The Economic Causes of the War Between the States by Dr. Donald W. Miller, Jr.

via Free North Carolina and Rebellion Blog

 

North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial

The Economic Causes of the War Between the States

The following essay is an excellent encapsulation and explanation of the economic causes of the

War Between the States published in September 2001 by Dr. Donald W. Miller, Jr.  Editor

The Economic Roots of the Civil War

“Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions

to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many evils. The quarrel between the North and the

South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.” Charles Dickens

In the schoolbook account of the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln rose to the presidency and

took the steps needed to end slavery. He led the country in a great Civil War against the slaveholding

States that seceded, restored these states to the Union, and ended slavery. Accordingly, historians rate

Abraham Lincoln as one of our greatest presidents.

People in the South, like my great-great-grandfather Louis Thomas Hicks, had a different view of the war.

Louis Hicks fought in the Battle of Gettysburg in the Army of Northern Virginia, commanding the

20th North Carolina Regiment (in Iverson's Brigade of Rodes Division in Ewell's Second Corps).

He led his regiment into action on the first day of the battle and was forced to surrender after losing

eighty percent of his men (238 out of 300) in two-and-a-half hours of fighting. In his personal account

of the battle, he wrote, "[As a prisoner] I lied awake, thinking of my comrades and the great cause for

which we were willing to shed our last drop of blood."

His daughter, Mary Lyde Williams, echoed similar sentiments in her Presentation Address given

at the Unveiling of the North Carolina Memorial on the Battlefield of Gettysburg on July 3, 1929.

She began her address with the words, "They wrote a constitution in which each State should be free."

Four children, including her granddaughter, my mother, who was then 10 years old,

removed the veil that covered the statue.

Today’s Standard View of the War
Today American children are taught in the nation's schools, both in the North and South,

that it was wrong for people to support the Confederacy and to fight and die for it.

Well-intentioned, "right thinking" people equate anyone today who thinks that the South did the

right thing by seceding from the Union as secretly approving of slavery. Indeed, such thinking has

now reached the point where groups from both sides of the political spectrum, notably the NAACP

and Southern Poverty Law Center on the left and the Cato Institute on the right, want to have the

Confederate Battle Flag eradicated from public spaces. These people argue that the Confederate

flag is offensive to African-Americans because it commemorates slavery.

In the standard account, the Civil War was an outcome of our Founding Fathers failure to address

the institution of slavery in a republic that proclaimed in its Declaration of Independence that

"all men are created equal." But was it really necessary to wage a four-year war to abolish

slavery in the United States, one that ravaged half of the country and destroyed a generation

of American men? Only the United States and Haiti freed their slaves by war.

America Not Alone in Slaveholding
Every other country in the New World that had slaves, such as Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia,

Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela, freed them in the 19th century peacefully.

The war did enable Lincoln to "save" the Union, but only in a geographic sense. The country ceased

being a Union, as it was originally conceived, of separate and sovereign States. Instead,
America became a "nation" with a powerful federal government. Although the war freed four million

slaves into poverty, it did not bring about a new birth of freedom, as Lincoln and historians such as

James McPherson and Henry Jaffa say.

For the nation as a whole the war did just the opposite: It initiated a process of centralization of government

that has substantially restricted liberty and freedom in America, as historians Charles Adams and Jeffrey Rogers

Hummel have argued – Adams in his book, When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for

Southern Secession (published in 2000); and Hummel in his book, Emancipating Slaves,

Enslaving Free Men (1996).

Not a “Civil War”
The term Civil War is a misnomer. The South did not instigate a rebellion. Thirteen Southern States in

1860-61 simply chose to secede from the Union and go their own way, like the thirteen colonies did

when they seceded from Britain. A more accurate name for themwar that took place between the northern

and Southern American States is the War for Southern Independence. Mainstream historiography

presents the victors' view, an account that focuses on the issue of slavery

and downplays other considerations.

Up until the 19th century slavery in human societies was considered to be a normal state of affairs.

The Old Testament of the Bible affirms that slaves are a form of property and that the
children of a slave couple are the property of the slaves' owner (Exodus 21:4). Abraham and Jacob

kept slaves, and the New Testament says nothing against slavery.

Slaves built the pyramids of Egypt, the Acropolis of Athens, and the coliseums in the Roman Empire.

Africans exported 11,000,000 black slaves to the New World – 4,000,000 to Brazil, 3,600,000 to

the British and French West Indies, and 2,500,000 to Spanish possessions in Central and South America.
About 500,000 slaves, 5 per cent of the total number shipped to the New World, came to America.

Today slavery still exists in some parts of Africa, notably in Sudan and Mauritania.

Britain Sets the Peaceful Abolition Example
Britain heralded the end of slavery, in the Western world at least, with its Bill of Abolition, passed in 1807.

This Bill made the African slave trade (but not slaveholding) illegal. Later that year the United States

adopted a similar bill, called the Act to Prohibit the Importation of Slaves, which prohibited bringing

slaves into any port in the country, including into the southern slaveholding States.

