The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

Not much media coverage, not much fanfare, not much reflection. A war that carved over 600,000 lives from the nation when the nation’s population was just 31 million. To compare, that would equate to a loss of life in today’s population statistics, not to mention limb and injury, of circa 6 million.

We are in the month of May, when 150 years ago Grant crossed the Rapidan to engage Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. Lee stood atop Clark’s Mountain and watched this unknown (to the eastern theatre) entity lead a massive army into Lee’s home state. Soon there would be the Wilderness, where forest and brushfires would consume the wounded and dying. Days later, the battle of Spotsylvania ensued, in which hand-to-hand combat would last nearly 12 hours. Trading casualties one for one and rejecting previous prisoner exchange and parole procedures, Grant pushed on, to the left flank. The Battle of the North Anna, then the crossing of the James, and thus into the siege of Petersburg. This was 1864 in the eastern theatre.

Today there is hardly a whisper of the anniversary of these deeds, sacrifices, and destruction. Why?

One can suppose that the weak treatment of history at the alleged higher levels of education in this country contributes to the lack of attention. “It was about slavery; now on to WWI.” The War between the States was so much more complicated than the ABC treatment that academia presents. And as the old saying goes, the more complicated the situation, the more the bloodshed...

It wasn’t all about slavery then or now. That is just a post-hoc rationalization peddled after the war.

Well, whenever you find yourself uncertain about the role of slavery in all this, just read Mississippi's so-called declaration of "immediate causes" of secession for a reminder:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

Those words, written when they were by the secessionists themselves, can hardly be dismissed as a post-hoc rationalization. So, whenever you find yourself doubting the role of slavery, just go back and read again what the so-called secessionists themselves had to say from the beginning.

Despite the fact that we are now living in the 21st century, there are a few folks out there who maintain that they find themselves crippled and unable to function in any normal way today because their great, great, great, great grandparents were held as slaves in the 19th century. And, we even have a few folks out there who maintain that the choices that we make today in the 21st century about the size and scope of our central government were all fixed and determined by Lincoln, a 19th century politician. What an attitude - we're all cripples! And, it's hopeless. And, it's all Lincoln's fault!

As the "secessionists" argued in their declarations of "secession," the loss of slaves as property was a huge financial loss. It must have been awfully painful at the time.

But, it's long past time for all of us to move on now. Slavery is gone, gone for good - it's not coming back.

Listen, I have to assume that the secessionists themselves knew more than you do about their motivations when they attempted to secede from the Union and we know that they claimed that they were desperately trying to protect the institution of slavery. You seem to want to champion their cause, but then you stab them in the back by distorting their views. They were not ashamed to be openly pro-slavery.

As for Lincoln, if we could have today a government no larger than it was in 1865, few people would complain about it being too large. Lincoln has nothing to do with the size and scope of our government today. Unfortunately, most folks today like government more than you or I do. But, that isn't because Lincoln over parked his buggy somewhere or because he violated some citizen's rights. We are responsible for our government today, not Lincoln. Of course, you know that - you must know that.

There is a large body of evidence that goes beyond the Fire Eaters, ranging from the Northern and Southern press to foreign observers and beyond. There is a substantial historical literature on this, and there aren’t a lot of professional historians who support the kind of monocausal explanation that you and others have absorbed from the textbook industry. All of that was touched on earlier in the thread with examples. I do not “champion” the cause, as you put it, except to the extent that I agree that states have a right to secede. I think it was unwise for the Deep South to have seceded, but Lincoln’s actions were lawless. There are well known academic academic historians who share that view. Clinton Rossiter, for one, although you probably have no idea who he was, so I’ll help you by providing his view of the Lincoln Presidency:’Dictatorship played a decisive role in the North’s successful effort to maintain the Union by force of arms...one man was the government of the United States....Lincoln was a great dictator. .....This great constitutional dictator was self appointed’.Clinton Rossiter, Constitutional Dictatorship.

