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...

I used RI as an example. The timing was just different for NY. They didn’t decide to join the association under the Constitution in time to chose electors. It was not a matter of merely procrastinating.

As for the lack of tariffs or trade restrictions, that is something that any state is free to do. Throughout much of history there are examples of trade going on without barriers. Free trade doesn’t mean that the traders have formed a nation. In RI’s case, there were multiple attempts to get a ratification that failed. While the government under the Constitution thought that it could get RI to join if it was just patient, the trade treatment was a carrot. When it became apparent that carrots weren’t working, it turned to using sticks - forbidding US ships to enter RI harbors and forbidding RI ships form entering US harbors. I think the federal government had the right to do that. As for ambassadors, there was no need. Communication with RI was never an issue. At that time there were many countries the US hadn’t sent ambassadors to, which certainly didn’t mean that they were not independent.

The British did treat with the individual states as sovereign states as per the Treaty through the state’s agents. Just because there were 13 states doesn’t mean they needed 13 agents.

I didn’t say the country was founded on the Declaration (Harry Jaffa might disagree, but he would be wrong). So, I agree with you on that point. Nevertheless, the Declaration does acknowledge that the states were independent, as did the Articles, and so on. There is a lot of source material from that time in which is clear that the states regarded themselves as sovereigns.

The Articles didn’t purport to create a nation. It was a vehicle of convenience for the states. In that sense, that form of association was like the Common Market or NATO. The government under the Articles never purported to be the “sovereign” over the states.

If you look past the language confusion, it isn’t hard. The states associated on one basis under the Articles and, eventually, they all associated on a very different basis under a different charter of government. The only confusion comes from the use of “The United States”. So, initially 9 states seceded from a Confederacy, aka “The United States”, that was defined by the Articles, and created a different form of government under a document creating a very different form of polity. As a matter of history, the other 4 states joined the new club. But there was no necessary reason that they do so. The government under the Constitution would have still been called the “United States” even if the collection of states had not included all or any of the states that ratified after the Constitution went into effect.

In quoting Marshall, you are quoting a radical federalist who got away with usurping power in Marbury. In McCulloch, Marshall initiated the judicial practice of using the “Necessary and Proper” clause to expand the power of the federal government almost without limit. What the Federalists couldn’t get in the Convention, Marshall tried to give them through the judiciary. McCulloch has been a very destructive precedent. Someone noted that there wasn’t a lot of comment on Marbury at the time. The reason was that most people only look at the result, not the reasoning. Marbury found against the Federalists in the actual controversy, but did it on the basis of reasoning that allowed the USSC to become the lawless branch that it is today. McCulloch is another example. This is why Jefferson regarded the judiciary as the most dangerous branch. Jefferson has been proved right over and over. If you read Marshall’s opinion carefully, you can see he is dissembling so he can ignore the position of the State of Maryland, which was asserting what was understood to be the basis of he Union.

Sherman: "while I agree with your main point, I don’t think that’s a very good argument in its favor."

My mistake, for not making clear there are two different tariff arguments, and I was addressing the second.
The first pro-Confederate tariff argument is the one you just answered -- did the Deep South declare secession because of high tariffs?
Answer: no, and you made one appropriate argument, that tariffs were, in 1860, at historically low levels.
Further responses on this include:

The historically highest tariffs of the 1830s were imposed by Southerners themselves, including Vice President John C. Calhoun, from South Carolina.
Since then tariff rates had gone down, up, then down again, without causing threats of secession.
High tariff rates are mentioned in none of the earliest "Reasons for Secession" documents -- only slavery is discussed, at length there.

But the second pro-Confederate argument is a little more subtle, and is based on unconfirmed quotes of Lincoln: that an "obsessed" Lincoln went to war against Deep South secessionists in order to protect high Federal revenues from tariffs, paid mostly (somewhere I saw 90%) by seceding states.