Congress strengthened this prohibition in 1819 when it decreed the slave trade to be a form of piracy,

punishable by death. In 1833, Britain enacted an Emancipation Law, ending slavery throughout the

British Empire, and Parliament allocated twenty million pounds to buy slaves' freedom from their owners.

The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer rightly described this action as one of the greatest

acts of collective compassion in the history of humankind.

This happened peacefully and without any serious slave uprisings or attacks on their former owners,

even in Jamaica where a population of 30,000 whites owned 250,000 slaves.

Confederate Constitution Forbids Slave Trade
The Constitution of the Confederate States of America prohibited the importation of slaves (Article I, Section 9).

With no fugitive slave laws in neighboring states that would return fugitive slaves to their owners, the value of

slaves as property drops owing to increased costs incurred to guard against their escape. With slaves having

a place to escape to in the North and with the supply of new slaves restricted by its Constitution, slavery

in the Confederate States would have ended without war.

A slave's decreasing property value, alone, would have soon made the institution unsustainable, irrespective

of more moral and humanitarian considerations.  The rallying call in the North at the beginning of the war

was "preserve the Union," not "free the slaves." Although certainly a contentious political issue and

detested by abolitionists, in 1861 slavery nevertheless was not a major public issue. Protestant Americans

in the North were more concerned about the growing number of Catholic immigrants than they were

about slavery. In his First Inaugural Address, given five weeks before the war began, Lincoln
reassured slaveholders that he would continue to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.

Lincoln’s War Goes Badly
After 17 months of war things were not going well for the North, especially in its closely watched Eastern Theater.

In the five great battles fought there from July 1861 through September 17, 1862, the changing cast of Union

generals failed to win a single victory. The Confederate army won three: First Bull Run (or First Manassas)

on July 21,1861; Seven Days – six major battles fought from June 25-July 1, 1862 during the Union army's

Peninsular Campaign that, in sum, amounted to a strategic Confederate victory when McClellan withdrew his

army from the peninsula; and Second Bull Run (or Second Manassas) on August 29-30, 1862.

Two battles were indecisive: Seven Pines (or Fair Oaks) on May 31-June 1, 1862, and Antietam (or Sharpsburg)

on September 17, 1862. In the West, Grant took Fort Donelson on February 14, 1862 and captured 14,000

Confederate soldiers. But then he was caught by surprise in the battle of Shiloh (or Pittsburg Landing)

on April 6-7, 1862 and lost 13,000 out of a total of 51,000 men that fought in this two-day battle.

Sickened by the carnage, people in the North did not appreciate at the time that this battle was a strategic

victory for the North. Then came Antietam on September 17, the bloodiest day in the entire war; the Union

army lost more than 12,000 of its 60,000 troops engaged in the battle.

Did saving the Union justify the slaughter of such a large number of young men? The Confederates posed

no military threat to the North. Perhaps it would be better to let the Southern States go, along with their

4 million slaves. If it was going to win, the North needed a more compelling reason to continue the war than

to preserve the Union. The North needed a cause for continuing the war, as Lincoln put the matter

in his Second Inaugural Address, that was willed by God, where "the judgments of the Lord" determined

the losses sustained and its outcome.

Lincoln: “Remain in the Union and Keep Your Slaves”
Five days after the Battle of Antietam, on September 22, 1862, Abraham Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation.
The Emancipation Proclamation was a "war measure," as Lincoln put it. Foreign correspondents covering the

war recognized it as a brilliant propaganda coup. Emancipation would take place only in rebel States not

under Union control, their State sovereignty in the matter of slavery arguably forfeited as a result of their

having seceded from the Union. The president could not abolish slavery; if not done at the State level,

abolition would require a constitutional amendment.

Slaveholders and their slaves in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, Tennessee, and parts of Virginia

and Louisiana occupied by Union troops were exempt from the edict. Slaves in the Confederacy would be

"forever free" on January 1, 1863 – one hundred days after the Proclamation was issued – but only if

a State remained in "rebellion" after that date. Rebel States that rejoined the Union and sent elected

representatives to Congress before January 1, 1863 could keep their slaves. Such States would no

longer be considered in rebellion and so their sovereignty regarding the peculiar institution would be restored.

As the London Spectator put it, in its October 11, 1862 issue: "The principle [of the Proclamation] is not that

a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States."

Lincoln: Emancipation and Deportation
Regarding slaves in States loyal to the government or occupied by Union troops, Lincoln proposed three

constitutional amendments in his December 1862 State of the Union message to Congress. The first was that

slaves not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation be freed gradually over a 37-year period, to be completed

by January 1, 1900. The second provided compensation to owners for the loss of their slave property.

The third was that the government transport freed Blacks, at government expense, out of the country and

relocate them in Latin America and Africa. Lincoln wrote that freed blacks need "new homes [to] be found for

them, in congenial climes, and with people of their own blood and race." For Lincoln, emancipation and

deportation were inseparably connected. Secretary of the Navy Gideon Wells wrote in his diary that

Lincoln "thought it essential to provide an asylum for a race which he had emancipated, but which

could never be recognized or admitted to be our equals."

