The War of 1861
Published Mon, Jul 21 2008 8:58 PM
Technorati Tags: Federalism, States Rights, Constitution, Civil War, Slavery, Secession
David at third world county and I have been having an ongoing discussion of “Mr. Lincoln's war”, as he put it one time. Our discussion is centered around the legitimacy of the causes for the war, as well as the consequences of its outcome. One point of contention is whether this was a “war of Northern Aggression” as styled by some of the commenters at David's blog, or whether the South fired first in open rebellion against the United States. Without getting into the specifics of any of what has gone before in our conversation, which has been rather enlightening if you ask me, I found it interesting that in Monday morning's Patriot Post Mark Alexander chose to highlight this from Walter Williams. I think that it's a point in David's favor…
"One of the unappreciated casualties of the War of 1861, erroneously called a Civil War, was its contribution to the erosion of constitutional guarantees of state sovereignty. It settled the issue of secession, making it possible for the federal government to increasingly run roughshod over Ninth and 10th Amendment guarantees. A civil war, by the way, is a struggle where two or more parties try to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington wanted to take over London. Both wars are more properly described as wars of independence... Federal usurpation goes beyond anything the Constitution's framers would have imagined. James Madison, explaining the constitution, in Federalist Paper 45, said, 'The powers delegated... to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.' Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not 'subordinate' to the national government, but rather the two are 'coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole.'... One of the more disgusting sights for me to is to watch a president, congressman or federal judge take an oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution, when in reality they either hold constitutional principles in contempt or they are ignorant of those principles." -Walter Williams
I've long hated the erosion of State's rights, and the effect that war had on the ninth and tenth amendments. And, after carefully reading it, I can find no fault with the reasoning in C.G. Memminger's “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.” The appeal to the fourth article of the Constitution and the rendition clause clearly illustrate the failure of the federal government to abide by the Constitution.
Still, I find that the reasons for South Carolina's secession had largely to do with the desire to keep slavery legal, a motive which I find utterly despicable. This is why I find it ironic that Memminger referenced the Declaration of Independence in his arguments, referring to “two great clauses” regarding the nature of “FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES” and the “right of the people to alter or abolish” a government that had become “destructive of the ends for which it was established”, while completely ignoring the opening words of that same document where the founders held “these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.
The federal government, and the fourteen “non-slave States” certainly did fail to live up to their obligations under the fourth article of the Constitution. A better approach to ending slavery would have been to enact federal legislation prohibiting the “Migration or Importation” of slaves, as the Constitution did allow after 1808 (Article 1, section 9), followed by a drive for a Constitutional amendment prohibiting slavery at such time as it became economically unfeasible.
Further the fourth article of the Constitution said nothing about the territories belonging to the United States which were not yet States, and so only the States themselves were subject to the rendition clause. The third section of article four gave Congress the power to make law for the territories and so arguments about whether Congress' acts regarding the legality of slavery in the territories or whether persons “held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into” the territories could be required to be returned to the State they escaped from is still, to my mind, an open question.
I think though that if this approach had been taken we might still be struggling over the issue of slavery today. I hold neither side in this war to be blameless. I can easily understand the truth of the matter that the federal government and the “North” were in violation of the Constitution. I also can find no place in the Constitution that provides a way for a State that had ratified the Constitution to leave the union.
I believe that the States that seceded based upon State's rights above and beyond the right of all men to Liberty walked a very fine line between principle and hypocrisy. Even so, I believe it might well have been better for us all if the Confederate States had won the war, and in this, I am conceding at least a part of the point to David and his readers. David tells me that he doesn't believe that we would still be struggling with slavery “(at least not to the extent we STILL are) today had the South prevailed.” I think that he's right.
The ninth and tenth amendments would quite possibly still be respected as opposed to trampled by every level of the federal government, most especially the bureaucracy. Further, a legitimate means of establishing the right of secession might well have been established. With such a means, the States would have a more powerful bargaining chip to prevent the persistent depredations of the federal government.
Slavery would have still been abolished in the United States. I also think that it would probably have been abolished in the Confederacy eventually as well, and we might well have seen a better outcome to the civil rights struggles we've had in this country. Rather than suppressing the rights of black people out of resentment for their defeat, Southerners might well have welcomed them as equals, and we might not now be having to deal with institutionalized racism in the form of racial preferences and quotas. We'll never know, and maybe I'm too optimistic on that front.
On the other hand, as long as we have men like Walter Williams, as well as State legislators like Oklahoma State Rep. Charles Key, I believe that there's still hope that we may eventually see a return to the principles of the Constitution. As David says though, it seems more and more a forlorn hope.
I know that this is a controversial subject. In fact it's a considerably more controversial than many that I write about. I invite thoughtful, reasoned debate on this subject, and in fact I crave it.
I don't want to re-fight the war of 1861, but I do think that it was a pivotal point in American history with broad and far-reaching consequences. The nature and scope of the relationship between the States and the federal government were forever changed by the causes and the outcome of that conflict. Our society is still dealing with the issues it raised even today.
Let's talk about it shall we?
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1207
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2008/7/21/1207.aspx
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
David responded with:
 | Perri,
I'll be following this conversation closely. I believe you've stated the issues clearly. One small addition to the discussion would be to recognize the clear ties between the viewpoints of those who still seek ever-expanding federal power and the views of those--Lincoln and others--who sought in the 19th century to transform the federal government into the "Superfederal" giovernment we have today.
The end of slavery was a secondary concern for these folks. In fact, the growing slavery to the feds we have today was very much in the forefront of their minds. (See Walter Williams' article at Patriot Post, "Are Americans Pro-Slavery?" for evidence of growing slavery to the feds in America today *heh*). What was Mr. Lincoln's draft but the imposition of forced labor, a form of slavery? Note well that slavery continued in the Union until after Mr. Lincoln's war, as well. The Emancipation Proclamation was empty paper aimed solely at creating disaffectation among Southern slaves; Mr. Lincoln was happy to extend "freedom" to those not under the authority of the Union while he was at the same time loathe to attempt doing so for those still held in bondage in the Union. The hypocrisy of claiming Mr Lincoln's War was a war to end slavery astounds me.
(Of course, Mr. Lincoln's very generous, preferred solution to the issue of slavery was to ship 'em all back where they came from.) |
Perri Nelson responded with: Comment period extended
 | I was really hoping that this topic would generate a bit more conversation than from just David and I. In hopes that that may actually happen, I've extended the comment period from one week to two. |