Posted on 01/06/2005 8:00:30 AM PST by cougar_mccxxi
The Civil War's Tragic Legacy
The Civil War produced at least two important outcomes. First, although it was not President Lincoln's intent, it freed slaves in the Confederate States. Second, it settled, through the force of arms, the question of whether states could secede from the Union. The causes of and the issues surrounding America's most costly war, in terms of battlefield casualties, are still controversial. Even its name the - Civil War - is in dispute, and plausibly so.
A civil war is a struggle between two or more factions seeking to control the central government. Modern examples of civil wars are the conflicts we see in Lebanon, Liberia and Angola. In 1861, Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederate States, no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C. than George Washington wanted to take over London in 1776. George Washington and the Continental Congress were fighting for independence from Great Britain. Similarly, the Confederate States were fighting for independence from the Union. Whether one's sentiments lie with the Confederacy or with the Union, a more accurate characterization of the war is that it was a war for southern independence; a frequently heard southern reference is that it was the War of Northern Aggression.
History books most often say the war was fought to free the slaves. But that idea is brought into serious question considering what Abraham Lincoln had to say in his typical speeches: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Slavery makes for great moral cause celebre for the War Between the States but the real causes had more to do with problems similar to those the nation faces today - a federal government that has escaped the limits the Framers of the Constitution envisioned.
South Carolina Senator John C Calhoun expressed that concern in his famous Fort Hill Address July 26, 1831, at a time when he was Andrew Jackson's vice-president. Calhoun said, "Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail."
Calhoun's fear, as well as that of Thomas Jefferson, was Washington's usurpation of powers constitutionally held by the people and the states, typically referred to as consolidation in their day. A significant bone of contention were tariffs enacted to protect northern manufacturing interests. Referring to those tariffs, Calhoun said, "The North has adopted a system of revenue and disbursements, in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed on the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North." The fact of the matter was that the South exported a large percentage of its output, mainly agricultural products; therefore, import duties on foreign products extracted far more from the South than the North. Southerners complained of having to pay either high prices for northern-made goods or high tariffs on foreign-made goods. They complained about federal laws not that dissimilar to Navigation Acts that angered the Founders and contributed to the 1776 war for independence. Speaking before the Georgia legislature, in November 1860, Senator Robert Toombs said, ". . . They [Northern interests] demanded a monopoly of the business of shipbuilding, and got a prohibition against the sale of foreign ships to the citizens of the United States. . . . They demanded a monopoly of the coasting trade, in order to get higher freight prices than they could get in open competition with the carriers of the world. . . . And now, today, if a foreign vessel in Savannah offer [sic] to take your rice, cotton, grain or lumber to New York, or any other American port, for nothing, your laws prohibit it, in order that Northern ship-owners may get enhanced prices for doing your carrying."
A precursor for the War Between the States came in 1832. South Carolina called a convention to nullify new tariff acts of 1828 and 1832 they referred to as "the tariffs of abomination." The duties were multiples of previous duties and the convention declared them unconstitutional and authorized the governor to resist federal government efforts to enforce and collect them. After reaching the brink of armed conflict with Washington, a settlement calling for a stepped reduction in tariffs was reached - called the Great Compromise of 1833.
South Carolinians believed there was precedence for the nullification of unconstitutional federal laws. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison suggested the doctrine in 1798. The nullification doctrine was used to nullify federal laws in Georgia, Alabama, Pennsylvania and New England States. The reasoning was that the federal government was created by, and hence the agent of, the states.
When Congress enacted the Morrill Act (1861), raising tariffs to unprecedented levels, the South Carolina convention unanimously adopted and Ordinance of Secession declaring "We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused for years past to fulfill their constitutional obligations. . . . Thus the constitutional compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the nonslaveholding States; and the consequence follows is that South Carolina is released from her obligation. . . ." Continuing, the Ordinance declared, "We, therefore the people of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America is dissolved and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State, with the full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce and to do other things which independent States may of right do." Next year war started when South Carolinians fired on Fort Sumter, an island in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina.
The principle-agent relationship between the states and federal government was not an idea invented by South Carolina in 1861; it was a relation taken for granted. At Virginia's convention to ratify the U.S. Constitution, the delegates said, "We delegates of the people of Virginia, . . . do in the name and on the behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will. That therefore no right, of any denomination, can be canceled, abridged, restrained or modified by the Congress, by the Senate, or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances where power is given by the Constitution for those purposes." The clear and key message was: the powers granted the federal government, by the people of Virginia, "may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression" and every power not granted to the federal government by the Constitution resides with the people of Virginia. The people of Virginia, through their delegates, set up a contractual agreement, along with the several sovereign states (emerging out of the 1783 Treaty of Paris ending the war with Great Britain), created the federal government as their agent. They enumerated the powers their agent shall have. When the federal government violates their grant of power, then the people of Virginia have the right to take back the power they granted the federal government, in other words, fire their agent.
