U.S. Civil War Climate of "Total War" Important to Understanding Our Current Political Climate

The history of events and the history of ideas are both important to understanding our current political climate.

Last fall’s civil liberties class audited at UIS College of public affairs introduced and discussed the book ‘Lincoln’s Constitution’ by Daniel Farber. This book explores the constitutional issues surrounding the civil war and the parallels present to today’s political climate. These issues include theories of sovereignty, executive power, individual rights and the legitimacy of coercion.

The parallels of the political climate of the civil war to today’s political climate include the suspension of habeas corpus, detention without due process, and the suspension of other rights brought about by the passage of the patriot act and the questions of the extent and use of executive power. A general understanding of the history and climate of the civil war, and an outline of the central intellectual basis of these issues, are then important, in my opinion, to understanding our current political climate.

As these issues were (and are still) pressing issues, it seemed that an examination of the thinking behind it, and a type of broad intellectual confrontation of it was necessary- at least it was for me. There is no claim to be the total authority on these issues. This can just be a supplement to your own understanding, it can be a point for further reading, it can be one view of how our political climate can be understood, or it can be some of the above or all of the above.

It can be said that the extreme measures taken by Lincoln were formed in an atmosphere of “total war” (which means both physical and psychological), where the southern states no longer accepted the U.S. Constitution and where Lincoln survived several assassination and kidnapping attempts before Ford’s Theater. The sheer number of such attempts; combined with the lack of modern locating technology and combined with events such as the confederate spy scandal- the Trent Affair and intimations in the literature of attacks on Lincoln's family; lend credibility to the notion that there was extensive confederate spying and attempted infiltration- perhaps successfully- of Lincoln’s trusted inner circle and staff.

Other evidence of the total nature of how the nation was engulfed includes the vicious and guerrilla nature of the sectional Missouri/Kansas border battles between Missouri pro-confederate guerrillas and Kansas pro-Union "red legs", depicted in the movies 'The Outlaw Josey Wales' and 'The Assassination of Jesse James'. Another example is in one story provided by a history teacher in Morrisonville which described Irish units fighting for both the Confederacy and the Union, but with those fighting for the Union as consistently ineffective and problematic. According to the teacher, rather than expose to the confederate commanders their discovery, Union generals merely located the Irish confederate units before a battle and then lined up their own Irish units to fight directly opposite them in order for the combined Irish fighters to wipe each other out AND to disrupt the positioning effectiveness of the overall Confederate attack plan.

In such an atmosphere, where for 5 years he and his family were literally hunted- which included an attack on extended family that butchered twin 6 year old girls and their parents and left the remaining girl an orphan (the account provided in two separate conversations with different descendants of the families of Abraham Lincoln over the last 25 years)- it could easily be seen how the measures taken by Lincoln would be formed in response. One can see how the overall view that framed this response could also be passed on to Lincoln's heirs in the Republican party from his assassination.

Some legal historians have claimed that the suppression of constitutional rights and civil liberties beginning in 1860 was necessary for Lincoln to more tightly coordinate "pulling the strings" in controlling citizens to orchestrate the North's victory. In this view these historians in effect argue that Lincoln acted as puppetmaster, and that it was necessary in an environment of "Total War". (If today's leaders - heirs to the Lincoln family Civil war names- act as puppetmaster by coercion- forcible or with deception backed by authority- they must realize that it is THEY who are responsible for the events that they orchestrate by this coercion.)

One example of an ideology of “total war” can be found in the work of now famous Neocon guru Leo Strauss, in his book ‘History of Political Philosophy’, in the combined analysis of elements of the political ramifications of the philosophies of John Calvin, Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes. This ideology could then be supported by Strauss’ theory of Natural Law in his book ‘Natural Right and History’, by Alexis De Tocqueville’s ‘Democracy in America ’, and in one interpretation of G.W.F. Hegel.

So then….. the task in understanding the concept of the ideology of “total war” is first outlined with a simple description of the elements that comprise the ideology, and then later in short elaborations of these basic elements and the supporting argumentation.

First the outline:

The ideology of “total war”, where survival against the ultimate enemy is boiled down to the 3 elements 1) a theory of “the enemy”, 2) a method of operation, and 3) a theory of sovereignty- based on a theory of Natural Law.

These three elements in such an ideology are as follows: 1) “Man is totally depraved”(Calvin), and therefore the nature of the individual human being, according to this theory, is that of “enemy”, as absolutely “evil”. There is then the furthest possible moral distance between the two parties in conflict(which in this ideology justifies the means employed).., 2) “All means, fair and foul, can be used to achieve all political ends” (Machiavelli)- which include lying to friend and foe alike, and 3) “the individual surrenders all rights to the sovereign as the sovereign sees fit”. (Hobbes) This is a general outline of an ideology that could be called one of “total war”.

