What the Civil War was really about

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect of the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to altar or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

"I would have our children's children to know not only that our cause was just, but to have them know that the men who sustained it were worthy of the cause for which they fought. It is our duty to keep the memory of our heroes. We want our side of the war so fully and exactly stated that the men who come after us may compare and do us justice…." Jefferson Davis, 1882

"From time to time the Tree of Liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots." Thomas Jefferson

"We had, I was satisfied, sacred principles to maintain and rights to defend for which we were in duty bound to do our best, even if we perished in the endeavor." General Robert E. Lee

"History has informed us that bodies of men, as well as individuals, are susceptible of the spirit of tyranny." Thomas Jefferson, 1774

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to accidental opinions of the day; but a series of oppressions, began at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably…too plainly prove a deliberate and systematical plan of reducing us to slavery." Thomas Jefferson, 1774

"The State Legislatures…ought to have some means of defending themselves against encroachments of the National Government." George Mason of Virginia

Secession - Definition: The act of 11 states withdrawing from the Union in 1860-1861 which directly led to the American Civil War.

Civil War – Definition: when to powers compete for control of the same government.

The American Civil War cannot be classified, in the technical sense, as a "Civil War"—it was a war for "States Rights."

How it started

From the early through to late middle 1800's the North was in a great recession. Immigrants were flooding in at an ever-increasing rate this added to he unemployment in the industrialized north. The northern states economy was based on hard money. Representation grew for the northern states "a problem we still have today" due to efflux of immigrants.

…the North favored a loose interpretation of the United States Constitution. They wanted to grant the federal government increased powers. The South wanted to reserve all undefined powers to the individual states. The North also wanted internal improvements sponsored by the federal government. This was more roads, railroads, and canals. The South, on the other hand, did not want these projects to be done at all. Also the North wanted to develop a tariff. With a high tariff, it protected the Northern manufacturer. It was bad for the South because a high tariff would not let the south trade its cotton for foreign goods. The North also wanted a good banking and currency system and federal subsidies for shipping and internal improvements. The South felt these were discriminatory and that they favored Northern commercial interests.

This in itself fueled resentment for Southerners. Then the south was told it would follow the "New" Federal rules of a central government. In other words, the states could not rule themselves. Then the garrison at Fort Sumter this was to impede shipping in and out of Charleston. When found out Lincoln was to send troops and supplies to the fort "even after a promise he would not" it really lit the fuse. The very thing he and the northern bankers wanted.

The south based its economy in agriculture "trade." Most southerners grew their own food, made his cloths and tools, and 99.9% did all this without salves. The south was doing just fine during this time period. This made the folks losing money in the north angry "most of them bankers." They knew if war started, they would get rich off loans to the "New" Federal Government. The fuel they used to lobby the Republicans was slavery. Neither Lincoln nor any of the money in the north could care less for the blacks' welfare. Lincoln despised them.

When Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston called the Civil War the "War Against States" he was echoing the feelings of most Southerners. That what was at issue was not the practice of slavery, per se, but the relationship between the states and the federal government. In the opinion of many in the South, Northerners, who now outnumbered Southerners and therefore controlled Congress, were attempting to enforce their will upon Southern states in the name of the national government. The doctrine of states' rights is based on the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which stipulates that 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."

To strict readers of that clause the federal government has the right only to declare war and conduct diplomacy in the name of the states. All other matters, including the right to allow slavery to exist within a state's borders, are to be decided by the population of each individual state. Those who believe in broad national powers find their proof in the "elastic clause" in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which says that the federal government can make any laws that are "necessary and proper" for enforcing its power.

The controversy over the relation between states and federal rights arose shortly after the Constitution was adopted in 1787 and has never diminished. In 1798, the proposed Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, passed in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts enacted by the federal government, pitched Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who believed that individual states could decide whether or not to enforce federal legislation, against the Federalists' advocacy of strong central government.

Another prominent states' rights controversy took place in 1814 at the Hartford Convention, when New England Federalists used the states' rights argument to claim that the national government had no right to enforce federal shipping policies that were the cause of the War of 1812. Starting in the 1820s, as the country began to expand westward, the states' rights argument centered more and more upon the practice of slavery. The most extreme states' rights position was taken by South Carolina Senator John Calhoun, who developed the doctrine of nullification, which asserts that a state can nullify within its own borders any act of the federal government which it considers an invasion of its own rights.

South Carolina officially adopted the doctrine in 1832. Such a theory led logically to the doctrine of secession, which viewed the Constitution as a contractual agreement between states and the federal government that could be invalidated as public sentiment within each individual state dictated. In many ways, the South's insistence on states' rights weakened its position in the Civil War, since it limited its ability to organize a coordinated military and economic front.

The Civil War marked a turning point toward government centralization; constitutional amendments enacted since then have tended to limit the authority of the states and/or expand federal authority. Perhaps the most sweeping change in the relationship between states and the federal government resulted from the passage of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, which granted due process and equal protection under the law to all United States citizens. This led to the landmark Supreme Court decision, Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas (1954), which held segregation in public school across the country unconstitutional.

As the civil rights movement grew during the 1950s, advocates of states' rights in the South insisted that each state had the right to "interpose the sovereignty of a state against the encroachment upon the reserved power of the state." Under this doctrine, which was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1960, a state would have the power to overrule a decision of a federal agency if it conflicts with a state law doctrine remarkably similar to nullification.

To these States, the reserved sovereign right of secession was the only peaceable choice between the two alternatives of submission to a central government that had become the judge of its own authority, or being forced to remain in the Union under coercion by this same central government (MLD p.52).

"But by 1861, the political divisions between North and South regarding constitutional exegesis were so entrenched that the Constitution ceased to be the instrument of a 'more perfect union' and rather served as the vehicle for dissension and separation…Northerners insisted upon a model of federalism consisting of a national community of individuals, with sovereignty being a national phenomenon–that is, nationalism–whereas Southerners adhered to a model consisting of a community of states, with the citizens in their respective states functioning as the repositories of sovereignty and thereby controlling the bulwarks of their social and economic interests–that is, state sovereignty." (MLD p.8-9)

On November 26, 1860 Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune wrote, "If the cotton states unitedly and earnestly wish to withdraw peacefully from the Union, we think they should and would be allowed to do so. Any attempt to compel them by force to remain, would be contrary to the principles enunciated in the immortal Declaration of Independence–contrary to the fundamental ideas on which human liberty is based." (SDC p. 86)

Horace Greeley, expressing the majority of Northern sentiment at the time, stated in the December 17, 1860 New York Tribune, "If the Declaration of Independence justified the secession from the British Empire of 3,000,000 of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of 5,000,000 of Southerners from the Federal Union in 1860." (GE p. 164)

President Buchanan had declared that he could find no constitutional authority for using force against any State that seceded. However, contrary to the views he held as a Congressman in 1848, President Lincoln declared, in effect, "I have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, which means, in my opinion, a union of the states. I shall do anything in my power to sustain the Constitution and the union, regardless of the constitutional aspect of what I do." (WEW p. 525)

Commercial interests in the North were greatly disturbed over the secession of the Southern States, fearing great financial harm to Northern shipping from the lower import tariffs at Southern ports. An editorial in the February 19, 1861 Manchester, New Hampshire Union Democrat voiced the common concerns of Northern shipping interests.

