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.
Hmm...the negotiations of the Treaty of Paris didn't occur to me when I wrote my previous post. I'm rather sketchy on the period 1776-1787 and my dog-eared copy of 'The Federalist' is lost in a box somewhere.
Just skimming through the articles my attention is drawn to part of Article XIII:
"...And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual".
The CSA constitution also claimed to establish a permanent federal government. I suppose if you're writing a constitution, you want to have a sense of eternity. In that case, the sense that the constitutional order trumps the desires of the states prevails under either constitution. Of course, we are overlooking the fact that constitutions are only as good as a desire to abide by them - the Stalin constitution of 1936 is a good example of this. People, not laws, ultimately determine their longevity.
(Here begins further idle speculation)
The more I think about it, the more I wonder if we are falling into the trap of viewing the 19th Century US through 21st Century eyes when it comes to considering issues of federalism. How much interaction did the average townsman have with people outside of his locality? If we were to walk into a 19th century bar and be able to ask such questions, which institutions had the most influence over daily life? To which did people most identify? We all know how Lee felt he owed a duty to Virginia over that of the Union, but what about normal people? How much more influential were state politics in people's lives than affairs all those days' travel away in DC? I mean this in the 'I feel that what happens in X affects my life' way rather than formal lawmaking powers (eg I live in an over-centralised state - sure I vote in city elections too but I don't know the names of any of my councillors and have only ever written to my MP in Westminster). A bit of a digression, but perhaps we are underestimating the nature of state loyalties. If secession is to trump slavery as the cause for the war, I wonder if the answer would be found in that approach. But it's a heck of a digression and probably one for a different thread.
(Here endeth the idle speculation)
While it is probably true that the Federalism practices in the USA in this 21st Century, is not ideal envisioned by the Founding Fathers and the writers of the Federalist Papers. But what we have today is the outgrowth of that ideal.
The ideal and precise process has evolved and changed through 200 yrs of political and social experience. This natgion's Federalists would probably be somewhat surprised at all the twists and turns their original ideal experienced by practice. But, IMO, their intellect would lead most of them to the conclusion that change was inevitable and the history of that change has resulted ,all in all, in their theories of government and citizenship being, essentially, well served through its history.
Impressive posts, Oxkern and Opn. Thank you very much for another sleepless night.
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
Hmm...the negotiations of the Treaty of Paris didn't occur to me when I wrote my previous post. I'm rather sketchy on the period 1776-1787 and my dog-eared copy of 'The Federalist' is lost in a box somewhere.
Just skimming through the articles my attention is drawn to part of Article XIII:
"...And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual".
The CSA constitution also claimed to establish a permanent federal government. I suppose if you're writing a constitution, you want to have a sense of eternity. In that case, the sense that the constitutional order trumps the desires of the states prevails under either constitution. Of course, we are overlooking the fact that constitutions are only as good as a desire to abide by them - the Stalin constitution of 1936 is a good example of this. People, not laws, ultimately determine their longevity.
(Here begins further idle speculation)
The more I think about it, the more I wonder if we are falling into the trap of viewing the 19th Century US through 21st Century eyes when it comes to considering issues of federalism. How much interaction did the average townsman have with people outside of his locality? If we were to walk into a 19th century bar and be able to ask such questions, which institutions had the most influence over daily life? To which did people most identify? We all know how Lee felt he owed a duty to Virginia over that of the Union, but what about normal people? How much more influential were state politics in people's lives than affairs all those days' travel away in DC? I mean this in the 'I feel that what happens in X affects my life' way rather than formal lawmaking powers (eg I live in an over-centralised state - sure I vote in city elections too but I don't know the names of any of my councillors and have only ever written to my MP in Westminster). A bit of a digression, but perhaps we are underestimating the nature of state loyalties. If secession is to trump slavery as the cause for the war, I wonder if the answer would be found in that approach. But it's a heck of a digression and probably one for a different thread.
