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's true.
I wasn't suggesting he spoke for the Confederate government. Just suggesting that some southerners of note did view at one point or another the nation as being one entity and Americans as being fellow countrymen, whatever their constitutional views.
The legal authority of the South never surrendered.
Not as such, no. The only real surrenders conducted were by field commanders. In fact, this was the way Lincoln and Johnson wanted it, since they never recognized the Confederate government as a legitimate authority they could treat with.
However: Davis did show a willingness to offer something approximating surrender when he agreed to the Sherman-Johnston agreement on April 22, 1865. That agreement was repudiated by Washington almost immediately, and it was more generous than the surrender which did take place, and Davis was never really happy about it, but the fact remains he did , with the full support of his cabinet, sign off on an agreement which would have disbanded his government and formally returned the southern states to the union.
Secretary of War John C. Breckinridge and Secretary of State Judah Benjamin were the only Confederate cabinet members which managed to stay at liberty after the war, and both called for reconciliation from exile abroad when they were under no duress to do so. Breckinridge was in fact scheduled to be the keynote speaker at the national centennial celebration in 1876 - which is about as enthusiastic an indicator of his basic patriotism at that point as I can imagine - but he died shortly before.
The legality of the South's Independence was a issue that was never tested in the Courts.
Technically, I suppose that's true.
One of the reasons Pres. Davis was never tried was they were not sure they could get a conviction. It seems the Court back then could read the Constitution and gave a da## what it said.
I can't disagree.
US officials soon came to realize that the Constitution did not define what Davis and his fellow officials had done as " treason." They had not attempted to verthrow the US government, and furthermore that a trial of Davis would undermine Reconstruction efforts. On Dec. 8 1868, the chief justice of the United States dismissed the treason indictments altogether, and that any further trial would be a violation of the ex post fact statute.
And while 19th century justices weren't immune from pernicious constitutional jurisprudence, I would certainly agree that they were a darn sight better on the whole than what we have today.
This is incomplete. It was not Lincoln's original intent. It became his intent later, as the the cause of the slaves became his own. Lincoln underwent an ideological transition during his term, as second inaugural address makes clear.
That's a very good point. The South wreaked vengeance for the Civil War for 90 years with Jim Crow.
The constitution as it was originally established was a voluntary union between sovereign nations known as "states"
No, the constitution as it was originally established was a voluntary union between former English colonies known as "States". There were no sovereigns in these states, as they were comprised of free men, each his own 'sovereign'.
If the federal government had the right to interfere with tha laws of a sovereign nation in 1861
The Constitution has been the supreme law of Fed, State, & local governments since ratification.
then obviously that same federal government has the right to do the same today.
The feds have no more power over the State/local governments than the Constitution allows. --- Any State could prove that by simply refusing to obey unconstitutional federal edicts. They don't, because the political system is totally corrupted by national politics.
Nor did R.E. Lee who, by the way, was Lincoln's first choice as commanding general of the northern armies.
I'd have to check on that. Frankly I haven't read every constitution of that period.
Yet even if it were true that wouldn'tnecessarily be reflective of a Founders' views, since it is not a given that one was involved in the drafting of a state constition or a provision thereof. In fact, the Founders as a body were, I would argue reasonably, more nationalist than elites as a whole.
Until the mid 1800's the right of succession was never seriously questioned. Many states had threatened succession including New York and Masachussetts.
Your latter statement is certainly correct.
The doctrine itself, however, was a contentious one. I wouldn't paint it as settled as you do. There was a reason why no one actually carried out such a threat until 1860.
Even during the Civil War many people even in the north asserted that succession was constitutional.
Some certainly did.
New York City even had a major movement at one point for secession.
If the founders had argued that succession was somehow illegal they would have been undermining their own assertions against England.
Legally the cases are somewhat different.
The Constitition and the Articles of Confederation were voluntary pacts in a way that Crown control of the colonies never really was. And voluntary agreement creates moral and legal obligations which a coerced one, I might argue, does not.
But in the end secession is really the right to revolution which may be said to exist in natural law. If it succeeds it's a revolution. If it fails it's a rebellion. And the South, unlike the American colonists, failed.
And, may I say, thank God for that. However much I dislike what has become of the federal government and federalism, a world in which the South won the Civil War would be a much worse one all the way around.
As I originally posted:
"Lincoln gained a great deal of his wealth from the toil of slaves."
I never said "most".
Mary and Abe married in 1842. Robert Smith Todd died in 1849. I don't think the subject of a "dowry" was ever an issue.
Inheritance, however, might have been.
Good point, and partially correct so far as it goes. Thank you for raising that point.
The Constitution may be said, as southerners argued, to be a voluntary union between states. But it was also just as much a union between the men of those states. To the extent that it was the latter, secession becomes a difficult issue. What of those southerners who still felt that allegiance to that union to which they were, in a real sense, also parties to? And there were no few of those during the war, especially in Appalachia.
All of this is reflected in the structure of the Constitution itself. The Senate reflects the state understanding of the union. The House reflects the popular understanding.
since it was a war between TWO SOVEREIGN nations, you are (as usual) obviously WRONG!
free dixie,sw
big surprise, HUH??
free the southland NOW,sw
but true.
secession is their RIGHT!
i, for one, will go to the new international border on secession day to wish them "FAREWELL!", "BYE,BYE!" & "ADIOS!"
free dixie,sw
NOT a GOOD thing, imVho!
free dixie,sw
"Because he was prohibited by the US Constitution from doing so. "
Not with the war powers act. As the Marylander H.L. Mencken said, "he (Lincoln) freed the slaves where he had no jurisdiction and kept the slaves where he had jurisdiction."
Understand it now Yankee boy ??? ???
free dixie,sw
I never said "most".
Mary and Abe married in 1842. Robert Smith Todd died in 1849. I don't think the subject of a "dowry" was ever an issue.
Inheritance, however, might have been.
Perhaps, but I am not aware - and I confess I am not a Lincoln expert - of any major inheritance coming the Lincolns' way when Robert Smith Todd died.
And after all, he did have 16 children (many of whome survived to adulthood, I believe) among whom to distribute his inheritance.
Either way, Lincoln did well enough from his law practice (people forget just how well he did) to make it largely a moot issue. He didn't need an inheritance to do well financially once he hit his stride.
But Mary's family was certainly southern in their affections, no question about it. At least three of Mary's brothers served in the Confederate Army. It caused no small amount of sniping at her from unfriendly Republican quarters.
< placeholder >
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.