"The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? literally nothing. The transportation of cotton and its fabrics employs more ships than all other trade. It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No–we MUST NOT let the South go!" (JRK p. 52)

In an attempt to keep Southern States from leaving the Union, a thirteenth amendment to the Constitution, very different from the current one, was whittled out of the Crittenden Compromise by both Republicans and Democrats. It was approved by Congress on February 28, 1861 and submitted to the States for ratification on March 2, 1861. It declared in part that "no amendment shall be made to the Constitution, which would abolish or interfere with slavery wherever it is already established." The States of Maryland and Ohio ratified it before the War broke out.

On March 12, 1861 three Confederate commissioners, who had come to Washington seeking negotiations toward a peaceable separation, addressed Secretary of State William Seward with an official letter of intent. Seward, speaking only through Supreme Court Justice John A. Campbell, assured the Confederate commissioners that the Union troops in Fort Sumter in Charleston and Fort Pickens in Pensacola would not be sent supplies without due notification and led them to expect that the forts would be evacuated in a few days. As the commissioners were departing for home, they learned that supplies and military reinforcements were already assembled and ready to depart the port of New York for Fort Sumter.

The April 5, 1861 New York Tribune reported, "Many rumors are in circulation to-day. They appear to have originated from movements on the part of the United States troops, the reasons for which have not been communicated to the reporters at Washington as freely as the late Administration was in the habit of imparting Cabinet secrets. There can be no doubt that serious movements are on foot."

The authorities at Charleston were informed that an unarmed supply ship was to be sent to Fort Sumter. Fearing that the Federal fleet would enter the harbor, they signaled their intent to fire upon the ship should it enter the harbor, but the United States sent the ship anyway. The ship was reported off Charleston on April 10, 1861. In response to the presence of the ship, the Southern military in Charleston prepared to attack the Fort, anticipating the use of force by the Federal fleet to send reinforcements to the fort.

An article in the April 15, 1861 New York Tribune mentioned that "[t]he armed ships which accompanied the supplies took no part in the contest." While the attention of the South was on Fort Sumter, the Federal fleet succeeded in reinforcing Fort Pickens in Pensacola with men and supplies. This plan had the additional result of provoking and inducing the South into firing on Fort Sumter. The April 15 New York Post reported, "...Gen. Scott has been averse to the attempt to reinforce Fort Sumter. He saw that it would cost men and vessels which the Government could not spare just now... He saw that the two keys of the position were Fort Pickens, in the Gulf, and Washington, the Capital.

His plans, based on these facts, were at once laid... Every hour the traitors spent before Sumter gave them more surely into the hands of the master. To make assurance doubly sure, he pretended to leave Fort Pickens in the lurch... The Government said not a word–only asked of the traitors the opportunity to send its own garrison a needed supply of food... Scarce had they begun their attack [on the Fort], when they saw with evident terror, ships hovering about the harbor's mouth;... but no ships came in to Anderson's help... The position of affairs is this–Charleston is blockaded–Fort Pickens is reinforced by troops, which the traitors foolishly believed were destined for Sumter... The traitors have, without the slightest cause, opened the war.…"

By defining the secession of the Southern States from the Union as a "rebellion", Lincoln was able to justify mustering an army to quell the "insurrection" under the Act of Congress of 1795 which limited the use of the specially called militia to thirty days after the beginning of the next session of Congress. Lincoln delayed calling Congress into special session for at least two and a half months, thus prolonging his use of the militia against the South before he had to gain their approval for his actions.

The reasoning

Along with their position within the Union, the Southern States were turning their backs on what they perceived as the deterioration of American constitutional federalism as originally set in place by the Founding Fathers.

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for Independence on that of the South." (London Times. 7 November 1861)

"If I ever disown, repudiate, or apologize for the Cause for which Lee fought and Jackson died, let the lightning's of Heaven rend me, and the scorn of all good men and true women be my portion. Sun, Moon, Stars, all fall on me when I cease to love the Confederacy. 'Tis the cause, not the fate of the Cause, that is glorious!" (Maj. R.E. Wilson, CSA)

"The Declaration was the outcome of prolonged discussion, and of hopelessness in resisting arbitrary measures, while in union with the mother country. When no other course was compatible with self-respect, the pressure of liberty compelled the tearing asunder of the ties of allegiance and union, and Virginia and Massachusetts went hand in hand in leading the rupture." (JLMC p. 33)

"The members of the Second Continental Congress were not members of a governing body, but were delegates and ambassadors sent by governors and legislatures of the thirteen States, independent States that tenaciously asserted and guarded their respective sovereignty." (WEW p. 232; JLMC p. 64-65, 68-82)

"John Adams, Massachusetts delegate to the Second Continental Congress, wrote to his wife of the stark differences between the two peoples of the Northern and Southern colonies, and that the proposed union could not be held together "without the utmost caution on both sides." (JRK p. 24)

"The sovereignty of each of the individual thirteen States was recognized by King George III after the "Articles of the proposed Treaty" of peace were signed between England and "Commissioners of the United States of America" in Paris on November 30, 1782. As stipulated by Benjamin Franklin in the preamble of the treaty with England, and in cooperation with France, formal independence from and peace with England for each of the thirteen individually recognized States was finalized as peace was made between France and England. This definitive "Treaty of Peace" between England and "the United States of America" was signed on September 3, 1783. The entire transaction for peace was referred to as the "Peace of Paris." (WEW p. 212-13; SEM p. 266-67)

Article I of both documents contain these words: "His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz. New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, [Delaware,] Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent States; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof." Given their history of inter-colonial rivalries, many observers doubted that any compact between the newly independent thirteen States would last. "Josiah Tucker, dean of Gloucester, who was one of the leading economic and political authorities of Great Britain, said, 'The mutual antipathies and clashing interests of the Americans... their difference of governments, habitudes, and manners, indicate that they will have no centre of union and no common interest. They never can be united into one compact empire under any species of government whatever.'" (WEW p. 213)