What did the Lincoln dictatorship mean in concrete terms? Here is just one example: ‘You will take possession by military force, of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce...and prohibit any further publication thereof....you are therefore commanded forthwirth to arrest and imprison...the editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers’.
-Order from Abraham Lincoln To General John Dix, May 18, 1864

The slavery slander you and others here throw at those who don’t share your views of the nature of the Union is worthy of the liberal Smear-Bund.

The Government in 1865 was operating a police state under martial law. It was smaller, but very powerful and lawless. If you think that the rise of statism in the US wasn’t a long process - that it somehow is just a matter of Democrat presidents’ misdeeds - you are wrong. Many of the seeds of what we have today were planted during the Lincoln Administration and in the Radical Republican period that followed. Pay attention this time: income tax, fiat money, federal intrusion into education, wholesale disregard of explicit provisions of the Constitution, etc.

I think you, the other statists on this site, and prior generations of thoughtless Republicans, are responsible in part for the government today. The question, though, is, if you don’t like the logical progression of your statist principles, what are you going to do about it in the face of massive voter fraud and governmental lawlessness? As one famous dictator once said, you can have elections as long as I get to count the votes (a paraphrase). I think the answer is that you will do nothing because you don’t understand the times and are the sort of coward who uses accusations of “slavery” and racism against those with whom you disagree.

achilles2000: "Which of those you deemed “Founders” unlawfully suspended habeas corpus and used the military to drag people from their homes in the middle of the night?
Which “Founder” imposed an unconstitutional income tax? Unconstitutional paper money?"

Loyalists to Britain, during the American Revolution were treated far worse by our Founders, than Confederates or northern Copperheads during the Civil War.
Some Loyalists were executed, others tarred & feathered, and tens of thousands were driven off their properties -- forced to emigrate to other counties (i.e., Canada).
Indeed, as a proportion of the overall population, the number of Loyalists forced to emigrate by the Revolutionary War, in today's terms would equate to six million US citizens.

By contrast, Lincoln's treatment of northern Copperheads was mild & lawful -- for example, none were tarred & feathered.
Furthermore, his suspension of habeas corpus was specifically approved & authorized by Congress, per the Constitution.

Income tax: Congress first proposed a Federal income tax under Founder, President Madison, as a temporary wartime measure during the War of 1812.
The war ended before that bill passed Congress, but the same idea was again taken up by Congress -- not President Lincoln -- as a temporary wartime measure, in 1861.

Congress also used (in your term) "specie money" during the War of 1812.

So nothing done by Congress or Lincoln during the Civil War was without precedent from our Founders, during their Revolutionary War, or later administrations.

achilles2000: "Your sourcing, as I’ve pointed out, is partial and fails to even attempt to come to terms with that the mix of reasons was not the same for the North and the Deep South or the Upper South."

Well... Border States (Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri) refused to declare secession, for any reason, slavery or otherwise.

Upper South States (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee & Arkansas) also refused to secede, so long as the issue at hand was only protecting slavery.
They only declared secession after the Confederacy first provoked, then started and formally declared war on the United States.
Then Upper South states felt forced to chose sides, and naturally chose the Confederacy, even though large areas of each remained loyal to the Union (i.e., Western Virginia).

But the Deep South (South Carolina through Texas), which first began declaring secession in December 1860, expressed no major reasons except protecting slavery from potential threats represented by newly elected Abraham Lincoln's "Black Republicans".

So the fact is that protecting slavery (and by their own words no other major issue) drove the Deep South to first declare secession, then form a Confederacy and soon formally declare war on the United States.

Georgia Girl 2: "But hey the good news is today is Sherman’s birthday and he’s still dead. :-)"

Sherman was born & raised in Ohio, and long before the Civil War served in Georgia and South Carolina, then as Superintendent of what is now Louisiana State University.
He liked & respected the South, had no particular problem with their "peculiar institution".
But, when forced to chose sides, had no doubts about which to go with.