That's the argument the above map addresses:

First of all, when Lincoln came to office in March 1861, only seven Deep South states had seceded.
Those seven states had a total white population of 2.5 million, which is only 9% of the US total white population.
Even reasonably granting that those 9% were considerably better off, on average, than the population as a whole, it is still highly unlikely they could account for more than, say, 15% of total US import tariffs.
But, as the map shows: only 6% came through Deep South ports, and so long as there was peace, the balance (perhaps 9%) coming in through Union ports (i.e., Baltimore), would still get its tariffs paid into Federal revenues.
So, if Lincoln's main objective included protecting tariffs paid by Southerners, he would have been far better off to let the 6% go, and protect the remaining 9% which made its way into the Deep South from Northern ports.

But Lincoln, of course, was not primarily concerned about those tariffs.
Instead, in March 1861 he was still hopeful that a gentle touch could hold onto Upper South & Border States, while eventually encouraging the Deep South to rejoin the Union.

I think fear that such a strategy might work was a primary motivator behind Davis' actions to provoke, start and then formally declare war on the United States -- May 6, 1861.

The ports of entry for imports are not a good proxy at all for ultimate consumption and therefore tariff income. Northeastern ports were the primary ports for European imports for the simple and logical reason that they were closer to Europe. Therefore a shipper could make more runs per year and increase his income proportionately by going into New York or Philly than into New Orleans.

An importer would be likely to go to NO mainly to pick up cotton or another export, carrying imports from Europe on the way to avoid deadheading.

Your points about probable actual tariff taxes paid by southerners are of course entirely logical.

However, all this discussion about possible financial causes of secession are based on vulgar Marxism, which a remarkable number of conservatives buy into for some reason. That “follow the money” explains anything and everything, and somehow constitutes sophisticated analysis of history.

IMO secession was much more like a divorce. Hatred had grown up between the sections, much of it due to misunderstanding and defensiveness, as in most divorces. The parties then looked around, just like couples heading into a divorce, for reasons to justify their hatred to themselves and others. But the relevant factor is/was the hatred, not the rationales they come up with.

There is a quote from Senator Wigfall, which I’ve been unable to find recently. It’s to the effect that a person gets tired of being repeatedly told that his neighbor’s family is better than his own, even if that claim might in some sense be true.

Southerners were sick and tired of being told that their way of life, based on slavery, was evil and inhuman. An entirely understandable and human reaction.

The problem, of course, is that it WAS evil and inhuman. Meaning that their defensive reaction was in the long run doomed to destruction on the reef of human nature, just as in the long run attempts to get rid of human economic inequality are doomed to similar destruction.

You cannot change reality by fighting it. However, you can create an ungodly amount of collateral damage in the process.

achilles2000: "I do read your posts.
They are repetitive and repeat “talking points” taken from the massive body of leftist historiography on this subject.
Benson Lossing and Eric Foner live rent-free in your head. "

Well, well... if my posts sound "repetitive" then you should reflect on the fact that they only repeatedly answer the same nonsense you keep posting, over & over.
If you quit posting the same nonsense, then you'll find my answers look fresh and original! ;-)

As for your allegations on Lossing and Foner, or "leftist historiography", that is so much rubbish.
I never heard of any of those people.

But I do "get" who you are, and you are not a conservative.
You consistently argue, not for the conservative position -- which is Founders' original intent as amended -- but rather, you argue for the anti-Federalist, anti-Constitution position, so you can justify the 1860 Slave-Power's unilateral declarations of secession, "at pleasure".
Like them, you want there to be no real justification necessary.

My position follows that of Madison, and other Federalists to the degree they agree with him.
Those are the Founding generation, and their original intent is what matters to real conservatives.

So if there is anyone proudly living "rent free" inside my head, it is that Founding generation, especially as understood through the 1860 lens of anti-secession -- i.e., Abraham Lincoln.

achilles2000: "You are so invested in Northern Triumphalist history that you are willing to swallow an unlimited state."

Pure rubbish on "an unlimited state".

achilles2000: "Judicial review was nothing but a usurpation of power."

