Being against the American Civil War as being about conquest when it should have been about slavery in the United States and witnessing the hardships brought along by the Reconstruction Era, Spooner felt the Constitution completely violated natural law, and thus was voided.

He wrote: "The constitution itself contains no designation, description, or necessary admission of the existence of such a thing as slavery, servitude, or the right of property in man.

The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.

"[4] Spooner's first pamphlet starts by questioning the reasons for the Civil War, as it was justified under the idea of unity among the citizens of the United States; however, he believed slavery was more critical and found it outrageous that the North allowed the institution of slavery by not finding ways of ending it in the South.

He makes comments on the funding of the Civil War by the North and questions the idea of consent directly stated under the Constitution.

Spooner acknowledges that total consent is impossible in a democratic government and mentions the separation of majorities and minorities.

First, Spooner argues that the North was involved with slavery by simply allowing for its institution to take place in the South for the Southern states to remain part of the Union.

He then quickly moves to discuss the actual war and how many Americans were not in agreement with the decisions of the U.S. government or its ideals, which triggered a desire for secession.

While not going under physical slavery, these men had to abide by the rules of the land which denied them "ownership of themselves and the products of their labor".

Because of this belief that not everyone will always be in absolute agreement with government decisions, Spooner argues "the Constitution itself should be at once overthrown",[6] and proceeds to support his claim.

Because the people consented to separate from the power of England, and the same concept is part of the foundations for the Constitution, the North could participate in the Civil War while affecting the lives of thousands and spending millions of dollars.

Spooner is outraged that the state claims to act in the name of liberty and a free government and questions the idea of consent to it himself.

Spooner mentions how consent resides within each person and that numbers should not dictate who starts entities such as political groups.

"[11] Spooner's concern with treason is that the act of not accepting the ideas of the government should not allow for that person to be considered a traitor.

In closing the section, Spooner examines the idea of voluntary belonging to political parties and groups.

Spooner was an outspoken abolitionist (writing The Unconstitutionality of Slavery in 1845) and advocate of universal freedom and natural rights.

Still, he had been horrified by the brutality of the war and the lack of a legitimate constitutional basis for violently conquering people who wanted to leave a federation that had been consensually joined only by their ancestors.