Did the Leaders of the South Act Wisely?
The tyranno-leaders of the South did not act wisely in 1861 because wise men would have done away with slavery long before. Unfortunately their tyranno-natures made the leaders of the South want to maintain slavery, so all that was left to them was to do what they had done since the republic was founded—be aggressive and cunning. But they risked everything. They lost control of themselves in 1861 and beyond—they could not suppress their tyranno-natures. The secessions and the attack on Fort Sumter were stupendously, stupidly, suicidally dangerous. Yes, an anti-slavery president had been elected, but the institution of slavery was still intact. No abolition legislation was pending, and it was not clear at all that such legislation would be viewed by the courts as constitutional, and the South had more than enough votes to block any anti-slavery constitutional amendments. Abolitionists were unpopular in the North, so there was a long way to go before any abolition legislation could be proposed and longer still before it could become law.
Cunning men, if they were thinking clearly, would have recognized that the North had racist inclinations of its own, did not know how to deal with huge numbers of emancipated slaves, and would have accepted almost any sham reframing of the institution of slavery. Cunning men would have waited to see what would happen after Lincoln took power. Calm, clear-thinking, cunning men would have understood that there was always time to secede later should their worst fears be realized. Cunning men would have understood that by continuing to work within the national government they could delay and modify unwelcome legislation, and they could at the same time gain more time to spend in military preparation—the 2nd Amendment gave them the authority to enlarge, equip and train their militias. But these tyranni did not think clearly. They could feel that their time was running out—they stood outside the civilized world. Their collective acts fit the definition of the APA’s Antisocial Personality Disorder, and they fit a commonplace definition of insanity—they were dangerous to themselves and to others. They were not fit to lead a nation. Their mantra was, “Give me slavery or give me the deaths of America’s young men.”
Surely they knew that they could always refuse to comply with any national government orders that they did not approve, but they were obviously impulsive and failed to plan ahead. They were highly irritable and aggressive, and had repeatedly approved, if not directed, physical assaults against powerless slaves in their respective states, and now they were dangerously expanding their field of violence to assault the powerful, capable people of the North who could respond in kind, and who had the population and industrial resources to win any civil war—especially when provoked.
The South was at a great disadvantage with respect to men and materiel. In order to win against the more powerful North virtually every tactic, every cannonade, every cavalry and infantry charge, every bayonet thrust would have to favor the South. Clear-thinking men would have realized that the South faced long, probably insurmountable, odds. The tyranno-leaders of the South recklessly disregarded the safety of themselves and of the citizens of the South. These tyranni knew or should have known the strength of the North. After all, the South had many high elected officials serving in Washington, D.C. Robert E. Lee was offered command of the Union army, so he should have known its strength. Either the southern leaders did not compare the strength of the North to their own, or they relied on their tyranno sense of superiority to make them confident of victory. But flying minié balls and exploding artillery shells do not recognize the invincibility imagined by their human targets. Delusion, no matter its inspiration, does not make the fanatic immune to the laws of physics or to corporeal insults.
So the answer is clear—the southern tyranni did not act wisely and they did not think clearly; instead they acted like men who were uncontrollably angry—just having a gargantuan, grotesque, group temper fit—an overpowering outburst of aggregated, aggravated, aggression. They were being denied their due—their almost divine right to rule. They “knew” they were right in all things and they believed that they had a right to spread their power, and their “peculiar” institution of slavery, across the continent. What right did some self-righteous, democrato-northerners have to interfere in the tyranno-version of manifest destiny? Remember, one of the most important characteristics of Varietas Tyrannica is that they are willing to use force and deception to make others live their lives the way they, the tyranni, want. Another defining characteristic is that tyranni, in the extreme form, are willing to take the lives of others. The tyranno-leaders of the southern slaveholding states definitely exhibited both these characteristics. They wanted blood, and they got it.
The war began because the democrati and tyranni in positions of power had two different views of reality, and the constitutional system provided no way to reconcile them. If one should think that the inability to reconcile such divergent views did not automatically require a declaration of war, one would be wrong. The constitutional system offered no way to reconcile good and evil—what system does? Evil is implacable, uncompromising—it always says “No!” to good. While speaking of the religious world of good and evil, former president Jimmy Carter said this about tyranno-Christian fundamentalists:
Fundamentalists draw clear distinctions between themselves, as true believers, and others, convinced that they are right and that anyone who contradicts them is ignorant and possibly evil. [i]
Tyranno-Christian fundamentalists are tyranni first and Christians second. The rulers of the slaveholding South were tyranni first and rulers second. This struggle between V. Tyrannica, who controlled the South, and V. Democratica, who controlled the North, can only be understood in terms of evolution by natural selection. The two varieties of humankind took up arms against each other in a Darwinian struggle for survival. Each side thought the other was an evil threat to its survival, and the institution of slavery made it easy to identify and separate the two sides. There is no doubt who was the aggressor. The tyranno-rulers of the slaveholding South had been threatening secession and violence for at least seventy years if they did not get their way—and that way was to protect and expand what had become their defining sectional characteristic, a cultural and economic characteristic that separated the South from the civilized world: the institution of slavery. They lost control of themselves; or rather I should say that they yielded to their evolved natures. They finally squeezed the trigger even though the gun was aimed at their own heads and at the heads of their innocent, duped subjects. Tyranni who were willing to beat, burn, and breed blacks were certainly willing to bombard, blast, and bayonet Yankees, even if it meant the bloody, brutal butchering of their own sons.
For more than a century, a serious argument has divided our nation. The question, “What caused the Civil War?” has evoked much strong emotion. Some say it was northern aggression, the imposition of tariffs, states’ rights, or slavery. As we have seen above, Alexander Stephens proudly confessed publicly that it was slavery, and I believe that he believed it. But he was wrong. The cause of the Civil War was the unwillingness of the tyranno-leaders of the South to give slavery up, or to modify it—or to just be reasonable. The proper question is not “What caused the Civil War?” but “Who caused the Civil War?” Varietas Tyrannica did it. They caused the Civil War. Kidnapping, terror, beating, slavery, immolation, extortion, states’ rights, bayonets, gunfire, lynching, and cannonades were just some of the instruments used by Varietas Tyrannica to indulge their natures, to maintain their absolute power over others for their own personal benefit. Southern tyranni are the “who,” and evolution by natural selection is the “what,” that determined our history.
Who caused the Civil War? Varietas Tyrannica—specifically the tyranno-rulers of the southern slaveholding states—the tyranni who were willing to use force to get their way. The ordinary white citizens of the South were not consulted, they had no say, and they had no choice. The ordinary white southerner was no more responsible for the Civil War than I am. The ruling aristocracy, the large slaveholders, the tyranno-rulers, did not give a damn about the rest of the southern population, white or black. To these tyranni, blacks were no more than farm implements and whites were no more than cannon fodder. The tyranno-rulers of the slaveholding South wanted only one thing—to have their way, no matter whom they hurt. Tyranni are as tyranni do—and they do it with all their might. You are what you do—to others.
[i] Jimmy Carter, Our Endangered Values, pp. 34-35