Replies

We are all agreed: The Civil War/War between the States/War of Northern Aggression (pick your poison) was not only about slavery.

However: it's quite clear that without slavery, the war would not have happened.

The other issues - states' rights, tariffs, homesteading, territorial organization - would have created friction for the young republic, but without the prism of the slavery issue, they would have been addressed without resort to war.

All conservatives and libertarians - let's be fair here - are concerned with the power of Leviathan. I think for many here the Civil War has become a handy anchor for tracing the growth of Leviathan and the deviation from the Founders' Great Design.

I understand the impulse. I just think it's misplaced.

I quickly and readily concede that Lincoln played fast and loose with the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and oversaw a great expansion in the power of the central government. Yet two other realities stand out: 1) the same phenomena were just as apparent (if not more so) in Jefferson Davis's government (thus illustrating the truth that nothing aggrandizes government power in the modern era like full-scale war), and 2) the growth in federal power was sapped in the postwar era by business tycoons and anti-reconstruction southern Democrats.

It would not be until the early 20th century - beginning with the 16th amendment in 1913 and then the explosion of state scope and power necessitated by two world wars and FDR's New Deal - that Leviathan returned. Only this time it was for good.

I think I essentially agree with you. That our impluse against strong federal government is clouding our judgement on this issue.

It would not be until the early 20th century - beginning with the 16th amendment in 1913 and then the explosion of state scope and power necessitated by two world wars and FDR's New Deal - that Leviathan returned.

One of the relatively unheralded things that grew out of the Civil War was the massive involvement of the U.S. government in the building of the transcontinental railroad. In that case, "Leviathan" arrived and never left.

In fact, without the Civil War it would have been impossible for the U.S. government to muster the support needed to build the railroad. And I suspect that one of the South's gripes leading to secession was that the early discussions in the 1850s about extending a railroad to the west coast made it eminently clear that the route would extend west from the Union and would be north of the Mason-Dixon line for almost its entire length.

The main difference between Lincoln and Davis:

Lincoln was elected.

We are all agreed: The Civil War/War between the States/War of Northern Aggression (pick your poison) was not only about slavery.
However: it's quite clear that without slavery, the war would not have happened.

The other issues - states' rights, tariffs, homesteading, territorial organization - would have created friction for the young republic, but without the prism of the slavery issue, they would have been addressed without resort to war.

An interesting question is -- would the Civil War not have happened if Lincoln had not been elected president (which could be seen as a somewhat haphazard result of political factioning/balkanization in the North).

We say now, in hindsight, that the slavery issue could only be resolved by war. But I don't think so at all -- there were many ways to de-fuse the situation and allow slavery to whither, then die, without civil war.

But the deification of Lincoln makes this impossible for some to see.