The Civil War - Part Two

This is the second 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 Part One before reading this post.

Part One discussed the question, “What was the main issue over which the war was fought?” Part Two (this part) will address the question, “Which side was correct on the issues?” Part Three will attempt to answer the questions, “Based on moral considerations, which side should have won?” and “Why has public opinion developed as it has?”

Which side was correct on the issues?

With appropriate respect for Federalists including Madison (whom I admire) and Marshall (who is a relative), I believe that on the issue of states’ rights, the confederate perspective was correct. Suspend your arguments about slavery for a moment, and think about ordinary matters of law and governance.

Where the Confederacy was Right: States’ Rights

The United States Constitution was clearly created by a voluntary association of independent entities. It is not reasonable to assume that because an entity voluntarily associates itself with others in common cause that the association must endure, irrevocable for all time. No, what can be created voluntarily can be dissolved voluntarily.

The Constitution itself, although silent on the matter of secession, clearly places the states in the power position. Hear what the Constitution itself says about the relative power of states and federal government.  The Tenth Amendment is quoted in its entirety: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

It should be obvious to the non-partisan reader that the powers of the federal government were intended to be limited in scope and constrained by the powers of the states and the citizens as a whole.

Freedom is better served when government is closer to, and subject to closer scrutiny by the people. In other words, freedom is better served when government occurs mainly at the state or local level as opposed to the national level. So the Confederacy was correct about the issue of states’ rights.

Where the Confederacy was Wrong

Unfortunately, the Confederacy chose to apply a valid principle to an untenable position. Surely no one would argue that the states should have the right to legalize slavery? But in fact, that is precisely what the Confederacy asserted, although that position was and is indefensible.

The primary flaw of southern slaveholding society was an intense and largely immutable caste system which frequently constrained individual liberty even for ordinary citizens. But grafted onto this genteel white society, and underpinning its economy, was a centuries-old system of black slavery which regarded slaves as less than human.

Southern slavery, sometimes brutal, sometimes benign, degraded all involved. The slave was degraded by oppression, abuse, and denial of human rights. The slaveholders, although they would not have recognized it, degraded themselves by their vile, hypocritical, duplicitous oppression of those unable to resist. The slave received a bit of respect only insofar as he or she worked hard and complied with the status quo. The slaveholder received only the respect he could create by force or intimidation. In its denial of human rights, the southern slaveholding culture was essentially corrupt.

It is important to understand that the reason for the war changed significantly in the midst of the conflict. In the beginning, although the issue of slavery was definitely in the public eye, most of the discussion centered around who got to decide such matters. The focus was where the power of government was centered – in effect, the focus was states’ rights. But a couple of years into the war, President Lincoln saw an opportunity to seize the moral high ground and reorient public perception about the conflict. The Emancipation Proclamation, issued in late 1862 and effective at the beginning of 1863, began the process of freeing the slaves. Contrary to popular belief, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all the slaves, but it did begin the process. Once issued, it unleashed the moral force of abolitionism. After the proclamation, the Civil War was less a conflict between competing authorities, and more a righteous crusade to end evil oppression.

Other Areas Where the Southern Culture was Right

We shouldn’t make the mistake of oversimplifying. Although the institution of slavery is completely indefensible, southern culture did have some merits.

Southern society was a traditional society based on honor, valor, and commitment. The mainstream culture of the antebellum (pre-war) south was characterized by respect, graciousness, and other noble virtues. In many ways it was an admirable society.

In some circles, even now, Confederate persons and values are still remembered as honorable. The truth is, flawed though it might have been, the American south was not completely evil. There were admirable qualities in southern culture. It was neither the cruel world of constant torture and humiliation depicted in Uncle Tom’s Cabin nor the benign society of Uncle Remus.

Southern culture and Confederate values emphasized honor, commitment, dedication to a cause. Despite the stain of slavery, many individual Confederates were persons of compassion and honor. Their courage and valor were sometimes remarkable, and are rightly remembered with admiration.

I never said making these distinctions would be easy.

Was Slavery on the way Out, Anyway?

Here is an observation that is largely beside-the-point from a historical perspective, but intriguing from an ethical perspective. There were several Confederate leaders who took the Confederate side because they believed in states’ rights, or because their home state seceded, who nevertheless were not supporters of the institution of slavery. Foremost among them was General Robert E. Lee. Although he did own slaves himself, Lee nevertheless saw the end of slavery coming.

As a matter of fact, nations around the world had been ending slavery for many decades. In the 1860s most civilized nations viewed slavery as a throwback to a more barbaric time.

With the benefit of hindsight, we can say with some confidence that slavery would have ended within a generation or two even if the south had won the war. It was an irresistible movement of human history. Although vestiges of slaveholding remained until the 1930s in China, and perhaps the 1960s in Arabia and North Africa, slavery as a legal institution was grinding to a halt by the late 1800s. Of course, no one could have known this for certain in 1861.

States’ Rights does not mean Oppression – Slavery means Oppression

In the course of researching this post I came across more than one 21st century African-American who was angry because his ancestors had been enslaved.  Because that enslavement had been defended by an appeal to states' rights, these descendants were antagonistic not only to the institution of slavery, but also to the very concept of states' rights.  This situation was compounded by the fact that in the 20th century many African-Americans continued to suffer oppression under Jim Crow laws and discriminatory policies that were defended by a misapplied appeal to states’ rights. It is understandable that many today believe that “states’ rights” is a code word for racism and oppression of African-Americans.

I understand why they are angry, and I am angry along with them. Using any argument to attempt to justify oppression was and is an abomination. Although it was misapplied in the past, the concept of “states’ rights” cannot rationally justify oppression. The use of “states’ rights” to rationalize oppression was and is a perversion of what states’ right is really all about. In truth, there is no justification for either slavery or racist oppression.

It is to our benefit today to separate the two concepts. We must move beyond the negative emotional reaction we may have to “states’ rights” because the truth is (and this is more true today than ever before) states’ rights, properly understood, may just as easily prevent oppression as aid it.

[To be continued…]