The War Between the States, having settled the issue of secession, means the federal government can do anything it wishes and the states have little or no recourse. A derelict U.S. Supreme Court refuses to do its duty of interpreting both the letter and spirit of the Constitution. That has translated into the 70,000 federal regulations and mandates that controls the lives of our citizens. It also translates into interpretation of the "commerce" and "welfare" clauses of our Constitution in ways the Framers could not have possibly envisioned. Today, it is difficult to think of one elected official with the statesman foresight of a Jefferson, Madison or Calhoun who can articulate the dangers to liberty presented by a run amuck federal government. Because of that, prospects for liberty appear dim. The supreme tragedy is that if liberty dies in America it is destined to die everywhere.
Walter E. Williams
With no disrespect to southern arms and valor, they pretty much had to be. The attacker back then had to have considerable numerical and logistical advantage.
Good Lord - the North had to subdue and occupy an area almost the size of Western Europe. That would have been a tall order for any industrialized power at that time.
But I would agree that the South fought longer and exacted a higher cost of the North than might otherwise have been the case. Southerners willingly paid an appalling cost for their cause, and they enjoyed better military tactical leadership in the first years of the war.
I think Bruce Catton first made that point.
It's an insightful one.
Oh brother! Can we pitch-in and buy poor Walter a calander? Maybe a 6th grade history book even?
The Beard thesis that all American history can be explained by economics has been debunked. It's really nothing more that the Marxist view of history in disguise. In American history, ideas matter, as the Democrats just learned again in 2004.
Thanks for the ping, Compatriot! As expected, the usual suspect showed up and turned a technical discussion of WBTS issues into an orgy of South-bashing.
Deo Vindice!
The Beard thesis that all American history can be explained by economics has been debunked. It's really nothing more that the Marxist view of history in disguise. In American history, ideas matter, as the Democrats just learned again in 2004.
You've pretty much nailed it.
Though I think some sincere folks making that argument aren't being dishonest so much as deluded - or highly selective - in their reading of history.
They really believe that states rights were destroyed by the Civil War. But they run into the problem of taking slavery off the table when they take that position. So, Presto! they look hard for - and find - economic causes for the war.
All the while overlooking what was the lynchpin of the southern economy.
What is unbelievable is that someone thinks that the states have the right to enact laws designed to force Americans to fight or leave, and that it's ok with them.
In 1828 and 1832 Congress passed what have been called the Tariffs of Abomination, which were a prosperity boon to the North and an economic hardship on the South, especially South Carolina. This led to the Nullification Crisis of 1832 when South Carolina called a state convention and 'nullified' the tariffs as unjust and unconstitutional. The resulting constitutional crisis came very near provoking armed conflict at that time. Through the efforts of former U. S. Vice President and U. S. Senator from South Carolina, John C. Calhoun, a compromise was effected in 1833 which over a few years reduced the tariff back to a normal level of about 15%. Henry Clay and the Whigs were not happy, however, to have been forced into a compromise by Calhoun and South Carolina's Nullification threat. The tariff, however, remained at a level near 15% until 1860.
In May of 1860 the U. S. Congress passed the Morrill Tariff Bill [named for Republican Congressman and steel manufacturer, Justin S. Morrill of Vermont] raising the average tariff from about 15% to 37% with increases to 47% within three years. This was reminiscent and even higher than the Tariffs of Abomination of 1828 and 1832, which had led to a constitutional crisis and threats of secession and armed force. The vote in the U. S. House of Representatives was 105 to 64. Out of 40 Southern Congressmen only one Tennessee Congressman voted for it. High protective tariffs were always the policy of the old Whig Party and had become the policy of the new Republican Party that replaced it.
The Morrill Tariff Act was passed by Congress in 1860, before Lincoln was elected. Lincoln signed the bill into law shortly after taking office in March of 1861.
Williams' contention that the Morrill Tariff prompted South Carolina's secession is correct.
"There were no sovereigns in these states, as they were comprised of free men, each his own 'sovereign'."
You are confusing the meaning of sovereign as it applies to individuals (ie; Kings) and sovereign as it applies to nations. The states were in fact sovereign - meaning independent governing entities |
"The Constitution has been the supreme law of Fed, State, & local governments since ratification."