"Alexander Hamilton, a staunch Federalist strongly opposed to democracy, and even a republican form of government, lobbied during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 for a government patterned after the European monarchies. He proposed that the government of the United States consist of a president and senate who were to be elected by electors, with the members of the senate serving for life, and a lower house consisting of persons elected by popular vote for a three year term. He also proposed that the governors of the States be appointed by the federal administration and that the president or congress have veto power over the State legislatures." (WEW p. 234-35, 294)

"In summary, the Hamiltonians, or Federalists, distrusted the Individual State governments' for judicious self-government, and argued for a strong central government with a corresponding decrease of States' rights." (WEW p. 267; SEM p. 328-29; MLD p. 62-63, 69-70)

Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican and staunch advocate of democracy, and believing that the Union was a group of sovereign States that had carefully delegated specific powers to an administrative agent, stated his view of States' rights within the Union as follows, "My plan would be to make the states one as to everything connected with foreign nations, and several as to everything purely domestic." (WEW p. 294)

"The Antifederalists of the Pennsylvania delegation to the Constitutional Convention opposed ratification saying that "the powers vested in Congress by this constitution, must necessarily annihilate and absorb the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the several States" resulting in "iron-handed despotism" of the central government." (MLD p. 123)

"During the ratification process of the proposed constitution, George Mason, in a letter to the Virginia Ratification Convention dated June 4, 1788, warned of the inevitable tension in the union of States of "so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs" under a National Government." (JRK p. 24; PBK ch. 8, doc.37)

"The June 26, 1788 Virginia Act of Ratification of the United States Constitution contained clarifying language stating that the people of Virginia reserved the right to recall the powers they delegated to the newly formed federal government if "the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will." (JRK p.189; GLD p. 65)

"Prior to ratifying the U.S. Constitution, the States of New York and Rhode Island reserved the right to recall the powers they were delegating to the new federal government by stating that "the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness." (GLD p. 65-66)

"Dissenting States would not ratify the Constitution without the assurance that a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, declaring the privileges inviolably retained by the people of the States and limiting the reach of the Federal government, would be put through in the first session of the new Congress." (WEW p. 247; MLD p. 58)

"The Federalist position argued against a bill of rights in the new Constitution, stating that it was "unnecessary" since sufficient restraint upon the government already exists within the body of the Constitution, being understood by the prominent phrase "WE THE PEOPLE" and inherited respect for British common-law. They also surmised that a specific list of rights would provide a rationale for the national government to violate other rights not listed. The Federalist were especially opposed to a declaration of rights which exclusively placed limits on the national government, while not similarly addressing the State governments." (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers, Number 84; MLD p. 58-60)

"As typified in New York State's ratification document, the Antifederalist position argued that a bill of rights was a "legal weapon to keep the national government within its specified sphere of constitutional trust... in the event of a constitutional contest between [a State] and the national government." (MLD p. 61) This document reads in part, "That the sovereignty, freedom, and independency of the several states shall be retained, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this constitution expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

Raphael Semmes in his 1869 work, Memoirs of Service Afloat, writes of the nevousness of the States toward the proposed new government in relation to the retained powers of the States (JRK p. 206).

Prior to ratifying the new constitution, the State of Massachusetts insisted "that it be explicitly declared, that all powers not delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States, to be by them exercised." Pennsylvania likewise insisted that the new constitution be amended to include language guaranteeing that "All the rights of sovereignty which are not, by the said Constitution, expressly and plainly vested in the Congress, shall be deemed to remain with, and shall be exercised by the several states in the Union."

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution addressed the basic Antifederalist distrust of a central government to not usurp the reserved rights of the States. (MLD p. 5; JRK p. 206)

James Madison, "the father of the Constitution", expressed his view of the proposed new government and the sovereign status of the States as they ratified the new constitution when he stated, "In order to ascertain the real character of the government, it may be considered in relation to the foundation on which it is to be established; to the sources from which its ordinary powers are to be drawn; to the operation of those powers; to the extent of them; and to the authority by which future changes in the government are to be introduced. On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act. That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation... Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its voluntary act." (James Madison, Federalist Papers, Number 39)

In 1798, the legislatures of Kentucky, inspired by Thomas Jefferson, and Virginia, inspired by James Madison, asserting their belief that they had the sovereign right to nullify any illegal or harmful acts of the Federal government, declared that both the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed by the Federalist controlled Congress, were unconstitutional and would not be enforced in their States. (WEW p. 289; SEM p. 354; JRK p. 164-65; MLD p. 22)

"During debate in Congress on Jan. 14, 1811 over the admission of Louisiana as a state, Josiah Quincy of Massachusetts declared, "If this bill passes, it is my deliberate opinion that it is virtually a dissolution of the Union; that it will free the States from their moral obligation; and as it will be the right of all, so it will be duty of some, definitely to prepare for a separation–amicably if they can, violently if they must." (WEW p. 331; GLD p. 28)

The governors of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, exercised their sovereign States' rights by refusing President Madison's call for their State militias to aid in the war effort against the British (WEW p.327)

New England newspapers boldly advocated secession during the War of 1812, arguing that "the Federal constitution is nothing more than a treaty between independent sovereignties... and that any state had a right to withdraw." (WEW p. 333)

"On August 17, 1821 Jefferson wrote to General Henry Dearborn: "I rejoice with you that the State of Missouri is at length a member of our Union. Whether the question it excited is dead, or only sleepeth, I do not know. I see only that it has given resurrection to the Hartford Convention men. They have had the address by playing on the honest feelings of our former friends to seduce them from their kindred spirits, and to borrow their weight into the Federal scale. Desperate of regaining power under political distinctions they have adroitly wriggled into its seat again in the ascendency, from which their sins have hurled them." (SDC p. 47)

The famous Senate debate between Daniel Webster and Robert Y. Hayne in January of 1830 epitomized the continuing Federalist vs. Antifederalist, or nationalistic vs. States' rights, battle of interpreting the Constitutional authority of the Federal government. Hayne, speaking first, emphasized the understanding that the citizens who gathered to create a federal government were representing the interests of the citizens of their respective States. In rebuttal, Webster minimized the fact that these founding citizen's first concern was to the welfare of their own State and, instead, emphasized their coming together en masse. By de-emphasizing the State as a political entity, Webster attempted to minimize the relationship between a State and its citizens and sought to build up the importance of the Federal government over that of the States. While the issue was still not resolved, the nationalists inched their way forward while the States' rights advocates seemed to lose some influence, thus placing the South even more on the defensive. (WEW p. 389-92)

Unlike most leading politicians of the day, some abolitionists were unwilling to compromise on the issue of slavery to the point of disolving the Union. Abolitionist Garrison proclaimed, "This Union is a lie! The American Union is an imposition–a covenant with death, and an agreement with hell!...I am for its overthrow!...Up with the flag of disunion, that we may have a free and glorious Republic of our own…."