As historian Leone Bennett Jr. puts it in his book Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream (2000),

"It was an article of faith to him [Lincoln] that emancipation and deportation went together like firecrackers

and July Fourth, and that you couldn't have one without the other."

Congress refused to consider Lincoln's proposals, which Horace Greeley in the New York Tribune labeled

whales' tubs of "gradualism, compensation, [and] exportation." None of the Confederate States took the

opportunity to rejoin the Union in the 100-day window offered and the war continued for another two years

and four months. Eight months later the 13th Amendment was ratified, and slavery ended everywhere in the

United States (without gradualism, compensation, or exportation).

Africans Unwanted in the North
Black and White Americans sustained racial and political wounds from the war and the subsequent Reconstruction

that proved deep and long lasting. Northern abolitionists wanted Southern black slaves to be freed, but certainly

did not want them to move north and live alongside them. Indiana and Illinois, in particular, had laws that barred

African-Americans from settling. The military occupation and "Reconstruction" the South was forced to endure after
the war also slowed healing of the wounds.

At a gathering of ex-Confederate soldiers shortly before he died in 1870, Robert E. Lee said,
If I had foreseen the use those people [Yankees] designed to make of their victory, there would have been no

surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would

have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand.”

The North’s Tariff War
Why were business and political leaders in the North so intent on keeping the Southern States in the Union?

It was, to paraphrase Charles Dickens, solely a fiscal matter. The principal source of tax revenue for the federal

government before the Civil War was a tariff on imports. There was no income tax, except for one declared

unconstitutional after its enactment during the Civil War. Tariffs imposed by the federal government not only

accounted for most of the federal budget, they also raised the price of imported goods to a level where the

less-efficient manufacturers of the northeast could be competitive.

The former Vice-President John C. Calhoun put it this way:
"The North had adopted a system of revenue and disbursements in which an undue proportion of the burden

of taxation has been imposed upon the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North…

the South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality paid vastly more than

her due proportion of the revenue."

In March 1861, the New York Evening Post editorialized on this point:
“That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel States, or the port must be closed

to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are

substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to

carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will

be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to

pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop.”

Given the serious financial difficulties the Union would face if the Southern States were a separate republic

on its border engaging in duty-free trade with Britain, the Post urged the Union to hold on to its custom

houses in the Southern ports and have them continue to collect duty. The Post goes on to say that incoming

ships to the "rebel States" that try to evade the North's custom houses should be considered as carrying

contraband and be intercepted.
Observers in Britain looked beyond the rhetoric of "preserve the Union" and saw what was

really at stake.Charles Dickens views on the subject were typical:

“Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions

to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North

and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.”

The London press made this argument:
“The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not

touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty.”

The South fought the war for essentially the same reason that the American colonies fought the

Revolutionary War. The central grievance of the American colonies in the 18th century was the taxes

imposed on them by Britain. Colonists particularly objected to the Stamp Act, which required them to

purchase an official British stamp and place it on all documents in order for them to be valid. The colonists

also objected to the import tariff that Britain placed on sugar and other goods (the Sugar Act).

After the enactment of what was called the "Tariff of Abomination" in 1828, promoted by Henry Clay, the tax

on imports ranged between 20-30%. It rose further in March 1861 when Lincoln, at the start of his presidency,

signed the Morrill Tariff into law. This tax was far more onerous than the one forced on the American

colonies by Britain in the 18th century.

Usurping Congressional Authority
Lincoln coerced the South to fire the first shots when, against the initial advice of most of his cabinet,

he dispatched ships carrying troops and munitions to resupply Fort Sumter, site of the customs house

at Charleston. Charleston militia took the bait and bombarded the fort on April 12, 1861. After those first

shots were fired the pro-Union press branded Southern secession an "armed rebellion" and called

for Lincoln to suppress it.  Congress was adjourned at the time and for the next three months, ignoring

his constitutional duty to call this legislative branch of government back in session during a time

of emergency, Lincoln assumed dictatorial powers and did things, like raise an army,

that only Congress is supposed to do.

He shut down newspapers that disagreed with his war policy, more than 300 of them. He ordered his

military officers to lock up political opponents, thousands of them. Although the exact number is not known,

Lincoln may well have arrested and imprisoned more than 20,000 political opponents, southern sympathizers,

and people suspected of being disloyal to the Union, creating what one researcher has termed a 19th century

"American gulag," a forerunner of the 20th century's political prison and labor camps in the former Soviet Union.

Lincoln denied these nonviolent dissenters their right of free speech and suspended the privilege
of Habeas Corpus, something only Congress in a time of war has the power to do.

