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
It's a shame what has happened to these new dictionaries. Dumbed down for the "new" Americans.
Williams is older than the new dictionaries. He probably learned his definitions when they weren't generalities for the intellectually lazy.
The CSA was never recognized as a sovereign nation by any country.
If the CSA had managed to achieve independence, it is a certainty that the two countries would have fought subsequent wars.
As a proud member of Red State America, I'm really glad the South lost the Civil War. :)
It would've been better had the war never been fought. Given the military realities today, I'm glad that we are one large country. But if the philosophies which drove the north during the war ultimately win, we might as well move to France(yes I know we'd have to learn to speak arabic.)
Edited
In my humble opinion...
The obvious moral repugnance of enslaving another human based on ethnicity (or any other factor, at that) is forced to balance against the equally obvious self-serving corruption of Northern business interests and Federal collectivist (i.e.: tyrranical) tendencies when we look back at the American Civil War (or the War Between the States, or the War of Northern Aggression, or the War Between Union Goons and Dixie Thugs, if you will). Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but if I had been President and could persuade a sizable majority of my colleagues in Washington to agree, I would have let the South secede... good riddance to backward blowhards. Then the United States of America would suspend all trade with the Confederate States of Dixie or whatever they would call themselves, and declare that any slave who made it into the North was automatically free and any white (or other) person caught entering the North with the purpose of kidnapping and returning said slave would be jailed. A loud declaration to the rest of the world that the "peculiar institution" is abhorrent and contrary to the principles of freewill and natural law, constantly updated with intense economic and idealogical pressure, would put a fairly decisive crimp in the viability of such antiquated racist institutions and do irreparable damage to the emerging nation... perhaps enough to change the minds of the average Southerner, if not the slave-owning elite. I'm guessing this would go on for about 20 years - maybe less - before the South would be begging to rejoin the United States, rescinding slavery as a matter of course to do so.
I could be wrong, of course. And I'm sure there are those who take exception with my characterizations of intention, especially our friends in the "New South". Confederate flag-waving Freepers... FLAME ON!
One of the online dictionaries was the OED. They are considerably older than Dr. Williams.
He probably learned his definitions when they weren't generalities for the intellectually lazy.
Or he just made it up, like I said.
One of the online dictionaries was the OED. They are considerably older than Dr. Williams.
He probably learned his definitions when they weren't generalities for the intellectually lazy.
Or he just made it up, like I said.
I'll put my money on Williams.
But a reasonable scenario. The United States and an independent confederacy would have been natural political and economic rivals. Bad blood stemming from a war would have continued for generations, and could easily fueled future conflicts.
I kind of figured you would.
Furthermore, the CSA would have naturally have gone looking for European allies. The USA and CSA would have been drawn into the machinations of European Great Power politics.
Latest version? Or old version which has not been updated? What's the date on it?
Kinda need one that was printed when he was going to school, in, let's say, the forties.
Perhaps, but that isn't what I edited.
Dr.Williams nails yet another one.
Thanks for the post.
Like I said, speculation. I have no problem with it. It should have been labeled that way. Which was the point I made, no other.
It seems to me that there would have been a high probability of that as well.
Assuming that the rump of the union had stayed together. Further secessions (such as by the Far West, or by the Mormons) - and further wars - might have followed.
Along with alliances with European Powers.
The constitution as it was originally established was a voluntary union between sovereign nations known as "states"
No, the constitution as it was originally established was a voluntary union between former English colonies known as "States". 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.
Not at all. Under our Constitution, the people are sovereign, not the nation.
The states were in fact sovereign - meaning independent governing entities.
The People of States joined the union, and agreed to accept the US Constitution as their supreme law. They granted no 'sovereign' powers to their States. Quite the opposite. Both State & Federal powers are limited, as the 10th makes clear.
___________________________________
The Constitution has been the supreme law of Fed, State, & local governments since ratification.
The feds have no more power over the State/local governments than the Constitution allows.
Only supreme in the areas allowed by the constitution itself.
Yep , that's what I wrote.
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.
One 'problem' is that you refuse to acknowledge that some powers were prohibited to States. Namely, States cannot infringe upon our rights to life, liberty or property, without due process.
______________________________________
--- Any State could prove that [the feds have limited powers] by simply refusing to obey unconstitutional federal edicts.
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.
Strange comment. -- You haven't made a contrary point.. Essentially, we're in agreement.
______________________________________
They [States] 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.
Nope, -- your are standing on your head to see it from a 'States rights' POV.
A 'free state' concept would work. The feds could not jail a whole State for refusing to obey unconstitutional edicts on gun control, for instance.
And that's probably a positive gloss.
Not unreasonable to think Europe (in its worst aspects) would have been replicated in North America.
Even with Kentucky (winning Missouri as well seems highly unlikely), a free South/CSA would still be at a great disadvantage to the US in terms of population and industry. A French or British alliance would be sought after eagerly by Richmond. So would new territories in the Caribbean (especially Cuba) and Central America, as many southern leaders campaigned for in the 1850's.
And the North would resent even more their late countrymen, still "rebels" in their eyes.
Both nations would be forced to maintain large standing armies. And that would bode ill for federalism or civil liberties in both countries.
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.