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
You believe that this was the reason why he was arrested. The OR doesn't say.
Again, it's what you left out that was interesting:,
"The preacher McFarland has the reputation of being a strong rebel. Major Davis closed his church because he refused to pray for the President and paid no attention to Governor Fletcher's order, although notified of it. The possession of the church was in dispute at the time, two sets of trustees claiming it, one loyal and the other, with whom McFarland was connected, disloyal. Upon the receipt of my order it was given up. Major Davis had already been reprimanded by Colonel Harding for his action in the matter."
Looks like another case of a junior officer overstepping his bounds and the situation corrected by a senior officer.
OK, what does that have to do with praying for the president, and why is his arrest surprising in the first place? He was arrested for writing a letter for delivery to an area of the country in rebellion. An illegal act, and hardly a surprising outcome.
Official Records, Series 1, Vol 49, Pt. 2, p. 862
You forgot this part:
"Although it may be inconsistent with your personal feelings to offer this prayer, yet as it is part of the formula prescribed by the bench of bishops, and as many who may probably hereafter worship with your congregation will desire the privilege of praying for their President, I must request that in future you either include this customary prayer or the church be closed."
Taken in context, it's clear that General McCook is calling for the minister to close the church if he cannot comply with the instructions of the bishops. Perhaps not the job of General McCook but regardless, prayers or not I don't see where the general is threatening to close the church, nor do I see where the church was indeed closed on the order of the Union commander.
LOL. I figured you would attempt to distort the truth. Ministers were arrested for failure to pray for Lincoln. Interestingly enough, even when the uion officers knew that they ministers refused to pray for Jefferson Davis - that was acceptable.
It's you who distort the truth by failing to present the whole picture. But where is the surprise in that?
This, from the minister of propaganda? How did I distort the truth? I said that ministers were arrested for failing to pray for Lincoln.
They were.
You presented no evidence at all that Reverend Leech was arrested for failing to pray for Lincoln, or that Reverend Ellis war arrested at all. And you failed to present the entire picture on the others. THAT's how you distort the truth. See how good your are at it?
The "South" did not seceede. Each individual and soverign State which later comprised The Confederate States of America, individually, at the discretion of its duly elected legislature, empowered by its citizens, seceeded.
My ancestors took no oath to the United States as a NATION until after the War Between the States.
They got the land grant in 1641. In fact, (much later) Union troops stole and burned the businesses and property of one of my ancestors in Missouri who would, in all honesty (and before God), not take such an oath during the war.
You state:
The State Constitutions are mandated to establish Republican forms of government, and to protect their peoples rights
No Federal anything mandated State Constitutions. Most States operated under Charter until the Revolution. (Maryland's Charter was dated 1632)
In 1776, eight states (Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia) wrote constitutions. These were followed by New York, and Georgia in 1777, and Massachusetts in 1780.
All before the writing of the Federal Constitution.
Connecticut and Rhode Island elected to continuing operating under their charters and (until 1818 in the case of Connecticut and 1843 in the case of Rhode Island). The fourteenth state, Vermont, actually wrote its first constitution in 1777.
All States which did not operate under their charters had Constitutions PRIOR to the writing of the Constitution of these United States. They were, Soverign Nations, each unto themselves.
Note that I have not included "the people" in this discussion because it should be understood that all power, whether it be at the State level or (eventually) Federal, is derived from the people by their consent.
I have nothing backwards, simply because the people were not being discussed, only the relationship between the States and the Federal Government.
Had the States not been individual nations, they would have had no need (nor ability!) to ratify the Federal Constitution and become one of the 'united states'.
Go here, Avalon Project and read the Maryland Constitution. You will see many of the concepts later incorporated in the Constitution of the United States.
The site is great for reading myriad other documents of the time as well.
Many colonies even coined their own money. (While English money was the norm, specie of almost any nation was used, especially the Spanish Milled Dollar--AKA cobb, or piece of eight).
No one then disputed the right of the people of these States to make or dissolve alliances, else they would not have been able to eventually ratify the Constitution of the United States.
With ratification, certain limitations were imposed, but nowhere in the US Constitution did it limit the right of each State to seceede.
It took nearly 50 years for the concepts to be morphed out of shape by the assembled greed of the northern States, and I presume you are young enough to watch the European Union for that long. You will see similar developments there.
