The Why of the Civil War

The Why of the War

By : Samuel Ashwood

As Woke education gains more and more of a foothold, it becomes nearly impossible to hold an intelligent conversation about the American Civil War. Many, maybe most Americans—especially those attending university—have been convinced that the war was about slavery, slavery, slavery.

Of course, those who have looked a little more deeply into the matter realize there are some fundamental flaws with this line of argumentation. If the war was about nothing but slavery, why were there more slave states in the Union than in the Confederacy when Fort Sumter was fired on? If the war was about nothing but the preservation of slavery, then why didn’t the seceding states rejoin the Union in early 1861 and ratify the original Lincoln-endorsed 13th amendment (Corwin amendment) which would have guaranteed the protection of slavery in perpetuity? If the war was over nothing but slavery, why did both the United States congress, and Abraham Lincoln himself, avow in public declarations that the war was not about slavery, but the preservation of the union?

But there is another question that far too seldom is asked, which should be at the root of every conversation of this great American calamity. Try to talk about the origins of the war today, and invariably somebody will begin citing the causes of secession put forth by the seven cotton states, all of which named the protection of slavery as a decisive factor for their departure from the union. For some reason, Americans have allowed themselves to be convinced that the act of secession is the same as a declaration of war.

Of course, it is not. There were, in fact, nearly four months between the first act of secession by South Carolina, and the firing on Fort Sumter, which precipitated the war. Even at that, the bloodless reduction of Sumter by Confederate forces under P.G.T. Beuaregard by no means need have started a war. After all, other nations engage in border skirmishes where people are killed frequently, without full-fledged war breaking out—North and South Korea, China and India, to name a couple.

“But American soldiers and the American flag were fired on!” Yes, and zero casualties were incurred. On January 3, 2020, President Donald Trump had Iranian leader Qassem Soleimani killed by drone strike. In retaliation, Iran fired missiles at a US base, and injured multiple American soldiers—in other words, far more damage was done than was done to US forces than at Fort Sumter. And yet, there was no invasion of Iran in response.

While it is important to know why the Southern states seceded, when we consider the war, the far more important question is this: Why did Lincoln choose coercion instead of negotiation and reconciliation? It is the question that no modern historians seem interested in asking or answering. Why? Doubtless, because the answer, if provided honestly, would reveal some truths that Americans weaned on the milk of righteous cause mythology would not want to hear.

Ask yourself the question: in what way would the North have been damaged if the seven cotton states had been allowed to depart in peace? We know, by the admission of Lincoln and the US Congress, that they waged war for union, not to end slavery, so we can rule out humanitarian motives. Why, then, did Lincoln call for 75,000 troops to invade and subjugate the South?

The answer is money. If the Southern states, whose cotton was a major staple of the world economy at that time, created a free trade zone, European trade would have fled Northern ports and their high tariffs for the South. The results for the economy of the United States would have been disastrous, without a drastic change in economic policy, that would have undermined everything the Republican Party stood for. Whether Lincoln ever cried out, when asked why he seemed intent on choosing war, “What about my tariff?” or not, it is clear that this was a primary factor in the Northern decision to go to war in 1861.

Wars are not fought over righteous moral indignation by one side against another, whether slavery or firing on the flag. These things may serve to galvanize the population behind a war, but governments go to war for money or power. Lincoln’s choice was based on the economic and political disaster facing the North if a free trade zone was created in the South to complete with the high tariff Northern ports. Instead of negotiating peacefully to restore the states to the union, or adjusting their economic policies to compete with the South, Lincoln chose a war that would take almost a million lives and do social and political damage we are still living with today.