Northern Motives For War

[ole]

Rose:

I believe it was Boritt in his "Why the Civil War Came," who favored your statement on loyalties. Although he was specifically referring to Northwesterners, he made the case that many of the "Union" leaders considered themselves Americans first and Northerners second.

With deference to Neil's statement, Northeasterners might well have considered themselves citizens of a state. (With the exception of immigrants who considered themselves American first and ethnic second.)

To take that thought a little further, consider the difference between those who moved from state to state. In the south, the state of one's birth might well remain with the man who moved to another. (There are, of course, always exceptions: Jeff Davis was considered a Mississippian although he was born in Kentucky.) An illustration might be inferred from the recent Trivia Quiz in which there was confusion about which state a resident of Texas represented in the Confederate government.

Though no hard rules can be drawn, I'll follow your contention that southern loyalty to a state trumped that to a nation. (Which did the CSA great harm during the subsequent difficulties.)

Ole

[unionblue]

John Taylor,

Reference your post#87, I submit that the Southern States prior to 1861 were the ones guilty of consolidation and usurpation, not the North, albeit with one specific objective in mind.

I find it somewhat amusing that those who claim that big government was part of the reason the South sought separation. The very idea that the federal government was the monster some claim it was, falls on its face in light of just how extensive the federal government was before the Civil War.

As for the idea that I feel those who began the war must share in the so-called blame of a bloated federal government of today, I feel that a precedence was established at the end of the war, one that laid the foundations for the government that now exists. Right or wrong, we can trace back to the Civil War of a more pro-active federal government, a reduction in State's impact, federal income tax, etc.

In other words, as the song says, 'we get the government we deserve.'

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[matthew mckeon]

This is a little off topic, but you were discussing the loyalties and identities of various immigrants, states and regions.

I read a Bill Maudlin cartoon today in which a bunch of rough looking soldiers are playing cards, and one of them is making a point:

"You Irishmen couldn't have won the war without allies like Russia and Texas."

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by unionblue

John Taylor,

Reference your post#87, I submit that the Southern States prior to 1861 were the ones guilty of consolidation and usurpation, not the North, albeit with one specific objective in mind.

I guess, once again, it boils down to defining your terms (always a good idea in any debate). Consolidation refers to consolidating the United States into one consolidated unitary nation like France, as opposed to a Federal Republic with certain powers delegated to the Federal Government, and others reserved to the States.
Usurpation (as understood in the era 1787-1860) meant assuming undelegated powers.
It is difficult to characterize the Southern States of desiring or acting to create either of these ideals. Quite the contrary.

Originally Posted by unionblue

I find it somewhat amusing that those who claim that big government was part of the reason the South sought separation. The very idea that the federal government was the monster some claim it was, falls on its face in light of just how extensive the federal government was before the Civil War.

I don’t think anyone claimed that the Federal Government was a monster (although you may be able to provide example to contradict me). It was what it might become in the hands of Republicans that worried many Southerners. I will let William Porter, speaking at the 1860 commencement ceremony of the Citadel in South Carolina, explain his thoughts on the issue. Speaking of love of one’s native State, he lauded “the sagacious love of freedom that knew the importance of an abstraction and could discern the tyranny that lurked in a preamble.” Porter was undoubtedly referring to Dan Webster’s interpretation that the terms “We the people” in the preamble meant that the Union was a consolidated, not a federal government, and was objecting to that interpretation.
Secession was, at least partially, in response to intended future usurpations, as well in response to past failures of the Union to live up to the purposes outlined in the preamble of the Constitution.
As for the policy of waiting for an overt act by the Lincoln Administration, the Charleston Mercury of December 3, 1860 said, "Delay is dangerous. It is the only policy our enemies have yet to suggest. … The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this Government, from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism. To prevent these evils, the South had delayed already thirty-five years." [As for the advice to wait for an overt act, the Mercury says] "Although you see your enemy load his rifle with the declared purpose of taking your life, you are to wait, as a wise expedient of defence, until he makes the 'overt act' - shoots you. This is one of those glaring absurdities, which only such daring submissionists as Botts and Crittenden are capable of proposing. No ordinary man can hope to comprehend its mysterious sublimities."

Originally Posted by unionblue

As for the idea that I feel those who began the war must share in the so-called blame of a bloated federal government of today, I feel that a precedence was established at the end of the war, one that laid the foundations for the government that now exists. Right or wrong, we can trace back to the Civil War of a more pro-active federal government, a reduction in State's impact, federal income tax, etc.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Those opposing consolidation cannot justly be criticized for the consummation of consolidation that followed their opposition and defeat.
I place the evils of consolidation (e.g. a bloated Federal bureaucracy, exorbitant taxes, and a Federal government that recognizes no limitations on its own authority but the limits it recognizes itself) firmly and solely on the shoulders of those who sought consolidation of the Union.

[unionblue]

John Taylor,

As you have said, we will have to agree to disagree.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[elektratig]

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

I would dispute that the XIV Amendment was intended to incorporate the prohibitions of the Bill of Rights to apply them against the State governments.

JT,

Now I'm REALLY getting far afield, but I've made a pretty close study of the 14th Amendment, and the evidence is overwhelming that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of Section 1 was intended to apply the Bill of Rights against the States. I am an "original understanding" kind of guy, and for better or worse the original understanding of the clause is clear. Michael Kent Curtis's book is generally regarded as the groundbreaking and definitive work on the subject.

I agree that the Supremes have made a hash out of the Amendment, but for different reasons than you do. In the Slaughter-House Cases, they essentially gutted the Privileges or Immunities Clause of meaning. Accordingly, when the Supremes later began applying selected provisions of the Bills of Rights to the States, they had to find another, inappropriate vehicle: the Due Process Clause.

Michael Kent Curtis, No State Shall Abridge: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/082...lance&n=283155