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
He is also aware of the importance of slavery in the ante-bellum southern culture. It was Congressman Lawrence Keitt of South Carolina, who said in a speech to the House of Representatives in 1860, "African slavery is the cornerstone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbaraism."
lincoln cared NOTHING about slavery PERIOD, until it became POLITICALLY POPULAR to oppose it.
like wee willie klintoon, he was driven ONLY by "what is popular with the people", rather than by what was/IS MORALLY CORRECT! had it been popular in the north in 1860 to KILL blacks, Jews,Latinos & Indians, lincoln would have LED the "necktie party".
as i've said MANY times, lincoln was ONLY a schemiong, cheap POLITICIAN & nothing more than that.
free dixie,sw
lincoln cared NOTHING about slavery PERIOD, until it became POLITICALLY POPULAR to oppose it.
like wee willie klintoon, he was driven ONLY by "what is popular with the people", rather than by what was/IS MORALLY CORRECT! had it been popular in the north in 1860 to KILL blacks, Jews,Latinos & Indians, lincoln would have LED the "necktie party".
as i've said MANY times, lincoln was ONLY a scheming, cheap POLITICIAN & nothing more than that.
free dixie,sw
we've missed you!
free dixie,sw
Yeah but you didn't win. So a rebellion it was, and a rebellion it remains.
There is no "me" or "you" in regards to the Confederate States of America with me. My ancestors were fighting on both sides of the Cuban Wars of Independence or Wars of Cuban Rebellion in those days.
I was just calling you on your categorical statement regarding the term "Civil War":
"I've checked defines a civil war as " war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." Which is an accurate defintion of what happened."
Since the term and the meaning of "citizen" is a creation of human law, any use of it is subjective when two sets of law conflict.
Was George Washington a British subject after July 4, 1776 but before the defeat of the British at Yorktown?
By your statement regarding "rebellion", you seem to agree that, whatever you call it, "Civil War" is not an accurate term.
As I noted, during the war itself, nobody referred to it as a "Civil War".
It was only in later years, that the more Politically Correct term "Civil War" came into common usage and even the title title of "Harpers' Weekly History of the Great Rebellion" was changed to "Harpers' Weekly History of the Civil War".
do you miss him/her/it, too????
free dixie,sw
do you miss him/her/it, too????
free dixie,sw
I think you're setting too high a standard here.
By 19th century standards they were perhaps better off than many nation states you could shake a stick at.
The lack of a Supreme Court is not especially troubling considering they were at war. The United States itself took some time to set up its own during peacetime in 1789-1793. The CSA in any case had inferior courts, and that sufficed for their purproses at the time. In any case, a Supreme Court is not a requirement by any reasonable standard for sovereignty. It only comes up here at all because the CSA constitution called for one.
As for borders: 1) 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. 2) The status of Missouri and Kentucky is not clear-cut, since neither had a clear vote for secession that was fully recognized in the state - but rather rump conventions held in exile from the state capital. 3) The CSA certainly had reasonable control exercised over its territory until Union forces began invading in earnest in 1862 - with the possible exception of sparsely inhabited and remote areas of western Virginia. But then the same thing can be said of the US itself, which was unable to prevent CSA incursions into Indian Territory and New Mexico Territory - or, for that matter, the eleven states which seceded. By your definition, the USA itself in 1861 has difficulty meeting that definition.
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.
Diplomatic recognition is another question. 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. 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.
The confederacy never met essential attributes of nationhood - they were, at best, an unsuccessful separatist movement.
I tend to disagree on the first clause despite my lack of sympathy for neo-Confederate apologetics (on ample display in this thread). As for your second clause, that's ultimately what they wound up as.
When you consider that you had to be free, white, 21, male, and a property owner, not many voters of Southern sentiment were left.
They had either joined up 'across the river' or been arrested.
btw, it is my theory that if the south chose to secede again, that the "oh so wunerful,wunerful damnyankees" would be so busy:
raising taxes,
hating guns,
hating hunting/fishing,
taking dope,
engaging in every possible sexual perversion,
murdering the UNborn,
fearing pit-bull dogs,
being "vegetarian or vegan",
looking for more ways the "help the less fortunate" with MORE FEDERAL PROGRAMS,
banning smoking,
being ANTIsemitic,
being "PC",
& generally making JACKASSES of themselves,
that they would NOT notice we WERE GONE for 3-5 years.
free dixie,sw
Hello Stand,
I know your feelings on this subject are pretty strong. No one is going to nominate you for President of the Abe Lincoln Fan Club, and I have no expectation that you would never not spit on the invitation if it were extended.
But while there's plenty in Lincoln's record that may be fair game, I think it's hard to sustain the notion, once you reveiw the primary evidence, that Lincoln did not have an aversion to slavery as an institution for pretty much all of his adult life.
His opposition as a political matter may have followed pragmatic considerations, waxing as abolition grew more popular in the North: you could make that argument with some reasonable credibility, perhaps. You could also argue that he held racist attitudes for pretty much his entire life - though so did pretty much every other white of that era, and Lincoln did show some signs (as Frederick Douglass repeatedly pointed out) of growth during the war. You could also argue, as you have, that other considerations were moe important to him in his political career, such as northern business interests, preserving the union, extending federal power, etc, than was ending slavery. I think reasonable people can disagree about these things, and many have.
So Lincoln was a politician and there may be evidence he acted like one. But I think there's as much evidence that he was anti-slavery even on on a personal level as there is for, say, William Lloyd Garrison or Harriet Beecher Stowe. A quick look through his personal correspondence makes that clear.