(Here endeth the idle speculation)
In general Southerners seem to have had a greater connection to their state than Northerners did. I have never been sure of why that was (it seems to have been roughly similar at the time of the Revolution), but it is clear that it was so. Perhaps Northerners were less likely to feel that way because of the greater amount of immigration in their area, the easier transportation network, etc.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
In general Southerners seem to have had a greater connection to their state than Northerners did. I have never been sure of why that was (it seems to have been roughly similar at the time of the Revolution), but it is clear that it was so. Perhaps Northerners were less likely to feel that way because of the greater amount of immigration in their area, the easier transportation network, etc.
Tim
Tim,
Therein lies a tale.
Is it possible that Southerners felt closer to their States because of the lack of transport and contact with new people, new ideas and new social systems beginning to fully take shape in the North?
I was informed by my reading and my grandparents that it was very rare for people, North or South, to travel over 20 miles from home (it might have even been a smaller figure, I cannot remember) but I think I read the same thing in Bruce Catton's books on the Army of the Potomac.
My understanding is Lincoln could not understand why Lee stood by his State, and if the lack of travel thing is a consideration, Lee had traveled extensively in his own lifetime.
Curious.
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 was informed by my reading and my grandparents that it was very rare for people, North or South, to travel over 20 miles from home (it might have even been a smaller figure, I cannot remember) but I think I read the same thing in Bruce Catton's books on the Army of the Potomac.
I am reading Catton's 'Army of the Potomac' for the first time. Nice book.
I actually remember my high school instructor making the illustration that people travelling outside of their region would often introduce themselves by the county they resided in, ie. 'Hi, John Smith, Wayne County' or something along those lines.
Frankly I think much ado is made about the 'state vs. national loyalty' issue. The fact of the matter is that a rift was occuring and men, North & South had to choose a side. When men such as Lee were choosing, their rationale is 'I must stick by my state' - but if you think about it that is just rationalizing the decision, ie. I'm not being disloyal, I am simply remaining loyal to the paramount duty of loyalty to the state.
To me, as I have said before, loyalty is largely a function of birth. While you have innumerable exceptions to the rule throughout history, by and large soldiers fight for the side that the region they are from is attached to no matter what the cause.
Thank you for your reply above and your comments. Well worth pondering.
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
In general Southerners seem to have had a greater connection to their state than Northerners did. I have never been sure of why that was (it seems to have been roughly similar at the time of the Revolution), but it is clear that it was so. Perhaps Northerners were less likely to feel that way because of the greater amount of immigration in their area, the easier transportation network, etc.
Tim
David Potter makes a point that is relevant here, although it tends away from your argument. Potter argues that loyalty to locality and loyalty to a larger political entity (nationalism) are not necessarily contradictory values. Often, there is no conflict between the two, and one can be loyal to and supportive of both. There is no need to prioritize one's values.
Sometimes, however, the loyalties come into conflict. In those cases, one must draw priorities. This is not necessarily an all-or-nothing exercise. One may feel loyalty to one's country, but feel more loyalty to one's locality or state.
Potter argues that in this respect there was nothing unique about the South. Back during the War of 1812, it was New England that perceived tensions between loyalties. The national government was taking actions that were perceived to be harmful to the section. New England rumbled with discontent. James Madison and Henry Clay -- and John Calhoun! -- were the nationalists, because they saw no conflict of loyalties.
The War of 1812 abated of course. Later on, southerners began to perceive (rightly or wrongly -- we can avoid that issue) that the national government was moving in a direction that threatened their interests. They began to have to prioritize their loyalties. By then, it was the Northerners (or most of them) who perceived no contradiction between their loyalties to their section and their country as a whole. Daniel Webster was able to speak "as a Union man" because he saw no conflict between that role and the interests of his state and section.
On a more practical level, it's worth remembering that the south was deeply tied into national and international commerce. Planters -- including those hotspurs in South Carolina -- marketed an international cash commodity. They had agents and brokers in Britain and shippers in New York. Even most farmers produced a bale or two as a cash crop. I just don't think the isolated south vs. engaged north holds up.
I think the dynamic was the other way around. Perceived national threats to local interests generated increasingly strident defenses of local interests, and the elaboration of theories designed to reduce national power. On the other hand (and I think this also supports my contention), where an increase in federal power was perceived to benefit the south (fugitive slave law, federal slave code in the territories), southerners readily embraced those propositions and indeed maintained that they were constitutionally required.
