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
That hardly qualifies as 'admitting that he was violating his oath of office to defend the US Constitution,' now does it?
Sure reads like that to me..
Be specific: what article, section and clause of the Constitution was he proposing to violate? If there was no violation of the Constitution, then there was no violation of his oath...
He was preparing to renounce any tie to the US Constitution or the Republic he swore an oath to support & defend..
-- 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...
Nothing in the 10th reserves the right to break an oath to defend our Constitution. They should have fought to preserve the Constitution in court, not to violate it by secession & war.
Again, please be specific: what article, section and clause of the United States Constitution prohibits secession? Hmm?
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.
Absent that prohibition, or a delegation of power to prevent State secession to the federal government (feel free to quote that article, section and clause as well – if you think it exists), the 10th Amendment does indeed reserve the right of secession to the States and their people...
'Secessions' only existence is in the minds of those who oppose our Constitutional principles.
Those principles can be applied to the Federal government, by the States, to force the feds to comply, or vice versa.
The people have never authorized any level of government the power to violate our Constitution, nor to secede.
Who is John Galt? wrote:
--- your post is both nonsensical and completely irrelevant.
--- you are having some trouble grasping reality...
I have not enjoyed such a thread since that #3fan left.
Then another State could (and probably would) decide that Joe can come to their state and they will not recognise the other state's law because it is unconstitutional. Further, this other state could prosecute anyone from the repressive state who came into its jurisdiction to enforce this unconstitutional law. If the Fed enacts a law such as you suggest then Joe is just screwed. I don't see how you can argue that the Federal govt. doesn't have much more power to abuse people than states do. That was the entire concept the founding fathers relied on when they came up with the concept of Federalism and limited Federal govt.
The Dred Scott decision, laid down by the Supreme Court before the Civil War, stated that a fugitive slave (from a slave state) now residing in a free state that recognized Scott as free, that this law was null and void and only the law of the state Scott fled would be recognized--and enforced--throughout the entire Union of states. The Dred Scott decision was the first comprehensive overreach of the federal government against the states.
Now Noni!
You know that dog "aint" gonna hunt.....
It was TWO countries at war: USA vs. CSA :)
Our founding fathers didn't consider slaves as "equal"....
Neither did the US Constitution.
Knowing what I know about certain hard-headed Yankee types, (like John Kerry :)) Yes, I could see that war happening regardless.......
Seems to me that Walter Williams credentials are far more credible than yours........
I would have liked to see you explain that one to Southerners in 1861....I bet you would have taken a long fall at the end of a very short rope........
Yes it would seem that way to you, wouldn't it?
On the contrary, Texi, there was a single country wracked by rebellion.
'Secessions' only existence is in the minds of those who oppose our Constitutional principles.
Those principles can be applied to the Federal government, by the States, to force the feds to comply, or vice versa.
The people have never authorized any level of government the power to violate our Constitution, nor to secede.
221 jones
I know I should have copywrited my screen name.
It would have happened, assuming the South were agricultural and without significant industry without slaves. Actually slavery can be blamed for the war indirectly but not directly because without slavery and the predominance of large plantations in agriculture it is possible that the South would have industrialized more equally with the North and the tarriff and tax issues would not have divided the country.
owever, more southerly warmer zones have industrialized at much slower rates than more northerly climes. Slavery might not have made the difference after all.
I see no folly in those ideas. They are the definition of crime which is inherently a States' prerogative. The Federal government has no business defining crime except in DC and on military bases with the possible exception of treason. That is why, while Roe v Wade is bad law and usurpation and should be overturned, there should then be NO law affecting abortion or any other definition of murder outside of Federal law for Federal jurisdictions, i.e. DC and military bases.
[1832 Ordinance Nulllifcation cited] - The State of South Carolina very nearly seceded a generation before the war – and slavery was not the issue.
That is probably the bst affirmative argument you could make to that challenge. But in a sense it also begs the question.
