The Civil War - Part Three

This is the third part of a three-part post on the Civil War, presented on the 150th anniversary of the start of that deadly conflict. It would be best to read Parts One and Two before reading this post.
Part One discussed the question, “What was the main issue over which the war was fought?” Part Two addressed the question, “Which side was correct on the issues?” Part Three (this part) will attempt to answer the questions, “Based on moral considerations, which side should have won?” and “Why has public opinion developed as it has?”

Based on moral considerations, which side should have won?

The Indefensible Issue of Slavery

Because the states’ rights issue coalesced around the issue of slavery, the legal and moral factors get all mixed up. Was the Confederacy correct on the issue of states’ rights? Yes. Was the Confederacy correct on the issue of slavery? Absolutely not.

The fact is, the Confederacy was correct in asserting states’ rights. But – and here is the key point – they were attempting to use one constitutional right to contravene others. The attempt to use the Tenth Amendment to perpetuate slavery was a legal and moral abomination. Slavery itself, although recognized in the Constitution as a matter of political necessity in 1788, was not in alignment with the spirit of the Constitution, not compatible with the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, not in compliance with the Bill of Rights.

The Framers of the Constitution knew that forcing the issue of abolition in 1788 would have broken the Constitutional Convention and likely would have split the union at that early date. In order to avoid breaking the union, they created a constitution that accepted the current reality of slavery but did seem to imply its ultimate end and provided for the abolition of the slave trade within 20 years. This gave the new nation one generation t resolve the problem. Unfortunately, the problem did not decrease with time.

Nevertheless, slavery always had been at odds with American ideals and stated values. Slavery always had been a national hypocrisy, a stain on the national character, a morally unjustifiable aberration. Slavery had been envisioned by many of the Founding Fathers as gradually disappearing over a generation or two. Not even the correct assertion of states’ rights could morally justify the continued existence of slavery. The Confederacy, because of its defense of an institution of extreme inequality and injustice, was in a morally indefensible position.

The Principle of States’ Rights – Misapplied

The Confederacy has done immense damage to the liberty-affirming principle of limited government by applying those legitimate principles in support of an unjust, indefensible institution. The Confederacy tried to affirm their own right while denying the rights of the enslaved among them. A society, a government based upon institutional inequality, has no ethical basis. The Confederacy, honorable in the matters of limited government and in certain matters of honor and heritage, was morally damned by its affirmation of inequality and dedication to the denial of human rights.

The Historical Fallout of a Confederate Victory

On a more practical level, it is also good that the Union was victorious in the Civil War because of the political and military alternatives that would have followed a Confederate victory. Even if the Confederacy had rejected the hypocrisy of slavery, the division of the United States into two or three or more nations would have been disastrous. Inevitably those nations would have been sometimes antagonistic toward one another, likely forming alliances, engaging in intermittent conflict. The environment of fractured national identity, conflict, and perpetual distrust would have likely prevented the prosperity that the United States enjoyed and diminished the prestige and power the United States subsequently wielded.

Consider the timeline. The First World War began less than 50 years after the American Civil War. The Second World War began roughly 75 years after the American Civil War. The Soviet Union emerged as a superpower only a few years later. What would have become of the rest of the world if the United States of America (as we know it) had not existed? How would the World Wars and the Cold War have resolved if North America was a collection of small warring nations? What would have become even of the North Americans, eventually? Quite apart from the issue of slavery, or the ideal of states’ rights, what would the world look like today if the Confederacy had succeeded in fracturing the American nation? Scary thoughts. President Lincoln’s ultimate goal, the preservation of the Union, may have been more critical to the future of the human race than even he realized.

Why has public opinion developed as it has?

The easy way out of this question is the old truism, “History is written by the winners.” But that old truism is insufficient to explain the continuing conflicted legacy the Civil War still holds over our collective consciousness. Here are some thoughts about what we revere and revile, and why.

Today, Everyone Understands the Injustice of Slavery

The most widespread correlation in the public mind is between the Confederacy and the institution of slavery. That is the single most important reason the Old South is held in disdain and the Union is held in highest regard. The American people of the 20th and 21st centuries despise the slavery they associate with the south. They recognize the injustice and hypocrisy of the slaveholding system.

Few Americans, on the other hand, have taken the time or invested the effort to really understand the states’ rights debate. However, nearly all Americans understand the slavery issue. Start with the 42 million Americans who are ethnic African-Americans. Add the significantly larger block of ethnically diverse Americans understand what it means to be marginalized or exploited because of race or ethnicity. Add the mainstream Americans who have a personal commitment to freedom, human dignity, and equality. That adds up to a huge majority of Americans who despise the Confederacy for defending the institution of slavery.