Indeed, immediately after South Carolina first declared secession, on December 24, 1860, Sherman discussed it, in Louisiana, with his close friend, Professor David Boyd, from Virginia -- an enthusiastic secessionist.
In that conversation, Sherman precisely predicted the course and outcome of a coming war.
He warned his friend that the South could not win.

Sherman's warning, while noted & recorded by Boyd, was heeded by nobody.
Boyd served as a major in the Confederate army, and was captured in Kansas, then released & returned home by intervention from his friend, General Sherman.

states have a right to secede

Each declaration of "secession" constituted an illegal attempt to strip each U.S. citizen within that state of his/her U.S. citizenship and an illegal attempt to deprive each citizen within that state of each of his/her rights under the U.S. Constitution. Our Constitution is a commitment by and between "We the People" of the United States and no state, county, city, town council or school board has the power to deprive any of us of our rights as American citizens. It was Lincoln's obligation to protect American citizens in the South from the unlawful attempt by "secessionist" to deprive them of their rights under the U.S. Constitution.

As I indicated previously, the "secessionists" were just damned lucky that they were dealing with a President Lincoln rather than a President Jackson. Compared to Jackson or compared to FDR (who incarcerated for years thousands of wholly innocent American citizens), Lincoln was a model of restraint.

So, why are some so totally obsessed with the excesses of Lincoln? Because Lincoln is viewed as the one who deprived the slaveholders of their slaves, that's why. It was all about slavery then and it's all about slavery now. The "secessionists" back then were open, indeed proud, of their racist, pro-slavery feelings. They didn't pretend that it had something to do with habeas corpus.

The question, though, is, if you don’t like the logical progression of your statist principles, what are you going to do about it in the face of massive voter fraud and governmental lawlessness?

Our problem is that most people like government more than you or I do. Even most of the older tea party folks I know love their senior benefits (Social Security, Medicare, etc.). And, America is producing between 10,000 and 11,000 new seniors (persons who reach the age of 65) each and every day. And, they vote with greater regularity than other age groups. We have a growing glut of seniors who believe that the purpose of government is to serve their financial needs.

Maybe when this glut of grasping seniors dies off, this country will be in the mood for less government. But, so long as they are here and so long as they have a right to vote, the government is not likely to become smaller.

If you are young, you have reason to hope for having less government someday. Right now, the young are taking a financial bath to support a growing population of seniors. Those youngsters should be developing an aversion to government. Someday, we'll see (or at least some of the youngsters will see). But, whatever the future holds, it won't have anything to do with Lincoln.

This topic was gone over earlier in the thread. You are late to the party. It is interesting, though, what people will invent to justify their received prejudices.

Your comment about Lincoln and slavery is contemptible. I suppose if Obamalini ordered the Secret Service to arrest the staff and owners of Fox and hold them at undisclosed locations with no right of habeas corpus, criticism of it would “just be because he is black”.

The programs that addict the seniors to government are unconstitutional. But, apart from that, a political class that is lawless and orchestrates massive voter fraud will find a way to manage even without seniors. In addition, “conservatives” love their welfare education, and so 90% of children are institutionalized in government indoctrination and condom education centers. Good luck with them.

The bond market will catch up to us sooner or later (probably sooner). At that point the game is over. There will be massive civil unrest, and the so-called “conservatives” will be running around trying “save” unconstitutional socialist programs that they are accustomed to, just as they hold on to historical myths that they are accustomed to. Oh, yes, and the past does play a major role in creating the future. When the bond markets begin treating us like Greece, it will largely be because of things set in motion by long dead presidents, some of whom implemented programs and policies(e.g. Wilson, FDR, and Johnson)that were enabled by earlier dead presidents who established the policies’ principles, e.g. Lincoln and TR.

It is interesting, though, what people will invent to justify their received prejudices.

