The uncivil war . . .

According to one definition, civil means refined, respectful and “civilized”.
The war between the states from 1861 to 1865 was anything but “civil”. In fact, it was the most brutal war in which the United States has ever been involved. More individuals were killed, maimed, blinded or generally incapacitated than in WWII or WWI. The destruction of personal property was beyond imagination as Union troops “scorched the earth” as they marched through various parts of the South.

Civilians were not exempt from the calamities of the conflagration nor were the negroes (or slaves) as Generals Sherman and Sheridan proved how complete they could make the devastation.

To end slavery has always been the promoted purpose of the war! A reasonable reading of the history of that era shows that to be propoganda introduced only after the war was nearing the final surrender of the confederate army. The facts indicate that economics, not slavery, was the underlying cause of the South’s decision to secede. Truth be known, Abraham Lincoln’s “emancipation proclamation” exempted those states with slavery that remained loyal to the Union. It was only those rebellious states where the slaves were to be freed.

Prior to the war’s start, Congress had imposed a tariff on all goods coming into the ports of the country. The Southern ports suffered more than the Northern ones. South Carolina’s legislature took the initiative, citing the IXth and Xth amendments, and passed a law nullifying the Tariff and refusing therefore to collect it. They claimed the tariff was unconstitutional, if for no other reason than that it was not “equitably applied” as required under the constitution.

Having signed the tariff bill, Abraham Lincoln suspended the “writ of habeas corpus” (a highly questionable interpretation of Art. I, Sec. 9) and authorized the arrest and imprisonment of individuals in the North who openly objected to his policies and prosecution of the war. Such prisoners were held without charge and without any prospect of a trial ( a definite violation of Amendment VI of the Bill of Rights). Hardly the acts of one who respects the Constitution.

According to the history of the times, Lincoln had always been in favor of a strong central government taking the position that the states were created by the federal government rather than the way it actually happened. While this attitude was expressed by others including Daniel Webster, the fact remains that the states were functioning as independent, sovereign organizations prior to the Articles of Confederation, the first attempt to form a government bringing the states together.

The Founders always represented their individual colonies (states).. Each state expressed its own particular point of view. The dichotomy between Jefferson’s concept and Hamilton’s was evident even during the writing of the Constitution. That Jefferson’s prevailed in the final document as ratified did not deter the Hamiltonians from working to change the basic interpretation. Abraham Lincoln achieved the final transformation to “subjugate the states to the will of the federal government”.

Thus, the Civil War was really fought to establish the United States as a nation rather than a federation. The results of this transformation have been evident ever since as the federal government has grown far beyond the bounds established by the Constitution. Much of the transformation has been “allowed” by the courts in “interpreting” the words and clauses rather than “applying them” in evaluating whether the law proposed or enacted was justified and consistent with the intent of the Constitution.

That’s my view. What’s yours? Send comments to constitutionviews@gmail.com
©Copyright 2011 Hillard W. Welch