Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

THE CAUSES OF THE PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE CIVIL WARS … No More Lies.
The Northern opposition to slavery and its expansion was a mixture of economic self-interest, political strategy, and moral principle.

While it is true that economic and political factors played a substantial role, the moral dimension, particularly the influence of the abolitionist movement, cannot be dismissed as merely a pretense – instead, that political parties use moral arguments to justify practical strategic, political, economic, and cultural advantages. Just as today the ‘woke’ movement uses moral pretense as a means of warfare, during the period leading up to the civil war the north used moral pretence to advance material, economic, political, and strategic interests – over the newly purchsed and conquered territories to the west.

Slavery was just the excuse used to motivate simple people. Just as the marxist, neomarxist, postmodern, woke sequence has been used to motivate simple people to political ends.

The Civil War and the events leading up to it were the result of a complex interplay of these various factors, and it’s an oversimplification to attribute the conflict to any single cause.

SOUTHERN MOTIVATIONS
Economic Motivations:The Southern economy was heavily reliant on agriculture, particularly on crops like cotton and tobacco, which were labor-intensive. Cotton and tobacco were not open to automation as were wheat and corn.
These crops and their high returns were not replacable by alternate crops, nor could the same crops grown in the north be grown in the south.
The dependence on manual labor would not be solved for another century, and hand picking the immature leaves is still done by hand – there is no alternative.
The harvesting of cotton by automation would not be possible until the 1920s, and not practically until after the second world war – and while it could only pick one row at a time, it replaced about 40 workers. This would have been necessary by 1860 for replacement of slave labor.

Crops Produced in the South:
Cotton: The most significant crop in the South, cotton production was heavily reliant on slave labor. The invention of the cotton gin in 1793 had made cotton a highly profitable crop and a key driver of the Southern economy.

Tobacco: Grown primarily in states like Virginia and North Carolina, tobacco was another major cash crop dependent on slave labor.

Sugar Cane: Sugar cane was a major crop in states like Louisiana and required a large labor force to cultivate and process.

Rice: Rice was a significant crop in the coastal regions of states like South Carolina and Georgia.

Other Crops: Indigo and hemp were also grown, though they were less dominant than the crops mentioned above.

Large Scale Centralized Production: The Southern agriculture was characterized by large plantations that relied on the labor of slaves. The focus on a few high-value cash crops, especially cotton and tobacco, meant the South was less diversified in its agricultural output compared to the North.

THEREFORE:
Agricultural Economy Dependent on Slave Labor: The Northern crops could be harvested by families and locally available labor, and was open to mechanization, plus the northern investment in industry was fifty years ahead of the south’s capacity to catch up. The Southern economy was heavily reliant on agriculture, particularly the production of cash crops like cotton, tobacco, and rice. This system was deeply intertwined with slave labor.

Economic Viability: The profitability and sustainability of the plantation economy were seen as directly dependent on the continuation of slavery.

Fear of Economic Catastrophe: There was a significant fear that the abolition of slavery would lead to economic collapse in the South, affecting both the wealthy plantation owners and the wider economy.

Elite Income Motivations: Slavery was seen as integral to the economic prosperity and social hierarchy of the South. The wealth and lifestyle of many Southern elites were directly tied to slave labor.

Political Factors: The concept of states’ rights was often invoked in defense of the institution of slavery. Southern states sought to maintain slavery as a state right and viewed attempts to restrict or abolish it as a violation of their sovereignty.

States Rights: States rights are another way of saying – “You are making a moral argument and we are making a material argument. There is no way for the south’s means of large scale production to transition out of dependence on slave (manual) labor without costs the south cannot afford to pay. Though if paid to change we would do so.”

Taxation Asymmetry – Especially Per Capita:
While the South paid the majority of the taxes, this was assymetric in relation to the population. The north’s population…(…)

THEREFORE
Social and Cultural Justifications: Many in the South, especially those invested in the system, developed ideological justifications for slavery, including beliefs in racial superiority and paternalistic narratives about the institution.

NORTHERN MOTIVATIONS

Economic and Political Factors
Economic Competition: The North and South had developed distinct economic systems. The industrial and diversified economy of the North competed with the agrarian, slave-based economy of the South.
Northern industrialists and workers might have seen the expansion of slavery as a threat to their economic interests, particularly in new territories.

Political Power and Western Expansion: The balance of power between slave and free states in Congress was a crucial issue. The admission of new states as either slave or free had significant implications for this balance.
The North was concerned that the spread of slavery into new territories would extend the political power of the slave states.

