Property rights, the division of labor, and voluntary exchange form the essential foundation of civilization, as articulated by Ludwig von Mises in his work, Liberalism: The Classical Tradition. Mises emphasizes that peace is necessary for both the division of labor and human cooperation. He argues that when the constant threat of war looms over a society, individuals are compelled to abandon their specialized skills and focus solely on self-sufficiency. This shift undermines productivity, as individuals cannot expect to trade for goods and services with potential adversaries. Mises highlights the intrinsic “incompatibility between war and the division of labor,” asserting that a peaceful environment is crucial for critical economic activities and overall societal advancement.
Mises also draws a distinction between wars of aggression and wars fought in self-defense. He argues that nations under attack have a moral imperative to resist, stating that those who fight for their freedom and lives deserve recognition for their courage. Using the historical example of Spartan king Leonidas, Mises illustrates that true heroism is rooted in defending one’s homeland rather than acting as an aggressor. He argues that if Leonidas had led an invading army, he would not command the same respect. In evaluating war, Mises insists that the motivations behind the conflict—whether aggressive or defensive—are paramount to understanding its legitimacy.
The complexities surrounding the outbreak of war can complicate the identification of aggressors, as illustrated by the events at Fort Sumter during the American Civil War. In his 1937 article “Lincoln and Fort Sumter,” Charles Ramsdell argues that the narrative of the outbreak of this war is often oversimplified. The common perception that the Confederate forces were solely responsible for initiating hostilities ignores the depth and nuance of the situation. Ramsdell points out that the Confederate leadership initially sought a peaceful solution to the crisis surrounding Fort Sumter, a desire that was repeatedly countered by Lincoln’s firm stance on maintaining federal control over Southern forts, despite South Carolina’s secession.
Ramsdell highlights that Lincoln’s determination to supply Fort Sumter, despite knowing it would provoke the Confederacy, reveals more about the unfolding conflict’s political dynamics than traditionally understood. Notably, Ramsdell discusses the existence of a peace movement within the North that advocated for a resolution to the crisis without resorting to violence. However, Lincoln’s eventual decision to send provisions underlined a complex strategy that anticipated whether such an action could provoke a Southern offensive, thus framing the South as the aggressor. This interpretation of events helps elucidate the fog of war, where motivations and responsibilities can become obscured.
In a discussion about the consequences of the Civil War, Charles Adams echoes Mises’ stance, asserting that conflict, regardless of its instigator or victor, breeds chaos and suffering. He emphasizes the futility of arguing that victory in war equates to justice; rather, true justice is often distorted amid the violence. Adams emphasizes that the aftermath of the Civil War did not yield peace but resulted in a bitter and oppressive occupation of the South by Northern forces, which he describes as “an ugly peace.” This describes a situation where the reconciliation was superficial and primarily benefitted Northern political power while leaving many in the South subjugated and resentful.
Robert E. Lee’s post-war caution concerning the dangers of a powerful national government mirrors Mises’ assertion that aggressive and despotic governance inherently conflicts with enduring peace. Mises poignantly critiques the logic that justifies war as a potential means to achieve noble ends, arguing instead that lasting peace is foundational for civilization’s prosperity. He posits that war is inherently destructive and cannot create or foster social order. Mises argues convincingly that whether conflicts are labeled victories or losses, the resultant devastation serves no constructive purpose and emphasizes that peace inherently provides the stability needed for collaboration and growth, thereby becoming beneficial for both the strong and the weak in society.