In 1832 South Carolina exercised the belief in States' rights by passing an Ordinance of Nullification in response to the new federal tariff law of 1832. The federal tariff law of 1832 was declared "null, void and no law, not binding upon this state, its officers or citizens." It was further stated that should the Federal government attempt to enforce the tariff act, the people of South Carolina would be absolved from their political connection to the United States. President Jackson threatened to send in troops to force South Carolina to collect the new tariff. Jackson finally backed a compromise tariff, while South Carolina wasn't able to muster support from other Southern States. In an 1833 retrospective statement to a friend, Jackson accused South Carolina of trying to form a Southern Confederacy. (WEW p. 393-94)

The election of 1860 "placed Northern interests in control of the national government, their nationalism and the Southern commitment to state sovereignty crystallized." (MLD p. 8).

Feeling that the economic, political, and sovereign interests of the States of the South were in danger, a conference of South Carolina state leaders in October of 1860 decided to secede from the Union if Lincoln were elected President. On December 20, 1860, prior to Lincoln's swearing in, the state convention declared South Carolina to be out of the Union. Along with their position within the Union, the Southern States were turning their backs on what they perceived as the deterioration of American constitutional federalism as originally set in place by the Founding Fathers. (MLD p. 1-5; WEW p. 511)

Robert Barnwell Rhett of South Carolina, on the day of his State's secession from the Union, cited Wisconsin State Supreme Court Judge Smith in the Booth case as precedent for State action in response to wrongs committed by the Federal Government. "Sir, the North threaten to fight us back into the Union, after we shall have taken our stand for Southern Independence. They now deny the right of a State to judge of its own grievances and to apply its own remedies, notwithstanding for years, many Northern States, Wisconsin in particular, have asserted this right for themselves. I want no better license for our action to-day than the decision of Judge Smith in the Rescue cases of Wisconsin." (SDC p. 85)

"…to the belief, which they are endeavoring to impress upon their readers, that the seceded States, be they few or many, will be whipped back in the Union...but the drift of opinion seems to be that, if peaceable secession is possible, the retiring States will be assisted to go, that this needless and bitter controversy may be brought to an end. If the Union is to be dissolved, a bloodless separation is by all means to be coveted. Do not let us make that impossible."

Secretary of State William Seward, during a Cabinet meeting in the first month of the Lincoln administration, stated that "[t]he attempt to reinforce Sumter will provoke an attack and involve war. The very preparation for such an expedition will precipitate war at that point. I oppose beginning war at that point. I would advise against the expedition to Charleston. I would at once, at every cost, prepare for war at Pensacola and Texas. I would instruct Major Anderson to retire from Sumter." (GE p. 160)

Lincoln biographer, J. G. Holland, explained in his 1865 work, Life of Lincoln, why Lincoln did not call for armed force to suppress the secession of Southern States before the fall of Fort Sumter. "Up to the fall of Sumter, Mr. Lincoln had no basis for action in the public feeling. If he had raised an army, that would have been an act of hostility, that would have been coercion. A thousand Northern presses would have pounced down on him as a provoker of war. After the fall of Sumter was the time to act." (GE p. 167)

Rumor and speculation as to Lincoln's intentions toward the South led the March 6, 1861 edition of the New York Herald to write, "We have no doubt Mr. Lincoln wants the Cabinet at Montgomery to take the initiative by capturing the two forts in its waters, for it would give him the opportunity of throwing upon the Southern Confederacy the responsibility of commencing hostilities. But the country and posterity will hold him just as responsible as if he struck the first blow..." (GLD p. 95)

In the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, its framers sought to eliminate ambiguities that gave rise to the grievances that led to the secession of the Southern States, at the core of which was the centralization of government to the detriment of the states. The issue of States' rights as a major cause of the secession of the Southern States becomes clear in the issue of the Confederate States Supreme Court. Although Article III of the C.S. Constitution, adopted on March 11, 1861, establishes the Supreme Court, federal encroachment upon States' rights fostered by rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court were still fresh in the minds of the C.S. Congress. Author Marshall L. DeRosa relates, "In response to a bill introduced in the C.S.A. Senate to organize the Supreme Court, William Yancey of Alabama remarked in no uncertain terms that 'when we decide that the state courts are of inferior dignity to this Court, we have sapped the main pillars of this Confederacy.'" As a result of this mindset, the actual establishment of the C.S. Supreme Court never took place. (MLD p.75-77)

The C.S. Constitution did not explicitly provide for the right of secession because it was assumed that secession was an act of sovereignty that the States had not delegated or otherwise abdicated. In the preamble to the C.S. Constitution, using the words "each State acting in its own sovereign and independent character," the framers implicitly allowed for secession by emphasizing the understanding of each State's sovereign nature. (MLD p. 53)

On July 4, 1861 before a special session of what was left of the Congress, Lincoln rationalized his actions against the South as he said, "These measures, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon under what appeared to be a popular demand and public necessity, trusting then as now that Congress would readily ratify them." The legislature of Maryland was to convene on September 17, 1861.

The military commander of the district was instructed by the secretary of war to arrest all members who were suspected of disloyalty. Many of them were seized and imprisoned, although there was no charge against them of having committed overt acts of disloyalty or treason. They appealed to Chief Justice [Roger B.] Taney who decided that they were held illegally, but they were not released. In this action of President Lincoln's a most dangerous precedent was created. Through the acquiescence of Congress, then in session, the president had become a dictator.

The reason for the incarceration of certain members of the Maryland legislature was the fear of the administration that the state might secede and join the Confederacy. On the face of the record that would appear to be a most unfortunate contingency, for in case of the secession of Maryland the capital city of the federal government would have been surrounded by the seceded states. But, on the other hand, it could not have had any practical effect, as the state of Maryland was held by Union troops as tightly as if it had been conquered territory." In 1861 John Hughes, Archbishop of New York, warned the U.S. War Department that his flock was "willing to fight to the death for the support of the constitution, the government, and the laws of the country, [but not] for the abolition of slavery."

In vindication of her right to secede, she appealed to the essential doctrine, "the right to govern rests on the consent of the governed," and to the right of independent action as among those reserved by the States. The South appealed to the acts and opinions of the Fathers and to the report of the Hartford Convention of New England States asserting the power of each State to decide as to the remedy for infraction of its rights.

The South maintained with the depth of religious conviction that the Union formed under the Constitution was a Union of consent and not of force; that the original States were not the creatures but the creators of the Union; that these States had gained their independence, their freedom, and their sovereignty from the mother country, and had not surrendered these on entering the Union; that by the express terms of the Constitution all rights and powers not delegated were reserved to the States; and the South challenged the North to find one trace of authority in that Constitution for invading and coercing a sovereign State.

A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, states, "The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State."