Lincoln's soldiers arrested civilians, often arbitrarily, without any charges being filed; and, if held at all,

military commissions conducted trials. He permitted Union troops to arrest the Mayor of Baltimore (then

the third largest city in the Union), its Chief of Police and a Maryland congressman, along with 31 State

legislators. When Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote an opinion that said these actions were

unlawful and violated the Constitution, Lincoln ignored the ruling.

Error of Judgment
Lincoln called up an army of 75,000 men to invade the seven Southern States that had seceded and force

them back into the Union. By unilaterally recruiting troops to invade these States, without first calling

Congress into session to consider the matter and give its consent, Lincoln made an error in judgment that

cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

At the time, only seven States had seceded. But when Lincoln announced his intention to bring these

States back into the Union by force, four additional States – Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and

Arkansas – seceded and joined the Confederacy.

Slavery was not the issue. The issue was the very nature of the American union. If the President of the

United States intended to hold the Union together by force, they wanted out. When these four States

seceded and joined the Confederacy rather than send troops to support Lincoln's unconstitutional actions,

the Confederacy became much more viable and the war much more horrible.

Lincoln Continues Whig Policies
From the time Lincoln entered politics as a candidate for State legislature in 1832, he championed a

political agenda known as the "American System." First advocated by his idol and mentor, Henry Clay,

it was a three-part program of protective tariffs, internal improvements, and centralized banking.

This program "tied economic development to strong centralized national authority," as Robert Johannsen

puts it in Lincoln, the South, And Slavery. Lincoln believed that import tariffs were necessary,

at the expense of consumers. He believed that American industries needed to be shielded

from foreign competition and cheap imported goods. The "internal improvements" he advocated were

simply subsidies for industry, i.e., corporate welfare. Abraham Lincoln was the first president

to give us centralized banking, with paper money not backed by gold.

A More Perfect Union Created by the South
The Constitution of the Confederate States of America forbid protectionist tariffs, outlawed government

subsidies to private businesses, and made congressional appropriations subject to approval by a

two-thirds majority vote. It enjoined Congress from initiating constitutional amendments, leaving

that power to the constituent states; and limited its president to a single six-year term. When the South lost,

instead of a Jeffersonian republic of free trade and limited constitutional government, the stage was set

for the United States to become an American Empire ruled by a central authority. In starting his war

against the Confederate States, Lincoln was not seeking the "preservation of the Union" in its

traditional sense. He sought the preservation of the Northern economy by means of

transforming the federal government into a centralized welfare-warfare-police state.

Paroled from the prison camp at Johnson's Island, Ohio shortly before the end of the war, my grandparent

Louis Hicks walked, barefoot, back to North Carolina to his home named "Liberty Hall" in the town of Faison.

But instead of enjoying a new birth of freedom, he and his family, along with other people in the South,

had to endure a twelve-year military occupation and an oppressive Reconstruction

instituted by radical Republicans.

Reflecting on the War for Southern Independence let us hope that the Confederate Battle Flag that

Louis Thomas Hicks' North Carolina regiment carried with it into battle at Gettysburg, with the cross

of Scotland's patron saint emblazoned on it, will come to be viewed in the 21st century, not as an badge

of slavery, which it is not, but as a symbol of opposition to centralized government power and tyranny.”

End

Notes
The Confederate Battle Flag has 13 white stars superimposed on a blue Cross of St. Andrew, centered

on a red backdrop. Each star represents a State that seceded from the Union, which includes Kentucky

and Missouri, the last two states to be admitted into the Confederacy in late 1861. Throughout the war,

however, they remained largely under Union control. St. Andrew was the younger brother of St. Peter

and is the patron saint of Scotland.

The population of the United States in 1860 was 31,101,000, of which 21,244,000 lived in the North

and 10,957,000 in the Confederacy. In the Confederate States 5,447,000 of these people were white,

133,000 free black, and 3,951,000 were slaves. There were 320,000 deaths in Union forces,

3.2 percent of the total male population; and 300,000 deaths in the Confederate forces, 9.7 percent

of the (white) male population. This death rate, with the current population of the United States 284,050,000,

would be equivalent to 6.5 million men being killed today. Most of those killed were teenagers and men in their 20s.

In his First Inaugural Address, for United States Lincoln uses the term Union. In his Gettysburg Address,

however, instead of Union he uses the word nation, which implies a closer association of States under

centralized control, as opposed to a looser association connoted by the word Union, of separate and

sovereign States. Likewise, in his Second Inaugural Address Lincoln only uses the word Union when

referring to the country as it was when he gave his First Inaugural Address four years earlier, before

the war began; he uses the word nation for the country

it had become in 1865. In these two later speeches he says that the war was fought to preserve the

"nation," that the "nation" shall have a new birth of freedom, and that we must bind up the "nation's wounds."

In a civil war the warring sides battle for control of the central government. The term "civil war" was

coined in England in the 17th century to identify the war fought between supporters of Charles I and the

Parliamentarians led by Oliver Cromwell for control of the government. The South had no designs on the

federal government of the North, headquartered in Washington, D. C. It did not want to run that government.