Many hear that the Confederacy advocated states’ rights and immediately think that states’ rights are a bad thing – like the slavery they already associate with the Confederacy. Because they so despise the Confederate attempt to justify and extend slavery, they immediately conclude that everything about the Confederacy (and by extension, antebellum southern culture) must be rotten at the core.

Room to Admire Some Confederate Values

All things Confederate are not necessarily evil. Much about antebellum culture and society was admirable. The concept of honor, the graciousness, the dedication of southerners to managing their own affairs – all these include an element of valor. There was a fatal flaw at the middle of it all, in the form of slavery and racism.

There are a few groups today who admire and respect their Confederate heritage. It is possible to believe in some Confederate values while rejecting the racism that coexisted with those values. They use the motto, “Heritage, not Hate.” And their belief in the good things about their Confederate heritage is morally defensible and may indeed be completely free of racism. They shouldn’t expect most people to understand, though.

The Influence of Lincoln

Most educated Americans will concede that President Lincoln may have assumed more power than the Constitution allowed. But they will argue that he did so out of necessity and for a higher purpose. So, although Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to prevent the state of Maryland from seceding, it was morally justifiable. Although he said he would end slavery or keep slavery or maintain the status quo in order to preserve the union, he did the right thing and accomplished both.

In fact, without President Abraham Lincoln, the Confederacy would have achieved independence. Rarely has one person so influenced the course of history. Lincoln seemed to spur the Union on to victory in spite of itself, almost by sheer force of his will.

The American people, even those who otherwise feel an affinity for the Confederate cause, also admire the unique and almost superhuman qualities of President Lincoln – his honesty, his dedication to the cause, his martyrdom. The Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC is the closest thing to a shrine that our American government has erected.

Conclusion

The Confederate States of America never achieved independence, and that is all to the good because of the fatal flaw of slavery, and also because of the draconian consequences that would have followed the dissolution of the Union.

That is not to say the Confederacy was wrong about everything. The Confederacy and southern society has some redeeming qualities, but the horror of their defense of slavery overwhelms all other considerations.

States’ rights was a valid Constitutional concept which had the misfortune to be misapplied to an evil cause. Although some attempted to use the concept to defend their indefensible practices, states’ rights remains a valid Constitutional concept, when applied with honesty and integrity.

It is time for the United States of America to divorce the concept of states’ rights from the cause that misappropriated it a century and a half ago. Following so many years of a federal government growing stronger, so many years of the erosion of a constitutional balance of power, perhaps it is time to revisit the validity of states’ rights as a means to restore balance to a federal government grown powerful enough to endanger the liberty of all Americans.

Perhaps, in an odd twist of fate, it is time to revisit the potential role of states’ rights as a means to stop oppression and prevent undemocratic forces operating behind the scenes of our 2011 federal government.

Last Words
 

There are uncomfortable parallels between 1861 and 2011. In 1861 each side had valid points and indefensible positions. In 1861 each side demonized the other. The whole truth was not to be found in either the secessionist or the abolitionist camp. Most Americans today would argue that the need to end slavery was a greater imperative than keeping the federal government from getting out of control. But couldn’t an intelligent, well-meaning, well-informed populace have done both, and perhaps prevented a terrible war in the process? Although it is beyond the scope of this post, I think so.

The Civil War was a time of national crisis perpetuated by disrespect for human life. It resulted in 600,000 dead on both sides. Any means at our disposal which might tend to increase respect and honest communication among all Americans, which might tend to unify us in support of the objective of ensuring freedom and human rights for all is worth looking into.

I hope everyone who reads this will take a few moments to remember the past, and consider how we may avoid repeating the same mistakes. Best wishes.

- Gryphem

- - - - - - - - - -

Suggestions for additional online reading

These two quality opinion pieces both appeared on CNN.com on April 12, 2011. They support the opinions of Gryphem in some matters, and contradict Gryphem in others, but they are definitely worth reading for one who wants to understand more about the causes of the Civil War.

"Civil War's Dirty Secret about Slavery"
by James DeWolf Perry and Katrina Browne
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/12/perry.browne.civil.war/index/html?hpt=sbin
Overview: The South's noble resistance, and the North's moral crusade to end slavery are myths. Both the North and South were complicit in slavery and loath to end it.

"The Civil War was a Choice"
by David Goldfield
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/12/goldfield.civil.war/index.html?hpt=sbin
Overview: The Civil War was America's greatest political failure. Americans went to war with each other because the political system could not contain the issue of slavery. The war need not have been the only route to liberation. Other slaveholding nations found other ways.