The first union of the original 13 colonies was effected by the Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1781. The articles established a confederation of sovereign states in a permanent union. The "permanence" lasted only until 1788, when 11 states withdrew from the confederation and ratified the new Constitution, which became effective on March 4, 1789. The founding fathers recognized the defects in the Articles of Confederation, learned from these defects, and scrapped the articles in favor of the "more perfect union" found in the Constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the union of the states being permanent. This was not an oversight by any means. Indeed, when New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia ratified the Constitution, they specifically stated that they reserved the right to resume the governmental powers granted to the United States. Their claim to the right of secession was understood and agreed to by the other ratifiers, including George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention and was also a delegate from Virginia. In his book Life of Webster Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, "It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw."

The nullification crisis of the 1830s was a dispute over Northern-inspired tariffs that benefited Northern interests and were detrimental to Southern interests. The legal basis for the Southern call for nullification of the tariff laws was firmly rooted in states'-rights principles. Northern proposals to abolish or restrict slavery- an institution firmly protected by the Constitution- escalated the regional differences in the country and rallied the Southern states firmly behind the doctrine of states' rights and the sovereignty of the individual states. Southerners viewed the Constitution as a contractual agreement that was invalidated because its conditions had been breached. The Confederacy that was subsequently formed by the seceded states was patterned on the doctrine of states' rights. That doctrine, ironically, played a large role in the destruction of the country that it had caused to be created.

The first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, were adopted as a single unit two years after ratification of the Constitution. Dissatisfaction with guarantees of freedom listed in the Constitution led the founding fathers to enumerate personal rights as well as limitations on the federal government in these first 10 amendments. The Magna Carta, the English bill of rights, Virginia's 1776 Declaration of Rights, and the colonial struggle against tyranny provided inspiration and direction for the Bill of Rights.

The 10th Amendment states: "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." This amendment was the basis of the doctrine of states' rights that became the ante-bellum rallying cry of the Southern states, which sought to restrict the ever-growing powers of the federal government. The principle of states' rights and state sovereignty eventually led the Southern states to secede from the central government that they believed had failed to honor the covenant that had originally bound the states together.

In May, 1865 Confederate POWs held at Point Lookout, Maryland were being released if they took oaths of allegiance to the United States.

In light of the famous 1850 Congressional oratories of Senators John C. Calhoun, William H. Seward and others over the admission of California into the Union and the slave status of the territories of New Mexico and Utah, it became evident that the famous and unresolved Federalist versus Antifederalist debate over the nature of American federalism that began during the writing and ratification of the United States Constitution was among the core issues of the South's War for Independence. By now, a North-South division within the Congress of the United States had taken place, a division which took place between Northern Republicans and Southern Democrats. John C Calhoun argued for Southern self-determination, and contended that the Northern States were using the national government to aggressively move against slavery and Southern commercial prosperity through protectionist policies that favored Northern interests. (MLD p. 9)

During a message to the Wisconsin legislature in 1858 Republican Governor Alexander W. Randal denounced the encroachment of the Federal Government upon the reserved rights and sovereignty of the States, as typified in the enforcement of the Federal Fugitive Slave Laws.

"The tendency of the action of the Federal Government has been for many years, aided by the Federal Courts, to centralization, and to an absorption of a large share of the sovereignty of the States. It has trespassed (sic) upon the reserved rights of the States and the people – assuming a jurisdiction over them in their exercise of power undeligated. The Federal Government, so far as there is any sovereignty under our form of Government, is sovereign and independent in the exercise of its delegated powers, and the States are sovereign and independent in the exercise of their reserved powers. The safety of the States in the exercise of these powers, in defense of the lives and properties and liberties of the people, demands a fair, deliberate opposition and resistance to any attempt at usurpation or aggression by the Federal Government, its Courts, its officers, or agents upon the reserved rights of the States or its people." The United States Supreme Court reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court on March 7, 1859.

Therefore, contrary to popular belief, Lincoln did not "free the slaves." Emancipation of the slaves throughout the North and South was due to the ratification of the current Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by both the Northern and Southern States. Only in this way could an acknowledged internal matter of the States be constitutionally dealt with at the federal level, that is, with the States delegating authority that had been previously reserved by them. Constitutionally, this was not a matter for Lincoln and the Executive branch of the federal government. During Congressional debate on January 8, 1863 Thadeous Stevens of Pennsylvania declared on the floor of Congress that the States of the Confederacy were a "belligerent nation" and no longer in the Union. As such, they were no longer entitled to the protections of the U. S. Constitution. Therefore, the taxes he proposed as Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee were to be levied upon "conquered provinces, just as all nations levy them upon provinces and nations they conquer." He went on to say that he would "as a necessary war measure, take every particle of property, real and personal, life-estate and reversion, of every disloyal man, and sell it for the benefit of of the nation in carrying on this war." Stevens further stated that "this war must be carried on upon principle wholly independent of [the Constitution]" and that the United States "must treat those States now outside of the Union as conquered provinces and settle them with new men, and drive the present rebels as exiles from this country. They have such determination, energy, and endurance, that nothing but actual extermination or exile or starvation will ever induce them to surrender to this Government." (GLD p. 151; The Congressional Globe, January 8, 1863, p. 239-40, 243).

On May 16, 1863 a convention of Democrats gathered in Albany, New York to protest the military arrest of Clement Laird Vallandigham, Ohio Democrat Congressman and candidate for governor of Ohio, along with many other such military arrests of civilians, and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. According to findings of the military trial, he was found guilty of accusing Lincoln "and his minions" of rejecting a chance at peace with the South "the day before the battle of Fredericksburg" because "the men in power are attempting to establish a despotism in this country, more cruel and more oppressive than ever existed before." As reported in The American Annual Cyclopedia and Register of Important Events of the Year 1863

Lincoln answered the criticism of the Democrats by letter on June 12, 1863. "... Ours is a case of rebellion... and the provision of the Constitution that 'the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it,' is the provision which specially applies to our present case. This provision plainly attests the understanding of those who made the Constitution that ordinary courts of justice are inadequate to 'cases of rebellion'–attests their purpose that, in such cases, men may be held in custody whom the courts, acting on ordinary rules, would discharge... and its suspension is allowed by the Constitution on purpose that men may be arrested and held who cannot be proved to be guilty of defined crime... arrests are made, not so much for what has been done, as for what probably would be done... The man who stands by and says nothing when the peril of his Government is discussed cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered, he is sure to help the enemy; much more if he talks ambiguously–talks for his country with 'but,' and 'ifs,' and 'ands'" (GLD p. 119; GE p. 209-13; SDC p. 201-03).

