Chameleon12

Historical Ignorance
Walter E. Williams

The American Dream has changed,but it's still alive, no matter who you are.
The victors of war write its history in order to cast themselves in the most favorable light. That explains the considerable historical ignorance about our war of 1861 and panic over the Confederate flag. To create better understanding, we have to start a bit before the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

The 1783 Treaty of Paris ended the war between the colonies and Great Britain. Its first article declared the 13 colonies "to be free, sovereign and independent states." These 13 sovereign nations came together in 1787 as principals and created the federal government as their agent. Principals have always held the right to fire agents. In other words, states held a right to withdraw from the pact -- secede.

During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison rejected it, saying, "A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."

In fact, the ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said they held the right to resume powers delegated should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty -- in a word, secede.

On March 2, 1861, after seven states seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln's inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that read, "No state or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States."

Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here's a question for the reader: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."

Both Northern Democratic and Republican Parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded states, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content." The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."

The War of 1861 settled the issue of secession through brute force that cost 600,000 American lives. We Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech: "It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense." Lincoln said the soldiers sacrificed their lives "to the cause of self-determination -- that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth." Mencken says: "It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves."

The War of 1861 brutally established that states could not secede. We are still living with its effects. Because states cannot secede, the federal government can run roughshod over the U.S. Constitution's limitations of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. States have little or no response.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Beyond a shadow of a doubt it was a grave mistake. Of course this is my opinion, but Civil War was no shortcut to achieving civil rights for blacks. While chattel slavery in the United States was abolished in 1865. A much better solution for the slave problem would have been to ship them back to their previous owners. This was the majority opinion of our founding fathers. However, slavery was not the main reason for the Civil War. I could bore you with another of my history lesson, and will do so only if asked.

PeterS

I wondered why you were talking about slavery. I never knew a conservative who thought slavery was ever a reason for the civil war.

As for shipping slaves back to their previous owners, there is the question of whether one man can own another. If that is the case then their current owners would do just fine wouldn't they...

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Okay, then return them to those who sold them. Does that make you feel better?

Dr.Dross

What you may call roughshod over states, others call bringing order to the chaos of a nation. A uniform following of the Constitution is the main purpose of the Federal Government. It is not always perfect in that function but it is absolutely necessary in the process. Take Segregation. Or voting rights for women. Or inter-racial marriage.

There was no need to "brutally established that states could not secede": the South forced the issue by their violation of union. The opinions of whomever, based on whatever reasoning or fear or interest, do not absolve the treasonous insurrection of the South to attack its government. Simple.

""It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense." Mencken was very clever and I use his quotes on other topics often, but he could be at times more clever than right. That he might say so does not make it right. Poetry has always been considered the greater language than prose. Metaphor is the logic of poetry. Find fault with poetry over logic and argue with Christ. He had sevrn different metaphors, or poetic license, for the "kingdom of heaven." No logic has ever been able to successfully sow those seven metaphors into one coherent truth. The reason poetry or metaphor speaks better to life is that it takes in all of life, not just what seems best or right. To say that the Civil War was about certain causes is accurate, but also not complete. The true picture is always bigger than can be comprehended by logic or analysis.

Uncle Tom's Cabin, by Harriet Beecher Stowe, contributed to the outbreak of war by personalizing the political and economic arguments about slavery. Stowe's informal, conversational writing style inspired people in a way that political speeches, tracts and newspapers accounts could not. Uncle Tom's Cabin helped many 19th-century Americans determine what kind of country they wanted. Slavery was not a secondary or tertiary cause for the conflict: it was by 1861 central.

PeterS

Well, you guys hold majorities in every branch of government so it you want to succeed it would seem like now would be the time to do it. How would you propose dividing up the spoils?

rebob14

Slavery was already in decline and had been for decades. As evil as it was, it was not the trigger of the Civil War. The north wanted the south's cotton at a lower price and Imposed tariffs on its sale to Europe to force the sale to the textile mills in the north at a very low price. This would have destroyed the southern economies, so southern states took the only constitutionally legal action open to them. In response, the north destroyed southern civilization.

rebob14

Wrong

ssgtgood

Very good article Mr. Williams. You're one of my favorite writers and everything you write is astounding, especially coming from a black man, though you're not alone, there are quite a few very smart black men. Sheriff Clarke comes to mind. I agree with you totally. I'm surprised that President Trump hasn't picked you for some cabinet post, you'd be an excellent choice for any position.

ssgtgood USMC
Semper Fidelis
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Molon Labe

teabag09

I believe that "SHE WHO MUST BE OBEYED" might be part of the reason. What ya think Sarge?

Chameleon12

[quote=PeterS]I wondered why you were talking about slavery. I never knew a conservative who thought slavery was ever a reason for the civil war.

As for shipping slaves back to their previous owners, there is the question of whether one man can own another. If that is the case then their current owners would do just fine wouldn't they...[/quote

Pres. Abraham Lincoln was personally against slavery, but in his first inaugural, he made it clear that placating the Southern states was more important. Quoting himself in other speeches, he said, "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." [Read: The Best Inaugural Addresses Ever]

Abolitionism grew in the Union army as soldiers saw slaves flocking to them for freedom, contradicting myths that slavery was the appropriate position for African-Americans. But it wasn't until the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 — which left slavery intact in border states that hadn't seceded — that ending Confederate slavery became an official Union aim.

However, just a year later, the senate of the Confederate States of America voted to end slavery in most of the Confederate States. The last states to own slaves were Union states. Approximately 3,000 southern slave owners were black. There were also several Indian slave owners.

Chameleon12

I think you're missing the point.

Chameleon12

Uncle Tom's Cabin, while very influential to abolitionists of the day, was not a major reason for the majority who soldiered in the war. To say that slavery was a main cause for the war would be same as saying fearmongering was a major cause of the war. If the south had not seceded, slavery would have likely continued another 10 years unchanged. The fear of an overbearing federal government was a much more central cause of which one of those fears was the end of slavery and southern economic stability. The fact that the Congress of the CSA freed most of the southern slaves in 1864, only one year after the Emancipation Proclamation and offered to free all of its slaves in return for independence rules out slavery as the ultimate cause of the Civil War.