And now you're arguing against the Founders, which makes you anti-Federalist, and anti-conservative.
So I'll repeat what I said the last time you posted that: despite Jefferson's written disapproval, neither he nor anyone else since then made any effort to curb the Supreme Court's power of judicial review.
That makes it, for all intents & purposes: original intent.

achilles2000: "Thomas Woods has an excellent book on the history of nullification, but you won’t read it because its careful sourcing would be upsetting."

Beloved by anti-Federalists, nullification was an idea which came and went, even amongst the Founding generation.
Madison eventually disclaimed it.
So it is not, and never was, the conservative position.

Now, my time is gone for today, must get back to work!

“So the federalists were ‘conservative’ “.

The Federalists were more conservative than any politician today — by definition of the word “conservative”.

“Like Hamilton who wanted a king?”

Hamilton’s most considered, and most important, opinions are found in the Federalist Papers.
In them he defines the term “original intent” of our Founders Constitution.

You might remember that Hamilton was one of Washington’s loyal officers, and was long accustomed to speaking for Washington.
Together with Madison and a few others, they were the most important of our Constitution’s Founders.

Hamilton was a loyal, competent officer. He was also a far more honest man than Federalists such as John Marshall. Nevertheless, his views always tended in the end toward the leviathan state, even if that was not what he hoped for. His advocacy of central banking and national debt is just one of his unfortunate legacies. As for the Federalist Papers, they were a sales and marketing tool for a more powerful federal government, and he could only push what was on offer in the Constitution, and that wasn’t a monarchy.

Madison would not agree that he, Hamilton, etc. were the most important “Founders”. Madison rightly said that the true founders were the men who met in each state to ratify the Constitution on behalf of the state. He is absolutely right about that. I would also suggest that Sam Adams and his generation were more important to the founding than Madison or Hamilton.

Hamilton... his views always tended toward the leviathan state...”

Regardless of his other views at other times, Hamilton's significant contributions to the Federalist Papers give us our most important insights into Founders’ Original Intent with their new Constitution.

And by definition of the word (American) “conservative”, our Founders original intent tells us our bedrock beliefs.

By stark contrast, you have consistently argued against Founders original intent and for anti-Federalists opinions.
After their defeat by the Federalists’ Constitution, most anti-Federalists became Jefferson anti-Federalists, then in time, Jefferson Democratic Republicans, and eventually, Jackson Democrats.

Yes, of course, it's a far cry from Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans to today's progressive-liberal Democrats.
But there is one matter of total consistency: Democrats have ALWAYS insisted on special privileges for their own voters.
Before the CW that meant slave-owners.
Today it means the descendants of slaves and other “oppressed” minorities.

That's why I've long suspected that at least some pro-Confederates posting here are really just old-time Dixie Democrats, hoping to convince the rest of us that their anti-Federalist version of “Conservative” is actually superior to the Founders’ original intent.

In fact, that's not “conservative” at all, it's just more of the same-old same-old special privileges for Democrat voters.

Your view of “intent” is apparently whatever you would like it to be, mainly filtered through the hagiography of the later Lincoln. In fact, it reminds me of the “intent” Douglas found in “emanations from penumbras” (That’s Griswold, so you don’t have to look it up).

Federalists like Marshall, Whigs like Clay, and followers of Clay such as Lincoln promoted a very different scheme of government from that of the Constitution. I suppose you have reason to love the leviathan police state. It sends checks in the mail; it prints money; it intervenes foolishly around the world; it is constantly intervening at home to “protect” us. If you actually read the Federalist Papers you might struggle to consider that the powers of your beloved Federal government were presented (correctly) as strictly limited to a handful of enumerated powers (That means specified in writing, in case you were wond4ering). The argument that was initially made against having a Bill of Rights was that it was unnecessary because the sovereign states retained all of their powers except those enumerated. The Bill of Rights, from a drafting perspective, was a “belt and suspenders” exercise to ensure that the states and the their respective peoples retained all of their former rights, except those enumerated. The first eight Amendments reflect English and colonial experience with the Tudors and the Stuarts. If you look at the Petition of Right of 1628, for instance, you will see provision that gave rise to several of the protections contained in the Bill of Rights. Lincoln’s tyranny would have been rejected by every one of those commonly referred to as “Founders” and the people Madison correctly described as “Founders”.

achilles2000 from #271: "Hamilton... his views always tended toward the leviathan state..."

achilles2000 from #276: "I suppose you have reason to love the leviathan police state.
It sends checks in the mail... "

I think these statements show us, beyond reasonable doubt, that our good FRiend achilles2000 is a complete idiot, utterly devoid of reading comprehension, or of IQ, totally dependent on his (lengthy) script of talking points, and incapable of making reasoned conversation outside of them.