Control of Western Territories: The debate over whether new territories and states should allow slavery was a contentious issue. The North, particularly those influenced by the Free Soil movement, opposed the expansion of slavery into these territories.

Moral and Cultural Considerations
Abolitionist Movement:The abolitionist movement, which was morally and religiously motivated against slavery, had a significant presence in the North.
Many Northerners were opposed to slavery on moral grounds, seeing it as inhumane and contrary to democratic principles. This was common because the north was closer in culture to cosmopolitan England, and

Cultural Differences:There were growing cultural and ideological differences between the North and South, influenced by their differing economies and social structures. In effect the north had pursued the middle clas strategy of the english puritains while the south continued the aristocratic tradition and the values of the scotts irish and germans.

Crops Produced in the North:
Grains: The North was a major producer of grains, such as wheat, corn (maize), and oats. The grain-producing states in the Midwest, sometimes called the “breadbasket” of America, were particularly important.

Fruits and Vegetables: The North also had a more diverse production of fruits, vegetables, and other food crops, reflecting its smaller-scale, family-owned farms.

Dairy and Livestock: Dairy farming and livestock were significant in the North, particularly in states like New York and Pennsylvania.

Other Crops: Barley, rye, and potatoes were also grown, among other crops.

Small Scale Distributed Production: The Northern agriculture was characterized by smaller farms, a greater variety of crops, and a labor system primarily consisting of family labor and hired workers. The climate and soil in the North were also more conducive to grain farming than to the cash crops that dominated the South.

Conclusion
The Northern opposition to slavery and its expansion was a mixture of economic self-interest, political strategy, and moral principle to justify it.

THEREFORE
Therefore the North sought to impose intolerable costs on the south by claiming that their motives were against slavery when their motives were control of the continent. Slavery was the tool for animating the public to conduct a war against the south, as yet another age of religious conviction. But it was in fact a war of opportunity to eliminate a competitor and to conquer the south in order to hold a monopoly over the west.

The South, even had it been able to be compensated for the abolition of slavery and deporttion of the slaves back to africa, would have still fought with the north over large vs small scale production, asymmetry of import vs domestic taxation, high culture vs bourgeoise culture, the preservation of aristocracy, but most importantly the independence from the north in the ‘race’ to settle and ally with new territories.

Behind all moral arguments in the political sphere are practical considerations. Whenever someone makes a moral argument look for the lie and crime they seek to obscure with their pretense of virtue.

The Divisions Across the American Continent Remain
The war would have happened. The war of 1812 happened. The civil war happend. The near civil war of the 1960s nearly happend. The present near civil war of the 2020s may yet happen.

The Age of Empires is Over
Why? The age of empires is over. Empires are necessaryt to suppress local parasitism on neighbors and create standards of behavior and trade. Once that problem is solved economy rather than conflict becomse thr principle means of wealth and prosperity. Once wealth and prosperity are established by the empires, empires become rent seekers on those under it’s rule. Once rent seeking is established nation states (ethnostates) start to seek independence. However independence may limit the scale ofmilitary defense. As such Independence generates demand for federations who share defense. This is the stage of world development.

The World Wars as the End of Empires
In this context then, we see the world wars as the end of empires and the conversion to nation states and federations resulting in a conflict of civilizations but not their states.
Unfortunately, Americans being europeans, and europeans being christians, america did not follow the advice of her generals MacArthur in china and Patton in Russia and end the last two empires – leaving open the need for a third world war (it appeaers) if the USA and the broader civilized world cannot outlast the coming collapse of both demographically and economically.

But The USA Is A Domestic Empire
However, the USA is a domestic empire becaues of the civil war. The present american conflict, which is really a conflict brought to us by the race-marxists (neomarxists) in the postwar period. As such the american empire is ending as well as the foreign empires. And we see the near end of the European Project to centralize as did america under the civil war, and both america through devolution and europe through failure of centralization (france being the eternal enemy of europe), are converging on the only viable solution a weak central governmetn for the adjudication of differences, reciprocal insurance against risks and harms, mutual defense, and the advantage of blocks in trade negotiations.

The only solution is devolution of the power of the central government to its origional intention as defense and insurance and investment in necessary commons, and adjudication of differences between the states , while the US States, likely in very different territorial composition from today, would, as europe is doing today, develop local policies suitable to the demographic, cultura, and economic interests of the states.

Cheers

Reply addressees: @chrisdier @WAR_CR0W @Duke_of_angels @NikkiHaley