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
But it wasn't a war between sovereign nations. It was a rebellion or, at best, a civil war.
I agree the South Bashing has assumed capitalization deserving proportions on this forum, and seems to be headed up by just a few officers of the Union Army still fighting the South. I'm still waiting for more than just a one-line, smartmouth South Bashing quip in answer to my post #113, an honest answer and not just another of the endless northern ancestral pride in the brave men in blue who "drove old Dixie down" mashmouth cuteseyisms.
Ah, oh second thought, never mind; there is no satisfactory answer to it. Let them think their ancestors' poop smelled like ice-cream. I don't give a dip any more. . . I'm free along with my ancestors' slaves. Thank God!
No, actually he is wrong. Had the bill passed in 1860 then it would have been signed by Buchanan not Lincoln, since Lincoln wasn't elected until November. The Morill Tariff did pass the House in 1860 but died in the Senate, blocked by southern senators. It was resubmitted in the next session of Congress and, as Dr. Williams correctly pointed out, finally passed out of the House and Senate in March of 1861 but several months after the seven southern states had seceded.
What war powers act was that, Rebel boy?
I think Scruggs has his date wrong. All the information I have indicatesthe Morrill Tariff was passed as soon as Congress returned to session in 1861, not 1860.
In any case, if it were 1860 as Scruggs suggests, one would expect South Carolina to have seceded then, rather than waiting until the end of the year.
The triggering event was Lincoln's election. And Lincoln represented everything the Deep South opposed - not just on tariffs or internal improvements, but also the extension of slavery to the territories. To the extent that Lincoln favored the high tariffs that would have damaged the South's agrarian economy, they had rational grounds to hold such opposition. The real question is whether they were right to take their ball and go home as soon as they lost their first election.
Wasn't the War Powers Act passed in 1974?
Maybe it was retroactive?
Nobody said that. Repressive laws (like Jim Crow) are wrong whether it's Federal or State. Nobody I read so far disagrees with that or thinks Jim Crow was "OK with them." What I said was that if it's the State doing it, someone does have the (admittedly difficult) option of leaving as a last resort. Many African Americans did just that during Jim Crow. If its the Fed being totally repressive, there isn't even that option.
I think that, as Lord Palmerston noted, it is hard to say that the Confederacy didn't fulfill all the practical requirements of a sovereign state. They had a working government with a functioning executive and legislature; they had an army and a navy.
But even if that is true, that doesn't mean that it wasn't a civil war. The connections between the two combatants, at every level, were close in a way that is not characteristic of any other war between nations. Brothers fought brothers.
Gotcha.
Possibly not, since they were a valuable piece of property for their owner. Does that mean that they were better off than the factory worker? Debatable.
I think that puts the Morrill Tariff issue to rest once and for all.
Maybe it was retroactive?
LOL
The legality of the southern acts of secession was an issue before the Supreme Court in Texas v White in 1869. The court ruled those acts illegal.
One of the reasons Pres. Davis was never tried was they were not sure they could get a conviction. It seems the Court back then could read the Constitution and gave a da## what it said.
On the contrary, Davis was never brought to trial because Chief Justice Chase made clear his belief that to convict and punish Davis and the other confederate leaders would violate their Fifth Amendment rights since the 14th Amendment had already punished them for their participation in the rebellion.
I understand it is a popular debate topic in law schools as to the legality of the state of West Virginia.
I hadn't heard that. Perhaps you could point out some more information on that?
The Civil War is over and we are now one nation.
That war is over but the cultural,economic and political battle is still being fought. It's no coincidence that the south played such a big role in the culture war that was the recent election.
Jim Crow as justification for the War between the states?
Jim Crow proved that state's rights could be harmful to US citizens.
Jim Crow laws by governments were harmful, not states rights.
As a proud member of Red State America, I'm really glad the South lost the Civil War. :)
Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in his position as commander-in-chief, not as president. Not to place too fine a point on the arguement, the proclamation did not end slavery in the southern states. It merely proclaimed those held as slaves to be free, and only those owned by people supporting the rebellion. Lincoln could not outlaw slavery because nothing in the Constitution prohibited it. That's why the 13th Amendment was passed. So perhaps in a way Menken was correct. The proclamation 'freed' nobody per se. But it did mean that those slaves who ran off from their owners to the safety of Union lines could not be returned to their owners, as the Fugitive Slave Laws required, because they weren't slaves anymore.
Wolfie wrote:
"States' Rights are nice in theory. But then some State comes along and legalizes medical marijuana or assisted suicide, and we can clearly see the folly in the idea."
So the tenth Ammendment, in your estimation, would only cover those decisions with which you agree? How are your views on this fundamentally different from the nanny-state liberal's view? In both cases you mention, the good folks in D.C. who know better than their subjects in the individual states take upon themselves the burden of "correcting" the decisions of the state legislature and/or the voters of that state, ostensibly for their own good, one presumes. Is this really part of the "conservative" idealogy nowadays?
I take exception with the idea that "we" see the same thing at all on this subject. The collectivist "we" is the source of more grief and tyrrany than any other concept in the human lexicon.
Lekker1:
"Strangely enough, I believe these two issues do actually fall under the stewardship of the State. They represent, for the most part, victimless crimes."
I don't see how this sentiment is "strange" at all; it is perfectly consistent with the principle of individual liberty and self-ownership. Too many people who call themselves "conservative" have forgotten what limited government and individual responsibility mean; I suppose this is the reason for having a Libertarian party.
Tyrranical government... it's not just for Democrats anymore.
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.