The breakaway Southern States asserted their independence, like the American colonies did from Britain

eighty-five years before, formed their own Confederate States of America and placed their

seat of government in Richmond, Virginia.

The American Republic was founded on the concept that all men are created equal, with inalienable

rights to life, liberty and property. Black slaves, being sentient human beings, should therefore be as

equally free and independent, with equality under the law, as White human beings; but, as slaves, they

were also someone's property and subject to the due process of law in that regard. Federalist Paper

No. 54 addresses the problem of counting slaves in the population with regard to legislative

representation, concluding that slaves are divested as "two-fifths of the MAN"

and three-fifths as capital, or property.

After the war Robert E. Lee also wrote, "The best men in the South have long desired to do away

with the institution [of slavery], and were quite willing to see it abolished. But with them in relation to

this subject is a serious question today. Unless some humane course, based on wisdom and Christian

principles, is adopted, you do them great injustice in setting them free." (Thomas Nelson Page,

Robert E. Lee: Man and Soldier [New York, 1911], page 38.) Lee did not own slaves (he freed his

in the 1850s), nor did a number of his most trusted lieutenants, including generals A. P. Hill,

Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson, J. E. Johnston, and J. E. B. Stuart.

The source references for these quotes can be found in Charles Adams' book When in the Course

of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession.

Colonists also objected to the search and seizure of their property without a specific warrant,

and to being denied the right of trial by jury, which the British instituted to help them more easily

catch and imprison smugglers who avoided paying taxes on imported goods.

r/K Selection Theory by Anonymous Conservative

From Anonymous Conservative:

Biologists have long noted that species will tend to evolve behaviors which best aid them to effectively exploit their environment. Among these behavioral life history traits are reproductive strategies. Reproductive strategies are, as the name implies, the strategies individuals will use to reproduce. Here we will focus upon the two strategies demonstrated in r/K Selection Theory in Evolutionary Biology.

The science behind r/K Selection theory was hashed out decades ago. It emerged as biologists pondered why some species reproduced slowly using monogamy and high-investment parenting, while other species reproduced explosively, using promiscuity and single parenting. At the time this science was developed, the researchers were wholly unaware of its relevance to our modern ideological battles in the world of politics. The terms r and K came from variables in equations which described how populations would change over time. r represented the maximal reproductive rate of an individual, while K represented the carrying capacity of an environment.

r/K selection theory describes two environmental extremes, and the strategies a population will produce to exploit each extreme. As a result of these strategies, each of these two environments will produce a very particular psychology in the individuals exposed to them.

The first environment an organism may face is the presence of freely available resources, which is referred to as an r-selective environment. This most often occurs when a predator keeps a population consistently lower than the carrying capacity of its environment. Just as rabbits do not strip their grassy fields bare due to the predation they endure, the r-strategy is designed to exploit an environment where resources are freely available, everywhere.

In r-selection, those individuals who waste time fighting for food will be out-reproduced by pacifists, who simply focus upon eating, and reproducing. Fighting also entails risks of injury or death – risks which are pointless given the free availability of resources everywhere. Hence this environment will favor a tendency towards conflict avoidance, and tend to cull the aggressive and competitive. It will also evolve tendencies towards mating as early as possible, as often as possible, with as many mates as possible, while investing as little effort as possible rearing offspring. Here, there are unlimited resources just waiting to be utilized, and even the most unfit can acquire them. As a result, it is more advantageous to produce as many offspring as possible, as quickly as possible, regardless of fitness, so as to out-reproduce those who either waste time producing quality offspring or waste time competing with each other.

Since group competition will not arise in the r-selected environment, r-type organisms will not exhibit loyalty to fellow members of their species, or a drive to sacrifice on their behalf. Indeed, the very notion of in-group will be foreign, and the concept of personal sacrifice for other in-group members will be wholly alien. This is why rabbits, mice, antelope, and other r-selected species, although pleasant, will tend to not exhibit any loyalty or emotional attachment to peers. When resources are freely available, group competition is a risk one need not engage in to acquire resources, so this loyalty to in-group and emotional attachment to peers is not favored.

Here in the r-strategy, we see the origins of the Liberal’s tendencies towards conflict avoidance, from oppositions to free-market capitalism, to pacifism, to demands that all citizens disarm so as to avoid any chance of conflict and competition. Even the newer tendencies to support the ”everyone gets a trophy” movement are outgrowths of this competition-averse urge, and desire for free resource availability. Similarly, Liberals are supportive of promiscuity, supportive of efforts to expose children to ever earlier sexual education, and, as the debate over Murphy Brown showed, Liberals are supportive of low-investment, single parenting. Finally, as John Jost has shown, Liberals show diminished loyalty to in-group, similar to how r-selected organisms do not fully understand the reason for even perceiving an in-group in nature.

In the other environment, a population exists at the carrying capacity of its environment. Since there is not enough food to go around, and someone must die from starvation, this will evolve a specific psychology within such a species.