The same goes for the north, by the way. Where northerners perceived a conflict between national and local, and had to prioritize their loyalties, many went local. Examples would include the personal liberty laws designed to hamper the Fugitive Slave Act, and court decisions such as Abelman v. Booth, which held the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional.
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
David Potter makes a point that is relevant here, although it tends away from your argument. Potter argues that loyalty to locality and loyalty to a larger political entity (nationalism) are not necessarily contradictory values. Often, there is no conflict between the two, and one can be loyal to and supportive of both. There is no need to prioritize one's values.
I can agree with him on this. The problem is that they were brought into conflict in the days before the Civil War, and I think deliberately so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elektratig
Sometimes, however, the loyalties come into conflict. In those cases, one must draw priorities. This is not necessarily an all-or-nothing exercise. One may feel loyalty to one's country, but feel more loyalty to one's locality or state.
This is Lee's problem in a nutshell. He felt loyalty to the US; he felt greater loyalty to Virginia. Right or wrong, he felt Virginia came first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elektratig
Potter argues that in this respect there was nothing unique about the South. Back during the War of 1812, it was New England that perceived tensions between loyalties. The national government was taking actions that were perceived to be harmful to the section. New England rumbled with discontent. James Madison and Henry Clay -- and John Calhoun! -- were the nationalists, because they saw no conflict of loyalties.
The central government probably did more damage to New England in those days than it ever did to the South. I also think that the closer you get to colonial days, the greater the identification with the state and the less with the central government.
But I also think that by 1860, the identification with state was much stronger in the South than the North. Lewis Cass, Secretary of State under Buchanan , speaking to another Cabinet member: “I speak to Cobb and he tells me he is a Georgian; to Floyd, and he tells me he is a Virginian; to you, and you tell me you are a Carolinian. I am not a Michigander; I am a citizen of the United States.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by elektratig
The War of 1812 abated of course. Later on, southerners began to perceive (rightly or wrongly -- we can avoid that issue) that the national government was moving in a direction that threatened their interests. They began to have to prioritize their loyalties. By then, it was the Northerners (or most of them) who perceived no contradiction between their loyalties to their section and their country as a whole. Daniel Webster was able to speak "as a Union man" because he saw no conflict between that role and the interests of his state and section.
This is the growing conflict; by the 1840s it is about slavery, and it grows from there. This is what secession was about. The "states' right" or "interest" was always the same: slave property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elektratig
On a more practical level, it's worth remembering that the south was deeply tied into national and international commerce. Planters -- including those hotspurs in South Carolina -- marketed an international cash commodity. They had agents and brokers in Britain and shippers in New York. Even most farmers produced a bale or two as a cash crop. I just don't think the isolated south vs. engaged north holds up.
But in those terms, the South thought it had the whip hand. That is what the "King Cotton" myth was about, that the South could do as it pleased and all other states would not dare to oppose them. As they discovered, the view was wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elektratig
I think the dynamic was the other way around. Perceived national threats to local interests generated increasingly strident defenses of local interests, and the elaboration of theories designed to reduce national power. On the other hand (and I think this also supports my contention), where an increase in federal power was perceived to benefit the south (fugitive slave law, federal slave code in the territories), southerners readily embraced those propositions and indeed maintained that they were constitutionally required.
There certainly was a movement like that. The perceived threat was to slavery, and the way of life built on slavery -- which was the local interest involved. Southern views of internationalism seem to have been through the wrong end of the telescope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elektratig
The same goes for the north, by the way. Where northerners perceived a conflict between national and local, and had to prioritize their loyalties, many went local. Examples would include the personal liberty laws designed to hamper the Fugitive Slave Act, and court decisions such as Abelman v. Booth, which held the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional.
Yes, I can see that. But I am not sure the interpretation is correct. I think the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was unconstitutional (so did men like Rhett in SC). I do not think enforcing it was in the long-term interest of the United States; I think the South in trying to impose it on the rest of the nation was acting strictly in their local interest.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
