by Ty Narada for J. Rodda
The Greed Laxative
This paper will
address two shards
of the same issue: Was it slavery or a political crisis that spawned
American Civil War? The morality surrounding the issue of slavery is
intense and ignorant of the slaves point of view. The ‘Political
expression is a laxative for softening the semantics surrounding the
of slavery. I will attempt to address my claim(s) through an objective
of ethical values and allow the reader to determine which methodology
It is necessary to
define my word usage by fusing both concepts:
Slavery has existed
in all known recordings of Human Civilization since the Indus Valley.
To condense the purpose: Slavery is a by-product of power and power
redivides into both ‘discriminate and indiscriminate forces’ that evoke
all activity ranging from artistic expression to empire building and
the blending of both. At the root of power are the materials necessary
to drive the creative force, which becomes the laxative of "greed."
Whoever controls the materials has the power. Whoever has the power
controls those who partake of the materials.
‘Greed’ is the
idiomatic non-laxative of ‘ambition.’ ‘Ambition’ is the egotistical
definition of ‘creativity’
and idealism presupposes the necessity of greed in it’s many
As an exponent of power, slavery maximizes the intention for the least
expense. Slavery evokes a standard of distinction, such that the
‘standard’ can not be enforced or maintained without pure conviction
that human-shaped persons are predisposed into classical stations.
Within these stations exist the strata of Human totality.
Power will attain
its objective through the recruitment of force, in exchange for a
portion of the total power held. Portions of power can range from
minimal influence on a King, to sub-divisions of an Empire. "Any system
that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul."
It is a natural tendency for most ‘thinking’
beings to achieve a pre-determined and measurable standard of success.
the Dark Ages, a successful person was someone who could eat. A wealthy
person was someone who could eat a lot and a King was someone who could
eat excessively. As currency became the liquid medium through which any
known thing could
be purchased, power became synonymous with money.
surrounding slavery reduces to two questions: One is "why?" The other
is "why not?" Do the
edifices of Egypt, Greece and Rome justify the annihilation of human
to achieve a global statement that could not have been achieved without
the cannibalization of human existance? If we are better off for having
seen structures in tribute to human mechanization, does the reckless
non-justification apply in principle to private ownership of other
Is it acceptable to deprive a mind capable of sensing its torture and
to conditions that slave owners themselves could not and would not
Would the intention of a slave-owner be so grandiose if he had to get
of his horse and perform the primitive tasks himself? In all
There would not even be a United States were it not for the free work
that built it. Does the global non-justification apply in this case as
That is precisely
the point, and in my opinion, the only point. The argument cancels both
"why" and "why not:" There is no mention, in the annals of any history,
of a non-slave who was willing to experience the great cause of being a
slave for any purpose period. This poses what we refer to today as a
"double standard." A Double Standard means "what’s good for the goose
is not good for the gander."
The concept of murder falls under a similar logic by most perpetrators:
Once the victim is dead, who cares – what can a corps do in its
How will it be possible to pursue justice if nobody knows about the
Now that the nation is built, why are we picking at old scabs?
We are reduced to
the single issue left in this debate: The Double Standard.
Human beings have
the volitional ability to choose which standards they will embrace and
which ones they will shun, albeit, the convenience of historical
barbarism has often provided the blue print for convention. The key
word, ‘convenience,’ seems to be the singular beneficiary of the greed
"I do not have to
work – therefore I won’t." Hitler once asked ‘if they confront me with
their laws and I
confront them with my gun – who will win?’
The Southern economy
was imperatively dependent upon slave labor; their engine could not
function with all of
their cylinders removed. The very question of abandoning slavery was
indignant; the South was an agricultural regime. Even had the Southern
consensus been to employ white laborers in Southern fields – the
would have demolished the lifestyles of the rich and famous, reducing
affluent to common ordinary folks. Not only was the question insulting;
only were Southerners being asked to give up their stations, but
Gentlemen were being asked to lie down and die, humiliated. These
have compiled volumes of scripture regarding the cause of the Civil
and in the war’s aftermath, Carpetbaggers only pitted one sithfully
greed laxative against the secessionists declared version – that poses
question of ‘honor’.
net result of the Civil War had nothing to do with grandiose
regurgitations of any saccharine morality; it was a battle for toys,
with tactics being strewn about for
the viewers discretion. The Confederate Constitution is worthy of
review by any history enthusiast; it will not be reviewed in any part
this essay, however, a key article within the CS Constitution did
slavery beyond its current extent, and other articles divested Federal
within the member-States.
By comparing the two
Constitutions; using the slave issue as a moral premise for igniting
the war, the South, by any Northern standard, would have attained the
harmonious reality that the North never did. Ironically, the North
became the heralded champions of precisely that illusion. To the victor
goes the right of historical policy, as well as the prescriptions and
remedies for ‘cause’.
So what of the
political crisis? There never was one. David Copperfield uses the same
tactical illusion to distract his audience while slight-of-hand is in
progress. The Civil War was strictly economics, however, exponents of
said economics lead to fundamental changes in government required by
the governed. In the less-industrialized South, less government was
called for. To address more localized control of economic affairs, each
Secessionist State declared itself a sovereign Nation,
joined with other Nations in a Confederate cooperative. Southern
could not fundamentally or sensibly tolerate the excess Federal powers
in the U.S. Constitution which was effective in the North. Northern
could not adequately or properly operate the Southern economy. Manifest
in the North was intolerable of Southern separatism. The South &
North developed serious irreconcilable differences to which neither
had an acceptable solution. The North clearly wanted to keep the Union
The South clearly wanted their sovereignty to govern themselves. Oddly,
side despised the other for the needs of the other side, it was
Destiny in the North, and economic survival in the South that resulted
a winner-take-all engagement. Both were equally possessed by their
causes, however, the God of War, believed to have been Mars throughout
ages, proved to be Attrition, where Attrition applies to both war
as well as combatants.
The Southern battle
plan never intended to win the war without first seizing strategic
Northern war production facilities and rendering other facilities
inoperative. This did not happen, so the South lost.
In all of this,
where did the issue of slavery arise?
I rest my case.
Slavery did not
become an issue until after the war. Like the Holocaust did not
become an issue until after the war. In the birth of our
Nation, it was the greed laxative that fueled the ambitions of both
sides and not the civic pretences for which the Civil War is more
glamorously and theatrically remembered.
Slavery or Political
Crisis? Pick one.