Termed a K-type psychology, or K-Selected Reproductive Strategy, this psychology will embrace competitions between individuals and accept disparities in competitive outcomes as an innate part of the world, that is not to be challenged. Since individuals who do not fight for some portion of the limited resources will starve, this environment will favor an innately competitive, conflict-prone psychology. Study shows, such a psychology will also tend to embrace monogamy, embrace chastity until monogamous adulthood, and favor high-investment, two-parent parenting, with an emphasis upon rearing as successful an offspring as possible. This sexual selectiveness, mate monopolization, and high-investment rearing is all a form of competing to produce fitter offspring than peers. This evolves, because if one’s offspring are fitter than the offspring of peers, they will be likely to acquire resources themselves, and reproduce successfully.

Although total numbers of offspring will be diminished with this high-investment rearing strategy, the offspring’s success in competition is what is most important in a K-selective environment. Here, wasting time producing numerous offspring that are not as fit as possible will doom one to Darwinian failure. As time goes on, and K-selection continues, forming into competitive groups will often emerge as a strategy to acquire resources. This will add add loyalty to in-group to the suite of K-type psychological characteristics. This is why when we look at K-selected species in nature, we see packs of wolves, herds of elephants, prides of lions, and pods of dolphins, and each individual is loyal to their group and its competitive success. Since the only way to survive will be to acquire one’s resources by out-competing peers, this invariably produces tremendously fast rates of evolutionary advancement. For this reason, K-selected organisms are usually more evolutionarily advanced than their r-selected counterparts, and will exhibit more complex adaptations, from increased intelligence and sentience, to increased physical capabilities, to loyalty and prosociality, in species where group competition occurs.

Clearly, this mirrors the Conservative’s embrace of competitions, such as war, capitalism, and even the bearing of arms in self-defense against criminals. It also mirrors the Conservatives tendency to favor family values, such as abstinence until monogamy and two-parent parenting. It even explains why Conservatives feel driven to see their nation succeed as greatly as possible, regardless of the effects this has upon other nations or just members of their out-group.

To my eye, it is inherently clear that this r/K divergence is the origin of our political divide. Indeed, while policy proposals from Conservatives are predicated upon the premise that resources are inherently limited, and individuals should have to work and demonstrate merit to acquire them, Liberals advocate on behalf of policy proposals which seem to be predicated upon an assumption that there are always more than sufficient resources to let everyone live lives of equal leisure. To a Liberal, any scarcity must clearly arise due to some individual’s personal greed and evil altering a natural state of perpetual plenty.

Here, we see how these two deeply imbued psychologies generate grossly different perceptual frameworks within those who are imbued with them. Just as a Liberal will never grasp why a Conservative will look down upon frequent promiscuity and single parenting, the Conservative will never grasp why the Liberal will be so firmly opposed to free market Capitalism, or the right to self defense when threatened. Each sees an inherently different world, and is programmed to desire an inherently different environment.

In nature, since it is the individuals who best exemplify this r-selected psychological standard who will reproduce under conditions of resource abundance, their offspring will carry these traits. As time goes on, the population will gradually develop ever more extreme presentations of these traits. As we show, there is copious evidence that a genetic allele, which diminishes dopamine signaling, is associated with every facet of the r-strategy’s psychology, as well as a predisposition towards political Liberalism.

In addition, the r-strategy may have evolved to be engendered within individuals by environmental stimuli as well, through a desensitization to the neurotransmitter dopamine. This effect arises from its copious release in such an environment down-regulating receptor expression and consequently reducing receptor densities in nervous tissue. We also maintain that a lack of adversity in the environment will fail to develop a drive or ability to confront adversity, through a failure to develop a brain structure called the amygdala. In summary, an organism placed in an environment devoid of adversity, and filled with pleasure, may find itself more demanding of pleasure and less tolerant of adversity, than an organism which is enured to a less hospitable environment.

Within r/K selection theory, all populations will contain some differing degrees of r and K selected psychologies. As an environment shifts to one extreme or the other, a population will adopt a more r or K-selected psychology, but this will only last as long as the environmental conditions which produced the shift continue. Under conditions of reduced mortality, and copious resource availability, both r and K-selected psychologies will be present. This will continue until such time as resources become limited, and a competitive, K-selected pressure takes hold, or predation begins to cull both sides evenly, and the K-selected individuals, being slower reproducers are relatively culled back.

Interestingly, r/K Theory not only explains a means by which our political ideologies are adaptive to a specific environment. Many have noted an increasingly masculine quality to the women in our culture, as well as a corresponding effeminate nature to our men. Rush Limbaugh will often refer to them as the Feminazis, and the Castrati. In nature, a K-selected model of rearing involves a feminine mother, who nurtures offspring and guides them away from danger, combined with a more masculine male who will aggressively confront dangers, so as to protect his family.