What strikes me about Lincoln most is what has struck even southerners like Shelby Foote: that Lincoln possessed not merely a native genius but a capacity for growth that Jefferson Davis, for all of his brilliance, experience, and talents, did not. Lincoln was in many ways not the same man in 1865 that he was when he took office in 1861 and certainly not when he was a congresscritter in 1848. That's something that's a lot harder to say about Jeff Davis. Or for that matter most other politicians of that era.
Possibly so - the essential attributes of nationhood are a topic discussed with respect to international relations and the proliferation of "micro-nations" these days.
The the case of Biafra. Nation-state or not? They were diplomatically recognized as such by a few of their neighboring countries, but they failed to enforce their borders against the sovereign authority the rebelled against.
"The lack of a Supreme Court is not especially troubling considering they were at war."
I agree. The United States did not have a Supreme Court until Congress created it by legislation following the ratification of the Constitution. The difference being, the confederate constitution called for that court and the confederate legislature never created it. That's why I used the term "fully functioning." If you have not read it, I would recommend The Cause Lost by William C. Davis. It is still in print in paperback.
"The CSA certainly had reasonable control exercised over its territory until Union forces began invading in earnest in 1862 - with the possible exception of sparsely inhabited and remote areas of western Virginia. But then the same thing can be said of the US itself, which was unable to prevent CSA incursions into Indian Territory and New Mexico Territory - or, for that matter, the eleven states which seceded. By your definition, the USA itself in 1861 has difficulty meeting that definition."
The point which I was making was especially in regard to Kentucky and Missouri. The United States had internationally recognized boundaries that were from time to time violated (i.e War of 1812). To maintain territorial integrity, borders need to be defended, and they were. In the case of the confederacy, they claimed territory they had no control over at all.
They probably wouldn't notice. Or if they did, they might even say "good riddance.
But don't forget all those Red Zone states in the mountain West and Midwest. They deserve better than to be left to the tender mercies of Hillary and Chappaquidick Ted. Hopefully there'd be room in the New South for Indiana and the Dakotas.
They'd get the actors, bureaucrats and playwrights. We'd get the people who do the real work. And then we'd see which society was really more viable.
There are detailed provisions for a state to approve the Constitution and join the United States. There is no provision for seceding. 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.
"[T]he moment this House undertakes to legislate upon this subject [of slavery], it dissolves the Union. Should it be my fortune to have a seat upon this floor, I will abandon it the instant the first decisive step is taken looking towards legislation of this subject. I will go home to preach, and if I can, practice, disunion, and civil war, if needs be. A revolution must ensue, and this republic sink in blood."
- South Carolina Congressman James Hammond, on the Floor of the House of Representatives.
The southerners knew what they were doing. It was rebellion. It was insurrection. It was civil war. And it was planned.
Then "let's roll!"
I have Davis's "An Honorable Defeat" - an outstanding book, by the way. But I haven't read that one.
But from what I have read of Davis, I sense that if you put the question to him whether the CSA fulfilled the basic criteria of a nation state by 19th cenbtury standards, it be hard for him to say they didn't. But maybe I'm misreading him.
Given that the CSA was at war almost from its birth, it'shard to nick them for failing to establishing every body called for in their constitution. Perhaps not "fully functioning" by their own announced standards but certainly by any reasonable standards for a functioning government. The government departments not related to war obviously stayed atrophied in some fashion while the war was still on.
In the end they could not uphold their sovereignty and their claims against the superior might of the Union. But that doesn't mean that for much of the war that they didn't meet the basic tests of nationhood, recognized or not by foreign powers.
I don't know what more to say about Kentucky and Missouri. I think it was unwise for Richmond to extend such hasty admission to both states when neither had the clear consensus for secession that the eleven "real" Confederate states did. But then the US itself has a similar difficulty. In 1861 Abe Lincoln claimed an executive power that reached from the Reio Grande and Key West to the Canadian border, yet his writ did not run south of the Potomac more than a few miles.
Eventually Lincoln made good those claims, but it cost him 380,000 dead and untold millions to do so. But being beaten doesn't mean the CSA didn't meet the requirements of a nation state, any more than the Dutch or France were for being conquered by Hitler (which is not suggest any equivalence between Hitler and Lincoln - I know I probably got Stand Watie all excited there for a second).
But there are many cases of nation states claiming territory they don't have effective control over without their essence being called into question. That's certainly the case for the European empires of the day. The King of Belgium claimed the entire Congo in 1885 but his control was effective over a few square miles around outposts like Leopoldville.
In modern political science there's been discussion over Africa states facing the same difficulty as King Leopold and wondering whether they meet the critria of sovereignty at all. I think there's a better case to be made against such states than against the CSA for the first years of its existence.
But I think it should be clear that, however I may admire the valor of southern leaders and fighting men, or certain attributes of southern culture, that I'm glad the South lost, and that I think secession is at best a very dubious doctrine. All my (Illinois German) ancestors worse blue. All I'm doing here is recognizing that, like it or not, the CSA managed to set up a functioning nation state of sorts (with pretty remarkable popular support) during its brief existence.
In a rebellion or a war of independence, the "civil war" aspect would be the part of the war in where the citizens of the same State would be partisans and fighting each other.
Torry vs Patriot armed conflict would be an example of "civil war" in the American Revolutionary War.
Union loyalist vs Confederate loyalist in Southern States armed conflict or Copperhead vs Union loyalist armed conflict in Northern States would be an example of "civil war" in the 1861-1865 war.
Would the Battle of Saratoga against British forces be considered a battle in a "Civil War"?
There is not to my knowledge a single instance where slavery died out on it's own accord. In every single country, including Brazil, slavery was ended through government action and against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the slave owners themselves. So if the southern states were willing to resort to secession and rebellion to protect slavery in 1861 when do you think they would they have been willing to accept government demands to end their peculiar institution? 1870? 1890? 1950?
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.