The American Civil War was, first and foremost, a battle over a small, decentralized federal government, or a larger, more intrusive government that could assert common justice and rights for all its citizens.

That war was won physically by the stronger national government of the North.

But the philosophical war has never been won, and now America finds itself divided upon fault lines that are about smaller government, more individualism and less social commitment.

And while geography still reflects the difference of values, we now find wealth as an additional and important factor.

The Civil War South demanded the right to determine whether slavery was a value it could choose to support and expand, and that claim was argued within the framing of states’ rights as proscribed within the Tenth Amendment.

The Northern counter to that argument was also a constitutional issue, that of equality of opportunity for all, an argument that would prohibit the continuance of slavery.

But there was another argument tucked within the issues that led the nation to war with itself, and that was, and remains, an economic argument. Not so much about tariffs on British goods that the South complained about, and no so much about agrarian versus manufacturing economies that actually worked to complement each other.

No, the economic issue was about the issue of whether, as a society we are, for the most part, on our own, or, alternatively, whether we are all in this social construct we call America, together.

Civil War Southern politician John C. Calhoun saw states’ rights as, “Governments were formed to protect minorities, for majorities can care for themselves.” Jefferson Davis saw the war as a fight against the “unbridled majorities” of the North.

Has the argument really changed today?

Republicans, conservatives and Tea Partiers all favor smaller government, less social support and more decentralized government. Their political strength remains in the American South and the economically well-off.

The Southern orientation suggests that the war victory by the North never ended the resentment of Southern values. The shared posture of the affluent small government folks reflects the views of Calhoun and Davis.

Those views are that government has little help they need…so they would rather keep their money and let everyone else make their own way in the world as they may.

That is an easier view to have if your home is paid for, your cars are paid off and your investments produce enough income to live well from.

And for many that security makes them insensitive to those who lack food or shelter insecurity, much less job insecurity or health care insecurity.

But this is not the world of the 1800s, and nothing can make the changes go away. We cannot revert to no national highway system, no national media, and no public awareness of a nation as a whole.

The stand alone argument of self sufficiency failed us when the Great Depression took away the security of those who thought themselves immune from personal disaster.

The mid-western Dust Bowl proved even those living off the land were not independent of the rest of the nation when their needs could not be met by crops that no longer could feed their families.

And when the Depression broke the wealthy as easily as the poor we discovered, as a nation, that each of us could help the other stand though hard times.

We need good government, not too big, not too small … not insensitive to the needs of those who are hungry or those without work, not uncaring about our seniors or our sick.

It is time to end the second Civil War.

Jim Crawford is a contributing columnist for The Tribune and a former educator at Ohio University Southern.