However, when a population becomes increasingly r-selected, the nature of the sexual dimorphism and these sex-specific rearing behaviors will change. As you see a more r-strategy emerge, females of the species will need to become increasingly aggressive and masculine, since due to paternal abandonment, they must provision and protect their offspring alone. Since r-selected males are solely concerned with mating (before abandoning their mate), and fleeing from conflict, they become more diminutive, and more cowardly. The end result is the r-strategy has, inherent within it, a model of aggressive, manly females who raise children alone, and diminutive, effete males who are solely concerned with superficial, mate-attracting flash, and conflict avoidance.

Even more interestingly, as we point out in this blog post, as well as this blog post, there is evidence indicating that this phenomenon, accidentally over-expressed, may be responsible for producing males who are so effeminate that they are actually homosexual, and females who are so manly, they cross the boundary into lesbianism. Not only do the rearing behaviors and sexual characteristics change, but the males become attracted to more manly characteristics (which are now exhibited by the most adaptive females), and the females become more attracted to effeminate characteristics (which are now exhibited by the most adaptive males).

Some will ask, why would we have evolved both of these psychologies, within our species, instead of trending totally r or K. This can occur for a number of reasons. Obviously an organism which inhabits an environment where resources surge in availability, and then become scarce can see its r-types surge in number during times of plenty, only to die back once resources become scarce. Indeed, such a population may eventually see its individuals adapt to change their strategy with the availability of resources. Or, as time goes on, the r-types may evolve strategies designed to see a few members persist during times of scarcity, so they may explode again once resources become plentiful.

But in humans, the mechanism was probably a little more complex. When we first evolved, a critical adaptation was our loss of body hair. It allowed us to move about in the heat of an African day, when all other furred prey needed to bed down. To acquire meat, all we needed to do was roust a bedded down antelope, make it run a short distance, and it would rapidly collapse of heat stroke, so we could then acquire its meat. There are tribes in Africa who still hunt using this method.

This allowed us to explode in numbers, but as in all ecosystems, we eventually found there were not enough resources to support the population. It was at this time that our population divided.

At this point, the competition was fierce. One group adopted the K-selected psychology, stayed put, and slugged it out for resources, in free, merit based competition. They formed into groups, battled for territory and resources, and adopted a competitive, K-selected reproductive strategy. They became the K-type cohort of our population, embracing freedom and self-determination, free competition, monogamy, strong family values, loyalty to in-group, and sexual chastity in the youth.

As the battles began to rage, another cohort, more cowardly and weak, fled. Those who fled the fastest and the farthest, found themselves in a new, untapped territory, with free resource availability yet again. Those among them who did the best from Darwin’s perspective, were those who adopted the most r-type strategy of free promiscuity, single parenting, and early age at first intercourse. They had no need for loyalty to in-group, and indeed, would have adopted a more selfish and cowardly psychology, to better disperse their genes, and serve their own self interests. They became our population’s r-type cohort, and even today, the gene which is associated with Liberalism is found in large numbers in migratory populations, even as social psychologists note that Liberals score highly in novelty seeking, such as preferring new and novel environments, or unusual foods.

As time went on, Homo sapiens likely spread across the globe in this manner. r-types fled as the territory behind them became K-selective and competitive. As time went on, this constant selective pressure favoring fleeing gradually made the r-type more prone to flee competitions and adhere to an r-type mating strategy, and less able to even comprehend why K-types would ever seek monogamy or aggression when threatened, or innately perceive an in-group in need of defense.

In between where the r-types fled to, and where the K-types were battling it out, there was likely a sort of geographical spectrum. At one end were the extreme r-types on the frontier, and at the other were the extreme K-types, battling with neighbors. But in the middle, were areas where some r-types were mingling with some K-types. It is likely that there, these two strategies were evolving psychological traits which would allow them to persist in a mixed population. K-types tried to purge the disloyalty, selfishness, and promiscuity of the r-types, while r-types tried to use deception, as well as the rule-breaking and lack of loyalty identified by Jost (himself a Liberal), as an advantage. It would not surprise me if our political animus was evolved.

It is also interesting to note, even today, as r-types gain hold in a civilization, they seek to provide the unproductive and uncompetitive with the free resource availability of the r-selected environment. As in nature, as this goes on, the r-type cohort grows in the population, until the entire financial ecosystem collapses, the government dissolves, and the civilization becomes ruthlessly competitive. As in nature, free resource availability cannot go on forever.

To be clear, individuals are complex. Just as it is difficult to characterize a single individual organism’s exact reproductive strategy in nature, it is difficult to characterize a single human’s political strategy. However, just as the quantum mechanical world yields the chaos of its uncertainty to the order and formality of Newtonian physics when viewed from a distance, as we zoom out from our society we will find two primary ideologies within it. Just as in nature, these two ideologies match exactly the two psychologies of the r and K-type psychology.

Before closing, I would like to note that the primary environmental condition favoring an r-strategy is free resource availability. Too often the r-strategy is portrayed as a defensive adaptation designed solely to overcome the mortality of predation, or other forms of environmental harshness, through increased reproductive rates. The r-strategy however, is just as much an offensive adaptation designed to exploit free resource availability, and the absence of competitive selections for survival and reproduction.

