Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
I think it can be summed up by saying that, in general, the Northern states saw themselves as belonging to the Union, while the Southern states believed the Union belonged to the states. I'm generalizing, of course, but I believe that is an accurate assessment.
I also believe this basic, yet huge, difference would have had to be settled in some way at some point in time. Had it not been under the circumstances of the War Between the States, I believe it would have taken some other form at some other time. This is my opinion only.
A very concise, thoughtful analysis. I would attempt to put a finer point on the dead horse by observing that it was the Whigs (predominantly in the North) that thought Union and progress, and that it was the Democrats (predominantly in the South) who adhered to a collection of states and minimal governmental involvement.
The difference might also be attributed in part to differing attitudes on the phrase, "promote the common welfare." Southern elite generally wanted to be left free to do as they pleased (virtually nothing but enjoy a gentrified, pastoral, cultured, existence). Northern elite wanted societal advancement (the motives might be divorced from altruism).
It seems a bit foreign today to think that the Government should be involved in NOTHING outside of national defense and other things of strictly national interest. While that is still an appealing idea, how many of us would be willing to give up some of that governmental "largesse" in favor of returning to no involvement? No interstate highway system, for example (although that was sold as a national defense measure), a plethora of state almshouses and poor farms, .....
But I digress. Appreciate your pointy analysis (reserving the right to revise and extend my remarks). Thank you.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
...how many of us would be willing to give up some of that governmental "largesse" in favor of returning to no involvement? No interstate highway system, for example (although that was sold as a national defense measure), a plethora of state almshouses and poor farms, .....
You can count me amongst them.
If the Federal Government would restrict its acts to the enumerated Federal powers, were would be the freest, wealthiest and happiest people on earth.
One point of clarification: States have complete (and one might argue, with a certain historical force, exclusive) authority to build interstate-grade highways, so restricting the Federal government from building them would not necessarily mean doing without them entirely. It would just leave it up to the State governments to build them.
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
One point of clarification: States have complete (and one might argue, with a certain historical force, exclusive) authority to build interstate-grade highways, so restricting the Federal government from building them would not necessarily mean doing without them entirely. It would just leave it up to the State governments to build them.
Easier said than done, John. Saying pretty please wouldn't get you very far, and the routes were laid out on lines of national interest. The unfunded mandate doesn't get much favorable reaction.
Quote:
If the Federal Government would restrict its acts to the enumerated Federal powers, were would be the freest, wealthiest and happiest people on earth.
I can agree that we'd be better off without the feds taking money from one pocket and putting it in the other (and dropping much of it in the transition), we'd be a bit hard put without the FDA, USDA, EPA, and many of the agencies we wish we'd never created in the first place.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Based upon your last post, you may enjoy Randy Barnett's book, Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty. One of the most thought-provoking books I've read in the past year.
I submit that the North was not all that unified either.
Most folks considered themselves a New Yorker, an Ohioian, etc., first before they considered themselves an American. The idea that the North prior to the Civil War was in some kind of lock-step is really not logical nor historically accurate.
Again, it would be nice if it fit this profile for the sake of Southern diversity and such, but it does not. The federal government's influence over the states and everyday lives of it's citizens at the time consisted mainly of the United States Post Office and dam little else. Lincoln had to go to the states for volunteers at the beginning of the war and all the states had their own agenda and their own petty goals and jealousies.
I cannot remember the exact quote, but when one Union general was approached by a subordiante after a battle on if he wanted the men buried in plots according to which state they came from, he replied, "No, mix 'em up. I am tired of states rights."
It is my opinion that we owe our vast federal government with all its various departments, budgets and taxes to our Southern ancestors starting at the firing on Ft. Sumter. They lit the fuse that ended in the explosion of the present federal bureaucracy.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I cannot remember the exact quote, but when one Union general was approached by a subordiante after a battle on if he wanted the men buried in plots according to which state they came from, he replied, "No, mix 'em up. I am tired of states rights."
It was George Thomas, of Virginia.
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
It is my opinion that we owe our vast federal government with all its various departments, budgets and taxes to our Southern ancestors starting at the firing on Ft. Sumter. They lit the fuse that ended in the explosion of the present federal bureaucracy.
Neil, surely you don't blame those who opposed (inter alia) consolidation and usurpation for the consolidation and usurpation that has occured since 1861.
Didn't the victors have any say in how the country was run after that war?
Respectfully,
John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
We're getting a bit far afield, but I don't think that the War was the primary reason for the growth of the federal government into the form we have now.
Yes, the War had some important effects, most notably the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, which applied the Bill of Rights (or at least most of them) to the States. However, the stage was not really set for dramatic expansion of federal power until the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments were passed in 1913. The former (Income Tax) gave the federal government access to potentially huge amounts of cash. The latter (direct election of senators) eliminated the ties between the states and the legislative branch.
These developments, among others, set the stage for the dramatic expansion of federal power via the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses in the 1930s.
We're getting a bit far afield, but I don't think that the War was the primary reason for the growth of the federal government into the form we have now.
Yes, the War had some important effects, most notably the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, which applied the Bill of Rights (or at least most of them) to the States. However, the stage was not really set for dramatic expansion of federal power until the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments were passed in 1913. The former (Income Tax) gave the federal government access to potentially huge amounts of cash. The latter (direct election of senators) eliminated the ties between the states and the legislative branch.
These developments, among others, set the stage for the dramatic expansion of federal power via the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses in the 1930s.
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. In 1875, James Blaine proposed the following amendment to the US Constitution: "No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations." This amendment was defeated in Congress. Judges in the 1920's decided on their own hook that the XIV Amendment meant that the prohibitions of the BoR applied against the State governments as well.
I believe that the two main events that have expanded the growth and influence of the Federal government were the Civil War, and the switch of the Democratic Party from being a small-government party to being the party of Federal growth and intervention in 1932.
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
I submit that the North was not all that unified either.
Most folks considered themselves a New Yorker, an Ohioian, etc., first before they considered themselves an American. The idea that the North prior to the Civil War was in some kind of lock-step is really not logical nor historically accurate.
That's interesting. I suspect you are right. Perhaps I should remedy what I earlier said about the Southern states being Texans, Georgians, etc. first, and Americans second. To be more accurate it should be state first, Southern second, and American last. It was probably the same with the Northern states, too. Hence, the sectionalism that I spoke of.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