In answer to Lincoln's letter of reply, the Democrats harshly criticized his usurpation of power in a letter dated June 30, 1863. "... You seem aware that the constitution of the United States, which you have sworn to protect and defend, contains the following guarantees, to which we again ask your attention [recitation of the first four Amendments to the Constitution]... You are also, no doubt, aware that, on the adoption of the constitution, these invaluable provisions were proposed by the jealous caution of the states, and were inserted as amendments for a perpetual assurance of liberty against the encroachments of power... The fact has already passed into history that the sacred rights and immunities... have not been preserved to the people during your administration. In violation of the first of them, the freedom of the press has been denied. In repeated instances newspapers have been suppressed in the loyal states, because they criticized, as constitutionally they might, those fatal errors of policy which have characterized the conduct of public affairs since your advent to power. In violation of the second of them, hundreds, and we believe thousands, of men have been seized and immured in prisons and bastiles, not only without warrant upon probable cause, but without any warrant, and for no other cause that a constitutional exercise of freedom of speech... For all these acts you avow yourself ultimately responsible... These repeated and continued invasions of constitutional liberty and private right have occasioned profound anxiety in the public mind. The apprehension and alarm which they are calculated to produce have been greatly enhanced by your attempt to justify them, because in that attempt you assume to yourself a rightful authority possessed by no constitutional monarch on earth...believing as we do, that your forbearance is not the tenure by which liberty is enjoyed in this country, we propose to challenge the grounds on which your claim of supreme power is based. While yielding to you as a constitutional magistrate, we cannot accord to you the despotic power you claim, your meaning is, that, while the rights of the citizens are protected by this constitution in time of peace, they are suspended or lost in time of war, when invasion or rebellion exists. You claim to have found within the constitution, a principle or germ of arbitrary power, which, in time of war, expands at once into an absolute sovereignty, wielded by one man; so that liberty perishes, or is dependent on his will, his discretion, or his caprice. An act of Congress approved by you on the 3d of March 1863, authorized the President to suspend it [the writ of habeas corpus] during the present rebellion. That the suspension is a legislative, and not an executive act, has been held in every judicial decision ever made in this country, and we think it cannot be delegated to any other branch of the government." (SDC p. 204-06)

Declarations of Causes of Seceding

These reasons have been capsulated by me in order to bypass unimportant verbiage connected with politics. What we're after is the "reasons" for the war of states rights.

Most of the states backed their position by the example of the Revolutionary War.

"In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

For example:

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do. Adopted December 24, 1860

Mississippi, reasoned…It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood. Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England. Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it. (1861)

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers. With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity. [Approved, Tuesday, January 29, 1861]

Texas reasoned that: The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons-- We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freemen of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month. Adopted in Convention on the 2nd day of Feby, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one and of the independence of Texas the twenty-fifth.

Even before the war Lincoln believed it was constitutional for any state to "revolutionize" if it wished.

On January 20, 1848 Illinois Congressman Abraham Lincoln affirmed the spirit of the Declaration of Independence during a portion of a speech to Congress. "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this a right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." Congressional Globe, Volume XIX, page 94 (GLD p. 67; SDC p. 87)

It was not at all over slavery as we have been led to believe

According to author Lorenzo Johnson Green, in his 1966 book The Negro in Colonial New England 1620-1776, John Adams insisted that the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts was due to the protest of competing white laborers rather than for ethical or moral reasons. "Argument might have some weight in the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts, but the real cause was the multiplication of laboring white people, who would no longer suffer the rich to employ these sable rivals so much to their injury. The common people would not suffer the labor, by which alone they could obtain a subsistence, to be done by slaves. If the gentlemen had been permitted by law to hold slaves, the common white people would have put the slaves to death, and their masters too perhaps" (JRK p. 84)

"Some states began to act with the purpose of eventually ending slavery almost as soon as independence from Britain was declared. In 1776, Delaware prohibited the importation of slaves and removed all restraints on their manumission (freeing by the owners). Virginia stopped slave imports in 1778." (Clarence B. Carson, The Beginning of the Republic 1775-1825)

In 1804, New Jersey adopted a mode of gradual emancipation of slaves that was to take effect in 1827. Slaves born before 1804 were to remain slaves for life. These remaining slaves were referred to as "colored apprentices for life." Children of slaves born after July 4, 1804 were "free," but had to remain as servants of their masters. Females had to labor in this way until age 21, and males until age 25. The 1860 United States census still enumerated 18 slaves in New Jersey. (JRK p. 75; GKW)

The Missouri Compromise of 1820, limiting slavery to South of the 36°30' parallel, while couched in terms of slavery, was really a political compromise over a balance of Congressional power between the industrial North and agrarian South. It was not concerned with the plight of slaves. Balance was maintained with the new free State of Maine offsetting the new slave State of Missouri. This debate served to reinforce the sectional consciousness between North and South (WEW p. 352-53)

Thomas Jefferson saw a scheme of defeated Federalists behind the Missouri Compromise, using it as a means back into power. He asserted that they were attempting to fan the flames of passion over slavery and capitalize on the deepening North-South geographical consciousness that the Compromise fueled in order to win back the Presidency. On September 20, 1820 he wrote to William Pinckney, Senator from Maryland: "the Missouri question is a mere party trick. The leaders of Federalism, defeated in the schemes of obtaining power, by rallying partizans to the principle of monarchism–a principle of personal, not if local division, have changed their tack... They are taking advantage of the virtuous people, to affect a division of parties, by a geographical line. They expect that this will insure them on local principles, the majority they could never obtain on principles of federalism; but they are still putting their shoulder to the wrong wheel–they are wasting jeremaids(sic) on the evils of slavery, as if we were advocates for it." (SDC p. 46)

The industrial North, no longer needing such labor, was still in the process of weaning itself of slavery before the War. Abolitionists insisted that the South do so overnight, even though it was still a more integral and vital part of the Southern economy. In January of 1831 the famous Boston abolitionist, William Lloyd Garrison, urged immediate emancipation of slaves with no compensation to the slave owners. Failing this, he advocated secession by the Northern States from the Union. Labor union leaders sought his attention regarding the slavery-like conditions of Massachusetts cotton mill workers who worked much longer hours that did slaves, and whose meager pay kept them in living conditions worse than those of slaves. Garrison, bitterly opposed to labor unions, was not interested. In the first issue of his newspaper the Liberator Garrison lashed out against union organizers for trying to "inflame the minds of our working classes against the more opulent and to persuade them that they are contemned and oppressed by a wealthy aristocracy" (WEW p. 414-15).