As for unenumerated rights, certainly the right of secession is one of these, to wit:
"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
This unalienable and unenumerated right is never sacrificed on the altar of nationhood, no matter what the nation.
This most fundamental right, that of the governed to withhold or withdraw their consent, and thus, their power, is the basis by which the Colonies broke away from Europe, and remains the right of each citizen, and whatever governmental entities those assembled citizens assign that power thereto.
And I ask, would you support a 'Union of Socialist States' takeover on our West Coast? -- I suspect you would dispute it, as I would.
I would dispute the formation of such an entity, and frequently do (it often seems as if there is such an entity now, and in the northeast as well). But not as a question of rights, only one of security to my way of life.
Unfortunately, the 'consent of the governed' gives people who do not understand or desire their rights the right to piss them away as well.
I just thought I'd get back to you after talking to him.
Ordered ... arrest .... order immediately executed. It's not Greek.
Maj. Gen Schenk writes that Archbishop Kenrick will appeal to STANTON. The volume is entitled, 'Correspondence, Orders, Etc, Relating to PRISONERS OF WAR AND STATE from December 1, 1862 to June 10, 1863'.
'Major Davis closed his [Mcfarland's] church because he [W. B. McFarland] refused to pray for the President.'
And yet another, where numerous churches were closed due to the ministers refusals to pray for the tyrant:
The rebel feeling in Virginia is utterly dead, and, with proper management, can never be resided. As evidence of this the recusant clergymen have offered to pray for the President of the United States, and to-morrow all the churches in Richmond will be reopened.
Thank you.
And almost immediately countermanded by a higher authority. You want us to believe that it was the Administration's policy to arrest priests who failed to offer prayers for the president when instead it looks like a couple of loose cannon acting on their own.
The "South" did not seceede. Each individual and soverign State which later comprised The Confederate States of America, individually, at the discretion of its duly elected legislature, empowered by its citizens, seceeded.
Many individuals in those States did not secede. Their rights were violated by an unconstitutional secession.
My ancestors took no oath to the United States as a NATION until after the War Between the States.
ALL State officials are sworn to support our Constitution, ALL people in the USA must obey the Law of the Land. Sworn or not, your ancestors born here after ratification were Citizens of the USA. [or counted as 3/5's of one]
They got the land grant in 1641. In fact, (much later) Union troops stole and burned the businesses and property of one of my ancestors in Missouri who would, in all honesty (and before God), not take such an oath during the war.
You state:
The State Constitutions are mandated to establish Republican forms of government, and to protect their peoples rights.
No Federal anything mandated State Constitutions.
Read Art IV Sec 4 of our US Constitution, Joe. No new States were admitted without compliance with the Law of the Land.
Most States operated under Charter until the Revolution. (Maryland's Charter was dated 1632) In 1776, eight states (Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia) wrote constitutions. These were followed by New York, and Georgia in 1777, and Massachusetts in 1780. All before the writing of the Federal Constitution.
But once they ratified the US Constitution, it became the supreme Law of the Land.
Connecticut and Rhode Island elected to continuing operating under their charters and (until 1818 in the case of Connecticut and 1843 in the case of Rhode Island). The fourteenth state, Vermont, actually wrote its first constitution in 1777. All States which did not operate under their charters had Constitutions PRIOR to the writing of the Constitution of these United States. They were, Soverign Nations, each unto themselves.
Yet ALL their officials swore oaths to support the US Constitution as the supreme law. Thus they were 'nations' no more, They were States in a Union.
Note that I have not included "the people" in this discussion because it should be understood that all power, whether it be at the State level or (eventually) Federal, is derived from the people by their consent. I have nothing backwards, simply because the people were not being discussed, only the relationship between the States and the Federal Government. Had the States not been individual nations, they would have had no need (nor ability!) to ratify the Federal Constitution and become one of the 'united states'. Go here, Avalon Project and read the Maryland Constitution. You will see many of the concepts later incorporated in the Constitution of the United States. The site is great for reading myriad other documents of the time as well. Many colonies even coined their own money. (While English money was the norm, specie of almost any nation was used, especially the Spanish Milled Dollar--AKA cobb, or piece of eight). No one then disputed the right of the people of these States to make or dissolve alliances, else they would not have been able to eventually ratify the Constitution of the United States.
