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
If enough people and states agree then pass an Amendment. Otherwise the people of the state can move.
As did the vast majority of whites living in America at the time. What's your point?
lincoln was nothing more or less than a cheap,scheming, power-hungry politician & shyster lawyer.
At the end of the day, though, Lincoln turned out to be smarter and more determined than any leader the CSA could muster. That's why we have a memorial to him here in DC.
he was just like wee willie klintoon! a creature W/O HONOR OR MORALS.
Shrug. The vast majority of your countrymen consider Lincoln to be a hero.
Heck, there's even a memorial to Lincoln in Richmond. That must drive you crazy.
Dr. Williams is wrong. The southern rebellion was not successful, so the people there remained a part of the United States. Civil war as defined in the dictionary would be accurate.
It was not a rebellion as the people of several of the sovereign states had decided to peaceably secede.
It was not successful due to the illegal military invasion by the North.
It was a rebellion because their unilateral acts of secession were illegal.
It was not successful due to the illegal military invasion by the North.
Once the Davis regime chose to escalate to armed conflict at Sumter then the southern defeat was inevitable.
It's called federalism. If a bunch of communists want to turn Massachusetts into a hellhole of taxation AND have the state constitution and the votes. Let them.
America was designed as 13 mini states functioning under a tighter umbrella than a federation. To the outside world they were one unit. Inside the borders, they were supposed to be 13 individual states.
It's a great idea since the parasites of communism could get together and screw up ONE state, not all of them at once.
Of course the Civil War and the subsequent growth of the federal levianthan we call government has replaced that concept.
Thank you for posting this!
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
You are very welcome.
The Constitution left questions of the Police Power, that is the right to legislate as to health, safety and morals, to the States. Your unhappiness with how some of them choose to exercise that power, does not authorize you to work for Federal usurpation of powers never delegated.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
FR's resident southbashing posse will now stoop to slamming Walter Williams too in order to try to sate their insatiable appetite for moral superiority and sanctimonious arse-orifice-ness.
It never ends...social PC revisionists masquerading as "conservatives".
Walter Williams=Good Company
I'll take Walter Williams over a Morris Dees or Julian Bond any day. The South Bashers must love their comrades in arms.
"Worst Evil To Have Ever Existed"....signing off...lol
This is EXACTLY why slavery became a contrived issue AFTER the start of the war. The north simply wanted to keep Europe out of it. Things were inching that way and you know it!
…the dicitionaries also present another definition which happens to be an accurate description of what happened.
Sorry, my friend, but you’ve just posted more of your endless non sequiturs. South Carolina and many of the other Southern States had formally seceded from the United States prior to the initiation of hostilities. Before you can logically apply your definition of ‘civil war’ to the conflict in question, you must first prove that secession was unconstitutional (i.e., that the Southern States were still a part of the United States during the war). In other words, if secession was constitutional (and the United States Constitution nowhere prohibits State secession), then the war was fought between ‘opposing countries,’ not “opposing groups of citizens of the same country.”
“Whoever you're debating might whack you over the head with things like that.”
;>)
Well then call it a rebellion then, don't try to paint it as something it wasn't.
Congratulations - another of your ‘classic’ non sequiturs! The Southern States formally seceded from the federal union. To label that secession “rebellion,” you must first prove that State secession was unconstitutional. And of course, the Constitution nowhere prohibits State secession.
“Honestly, have you done no reading at all on this subject?”
;>)
…it wasn't a war between sovereign nations. It was a rebellion or, at best, a civil war.
The southern rebellion was not successful, so the people there remained a part of the United States. Civil war as defined in the dictionary would be accurate.
And again, your conclusions (that secession constituted rebellion or civil war) do not follow from the premises (the specific written terms of the United States Constitution). In short, you’ve simply posted additional non sequiturs.
But then, that’s to be expected…
;>)
Absolutely - consider the following:
…[W]e, the People of South Carolina, to the end that it may be fully understood by the Government of the United States, and the people of the co-States, that we are determined to maintain this, our Ordinance and Declaration, at every hazard, Do further Declare that we wil not submit to the application of force, on the part of the Federal Government, to reduce this State to obedience; but that we will consider the passage, by Congress, of any act ... to coerce the State, shut up her ports, destroy or harass her commerce, or to enforce the acts hereby declared to be null and void, otherwise than through the civil tribunals of the country, as inconsistent with the longer continuance of South Carolina in the Union: and that the people of this State will thenceforth hold themselves absolved from all further obligation to maintain or preserve their political connexion with the people of the other States, and will forthwith proceed to organize a separate Government, and do all other acts and things which sovereign and independent States may of right to do.
