation. From this perspective, the War Between the States represented an awakening and the white southerner, going forward an impediment to social progress.

​

These two schools would seem to be polar opposites of each other, and in some respects they are, but in other ways they have a good deal of commonality.  For example, they both have globalist visions, neither recognize any theoretical moral limitations on the role of government in society, they both see the progressive protestant social reformers of the 19th century as heroes, they both grew out of academia, they both try to control information, and they both look upon the common man or working class as a sort of inferior adversary. Perhaps this is why many of their historical interpretations are similar and why so many neo-conservative thought leaders were “reformed” Marxists.

​

Focusing specifically on the war of 1861, their interpretation of the causes and effects of the war are largely similar and act as starting point in portraying their respective views of history which are always seen as moving humanity forward.  If the “gatekeeper” interpretation of the war can be shown to be demonstrably false it would amount to debunking two versions of the same “creation myth” which would cause the related belief systems to dissolve. This is why any challenges to the narrative, and those that make them, are attacked as vigorously as they are.

​

A common adage in studying and analyzing history is “history is complicated” and of all historical events, wars are the most complex.  Making a contrary point is the concept of Occam’s razor, named after William of Occam, that holds “that entities should not be multiplied more than necessary” which generally is interpreted to mean that the simplest of competing theories of causation tends to be true.  There are clearly cases where the simplest explanation is the most appropriate conclusion based on the nature of the problem being analyzed. In the case of business applications in general, and manufacturing / quality problems in particular, it is common to find that the biggest one or two causes can be associated with a solid majority of the outcomes. This is referred to as the Pareato concept or the 90/10 or 80/20 rule (which is also frequently applied to wealth distribution). Because this conclusion may commonly be true in certain scenarios, however, doesn’t mean it’s true in all scenarios. There must be analysis to support this conclusion and it cannot be assumed to be true.  In cases where there are complex interactions and feedback mechanisms, in particular, it typically isn’t a valid assumption.

​

The simplest forms of causal analysis of the war come from modern progressives and neo-conservatives who, following the path of Occam’s razor typically start off with some combination of the following three points: 1) several of the states of the Deep South made fairly significant reference to slavery (along with many other topics) in their secession documents, 2) Alexander Stevens was reported as having described slavery as being the “cornerstone” of the Confederacy, and 3) the Confederate Constitution prohibited the abolition of slavery but left the matter to individual states (153). From there the arguments jump forward in time frequently trying to link to Jim Crow laws in the 1890’s and to the second Klan in the 1910’s and 20’s. The 2nd Klan was principally an anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic organization that was based out of Indiana (154) and was largest in northern cities.  The Steven’s comment is also very debatable. According to his own diary, the speech itself was wrongfully recorded, and he asked the editor of the papers to redact it multiple times. He said that, slavery had not changed from one constitution to the other and that the issue remained the same. This pattern of argumentation is highly consistent and can be found in anything from academic journals to social media posts to political rallies.

​

So out of potentially thousands of points of equal or greater significance, all of which have context and significant interaction, these three observations (of which one may be factually wrong) have been taken out of context, linked to events that hadn’t happened yet, and enshrined as “mic drop” arguments. Taking this sort of argumentation seriously and responding to it with academic arguments in a sense only gives it credibility but, even if this was a supportable position, it would only be the first leg to establishing cause. To establish slavery as the principal or only cause of the war, it would have to follow that the Union was morally superior specifically with regard to the subject of slavery and race and that moral outrage over this topic drove the north to invade the South. It would also infer that the North didn’t benefit from the institution and didn’t act to facilitate or enable it.

​

Looking at history from the lens of political philosophy requires common philosophical motives be projected across large groups of fairly diverse people but those in the path of a war generally think and function at more basic levels of the human hierarchy of needs frequently having to focus on survival.  Analyzing any war from the perspective of those who lived it as opposed to people living decades or centuries later who are trying to make sense of an event in the context of their own current time and circumstances requires that choices made by millions of people be understood in the context of another time. Motives will not be the same universally across all actors from one side of a conflict but there will be patterns that will roughly align by the role someone plays. For example, someone whose homeland has been invaded and who perceives a real threat to themselves and their family may fight or, in some other ways resist, based on concepts of self-defense which doesn’t necessarily require any other political justification. Someone perceiving annihilation of their culture may fight against it which would imply at least a vague political or religious motivation. For the invader, however, apart from those who are conscripted, they will require a motive to change a current condition wither for personal gain or social change or some combination of the two.

​​

How the War Changed Modern War

​

The War of Southern Independence would change how large wars are fought politically, militarily, and in the press. The Mexican American war did use an exaggerated incident to generate public support but this was on another scale and would foreshadow all major future American foreign wars.

