On the Wrong Side of the Mason-Dixon:

The time: 1850’s. The place: the Eastern coast of North America. The event: the Civil War of the United States of America; one of the most violent and bloody wars our nation has ever endured. North against South. Brother against brother. The manufacturers versus the plantation owners. Abolitionists facing slaveholders. This is the picture we come to associate with the Civil War.

Another bias we have as we first look, ignorant youths in the realms of history, at this war, is that the Southern Confederacy was in the wrong. They had violated the country’s laws for their foolish beliefs. The Confederates were a bunch of hotheads who needed to be brought back, forcefully if needed, to the fold. In short, in our first knowledge of the Civil War, we see the South as the Dark Side, bent on slavery and breaking the union. They were wrong.

But were they?

I am not concerning myself with the physical battles and events that took place before, after, and during the Civil War. I want the ideas. Why did these men fight, bleed, and die for their causes? What drove them to what they did? I want the mental debates, not the physical conflict. And these are simply my thoughts on these ideological battles. After conclusive study of the Civil War, I believe that the South won the war; in terms of the thought war.

Why?

First of all, the nation from its very birth was set for a dramatic split. The North was sectioned off and sold in parcels of land that encouraged towns to flourish. Thus, a strong network of cities grew up in the North. In the South, however, the semi-tropical conditions and fertile soil made for large-scale farms. Thus sprung the plantation. Houses were in the center of these enormous pieces of property, so few towns were established. In fact, most plantations had river access to ship their goods directly to England. Southern farmers, because of the distance between them, became very independent, living mostly off what they grew and buying luxuries with their surplus. The plantation owners wanted as much freedom to do what they liked with their land, and were all for small government. However, the North was different. ‘New England’ properly describes the people, who wanted the government to regulate certain things. Thus, early on in our nation’s history, the stage was set for a separation. The differences between these two peoples were great enough that, in essence, two separate cultures and countries formed.
Secondly, the Civil War was NOT about slavery (I will address how this came to be the common thought later.). It was about states’ rights. The reason the war was fought was because the North thought that the Southern states had no right to secede. The Southern states thought they had every right to leave. Who was right?

The answer is simple. Go to the document that unified the thirteen plus states: the Constitution of the United States of America. The original reason the states united was to protect themselves against Great Britain. When that threat ceased, there was serious debate about whether or not to continue in a union. The Founding Fathers saw the separation between the North and South, but held off on addressing it. Instead, to protect themselves in the future, they drafted a document which all the states ratified: our Constitution. The United States formed only to prevent each state from being isolated and swallowed by European powers. Why else do we call each entity a ‘state’? Once the Declaration of Independence was signed, the colonies became states, free and independent countries that formed an alliance to protect themselves. One proof of this is that, even in colonial times, it was nearly impossible to exchange money from one state for money from another! Even under Great Britain, the colonists saw themselves as separate peoples, united under a common cause: liberty.

But no article in the Constitution allows for secession or denies it to any state. As I have already shown, it seems quite clear from history that the alliance was only for protection. It does not appear there was any idea of secession. There was just too much threat from the European powers to the new little nation. But as the states expanded and grew and Europe lost interest in them, they began to grow more independent. When the danger was gone, it was a real possibility that the alliance could unravel. South Carolina obviously thought it was time, and several other states followed her. Why couldn’t they form their own union? What was so wrong about it?

Abraham Lincoln is the answer. Now get me on this. I respect Abraham Lincoln. He was a great and godly man. But I do not agree with some of his decisions. And I think he wrecked the way the Founding Fathers set up our government. Let me explain. The Founding Fathers were afraid of central government, and with good reason. They had just escaped the fist of an oppressive tyrant, and were in no hurry to subject themselves to a strong central power. So, they spread the power out among the states and formed a weak central government to unite the different states. Abraham Lincoln charged in and took away the power from the states. He put it all in the Federal government, making a strong central government: THE VERY THING THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE AFRAID OF. 

Lincoln also skewed the debate between the North and South in a very important way: he shifted the focus from states’ rights to slavery. Harriet Beecher Stowe’s book Uncle Tom’s Cabin only served as propaganda for this new take on the War. It was simply this: the South is for slavery. This completely tilts the playing field. No matter how you try, YOU CAN NEVER JUSTIFY SLAVERY. And the South can’t win that debate!!! There’s just no way. Some people threw down their guns and left as soon as they thought that was the cause. Everyone in the North, however, ate it up. The South’s for slavery! Pardon me here: what idiots. The North itself had slavery!!! In the factories of the abolitionist New England, workers were only paid enough to buy them food at prices the factory set, not enough to pay their debts and leave the service of the factory!! They were, in essence, imprisoned. If this is not a form of slavery, I don’t know what is.

to be continued...