South Carolina’s Ordinance of Nullification, November 24, 1832
The State of South Carolina very nearly seceded a generation before the war – and slavery was not the issue.
;>)
Actually, the Constitution itself notes that it was established “between the States so ratifying the same” (Article VII), and can only be lawfully amended by “three fourths” of the States (which might one day actually be inhabited by a minority of the ‘national’ population ;>). As Mr. Justice Thomas so astutely noted only a few short years ago:
“…[I]t would make no sense to speak of powers as being reserved to the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole, because the Constitution does not contemplate that those people will either exercise power or delegate it. The Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation.”
Clearly, the federal union is much less a union of the undifferentiated ‘American people’ than it is a union of the several States.
;>)
Every Northerner I've ever heard. Certainly not any real Southerners.
Actually, Mr. Lincoln’s election was only the last in a long series of events that contributed to the decision of the Southern States to secede. Even John G. Nicolay, Mr. Lincoln’s personal friend & private secretary (who could hardly be called unbiased), conceded the point:
With all their affectation of legality, formality, and present justification, some of the members [of the secession convention] were honest enough to acknowledge the true character of the event as the culmination of a chronic conspiracy, not a spontaneous revolution. "The secession of South Carolina," said one of the chief actors, "is not an event of a day. It is not anything produced by Mr. Lincoln's election, or by the non-execution of the Fugitive Slave Law. It is a matter which has been gathering head for thirty years." This with many similar avowals, crowns and completes the otherwise abundant proof that the revolt was not only against right, but that it was without cause.
That “thirty years” brings the origin of the secession movement at least as far back as the Tariff Crisis of the 1830s – which had nothing to do with either Mr. Lincoln or slavery. And if you read Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of 1825 and other historical records, you will find that the roots of secession significantly predate even the Tariff Crisis.
(By the way, we can thank our friend Walt for the Nicolay quote... ;>)
As a proud member of Red State America, I'm really glad the South lost the Civil War. :)
As someone who has sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, I’m really NOT glad Mr. Lincoln’s government and the Northern States ignored our own history, the writings of the Founders, the written records of the ratification debates, the ratification documents of the States, the most respected legal references of the early Republic, and the specific written words of the Constitution of the United States – and pursued a war against secession that killed nearly three quarters of a million Americans…
If such ‘foreign recognition’ was actually necessary, then please answer one simple question:
Which foreign “country” recognized the very first sovereign nation to ever exist?
;>)
I understand Lincoln didn't give a tinker's doodle for the Constitution. Ends, Means, You Know. He didn't HAVE to HAVE that war. For some reason, he seemed to WANT that war.
Nonsense! In fact, many of “the Souths legislators” asserted a constitutional right to State secession. As Senator Robert Augustus Toombs of Georgia declared upon his resignation from the United States Senate:
Senators, my countrymen have demanded no new government; they have demanded no new Constitution. Look to their records at home and here from the beginning of this national strife until its consummation in the disruption of the empire, and they have not demanded a single thing except that you shall abide by the Constitution of the United States; that constitutional rights shall be respected, and that justice shall be done.…
Senators, the Constitution is a compact. It contains all our obligations and the duties of the federal government. I am content and have ever been content to sustain it. While I doubt its perfection, while I do not believe it was a good compact, and while I never saw the day that I would have voted for it as a proposition de novo, yet I am bound to it by oath and by that common prudence which would induce men to abide by established forms rather than to rush into unknown dangers. I have given to it, and intend to give to it, unfaltering support and allegiance… I say that the Constitution is the whole compact. All the obligations, all the chains that fetter the limbs of my people, are nominated in the bond, and they wisely excluded any conclusion against them, by declaring that “the powers not granted by the Constitution to the United States, or forbidden by it to the States, belonged to the States respectively or the people.”
That hardly qualifies as ‘admitting that he was violating his oath of office to defend the US Constitution,’ now does it? Rather, it is a declaration by a Southern legislator that the Constitution itself (Amendment X) reserved the right of secession to the States and their people...
;>)
Since the state of Maryland remained in the Union during the Civil War, the full force of the US Consititution protected it, and prohibited Lincoln from freeing slaves there. However, when it came to the states in rebellion, Lincoln used his presidential war power to proclaim slaves in those states free. This was accomplished in a practical sense as the advancing Union armies liberated large areas of the south from the retreating southern armies.
Mencken's observation that Lincoln had no jurisdiction in the seceded states was simply incorrect.
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.