In the book, we describe how this may be seen most clearly in the world of microbiology. There, complex, highly-adapted microbes are often drawn from a harsh, highly selective environment, and transferred to an unselective environment of ideal conditions and free resource availability (such as a petri dish of nutrient media housed in an incubator). There, they initially grow slowly, as each parent cell carefully produces colonies full of highly adapted daughter cells.

Some parent cells however, make mistakes, and produce less complex offspring, who reproduce more rapidly, as they devote less energy to their parent cell’s complex adaptations. As time goes on a highly evolved isolate can quickly shed its adaptations and devolve into a strain of simpler, less complex cells which grow colonies astonishingly quickly on agar. Over time, if given only free resource availability, the cells of the simpler dysgenic strain will numerically dominate any peers which retain their complexity and adaptation. In this environment, due to the absence of competitive selections favoring fitness or complexity, the sole determinate of survival becomes sheer numerical advantage. As a result, it is this standard which the organism will evolve towards, and one will increasingly find a less complex, less evolved organism devoted solely to mating and reproduction. Free resource availability, and an absence of competitive selection pressure, by itself, is all that is necessary to fuel a rapid growth in the r-strategist cohort within a population.

In closing, it is impossible to deny that every aspect of political ideology revolves around the same fundamental issues of behavior that r/K selection theory revolves around. Although our species’ embrace of group competition has further molded these urges, this is the evolutionary foundation of ideology. It is where political ideology began. For that reason, no individual can ever fully understand political ideology or the forces which motivate it, absent a grasp of r/K Selection Theory.

Right of Secession

Via Rebellion Blog

 
Scotland had the right to secede? Interesting 
Posted: Monday, September 22, 2014 11:59 am | Updated: 12:52 pm, Mon Sep 22, 2014. CHRISTINE BARR

One interesting angle on the recent vote in Scotland, which has been largely ignored by the mainstream media, is the utter absence of analysis of the issue involving secession.

Even those who were most adamantly urging a “no” vote did not deny Scotland the right to decide its own fate.

What a contrast to strident Unionists in this country, who vehemently deny that the South, or Vermont, or any of the many factions in this country seeking independence, past or present, have the right to determine their governmental fate.

England didn’t threaten to send troops, or state that having in 1707 agreed to the complete joining of the two countries, Scotland had lost its right to autonomy.

No, while they were certainly anxious about the election, there were no military threats or cries of treason. What a contrast to the handling of our Late Unpleasantness.

It is interesting to note the arguments against independence, and who made them.

George Soros said it would be a blow “to the prevailing international order.” Well, that makes one wonder: Is the current international order something worth preserving?

Dan E. Phillips in an Abbeville Institute Press article notes approvingly that Soros states it would be a “retrograde” step.True conservatives agree — although they would argue that is a positive development.Phillips ably argues, “The clear demonstration that territorial secession can happen without bloodshed will serve as a stark reminder to modern-day Unionists that our own bloody clash didn’t have to be that way.”

For the past half century, we’ve seen an increasing move towards smaller countries.

While there is a general belief that bigger is better, smaller countries like Iceland, Switzerland, Norway and Denmark show that it is possible to be a small, secure country.

Scotland has oil, although the naysayers have tried to downplay the natural resource. It has a fiercely held cultural identity, and I doubt that you’ve seen the last of the call for independence.

Here in the States, there is some fear that it might inspire various secessionist groups, who have suddenly garnered attention after years of being treated as tin-foil-hatted nut cases.

In 2012, 80,000 of my fellow Texans signed a petition urging secession. The groups themselves are not necessarily more optimistic in the wake of the Scottish vote.

“If the condition of this country as it is today is not enough to make people want to leave it, I cannot tell you what would. “If you have no faith in your central government, if Congress has the support of 10 to 12 percent of the public, if the president’s approval numbers are close to 30 percent in some states;

“I don’t know why this resentment doesn’t translate into secession, which is the only reliable peaceful way to make change,” opined Kirkpatrick Sale, whose Middlebury Institute has held seminars and published books on the topic of secession.

The Texas Nationalist group, the League of the South, Cascadia Now, the Alaskan Independence Party, numerous Hawaiian independence groups, the Second Vermont Republic — they all hold fast to the dream of independence.It is a new day for secessionists. Even though the Scots themselves voted against independence, I have faith that all is not lost.

Just the acceptance of the idea, and the playing out of the vote on the international stage, gives me hope that one day I, like my forebearers, may choosed to live in an independent Texas or South.

It’s difficult to look at the current political landscape and say, “Yep. This is great. Give me more!”

So, my beloved Scotland, whose valleys, lochs and mountains I’ve spent weeks and weeks exploring, I’m sorry you didn’t finally finish was William Wallace and Robert the Bruce started.

And I fear Robert Burns was right and, “We’re bought and sold for English gold — such a parcel of rogues in a nation.”