​

The war changed a rapidly growing and shifting confederation of states into a modern nation state for better or worse. Wars of the 18th and early 19th century were, with few exceptions, fought with limited resources to obtain limited political and economic objectives using professional mercenary armies. Wars were not crusades presented in religious and nationalistic terms and tended to follow international law that made a clear distinction between combatants and noncombatants. Noncombatants and neutrals had extensive rights which protected their way of life and economic means of support as much as possible during the conflict. (3 pp. 170-71) As the result of fundamental shifts which gradually reshaped society by the mid 1800’s, this was all to change and the American War Between the States was the first tragic example.

​

During the 1800’s the population grew rapidly and voting rights incrementally expanded well beyond those meeting property requirements.  This made people and groups who were, prior to that not part of democratic processes, key participants for whom politicians and parties competed for votes and also expanded the potential of the government acting as a tool to reallocate income and wealth to a greater extent than was seen previously. Today it is almost assumed that reallocation is from top to bottom but in reality it is frequently if not generally from the bottom and middle upward and military spending is a primary example of this.  Industrialization and economic integration made it possible to field and support massive armies. As a result of these societal changes it required that the majority of the body of citizens give enthusiastic support to any war effort. While, as time was to demonstrate, war on this sort of scale was to prove to be very profitable for a few, for the bulk of the population it offered at a minimum economic hardship and for some, conflict and death. For a majority of a population to support any endeavor that was not personally in their interests, the war effort would have to be presented as service “in behalf of great moral goals or universal philosophic values or, at the very least, for survival” (3 pp. p. 170-71). Due to the size of the forces involved and related logistics factors, limited mobilization directed at limited political objectives became difficult leading to the generally new concept of total war. Negotiations came to be seen as a betrayal of the cause and had to be done with a good deal of secrecy.

​

To justify war as a moral war, the case would need to be made against an entire population therefore painting them as being inherently evil or subhuman and, as a result of this, deserving of their fate that could even be seen as God’s judgment upon them for their evil. This is generally put in motion by a singular event that is amplified in the press to mobilize a population.  In the Mexican-American War it was “American blood has been shed on American soil”. In the War Between the States, Fort Sumner was the driving event.  In the foreign wars to follow it would always be some sort of similar occurrence presented in a similar manner. Before Sumter there was no sort of consensus on war in the North. Many, perhaps most thought the South would and should simply be allowed to part ways which was reflected in northern newspapers of the time.

​

Wars on this scale are a “religious” endeavor regardless of whether the underlying philosophy is recognized as a religion or not and the progressive religious nationalism that had gripped the protestant north was very well suited to this. The process left little room for distinction between combatant, noncombatant, and neutral and the scope of the mobilization also blurred this as those who were not combatants were suppliers of those who were in terms of both food and implements of war (3 pp. 170-72). As a result of this, war was increasingly waged against civilian populations; both directly and through blockades intended to result in starvation. A moral narrative also didn’t leave room for decent or objection that could cause the faithful to reconsider resulting in suppression of speech both by the government directly and those acting as voluntary enforcers of government policies. The model described here played out very directly in the War Between the States and in major wars since then.

​

Of course, not everyone would buy into this sort of thinking but it was necessary that enough did to pass the gates of the democratic processes and that a plurality of the population, at least at the start of a conflict, support it and Sumter accomplished this.  Over time many will gradually come to understand that this is not at all like cheering for the home team in an athletic contest, as it may have initially appeared to be, but enthusiasm for a greater cause can then be gradually replaced with desire for vengeance for the losses incurred or simple survival.

​

Historians and commentators generally associate this adoption of total war to World War I but all these elements were present in America’s war of 1861 which should have been a cautionary tale for what was to follow in the 20th century. In the initial phases of the war, anti-war voices were silenced with thousands being imprisoned and some deported.  Habeas Corpus was suspended allowing people to remain incarcerated for extended periods of time without a trial. Newspapers became government propaganda tools. Isolation and starvation of a civilian population was adopted as a war strategy. Increasingly as the war progressed property and food supplies were destroyed by Union forces and individual soldiers allowed to rob and plunder the civilian population.  Southern armies on the other hand, generally abided by the codes of military conduct that stood before the war and did not hide amongst civilian populations making the targeting of civilians all that much harder to justify.

​

Bibliography

1. Coulombe, Charles A. Puritans Empire A Catholic Perspective on American History. s.l. : Tumblar House, 2008.

2. McDonald, Forrest. Novus Ordo Seclorum The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution. Lawrence Kansas : University Press of Kansas, 1985.

3. Quigley, Carroll. Tragedy and Hope A history of the World in Our Time. New York, New York : Macmillan company, 1966.