The Constitution as a cause of the Civil War

889 Views | 3 Replies | Last: 6 yr ago by FTACo88-FDT24dad
huisachel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
While browsing through a book about Lincoln and the war yesterday it came to me that the differences between the north and south about the permanence or dissollubility of the Republic had its roots in the failure of the Convention to even discuss the subject.

The Convention had both strong government advocates such as Washington and Hamilton and those who merely wanted to put some meat on the Articles of Confederation. When they had no consensus they just compromised by using artfully ambiguous language. For example, What does "due process of law" mean? We have thousands of cases discussing it but no firm grasp after over 200 years.

Nowhere in this document of compromises is there a discussion of whether the union is one that can be dissolved or is permanent. So it was not long before the leaders got into spats on the subject that never got settled. See any bio of Calhoun or Jackson or read about the nullification doctrine for a taste of what was to come.

Reading the debates between the advocates of permanent union and those of secessionists can be maddening. Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, who was sick all his life and usually weighed in at around 100 lbs when he was not really sick, wrote a book after the war which is as good an example of lawyerly pretzel twisting as I have seen explaining how all people have a right to sever the political ties which have bound them to another. I first read it 40 years ago in grad school and still think it almost unassailable.

Likewise, the Federalist Papers strike me as inferior to the anti-Federalists' arguments. The Federalists were arguing that the powers of the new government would be limited and the antis argued that the Constitution was so vague as to make all things bigger and more expansive. I particularly enjoy reading the antis on the question of the powers of the federal courts and how they would inevitably expand and cause mischief. Reading them makes one wonder if they were telepathic. They weren't, they just knew how to read and were good lawyers.

I have plugged this book before and do it again. The Anti-Federalist Papers from Signet Classics would reward any of the conservatives who frequent this site. Ad anybody else for that matter

Back to the subject of the title: the Convention did not realize their document would be stretched and twisted in order to last over two centuries and so did not see any need to discuss the circumstances under which the union might be rendered. So when the southern Democrats and the ex-Whigs came to loggerheads over the election of 1860 there was no answer to the immediate question which was satisfying to all.

Now, 150+ years after the War ended we are mired in discussions about whether Lee et al were traitors, and what statues should stand on our campuses.
Maximus_Meridius
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
huisachel said:

I have plugged this book before and do it again. The Anti-Federalist Papers from Signet Classics would reward any of the conservatives who frequent this site. Ad anybody else for that matter

Didn't realize this existed. In the Amazon cart now.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Without a doubt the blood of the Civil War is on the hands of the founding fathers, we need to remove some statues, don't you think?
huisachel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
no, statues don't cause wars or cause unintended consequences. And I don't fault the convention for kicking the can down the road when they hit a spot they did not have a consensus on.

Unintended consequences are my favorite source of alternative history. e.g. Spain and Mexico had an intractable problem with the Apaches and Comanches and decided to solve it by inviting anglo americans in to Texas to create a buffer. That eventually got worked out----the Apaches decamped to New Mexico and what was left of the Comanches decided Oklahoma was OK. but the anglos turned out to be a problem worse in some ways than the Comanches, what with their constitutions and stuff.

If somebody wanted to put up a statue of Santa Anna in front of the courthouse in San Antonio, I would be ok with that---in fact, I have a suggestion for the caption------'He made all this possible'
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
huisachel said:

While browsing through a book about Lincoln and the war yesterday it came to me that the differences between the north and south about the permanence or dissollubility of the Republic had its roots in the failure of the Convention to even discuss the subject.

The Convention had both strong government advocates such as Washington and Hamilton and those who merely wanted to put some meat on the Articles of Confederation. When they had no consensus they just compromised by using artfully ambiguous language. For example, What does "due process of law" mean? We have thousands of cases discussing it but no firm grasp after over 200 years.

Nowhere in this document of compromises is there a discussion of whether the union is one that can be dissolved or is permanent. So it was not long before the leaders got into spats on the subject that never got settled. See any bio of Calhoun or Jackson or read about the nullification doctrine for a taste of what was to come.

Reading the debates between the advocates of permanent union and those of secessionists can be maddening. Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, who was sick all his life and usually weighed in at around 100 lbs when he was not really sick, wrote a book after the war which is as good an example of lawyerly pretzel twisting as I have seen explaining how all people have a right to sever the political ties which have bound them to another. I first read it 40 years ago in grad school and still think it almost unassailable.

Likewise, the Federalist Papers strike me as inferior to the anti-Federalists' arguments. The Federalists were arguing that the powers of the new government would be limited and the antis argued that the Constitution was so vague as to make all things bigger and more expansive. I particularly enjoy reading the antis on the question of the powers of the federal courts and how they would inevitably expand and cause mischief. Reading them makes one wonder if they were telepathic. They weren't, they just knew how to read and were good lawyers.

I have plugged this book before and do it again. The Anti-Federalist Papers from Signet Classics would reward any of the conservatives who frequent this site. Ad anybody else for that matter

Back to the subject of the title: the Convention did not realize their document would be stretched and twisted in order to last over two centuries and so did not see any need to discuss the circumstances under which the union might be rendered. So when the southern Democrats and the ex-Whigs came to loggerheads over the election of 1860 there was no answer to the immediate question which was satisfying to all.

Now, 150+ years after the War ended we are mired in discussions about whether Lee et al were traitors, and what statues should stand on our campuses.


Very interesting thoughts huisachel. Thanks for sharing.

"If somebody wanted to put up a statue of Santa Anna in front of the courthouse in San Antonio, I would be ok with that---in fact, I have a suggestion for the caption------'He made all this possible'"

GENIUS!!!!
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.