Of course South Carolina did not secede, but rather backed down, contrary to their threat, once President Jackson threatened to use force to resolve the crisis. But you are correct that tariffs were the key issue in play in 1832.
I would respond first by saying that the country came a long way from 1832 to 1860. Slavery was not tearing the country apart in 1832 - they thought the issue had been resolved in 1820 and in any case the abolitionist movement had not really gotten any traction yet.
I can't rule out completely that a secession crisis could have erupted for real strictly over tariffs, but it seems much less likely. You could even say that tariffs were an issue in 1860; after all the Morill Act had passed earlier that year but Buchanan had not signed it into law. With Lincoln in charge its signing was a given. Lincoln's stance on protective tariffs was certainly obnoxious to South Carolina and the Deep South.
It's possible in a sense that both sides are right in this debate. In 1860 two very different societies had emerged in the United States, the frontier notwithstanding: an increasingly industrialized, mercantilist North and a largely slave based cash crop agrarian south. The North further was flooded with European immigrants (who sought city factory or mine work or free western land to homestead on), whereas the South remained largely static. If we say that economic causes were central to the war there is a great deal of truth in that; southerners felt their livelihoods were at stake. But it is also worth bearing in mind what the central prop of that economy was: chattel slavery. Without that institution and the nearly 3 million African slaves needed to sustain it, the overwhelming dominance of cash crops like cotton would have been hard to sustain.
All the vital roads crossed in slavery. Slavery was the basis for the South's economy. Slavery was the basis for the South's caste-based society, where even poor southrn whites could feel part of the elite in some sense. Slavery was the basis of enormous abolitionist agitation in the North in the 1850's. And slavery, in the end, proved to be a catalyzing issue that united the South behind South Carolina in the crisis of 1860-1861 in a way in which tariffs did not in 1832 or any other time.
So back to the question: "Can you imagine the war - or secession - happening if slavery had not existed?" If the South was strictly free-soil, they would have ended up with a considerably different society than they in fact had - one much closer to the North. And without the dominance of cash crops which discouraged immigration and development of industry, they also would have had less opposition to protective tariffs. No slavery = no opposition to tariffs. Because slavery was the thing which more than any other factor made the South the distinctive society that it was - the society which was so different in its economic interests from the North.
Maybe so - but you'd need another full century of moral decline to really make that happen.
Fortunately Yankees of that stripe don't own many guns.
You hit on the point I made just now to Who is John Galt?
Slavery is the major factor in making the South the kind of society (and economy) that it was. So your assumption in a sensebegs the question.
So slavery was the root cause however you look at it. Take away those 3 million slaves and the South is a very different society, forced to restructure itself in different ways to remain economically viable. More small farms, less cash crops. More industry. An agrarian aristocracy would be far less viable, indentured servitude or serfdom not being viable alternatives.
But it goes further than that. Because the crisis of 1860 was brought on directly by the slavery quarrel. It was slavery that destroyed the old Whig Party and fractured the Democrats; it was slavery that made the rise of the Republican Party - and Abraham Lincoln - possible. The election of 1860 took place against the background of Harpers Ferry, Charles Sumner, Bleeding Kansas, Dred Scott, Beecher Bibles, Garrison's Liberator, and Uncle Tom's Cabin. It strikes me that to many "economic causes" advocates simply overlook too much of that history.
However, more southerly warmer zones have industrialized at much slower rates than more northerly climes. Slavery might not have made the difference after all.
I think climate would have had an impact, but how much?
I'd be interested in what makes you think that warmer climates would have a 19th century European society inhiospitable to industrialization.
It is true that most 19th century industrialization occurred in colder climates: Germany, the Low Countries, England, the American North, (and, later) Japan. But was this for strictly for climatic reasons or cultural ones?
I don't think you can rule out the latter.
In any case, as I said, Mr. Todd had plenty of children to divvy up his inheritance among.
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.