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
Doubtful
what's you point??? that the "average man" is STUPID & IGNORANT of the truth???
My point is that your opinions are in the radical fringe.
The Constitution was ratified in 1798, Washington was inaugurated in April 1789, the members of the Supreme Court were confirmed in the fall of 1789 and the court met for the first time in 1790. There was no deliberate delay in establishing the Supreme Court, the third branch of government. The confederacy, on the other hand had no trouble funding an army or passing tariff legislation, yet Davis and the confederate congress would not establish the one court required by their constitution. They had no trouble keeping their revolving door of a cabinet fully staffed, something not required by their constitution, in spite of the war, but they couldn't be bothered with the third branch of government. I would agree with you that it is not necessarily an indication of a functioning government but it is evidence of a government in contempt of its own constitution.
The USA in 1789 was hardly able defend its own claimed borders; it had no presence to speak of on the Great Lakes or the Mississippi; likewise Russia hardly had control of its vast borders for most of the 19th century, yet no one questiosn that they were a nation state.
In 1789 the U.S. borders ran about to the Mississippi. Parts of it may not have been adequately mapped but none of it was being taken away, either.
If you look at the most commonly accepted definitions of sovereignty in political science, the CSA fulfilled them, certainly by 19th century standards, whether we like it or not. It had defined borders; it had a government; it had a capital; it had an army and a navy; it had court system and a postal service; and it certainly exercised reasonable control throughout its claimed territory (until the final stages of the war) save possibly for some barren stretches of Texas and unionist counties in western Virginia - but then the USA itself had the same difficulty in much of the western territories.
It did not, as you pointed out, have the one true measure of sovereignty, the recognition of other nations. Nobody, with the possible exception of a single minor German principality (and that is questionable), ever considered the confederacy to be anything other than a rebellious part of the United States.
But then the US had the same difficulty in the first years of the Revolution, as did many Latin American states after first rebelling against Spanish control.
And the same situation would be true of them. They were nations in their own eyes only until someone else agreed that they were sovereign. For the U.S. that occur-ed in 1777.
The CSA lacked de jure recognition as a nation state by other states, but it certainly fulfilled the de facto defintion - and it was, after all, recognized as a belligerent by Great Britain.
De facto recognition holds no legal standing, and your claim that the confederacy had it from Great Britain or anyone else is debatable.
Nonsense. Slavery never took root in the North due to the different type of agriculture practice there.
in the north, MOST of the slaves were owned by major corporations, like banks,insurance comnpanies & railroads, BUT located elsewhere (for example, the FIRST STATE BANK of BOSTON owned more than 5,000 slaves in the Carolinas, Missouri, Brazil & in Haiti.)
That's nice. So what? That still doesn't change the fact that only about 5% of the people in the North obtained a benefit from slavery, while the number in the South was around 30-35%.
Howdy Partner. You have a great pen name. Take it as a compliment that now you are accused of being on the radical fringe. You have lots of good company here on the fringe.. The best of folks in fact.
The fact remains that claims that slavey would have died out on its own are not supported by history. Regardless of the time or the means for ending slavery, in every instance it still took government to impose it. And as I asked before, how long would it have taken for the southern states to accept the federal government forcing them to free their slaves?
The trend in the South was already apparent in 1864 where the Pat Cleburne side of the military advocated freedom and a limited enfranchisement of Blacks in exchange for military service.
And Cleburne ruined any chance he ever had of promotion by supporting his plan. It was also bitterly opposed by the overwhelming majority of his contemporaries.
The South was not fighting for slavery it was fighting for its own freedom.
But defense of the institution of slavery was by far the single most important reason for beginning the rebellion in the first place.
The modern concept of the nation-state can be traced to the Peace at Westphalia (1648, I believe). So, whatever countries existed at the time and met the generally accepted requirements of statehood that were set down at that time recongized each other simultaneously.
If the CSA had defeated the Union and obtained recognition as a sovereign nation, then it would have met the requirements of nationhood.
Cleburne's plan never went anywhere so we'll never know that for sure. Lee did endorse, reluctantly, the plan to use black combat troops that went to the confederate congress in December 1864. It was March of 1865 before the bill passed. I'm not aware that Beuregard ever endorsed black combat troops.
Guns of the South would make a great film...if done right.
Were there to be a hot war in today's USA, the red staters would win hands down as we are the ones armed. In the meantime, I'm all for a return to the days of tarring and feathering of well-deserving liberals...Michael Moore would certainly be a candidate.
It was the other way around, the North allied with Germany and the South with Britain and France. In the Turtledove world, the U.S./German/Austrian alliance won.
Source: http://www.dot.state.ga.us/specialsubjects/specialinterest/covered/builders.shtml
To manumit (to free from slavery) a person prior to the Civil War was not an easy task. The master could not simply give his slave a "paper of freedom"; there were many legalities to fulfill and the process was tedious. Both Godwin and King were eager to accomplish manumission. It was concluded Ohio would be the best known location in which to manumit King, where Horace was formally freed under the laws of the State. After returning from Ohio, free from the force of the Federal Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, King was emancipated by the General Assembly of Alabama, in its last session at Tuscaloosa, February 3rd, 1846.
The several Indian tribes have long been ruled 'nations' by the US supreme Court, and treaty and diplomatic relations with the US prior to the war. The following Indian nations all established treaties with the Confederate States:
Creek
Choctaw
Chickasaw
Seminole
Peneteghca (Comanches)
Wichitas
CadoHadachos
Huecos
Tahuacaros
Anadaghcos
Toncawes
Aionais
Kichais
Shawnee
Delaware
Neconi
Taneiwe
Cochotinca
Yaparihca (Comanche)
Great Osage
Seneca (of Sandusky)
Shawnees (of Seneca)
Shawnees (of Lewistown)
Quapaw
Cherokee
Hey there studious one....
Remember that some laws regulating the freeing of slaves were for the benefit of the slaves. It was against the law here to free a slave who was too old to work. It was also required that such old slaves be provided coats and shoes for the winter by force of law. Such laws were created, in part, to lessen the chance of slave uprisings being sparked by the mistreatment of old or ill slaves. Yet it also offered an advantage to the economic trend of just paying workers cause that way when they ain't workin you ain't payin.
When in Columbus, Georgia be sure to walk across the Chattahoochie River to Alabama on the Horace King Bridge.
That's true. Though the South (along with British and French assistance) had won an earlier war in the 1880's. The Confederacy is left reduced and prostrate, ripe for the revanchist appeal of one Jake Featherston...
It must be remembered that black soldiery was contemplated only at the last ditch by Confederate leaders. Some will rightly point out that some blacks DID support the South and some served willingly in the ranks; but this should not be read as a more enlightened view by the Confederate leadership on the slavery question than in fact existed.
Cleburne's career was, by all accounts, done considerable damage by his proposal. However much Lee might have sympathized with the suggestion, he deprecated the divisions such a policy would entail. And as you rightly point out, most of the rest of the high command of the Army of Tennessee opposed the proposal. The CSA only authorized black soldiers in March 1865 as the South reached the final stages of disintegration.
To suggest that all of this was a signpost for the change in attitudes towards slavery, as Monterrosa and others do, seems to me unsustainable. What little the CSA did was done only under extreme duress, as a last ditch measure with most of the South overrun and the white manpower pool bled utterly dry.
Would slavery have come to an end eventually in the South? almost certainly.
But it lasted another full generation in Brazil and Cuba. Given that it was in healthier shape in the South than in either of those nations, it's hard to think it would not have lasted at least that long in a free CSA. My own guessis that it would have lasted, sans external pressure or force, until the early 20th century, gradually phased out in some compensated scheme.
Turtledove in his books suggests the likeliest scenario: a CSA forced to emancipate slaves legally (though hardly better in reality to a grim sharecroppery) under pressure from its Anglo-French allies the next time it faced war with a rump United States.
If memory serves President Longstreet freed the slaves by presidential decree, in complete violation of the confederate constitution. But then Turtledove's knowledge of the U.S. Constitution isn't much better. I believe that the Socialist New York Congresswoman wins her seat by beating a Democrat who had been appointed to fill the vacant seat, again in violation of the Constitution.
A fair point.
The lack of a Court is indeed striking, or at least it is to me. What little I know suggests lack of interest in the question by the Confederate Congress and the unwillingness to cede such power (underwartime, at any rate) by Jefferson Davis. He cannot have been eager to have some of his dictates ruled unconstitutional by a Confederate Supreme Court.
In 1789 the U.S. borders ran about to the Mississippi. Parts of it may not have been adequately mapped but none of it was being taken away, either.
Well, it wasn't at war, either.
Though it suffered major incursions into many of these remote areas by British forces and their Indian allies in the War of 1812. Even so much of it was land where US writ ran only in theory. It was left to generals like Wayne, Harrison and Jackson to conquer it by force.
Nobody, with the possible exception of a single minor German principality (and that is questionable), ever considered the confederacy to be anything other than a rebellious part of the United States.
True.
I think many foreign elites recognized - and there is evidence to support this, and not just in Russell's speech - that the CSA had created a going concern of a state, but they weren't ready to recognize them until they had gained a decisive victory on the battlefield. A victory that proved unattainable for Lee and a ANV.
If foreign recognition is make or break for you, then there's no way the CSA qualifies as a sovereign nation.
But that qualification aside, all I am arguing is that, like it or not (and I hold no brief for the Confederacy) that the CSA pretty much fulfilled all the rudimentary qualifications of statehood; and indeed I would go further to argue that unlike most other rebellions in modernity I can point to, it did so by forming a stable representative (save for the highly odious and notable exception of its 3 million black slaves) republic which commanded widespead popular support (as Gary Gallagher has pointed out) for most of the war. The CSA did not collapse, alas, under its own contradictions. It was destroyed by union armies. Reconstruction in the end proved just mild enough to help restore over time southern allegiances to the union again.
For all that, they formed this state in a petulant and ill-advised huff on a dubious (at best) constitutional theory, in what turned out to be utterly disastrous to every interest they held dear. They lost and lost badly, and so history brands them as rebels, not revolutionaries. And, in some cases, in even less flattering terms.
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.