Well, it was the Constitutional convention that invented the notion that the Constitution was a pact between "We the People of the United States." And, Patrick Henry was just one of the many people who were clear as to the implications of that phrase. As he pointed out at Virginia's ratifying convention:

"Sir, give me leave to demand, what right had they to say, We, the People. My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask who authorised them to speak the language of, We, the People, instead of We, the States? States are the characteristics, and the soul of a confederation. If the States be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated National Government of the people of all the States."

Patrick Henry got the message. And, you should, too. There is no virtue in confusing yourself about whether or not American citizens have Constitutional rights as individuals or whether states/local governments are required to respect those rights.

I suppose if Obamalini ordered the Secret Service to arrest the staff and owners of Fox and hold them at undisclosed locations with no right of habeas corpus, criticism of it would “just be because he is black”.

If Obama did something like that, "it would be wrong, that's for sure." (Sorry, Nixon.) However, I would not pretend that his wrongful act should render him responsible for choices that Americans make about the size of their government in the year 2165.

The programs that addict the seniors to government are unconstitutional.

Well, you and I (and about 257 other Americans) believe that. But, most people think we're wrong. Maybe they're right.

Oh, yes, and the past does play a major role in creating the future. When the bond markets begin treating us like Greece, it will largely be because of things set in motion by long dead presidents, some of whom implemented programs and policies(e.g. Wilson, FDR, and Johnson)that were enabled by earlier dead presidents who established the policies’ principles, e.g. Lincoln and TR.

Our bills are our bills. We make our own choices. Just as bond buyers have the power to quit buying bonds, we have the power to quit selling them. It's up to us. Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, LBJ and all the King's horses and all the King's men can't help us now.

For better or for worse, we're going to do what we want to do.

Hanging it all on a Preamble, which is not substantive law? Nice try. Here is Heritage, which is hardly a hotbed of originalist thinking (remember, it birthed Romneycare):

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/0/essays/1/preamble

But, really, the rest of your response gives your position away. The federal government isn’t bound by the provisions of the Constitution; Americans have no rights that the government is bound to respect. If most people like some unlawful action, well then, those who object must be eccentric. I would point out that Hitler legitimately won his first election. That didn’t make his subsequent actions lawful or right, and the election certainly didn’t create an obligation to obey a lawless state.

“If Obama did something like that, “it would be wrong, that’s for sure.” (Sorry, Nixon.) However, I would not pretend that his wrongful act should render him responsible for choices that Americans make about the size of their government in the year 2165.”

You obviously don’t understand precedent, either in how it affects what we call a legal system or the role it plays in social conditioning. Lincoln and the Radical Republicans that held power after him established institutions and precedents that others built on. I didn’t say Lincoln was the sole source of the problem of a lawless federal government, but in many cases he and the RRs were the fountainheads.

“our bills are our bills?” No debt incurred unlawfully is a legal or moral obligation, e.g. the invalidation of billons of dollars of “WHOOPS” bonds because the Washington utilities lacked the authority to enter into certain kinds of contracts?

A government actually operating under the Constitution doesn’t have the authority to spend or do most of what is spent or done, whether a majority approves or not. Of course, I would agree, as I’ve said before, that the American Constitutional Republic is as dead today as the Roman Republic in the days of Augustus Caesar. Conservatives with views like yours are a contributing cause. Hope you like our lawless police state.

But, really, the rest of your response gives your position away. The federal government isn’t bound by the provisions of the Constitution;

Of course the federal government is bound by the provisions of the Constitution. However, I don't pretend that the federal government (or anyone else) is bound to always accept or adopt my views (or your views) when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. I don't think that I even want that kind of personal power.

Americans have no rights that the government is bound to respect.

That was the position of the "secessionists." They thought that they could unilaterally strip each and every American citizen in the South of his/her American citizenship. Well, the "secessionists" were shown that they couldn't do that to American citizens.