Unlike most leading politicians of the day, some abolitionists were unwilling to compromise on the issue of slavery to the point of dissolving the Union. Abolitionist Garrison proclaimed, "This Union is a lie! The American Union is an imposition–a covenant with death, and an agreement with hell! I am for its overthrow! Up with the flag of disunion, that we may have a free and glorious Republic of our own; and when the hour shall come, the hour will have arrived that shall witness the overthrow of slavery." (SDC p. 100)

While some in the North decried slavery, Northern industrial demand, Northern and European consumer demand, and Northern financiers kept slavery viable in the South. The English received over 80% of exported American cotton and employed about four hundred thousand workers in their cotton mills. (WEW p. 526)

The great majority of Confederate soldiers owned no slaves. The 1860 United States census revealed that about 25% of white Southern families, or about 6% of the total white Southern population held slaves. (WEW p. 529; JRK p. 83)

As recorded in the Congressional Globe, on February 11, 1861 the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution with unanimous Republican support that stated in part, "Resolved, that neither the Federal Government, nor the people, or Governments of non-slave holding States, have a purpose or a Constitutional right to legislate upon, or interfere with slavery in any of the States of the Union." (SDC p. 150)

As slavery was legal in the United States, so it was in the Confederate States. Under the C.S. Constitution, slavery was explicitly recognized as an institution of the States, whereas in the U.S. Constitution the issue of slavery in general was intentionally vague. As in the United States, the federal government of the Confederate States was prohibited from interfering with slavery within the States. The States of the Confederacy, however, were not constitutionally required to recognize or continue the practice of slavery within their own borders. In fact, several proposals to require that each State continue to recognize slavery were not adopted during the Constitutional Convention. The consensus, as voiced by Senator Albert G. Brown of Mississippi, was that "each State is sovereign within its own limits; and that each for itself can abolish or establish slavery for itself." (MLD p. 68-71)

The loyalty of free blacks and even slaves toward the Southern cause was counted on in some parts of the South. Along with their white counterparts, there were free blacks who were anxious to prove their bravery and patriotism against the invading Yankees.

To the surprise of many Yankee soldiers, many Southern blacks were free men. Knowing of the South only through stereotypes and often thinking that all Southern blacks were slaves, Yankee soldiers sometimes accused free blacks of hiding their masters, especially if the person's home were nicely furnished.

During such encounters, the Yankees would often steal the free black's food and belongings, and even destroy their homes. (JRK p. 134)

The loyalty of Southern blacks in the presence of Yankee soldiers was varied. Some slaves went over to the Union troops, while others remained loyal to their white families. (JRK p. 133-34)

Rarely, though, did Southern blacks give Yankee soldiers their complete trust. Union soldiers reporting on the June 1862 battle of Seven Pines claimed that two black Confederate regiments proved themselves ruthless opponents, showing no mercy to either dead or wounded Yankee soldiers. (ELJ p. 223)

During the battle of Antietam in September of 1862 fully armed black Confederate soldiers were observed as an integral part of Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. (ELJ p. 223)

In 1862 the citizens of Illinois amended their State Constitution to say that "No Negro or mulatto shall immigrate or settle in this state." (JRK p. 55)

With the war losing its popularity in the North in 1862, the people of the North were not so willing to send their husbands and sons to die in "Mr. Lincoln's war" to restore the Union, let alone for the emancipation of slaves. It was not until well into the War that Lincoln began to link abolition of slavery with the War itself. He began to use the issue of slavery as a political tool to give the War a moral cause to help bolster Northern support, distance England and France from the South, solidify his support with the growing abolitionist movement, and possibly foster a slave revolt in the South. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, issued under his war powers, declared only slaves in those States that seceded to be free. Those still enslaved in Northern or otherwise Union States (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri) were not freed by Lincoln's proclamation since he knew he could not legally deprive United States citizens of their "property." Not one slave was actually freed through Lincoln's Proclamation. (WEW p. 545; SEM p. 654; ELJ p. 255; PMA p. 264-66)

Black African slavery had existed in the North American English colonies for 168 years before the U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1787. It had existed all across colonial America, but by 1804 most Northern states, finding that slavery was not profitable for them, had effectively abolished the institution. In the South, however, especially after the 1793 invention of the cotton gin, the institution grew, becoming an inextricable part of the economy and way of life.

Whether slavery was to be permitted and continued under the new Constitution was a matter of conflict between the North and South, with several Southern states refusing to join the Union if slavery were disallowed. Thus, in spite of a warning from Virginian George Mason that slaves "bring the judgment of Heaven on a country," the continuance of slavery was clearly sanctioned in the U.S. Constitution, although the words slave and slavery are not found anywhere in the document. Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.

Human slavery dates back to antiquity and was an integral part of most of the ancient empires. The ancient Greeks and Romans enslaved whomever they conquered, regardless of race. Hebrews enslaved other Hebrews. When the black race became singled out for slavery is unclear. Andre Horn, a 13th century Chamberlain of London, said, "Yet 'serfage' in the case of a black man is a subjugation issuing from so high an antiquity that no free stock can be found within human memory." The Portuguese began trading in black slaves in earnest in the 15th century, followed by the Spanish and the English. Black slavery in North America began in 1619, when the English colonists in Jamestown, VA, bought 20 black slaves from a Dutch trader, and slavery remained legally sanctioned for more than 200 years.

By the end of the Civil War, the Protestant churches in the United States had split into Northern and Southern factions over the issue of slavery. Proslavery clergymen could cite biblical references that sanctioned slavery and particularly the enslaving of the black race. The primary citation was Genesis 9:25-27, in which Noah, upset over an indiscretion of his son Ham, who was supposed to be black, cursed all the descendants of Ham's son Canaan. They were to be slaves for eternity and were to serve the other six-sevenths of the population. Canaan's descendants were said to have populated Africa, and the clergy had only to point to history to demonstrate that the prophecy had been fulfilled. Therefore, it was supposedly the divine decree of God that gave the black people the liability of being enslaved by white people and justified the degradation of the entire race. Divine law and natural went hand in hand. It was obvious to the clergy that blacks were inferior to whites and that slavery was the black man's natural state. Indeed, slavery was rationalized as beneficial to the black race. White masters, it was said, gave them sustenance, Christianized them, and offered them hope for salvation. The Babylonian Talmud states that Negroes were the children of Ham, who was cursed with blackness. Ancient Arabs considered black people to have been born to slavery.

Utilizing the broad range of powers the Constitution gives presidents during national emergencies, Lincoln was able to issue the Emancipation Proclamation as a measure to help the North win the war. Slavery was an asset to the South's war effort in that it provided a readily available labor force for the Confederate armies and allowed production to continue on the home front while the men fought the battles. Telling the slaves that they were free could possibly incite them to rebel against their masters, thus opening a new front in the prosecution of the war. Also, once Lincoln took this major step, any hopes the Confederate states may have had of foreign intervention on their side were immediately dashed. Once slavery became a central issue in the war, England and France could no longer contemplate aiding the Confederacy.