With ratification, certain limitations were imposed, but nowhere in the US Constitution did it limit the right of each State to seceede.
'Nowhere' did our Constitution provide for States to withdraw from the Union. States have the power to amend the Constitution, but not to abandon its principles.
It took nearly 50 years for the concepts to be morphed out of shape by the assembled greed of the northern States, and I presume you are young enough to watch the European Union for that long. You will see similar developments there. As for unenumerated rights, certainly the right of secession is one of these, to wit:
"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
The souths 'causes' were heard, and found specious. They had no just cause.
This unalienable and unenumerated right is never sacrificed on the altar of nationhood, no matter what the nation. This most fundamental right, that of the governed to withhold or withdraw their consent, and thus, their power, is the basis by which the Colonies broke away from Europe, and remains the right of each citizen, and whatever governmental entities those assembled citizens assign that power thereto.
Yep, thats why I asked:
-- Would you support a 'Union of Socialist States' takeover on our West Coast? -- I suspect you would dispute it, as I would.
I would dispute the formation of such an entity, and frequently do (it often seems as if there is such an entity now, and in the northeast as well).
But not as a question of rights,
BIG 'but', Joe. You really would grant that socialists have a 'right' to take over a state, abolish its constitution, and institute Communism? Wow.
, -- only one of security to my way of life.
Sad comment, -- in effect, you would sacrifice others liberty if it didn't affect your security.
Unfortunately, the 'consent of the governed' gives people who do not understand or desire their rights the right to piss them away as well.
There are millions of patriots in California who would fight to the death against a socialist majorities takeover of the State, and succession.
You've said you would only support them if it threatened your security. -- Too bad they can't count on your principles for support Joe.
Our president received 4.4 million votes from Californians in the 2004 election. That's second only to Texas in the number of votes received per state.
Sorry, sport, but could you please quote for us the constitutional clause that guarantees an individual that his or her State may not secede?
In many Southern States, you would have been violating the rights of a majority of the citizens by prohibiting State secession (you do indeed sound like a typical D*mocrat).
;>)
ALL State officials are sworn to support our Constitution, ALL people in the USA must obey the Law of the Land.
For your information, sport, “the supreme Law of the Land” is a written law. Care to quote the article, section, and clause of that law that prohibits State secession? Oh, that’s right, you already admitted that no such prohibition exists. You must be referring to some sort of ‘unwritten law’ (the “supreme” oxymoron), right?
;>)
'Nowhere' did our Constitution provide for States to withdraw from the Union.
Wrong again, sport. The Constitution nowhere prohibits secession, and as even the justices of the current court recognize:
”...[W]here the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people.”
Learn to live with it...
;>)
States have the power to amend the Constitution, but not to abandon its principles.
Wrong - all it takes is three-quarters of the States to completely eliminate the Constitution – under the specific written terms of the “supreme Law of the Land,” they can institute an absolute monarchy if they so desire. The States – not the federal government – have the ‘last word.’
;>)
The souths 'causes' were heard, and found specious. They had no just cause.
Wrong again, sport. As Thomas Jefferson observed:
”...[T]he [federal] government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but... as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each [State as a] party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”
Obviously, it was up to the individual States to judge whether or not their cause was just...
(And by the way - you bailed out, not I... ;>)
I wonder if Rawls would support a withdrawal from our Union of the State of California?
Could a majority of lefties out there declare the 'Socialist State of Kalifornia' to be an independent nation? And tell all the loyal US Citizens in its borders to love it or leave?
Perhaps it could talk majorities in Oregon & Washington join the movement, and the USA could lose its entire West coast to a Union of Socialist States.
You would approve, on principle, as they have that 'right'; -- aye?
There was no ArtVI, it had not been written yet!
If you read what I posted, you would see that many of the States had constitutions before the Federal Constitution was written, and many of the concepts in those State Constitutions were incorporated into the Federal Constitution.
I am discussing the time when there could have been no oath to the United States, for rhey did not exist.
You insist on applying postwar interpretations of the constitution to the original 13 colonies at a time when there was no United States.
You keep repeating the mantras, but you cannot go beyond that in meaning..
