Suppose that I told you that Lincoln’s Civil War was unnecessary.　 Furthermore, I added that it should never have been fought.　 What if I said that slavery could have been abolished by using a different strategy and not by a Civil War?　 What if I told you that abolition, equal rights, and fair treatment for the slaves would have been a reality much sooner, almost zero bloodshed, and instead of the enormous cost of the war, both South and North would have fared economical much better than before t he war.　 You would say "Ridiculous! Idiotic!" Am I not right?　 Yet, what if you decided to try to think and imagine what other possible strategies might have had a chance to succeed in abolishing slavery?　 A mind boggling undertaking, right!　 Well, there just might have been other viable strategies.　 Unfortunately, with the American Zeitgeist already having had cemented into it force and violence as the way to solve such problems, no one could have conceived of a viable alternative.　 This is just as true today as we cannot conceive of non-violent solutions to dealing with those whom we ‘presume’ to be our sworn enemies.　 Were we then and are now we hexed beyond redeeming? Nevertheless, it is very likely that this very Zeitgeist actually creates the enemies that we then have to defeat with violence.

Consider an alternative scenario for our history.　 Slavery took hold in early America as it was developing a civilization largely modeled after the Europeans.　 Religion, mostly Christian, was an essential aspect of that civilization.　 However, the Christian religions in Europe had had an unusually violent history.　 Differences between denominations with respect to doctrine or dogma and polity were often settled with wars.　 There was a kind of schizophrenia, in the sense of split personality, in Christianity.　 It seems then, as today, not to occur to the various churches’ followers that settling differences between themselves and other religions with violence or war was fundamentally incompatible with the teachings of their founder, Jesus.　 Furthermore, it surely did not occur to them that settling economic differences, as for example the use of slaves, with violence was incompatible with their Christian faith.　

Early American Christian leaders, their preachers and priests, had somehow reconciled the use of slaves with the teachings of the Bible.　 This mindset came easy for them since almost all of the slaves, shipped in from Africa, were of a different skin color; spoke no European language; and exhibited mannerisms and conventions that were strange to these European transplants, just as the Native Americans had been.　 These slaves were labeled heathens and subhuman.　 This designation made it convenient for the clergy to exempt them from the status of equals and from humane treatment.　 The clergy preached this doctrine of sub humanity and heathenism and thus provided a rationalization for slavery that southern plantation owners and other businessmen using slaves could use in defense of their agrarian, cotton based economy.

During the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln and his followers used the phrase about 'all men being equal' in the "Declaration of Independence" as they spoke in schools and churches in favor of Lincoln and in support of his (slightly tepid) anti-slavery views. However, had Lincoln and followers organized meetings exclusively with the clergy and educators and seriously debated them on the issue of equality of all men under god and the fact that slavery was absolutely contrary to the New Testament teaching of Jesus, they might have turned the tide against nationalizing slavery.　 Furthermore, had he and they unequivocally appealed to the conscience and religious convictions of the clergy and the rational principles and knowledge of history of educators and urged them to resist compromising with pressure from wealthy slave owners and the uneducated public over whom they held sway, the movement toward nationalization of slavery might have been aborted.　 Likewise, that strategy might have instigated a widespread movement toward abolition.　

I am not faulting Lincoln nor the clergy and educators for this deficiency.　 Instead, I am suggesting that when problems of moral ambiguity and ambivalence that are tinged with flagrant, polarizing political opinions are at issue, a use of the broader and deeper concepts of structure and systems might help.　 When issues that are likely to be swayed by those with motives of profit and power on the contemporary scene, a thorough understanding of how to use the concepts of structural and systems analysis and how to apply them in designing strategies could be the most effective methods for public education and persuasion.　 People usually adopt the lightweight positions and arguments used by their party or organization leaders.　 They are unlikely to take their own intellectual initiative to entertain alternative perspectives that have significance on a broader social scale and that extend beyond their narrow self-interest.　 Taking people through vistas that expand their perspectives, perhaps even graphically and dramatically, can strongly shift their opinions and commitment to act.　 Structuralism is a body of knowledge and application.　 It is also an art that needs to be studied and practiced as diligently as one studies to master any other art or science.

When northerners, whose economy was not inextricably tied to slavery, objected to slavery on moral grounds, they received scant support from the clergy and severe opposition from the southerners.　 Both north and south began to see war as inevitable.　 Lincoln eventually yielded to this persuasion as well.　 However, had he and his followers had this structures and systems approach, Lincoln's war would not have been necessary.

The reason I say that the Civil War was not inevitable is that, were it not for the bloody Christian mentality, a mentality that had endured nearly two millennia, slavery and the inhumane treatment of slaves would not have been possible.　 Had Lincoln and many others like him in the north and some even in the south been able to consider the possibility of putting a massive effort into changing this emotional wedding of religion, tradition, and economics by using a peaceful assault on their limited assumptions with options provided by a structures and systems approach, the course of history would have proceeded without the horrid, bloody Civil War.

Lord, deliver us from ourselves!

See: