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
Even the amicably divorced do not often remarry. When your "spouse" has been unfaithful, the chances are almost nil.
WRONG ANSWER! the first CSA "ALL-BLACK" units were formed in early 1861.
check out the LA Native Guards (who were FORCED in 1862 to fight for the union OR be sold INTO slavery!), the Mississippi Ethopian Free Rifles, The GA Sables & other all-black,Latino/black & mixed Indian/black units (like the SEMINOLE RIFLES for example, which was about 50% blacks. fyi, there were 2 white guys in that unit, as well.).
Well: I stand corrected on the Louisiana Native Guards. I overlooked them. You are correct: they were a black Confederate military formation right from the beginning, and even if, so far as I can tell, they were a state formation and not a national Confederate one, it's an important exception to make note of. Louisiana was in a somewhat unusual situation because of its unique societal structure, which included not only a large free black population but a larger mixed blood one as well, and it seems that led to more enlightened Louisiana attitudes (relatively speaking) on race.
Their later history under Union control does illustrate how badly black troops were treated by Union military commanders. But then anyone who has seen "Glory" knows that they had it rough. The Union used black troops for menial or garrison tasks wherever possible.
I confess my ignorance on the other units you speak of. Were they state formations or Confederate Army ones?
according to Dr H R Blackerby by mid-1862 the CSA military forces were DESEGREGATED down to company level. the damnyankees NEVER desegregated their military forces, period.
I agree on your latter point. I confess I am not familiar with Dr. Blackerby's work.
Even so I think there's a danger in stretching the enlightened character of the CS Army on black soldiery too far. There certainly were Indian and some mixed blood state units formed that served the southern cause; and the CS Army actually seems have treated black soldiers better than their Union counterparts at times, although as we have noted that's not exactly a difficult feat.
Most blacks seemed to favor the Union cause based on the evidence I have seen. When Lincoln visited Richmond in April 1865 he was greeted in rapturous tones by the local black population by all accounts. Some of that may have been opportunism, but many seemed to understand that the Union equaled freedom and the CSA equalled bondage. Of course, the former's promises took several generations to fulfill.
Really? In what way? Please be specific...
;>)
I know some of Forrest's own slaves (about 44 in number) served under his command but the 20% number seems awfully high. Where did you come by that number?
Sorry – but that’s not unconstitutional. If it was, it would be unconstitutional for veterans to emigrate...
;>)
WIJG: Again, please be specific: what article, section and clause of the United States Constitution prohibits secession? Hmm?
j: None do, as you well know. It is mindboggling that you would assume that our Constitution would encourage secession as a viable option to using the due process of Constitutional law to solve political problems... 'Secessions' only existence is in the minds of those who oppose our Constitutional principles... The people have never authorized any level of government the power to violate our Constitution, nor to secede.
A few points:
Your argument is internally inconsistent. On the one hand, you admit that “none” of the Constitution's written provisions prohibit secession. On the other hand, you imply that secession would somehow “violate our Constitution.”
You are also incorrect regarding the “option” of secession as a solution to “political problems.” If the federal government had not exceeded its constitutional authority by using military force to prevent the secession of the Southern States, almost three-quarters of a million American lives might have been saved, and the Union would likely have been restored in a peaceful manner. That sounds like a better “option” to me.
Third, you are wrong when you state that “[t]he people have never authorized any level of government... to secede.” The people of Texas, Virginia, and Tennessee voted to approve the secession of their States. Furthermore, your statement (“The people have never authorized any level of government the power to violate our Constitution”) assumes that secession somehow violates the Constitution – when you previously acknowledged that “none” of the Constitution’s provisions prohibit secession.
In summary, thanks for your opinion – but it doesn’t have much of a foundation...
;>)
Allow me to suggest an alternative interpretation:
No States rights = no secession
Without the concept of States rights promulgated by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, there would have been no mention of seceding from the Union, whether the issue was federal violation of the Bill of Rights (Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, 1798), war with Britain (the Hartford Convention, 1814), the unconstitutional expenditure of federal funds (Mr. Jefferson's Declaration of 1825), tariffs (1832), or slavery (1850s-1860s).
The States rights ideal of the Jeffersonian republicans was the 'root of secession' - and a most admirable root it is, indeed...