IF achilles2000 had even a small brain, he'd know for certain that nobody here, and certainly no Founder ever advocated for a "Leviathan police state" such as we have today.
Our Founders, for all their manifest genius, could not imagine -- much less propose -- such a monstrosity.

achilles2000: "If you actually read the Federalist Papers you might struggle to consider that the powers of your beloved Federal government were presented (correctly) as strictly limited to a handful of enumerated powers..."

FRiend, it's insane to suppose that posters here have not read their Constitution, or such documents as the Federalist Papers which explain "original intent".
As far as I can tell, there's not a non-conservative on the thread, and so your words ring like blatherings from a lunatic.
Why do you do it?

To my knowledge, everybody here clearly understands that our Founders' original intent was to form "a more perfect Union" than Articles "perpetual union", a Union that might consume 2% of gross-national-product, as necessary for national defense, not the 20% or 30% as it does today.

But, seems to me, you achilles2000, have consistently argued against our Founders' original intent, and in favor of the anti-Federalists, anti-Founders, anti-Constitution, and eventually, pro-secessionists, pro-Confederates and pro-declaration of war on the United States.

So it appears that, like some Confederates of old: you wish to destroy the Constitution our Founders gave us, and return to something more like those old Articles.
I say: that's fine, believe & advocate what you wish.
But it's no excuse for making a complete idiot of yourself.

Your more “perfect union” argument is ridiculous. You could argue with as much reason that “a more perfect union” is one that a state can leave. You have no real argument on secession beyond the fact that a lawless President was able to prevent it.

As for Hamilton, do you really propose to argue that he wasn’t a big government Federalist? He didn’t get all that he wanted, but he was, for example, in favor of a permanent national debt and central banking. As a “conservative” I suppose you are in favor of those? Hamilton would probably be appalled at what the federal government has become, but that government has resulted, in part, from seeds he planted.

By the way, I don’t recall arguing that any Founder advocated a LEVIATHAN police state. Still, your quaint view of the Founders does seem to omit facts that are inconvenient. Did a Founder sign the Alien and Sedition Act? Did Federalists pass it? How does criminalizing political speech comport with “Congress shall make no law...”?

For all your expostulating about “original intent”, you don’t manage to come to terms with the doctrine of enumerated powers, the argument made by Hamilton that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary, or the 9th and 10th Amendments. Moreover, as a legal matter, the most relevant, and ultimately dispositive, intent was that of the ratifying conventions.

The Constitution would be a wonderful document to live under, but it was poisoned by Marshall and shredded by Lincoln and a succession of lawless politicians, including Obamalini. I do think you love the “Constitution”, as you conceive it in the abstract, but I doubt very much that you would be pleased to live under it. After all, the checks and other welfare to the elderly would be cut off.

By the way, I don’t recall arguing that any Founder advocated a LEVIATHAN police state.

No, you just insinuated it as a logical fallacy (If you believe this notion (that I'm imputing against you) then you must believe that notion (that I'm also imputing against you).

Still, your quaint view of the Founders does seem to omit facts that are inconvenient. Did a Founder sign the Alien and Sedition Act? Did Federalists pass it? How does criminalizing political speech comport with “Congress shall make no law...”?

I can't quite tell where you're going with this. Yes, Founders signed the Alien and Sedition Act. Yes, Founders passed it. And yes, it was problematic. Life isn't neatly tied with a ribbon. It's a messy affair with competing interests, compromises, and mistakes. I would suggest that it is you who holds "quaint views" about not only the founding of our nation but its evolution.

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.