You seem to have no comprehension of the fact that the meaning and practice of Federal Government WERE INDEED CHANGED BY THE WAR.
I am dealing with the founder's intent, and especially the period between 1776 and 1789 when the states were countries, in and of themselves. Perhaps the dates evaded you.
No group of people is going to have unanimity on any major issue.
Therefore, according to you, the rights of those persons living in those states (a word whose very meaning was altered by the War) who did not wish to rebel against the Crown had their rights, unalienable and unenumerated, not granted by governments but by God, violated.
If you had to please everyone, nothing would ever get done. But when substantial proportions of a population disagree, and exercise the right to do so, "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them..., You would pick and choose when they have the right to dissolve those political bonds.
As for Socialism, it is already lurking in the halls of Congress, and in the several Statehouses and Governor's offices, especially in California, New Jersey, New York, and Maryland, where some of the most heinous affronts and infringements to the Second Amendment to the "supreme Law of the Land" have been enacted with the tacit consent, if not wholehearted approval of the citizens of those states.
If, in these modern times, with all our alleged sophistication, these affronts can be allowed to stand, I ask you "What Supreme Law?".
What of the myriad infringements of that same right passed at the Federal Level, from the NFA of 1934 on?
If you are so concerned with the rights of the few (which is as it should be, for Rights are not Rights unless they are Rights for everyone), then what about Smoker's rights? Roughly 20% of the population smokes, but they cannot even ride on the back of the bus.
BY your logic, gay marriage is a shoe-in because to demand it NOT be allowed would violate the "unenumerated rights" of some of the people, but the right to choose freely to live as Socialists, (your scenario, not mine) does not exist.
There are millions of patriots in California who would fight to the death against a socialist majorities takeover of the State, and succession [sic].
Is it my right or duty to leave North Dakota and invade California to liberate it from its own freely chosen form of government?
NO.
Would I fight, even at my relatively advanced age, to free California from an unlawful govenment imposed by force upon the dissenting majority of its populace?
Absolutely, even at the risk of violating the 'rights' of those who embrace that government. There is a difference.
Would I fight to keep that government from imposing its will on neighboring States? Again, Absolutely.
Now, back to the War Between the States, at the point at which the Majority of southern States' citizens felt that the Union was imposing unfair trade practices on their economies, they acted to dissolve that union, a government they found tyrannical, one State at a time, and then formed a Confederation of States. That Government was never allowed to mature, as the Northern States imposed their form of Government by force of arms upon the members of that Confederacy. My ancestors left the occupied State of Maryland to fight against that imposition.
Your own scenario is the logical undoing of your statements.
How can you use the Constitution to support the rights you agree with, but not others?
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Where in the Constitution is secession prohibited?
Is it my right or duty to leave North Dakota and invade California to liberate it from its own freely chosen form of government?
NO.
Suit yourself, but I'm sure you would be in a small minority with that attitude.
Now, back to the War Between the States, at the point at which the Majority of southern States' citizens felt that the Union was imposing unfair trade practices on their economies, they acted to dissolve that union, a government they found tyrannical, one State at a time, and then formed a Confederation of States.
"Tyrannical trade practices" justified dissolving the Union and going to war? -- Fine, feel free to dream on.
That Government was never allowed to mature, as the Northern States imposed their form of Government by force of arms upon the members of that Confederacy.
'The Socialist State of Kalifornia was never allowed to mature, as the people of the United States reimposed a Republican form of Government by force of arms upon the rebel members of that communistic state.'
My ancestors left the occupied State of Maryland to fight against that imposition. Your own scenario is the logical undoing of your statements.
How can you use the Constitution to support the rights you agree with, but not others?
What 'others'? I support all of our rights.
The south had a perfect right to resist so-called "Tyrannical trade practices" with every Constitutional means, [including massive civil disobedience] short of secession & war. -- If the North would have responded to civil disobedience with unconstitutional military tyranny, THEN the south would have had justification to overthrow that tyranny, and restore Constitutional order.
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Where in the Constitution is secession prohibited?
It is not specifically prohibited, because States with Republican forms of government, pledged to support Constitutional means of resolving disputes, have no need to secede.
If federal power is usurped/misused by a cabal, State governments, and the people, have both the power & the duty to remove the usurpers from office & restore Constitutional government to the USA.
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.