;>)
So, “there is no provision for seceding?” Allow me to quote Mr. Justice Thomas (who God willing may one day be Chief Justice):
...[W]here the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people [of the States]...
As far as the Federal Constitution is concerned... the States can exercise all powers that the Constitution does not withhold from them. The Federal Government and the States thus face different default rules: where the Constitution is silent about the exercise of a particular power - that is, where the Constitution does not speak either expressly or by necessary implication - the Federal Government lacks that power and the States enjoy it. These basic principles are enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, which declares that all powers neither delegated to the Federal Government nor prohibited to the States - are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people [of the States].
U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 1995
Thank you for proving my point.
;>)
Once you're in, you're in. Show me the provision that allows a state legislature or state convention to strip its citizens of United States citizenship. Show me the provision of the Constitution that prescribes a procedure for secession. You can't.
Sorry, but I don’t have to “show” you anything: as Mr. Justice Thomas so eloquently observed – “the Federal Government and the States... face different default rules: where the Constitution is silent about the exercise of a particular power - that is, where the Constitution does not speak either expressly or by necessary implication - the Federal Government lacks that power and the States enjoy it.” In other words, it’s up to YOU to prove that the federal government possesses some constitutionally delegated power to prevent a State from retiring from the union. If you can’t, then “the States enjoy it.”
Have at it, sport...
;>)
Oh probably because I have never seen a shred of evidence to support your crazy claim that Forrest's cavalry was even 2/10 of a percent black, much less 20%.
That's odd, considering that the title given to the War Department compilation of the records of the war was called "The Official Record of the War of the Rebellion" and it wasn't published until 1880. Sure you don't want to double check that claim?
A couple of points:
"The requirements of nationhood" hardly supercede "the Law of the Land." The Constitution of the United States is of greater importance when it comes to the question of State secession than are any international conventions - and the Constitution nowhere prohibits secession.
Also, it is quite obvious that, had the federal government remained within its constitutionally-defined bounds and not opposed secession with military force, the Southern Republic would have had absolutely no difficulty obtaining foreign recognition "as a sovereign nation."
;>)
Bull.
Unlike you, I don't have to "dream" - the Constitution nowhere prohibits State secession, and the right to secede is therefore reserved to the States and their people. Period. The Constitution provides the 'rules' for this "game," my friend - it is "the supreme Law of the Land." All you can do is attempt to justify breaking the rules.
Congratulations!
;>)
Justice Thomas was talking about the division of powers between state and federal government and what happens when a power is not one of the "enumerated" powers where Congress may legislate. To take a noncontroversial issue, abortion is a matter for state regulation since the Constitution does not authorize Congress to regulate it. This has nothing to do with admission to or secession from the Union.
In contrast, the Constitution does speak to the issue, prescribing the procedure for ratification of the Constitution and admission to the Union. There is no procedure to leave, period. A state may not deprive its citizens of the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizenship after a state has joined the Union. There is no more fundamentally federal issue than this. To argue that joining the Union is a federal Constitutional issue but leaving is a state issue is completely illogical and Justice Thomas was not remotely commenting on this issue.
G'bye, sport.
Actually, it is you who have completely misconstrued Mr. Justice Thomas' statements. There is no "procedure" described in the Constitution for you to brush your teeth - which (according to your argument) would make 'tooth brushing' unconstitutional.
In fact, Mr. Justice Thomas stated: "where the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people." He did NOT declare that 'where the Constitution is silent, it prohibits any action by the States or the people.'
Apparently you prefer a totalitarian government, where the people can do nothing, unless it is previously approved by the authorities. Allow me to suggest that you might find a more comfortable home somewhere outside these United States...
;>)
Typical of you - suggesting that one could somehow "copywrite" a word listed in the dictionary...
(By all means, have at it! ;>)
Great list. General Pike was a liason to the Indian Nations.
I spent part of the day reading some historical accounts of Prince George's county which was very much a southern plantation economy at the time. Quite different from the western part of the state. Conservative also, with the landed gentry believing secession to be a radical (meaning dangerous) idea. Sentiments there were pro-Southern but not to the point of leaving the Union.
Were your ancestors that joined up allowed to return home after serving or were they consripted for the duration?
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.