The first element of the ideology of “total war”- is the false theory that “man is totally depraved”.

1) “Man is totally depraved”(Calvin), the nature of the individual human being as “enemy”, as absolutely “evil”, and thus there is the furthest possible moral distance between the two parties (which justifies the means)..,

This is the wrongheaded theory that the nature of the human individual is “evil, depraved, by nature a criminal, a murderer, incapable of any real friendship”. Elements of a theory of the individual of this kind can be found depicted in the Movies ‘Good Night and Good Luck’, ‘There Will Be Blood’, ‘Gladiator’ and ‘Minority Report’(pre-crime prediction). This theory appears to contend that the plain view is that the individual human being has an innately born identity of an assassin- a natural born killer, that there are really only a few good men, and that man by nature is a “pig”.

This view is NOT an objective view of individual human nature. It is wrong. It has no basis or support in any objective data- i.e. in any of the crime statistics over time or historical statistics of performance of excellence over time, nor among my collective experience of the actions of others that resulted from; and were thus formed from; free intent.

**For supplementary discussion on this false theory of human identity, see the post 'Murrow was wrong..'. For a discussion of the third element in an ideology of 'Total War', see the post on Leo Strauss' 'Natural Right and History'.

1) This ideology has merit ONLY as a wartime ideology for a NATION against an enemy intent on physical destruction and with the physical force to do so. In these conditions then the employment of this ideology by a nation is then reasonable in defense. This ideology; however is the WORST governing ideology of a population during peacetime.

It has been said that those that don’t know history are condemned to repeat it. Good luck in your research, with so many prominent historians with credibility scandals- Kearns-Goodwin, Ambrose and Ellis, it appears that revisionism is now an inherent trait in those that print history, and perhaps also in those that print philosophy.

**For a viewpoint with aspects that oppose "Total War" Ideology as a governing Philosophy of Life, see 'The Kant Variations: Critical Songs on Texts of Immanuel Kant'- specifically the Chapters "Emmanuel Levinas and the Love of Knowledge"(on forgiveness), and "Unity in the House of Reason". (on capability and the folly of terror)

haysod552.blogspot.com/2007_08_01_archive.html

History Addendum

One observation concerning the development of warfare in placing the use of "total warfare" in the larger sweep of history is the following. One could say that with the development of armaments and the ability to reproduce them that occurred in the late 1700's, the geographic scale and destructive capability of war that could occur in a smaller time frame became apparent to some world leaders. It is with this perspective that one can understand the reign and staggering sweep of the military campaigns of Napoleon Bonaparte, who attempted to conquer all of Europe essentially in one stroke.

It can then be said that after thwarting Napoleon in the invasion of Russia, then liberating Germany and France from Napoleonic rule, Alexander I recognized this new level of destructive power and acted to suppress it diplomatically with the formation of the 'Holy Alliance' for "the protection of Europe and Christianity". As described in Florinski's book 'Russia- a History and Interpretation', the 'Holy Alliance' was a treaty between Russia and the other countries of Europe to act together militarily- both in defense and in military acts initiated outside of Europe- for the protection of European interests and the interests of Christianity.

In his book Florinski downplays the religious focus and participation of the other leaders and countries, and emphasizes the practical aspects that held sway from this formation for almost the remainder of the 19th century.

Addendum- The Syllogism Structure of Preemption From the Martial Ideology Belief of the Individual as "Enemy"

In a conversation with one Philosophy Professor, he described what he believed one sense- to me false- of the logical syllogism structure that followed from a finding of the nature of the individual as completely evil, incapable of friendship, criminal, etc. that is described above.(in the post) He said that once that this is accepted that whatever negative action and result that happened to any individual was justified because- according to him- "they get what they deserve". I found, and still find, this argument to be invalid in structure and unsound in fact, and thus I find it to be absurd.

That the argument is unsound is found in the crime statistics of free people with no negative external intervention, under the rule of law, which clearly show the relative scarcity of violent crime in western countries- i.e. annual murder rates of less than one in 10,000.

The structure of the thinking is invalid logically because it is merely a tautology that becomes self fulfilling- because guilt is structured into the premise as a presumption of all human behavior and character, and then acted upon preemptively before anything negative has been initiated. My response to him was that the more accurate structure of this syllogism was to claim to someone in a discussion that "man is completely evil, incapable of friendship etc"...then walk over to that person, do something negative to them- punch them etc.. and then point and yell at them "$%#&^@#$!!!", and at others "LOOK!!".(whatever obscenity would come to mind)

Such is the "brilliant"(intentionally sarcastic) and complex intellectual leap involved in such a conclusion. There's not much involved there. Imagine that, an individual starts with the theory that man is evil, criminal etc., and then from that presumption negative action is initiated preemptively on others.