When the Constitution was adopted and the Union formed, slavery existed in practically all the States; and it is claimed by the Southern people that its disappearance from the Northern and its development in the Southern States is due to climatic conditions and industrial exigencies rather than to the existence or absence of great moral ideas.

Union general William Tecumseh Sherman wrote in 1858, "I would not if I could abolish or modify slavery." The Republican presidential platform of 1860 advocated no slavery in the territories of the United States, but stressed a noninterference policy regarding slavery in the States where it already existed. (WEW p. 505; SEM p. 602).

The wife of Union general Ulysses S. Grant, a slave owner herself, kept her slaves until the close of the War. (WEW p. 518, 543)

Abraham Lincoln: hypocrite or hero?

During the Civil War, Lincoln decided, after much agonizing, to declare that slaves in the seceding states were free. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t apply to slaves in the states that remained within the Union. So it didn’t really "free the slaves." It had little immediate effect on slaves in the Confederacy, of course, since they were beyond Lincoln’s reach. Wags quipped that Lincoln had freed the slaves he couldn’t help, while doing nothing for the slaves he could have helped.

Throughout his political career, President Abraham Lincoln had opposed slavery as a moral wrong, but he knew slavery was sanctioned by the Constitution and he respected the law.

Lincoln says:

"I can not but hate [the declared indifference for slavery's spread]. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world -- enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites -- causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty -- criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest." (Speech at Peoria, Illinois October 16, 1854)

But then Lincoln says:

"I cannot make it better known than it already is that I strongly favor colonization." (Lincoln's Second Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862.)

In Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so." (PMA p. 215)

In August 25, 1862 Lincoln wrote a letter to Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune in which he stated in part, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone; I would also do that" (WEW p. 508).

In an 1862 letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery." In December of 1862, Lincoln sought to alleviate the fears that emancipated slaves would come into the North and compete for the labor of white workers by assuring Congress that each State can "decide for itself whether to receive them" (JRK p. 55).

"What then? Free them, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery, at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough for me to denounce people on." "What then? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feeling will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not... A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded." (Abraham Lincoln)

Lincoln says the North obeys the constitution in regards to slaves.

"You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the constitution and the Union." (A letter to his friend Joshua Speed, August 24, 1855)

"I will say, then, that I am not, nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races ... I am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." (Abraham Lincoln)

" ...but in this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours." The purpose of the meeting was to find a place (another country) to export all the blacks to after the war, because "ours (race) suffers from your presence." (Abraham Lincoln, On August 14, 1862, during a meeting with prominent free blacks in Washington)

"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about, in any way, a social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, or of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And I will say in addition to this, there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together in terms of social and political equality. And in so much as they cannot so live, while they so remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, I am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." (Abraham Lincoln, in a debate with Stephen Douglas in Charleston, South Carolina on 18 September 1858)

"In an April 16, 1863, letter to the War Department regarding the fate of ex-slaves should emancipation become a reality, Lincoln wrote, ''They had better be set to digging their sustenance out of the ground."

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.)

"I have no purpose to introduce political or social equality between the white and negro race. There is a physical difference between the two, which probably will forever forbid their living together on the same footing of equality. I, as well as any other man, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary." (Abraham Lincoln)

"I am not in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, or of qualifying them to hold office." (Abraham Lincoln September 15, 1858)

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery." (Abraham Lincoln March 4, 1861)

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." (Letter to Horace Greeley, By Abraham Lincoln August 22, 1862)

What others said about Abraham Lincoln

"The Man Who Would Be King? On every hand Lincoln was denounced as a Tyrant, a shedder of blood, a foe to liberty, a would-be dictator, a founder of an empire." (Theodore Roosevelt)

"Do not perceive that Lincoln is not only an absolute monarch, but that this is an absolute uncontrollable government, a perfect military despotism?" (Joel Parker, Harvard Professor of Law)

On August 39, 1861, Gen. John C. Fremont declared freedom for the slaves of all secessionists in Missouri. Lincoln revoked the order.

Several of Lincoln's military commanders had attempted to emancipate the slaves in their districts, but each time Lincoln countermanded the orders.

In war it is common practice to show respect and honor to a dead foe left on the field. Not so if that foe was Confederate! Following the Battle of Gettysburg, the Confederate dead were buried along the roads, shoved into trenches, or consigned to common graves. If it were not for the stench these brave men would not have received this. The Southerners were seen as traitorous invaders and their bodies were not accorded the respect afforded the men in blue. One newspaper reporter wrote: The Confederate dead was left in the fields as outcasts and criminals, that did not merit decent sepulture. King Lincoln's immortal words were not spoken over their unattended and unmarked graves.

In Summary

"We owe it to our dead, to our living and to our children to preserve the truth and repel the falsehoods, so that we may secure just judgment from the only tribunal before which we may appear and be fully and fairly be heard, and that tribunal is the bar of history." (Robert E. Lee)

"The forbearing use of power does not only form a touchstone, but the manner in which an individual enjoys certain advantages over others is a test of a true gentleman. The power which the strong have over the weak, the employer over the employed, the educated over the unlettered, the experienced over the confiding, even the clever over the silly -- the forbearing or inoffensive use of all this power or authority, or a total abstinence from it when the case admits it, will show the gentleman in a plain light. The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a wrong he may have committed against him. He can not only forgive, he can forget; and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness of character which impart sufficient strength to let the past be but the past. A true man of honor feels humbled himself when he cannot help humbling others." (Robert E. Lee)

"Were these things real? Did I see those brave and noble countrymen of mine laid low in death and weltering in their blood? Did I see our country laid waste and in ruins? Did I see soldiers marching, the earth trembling, and jarring beneath their measured tread? Did I see the smoldering cities and deserted homes? Did I see the flag of my country, that I followed so long, furled to be never unfurled again? Surely these are but vagaries of my imagination...But hush! I now hear the approach of battle. That low, rumbling sound in the west is the roar of cannon in the distance." (S. Watkins 1st.Tn. CSA)

"In great deeds something abides. On great fields something stays. Forms change and pass; bodies disappear; but spirits linger, to consecrate ground for the vision-place of souls. And reverent men and women from afar, and generations that know us not and that we know not of, heart-drawn to see where and by whom great things were suffered and done for them, shall come to this deathless field, to ponder and dream; and lo! The shadow of a mighty presence shall wrap them in its bosom, and the power of the vision pass into their souls." (Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, Gettysburg, October 3, 1889)

In deed we do not hate the union solders—they were simply doing their duty. Many good men on both sides suffered and often times died in unbelievable pain and destruction to the body. Both had "causes" to which they resigned themselves and died for those causes. We must understand the position of Union and Confederate causes and educate ourselves as to the truth of their intentions, and then make up our own minds as to the firmness of our resolve.

Finally

"The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form." Jefferson F. Davis