The "secessionists" also thought that they could unilaterally strip each and every American citizen living in the South of each and every one of his/her individual Constitutional rights under the United States Constitution. Well, the "secessionists" were shown that they couldn't do that to American citizens, either.

Thanks to the resolve of Lincoln, the citizenship and Constitutional rights of those American citizens were preserved and protected. The message: no state or local government can deprive an American citizen of his/her American citizenship or deprive an American citizen of his/her Constitutional rights under the United States Constitution

Today, most folks in this country (including folks living in the South) are very, very grateful that Lincoln did what was necessary to preserve this nation and to protect the rights of its citizens. And, today, most folks in this country (including folks living in the South) are also grateful that Lincoln freed the slaves and grateful, too, that he freed the slaveholders from the culture of dependency in which the slaveholders were trapped.

No one can' ever please everyone, of course. But Lincoln has come pretty close, hasn't he?

Well, treating interpretation of the “text” of the Constitution as merely a subjective matter is quite postmodern of you. We write far more complicated contracts than the Constitution every day, and no one pretends that the terms are up for grabs interpretively. The Founding generation subscribed to a hermeneutic that was applicable to both the law and the Bible - the “perspicacity” of the text. In other words, there is no personal interpretation of, for example “Congress shall make no law...” The problem isn’t that the text is difficult to understand as originally understood. The problem is that statists view the “literal” meaning of the text as a barrier to the exercise of powers that they want. That is the source of the increasing corruption of Constitutional law decisions from Marshall to the present judges devoted to a “living Constitution”.

You do realize that your “American citizenship” argument is an exercise in question begging. It assumes that the right of secession is not a power reserved to the states and the Constitution provides that the Union is “Perpetual”, language that appeared in the Articles and that was plainly excluded from the Constitution. All of the seceding states went through their own representative processes to determine whether the states would would secede. What you are really saying is a repudiation of the fundamental principle of the right of secession stated in the Declaration. As I pointed out before, there are studies that indicate that a majority, North, and South, in 1860 clearly believed states had the right to secede - and that after decades of haranguing about “Union Forever!” by the likes of Daniel Webster.

Lincoln didn’t go to war to free the slaves. Surely you know that. If he had, the North would have revolted. The Emancipation proclamation is widely recognized as an artful dodge that essentially freed no one, but that was done for a European audience to prevent European recognition of the Confederacy. Northern armies saw mass desertions as a result of the Proclamation - the very few soldiers were willing to die for abolitionism. That is why the propaganda emphasis was on “Union”, not slavery. The “war to end slavery” meme is a post-war artifact intended to make the Lincoln dictatorship appear noble.

Because you think that associating tyrannical or dictatorial actions with a “noble cause” is sufficient justification for those actions, you really can’t object much to Obama’s shredding of the law. After all, in your world it’s just a question of whose ox is being gored.

The Lincoln myth has indeed pleased many. The real Lincoln has pleased others. As economist and historian, Thomas Di Lorenzo points out:

“On page 566 of the 1999 Mariner/Houghton Mifflin edition of Mein Kampf Hitler repeated Lincoln’s historically false and absurd argument from his first inaugural address that the states were never sovereign. “The individual states of the American union . . . could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own,” wrote Hitler, paraphrasing Lincoln. He did this to make his own case for the abolition of states’ rights or federalism in Germany and the creation of a centralized, monopolistic state.

The arguments in favor of states’ rights that were being made in Germany, wrote Hitler, were “propagated by the Jews” and should therefore be dismissed. “The mischief of individual federated states . . . must cease,” the dictator bellowed. “A rule basic for us National Socialists,” Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, “is derived: A powerful national Reich.” The only real difference between this statement and Lincoln’s theory of the American union is that Hitler referred to a “national Reich” whereas Lincoln, ever the master of slick political rhetoric, called the same thing “the mystic chords of union.”

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.