Only supreme in the areas allowed by the constitution itself. Under the 10th amendment all rights not specifically delegated to the federal government were reserved to the states or the people. This is the essence of the problem
"The feds have no more power over the State/local governments than the Constitution allows."
Au Contraire. The feds have usurped massive amounts of power from the states and the people. The constitution was a LIMIT on federal power. Now it has become an allowance of power.
"They don't, because the political system is totally corrupted by national politics."
No - The reason the states don't refuse unconstitutional edicts is because Lincoln established the precedent that might makes right. The constitution has come to allow whatever the federal gvt (and the courts) says it allows.
The whole concept is turned on it's head.
I do think efforts to re-fight the Civil War or blame Lincoln for the size of the late-twentieth century Federal government serve no useful purpose.
The fact is one of the paradoxes of American history is that the United States, Reagan's shining city on a hill, arose out of a slaveholding society that nevertheless produced the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
The Civil War is over and we are now one nation. I honor the sacrifices of the people on both sides and absolutely disagree with those today (mostly liberals) who try to tarnish the memory of those who fought for the South.
But these endless debates claiming slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War get us nowhere. You might as well ask, "other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, what did you think of the play"?
"a world in which the South won the Civil War would be a much worse one all the way around."
You are assuming that the South would have remained in the state it was in circa 1860. I don't think you can make that assumption. All societies evolve and change over time, the southern states would have been no exception.
There is always the idealistic northerner who presents the image of the "ideal northerner's pure intentions" in that war. The fact that northerners also owned slaves (which were not freed by the emancipation proclamation) is conveniently discarded in the northerner's attempt to cast themselves and their ancestors in the heroic light of perfectionism.
History is rewritten by the victors of any conflict; just as the Vietnam Veterans Against the War rewrote the history of that conflict to cast John Kerry in the role of hero. Being controlled by the Communists, in essence they WERE the victors with the power to rewrite history.
So, now, your state or region absolutely cannot secede from the Union, just as you or your state or region must, in reality, bow to the many times insufferable and outlandish actions of the federal government. You have no recourse. We pay an awful lot of taxes, the likes of which would have gagged the founding fathers of this country. . and a lot of good is done with those taxes, but then there are the Pork Barrel Princes with a lifetime slot at the trough in this very powerful central government who shamelessly abuse our largesse.
If you like the concept of a very powerful central government, just wait until Hillary Clinton ascends the royal throne of power acquired for her by the brave soldiers in blue so long ago.
If the northern states hadn't wallowed in the slop of slavery also, the ringing platitudes of their descendants villifying those "horrible slave holding southerners" would not ring so hollow. If the slavery supporting remarks of Lincoln hadn't been so very clear in their intent, his alleged crusade against slavery would hold more water as THE cause of that war.
Whenever I have any doubt about much of anything, I have learned to follow the money and cause and effect is usually then pretty well explained.
That he did indeed. The PC brainwashing some people have undergone in college or elsewhere appears permanent. No amount of logic can penetrate those who have already been "indoctrinated" by the PC Brigade.
Funny, you seem to be operating on the assumption that they were a sovereign nation as...say...France.
Well said!!!
You must be thinking of Robert Lee.
The fact that slave ownership was growing, the number of slaves was growing, and the value of those slaves was growing. A significant number of southerners were agitating to end the ban on slave imports, and were sponsoring illegal slave imports. Plus the fact that I'm not aware of a single quote by any southern leader that indicated a belief that slavery was on the wane.
The financial ledgers at that time indicated that the cost to keep a slave population was through the roof.
For example?
Contrary to Disneyland fantasies about slavery, it cost money to keep them.
According to statistcs in books like "The Political Economy of Slavery' not much. But in any case there was no ready alternate source of labor available.
Oh, golly gee, let me think: how about the steam engine? modern thrashing machinery, milling machinery, ....Non farmers don't think of these things. What was the north MAKING if not modern machinery?
Obviously you've not bothered to research the matter before making your wild-ass claim. Had you done so you would no doubt have discovered that the first successful mechanical cotton harvester wasn't introduced until the mid-1940's.
But you already said slavery was profitable BEFORE machinery, which is it? Another point here is that it still cost the farms money to maintain the slaves.
No, I said that slavery was losing profitability before the introduction of the gin, because of the labor involved in separating the seed from the boll. With the introduction of the gin a single slave could process hundreds of pounds of cotton compared to a few pounds by hand. Harvesting, however, remained labor intensive.
Honestly, have you done no reading at all on this subject?
Well, speak of anus's and look who crawls out? How've you been?
Who has said that the North's intentions were pure or that they were non-racist other than Confederate sympathizers looking for a strawman?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.