Civil War Monuments and The War of Northern Agression

Civil War Monuments and

The War of Northern Aggression

By

James Scott Trimm

With the recent removal and destruction of Civil War monuments, I thought I would dispel the common myth that the Civil War was started over slavery.

A couple of years ago I wrote a blog titled "Does Texas have a Right to Secede?" in which I said:

The so-called “Civil War” opens a protracted discussion into numerous unconstitutional acts which took place in this dark time of American History.  This is far to protracted of a discussion for this short paper (perhaps some day I will write more extensively on this topic), suffice it to say that no “war” was ever declared by congress, and the so-called “Civil War” was an Executive action which ultimately resulted in the forced annexation of the Southern States.  As the Constitution lays out exactly how a state may be annexed, and it cannot be by force, this was the unconstitutional outcome of an unconstitutional Executive action.  (I should state here my absolute disdain for the institution of slavery, the relation of which to the so-called Civil War has been greatly misunderstood).   

Well with all of the hoop-la surrounding Civil War monuments lately, I really felt it was time to write this follow up blog.

Now I realize it is easy for conservatives to claim Lincoln as "The first Republican president" but I feel that is a mistake, and in this blog I will explain why.

Obama liked to identify himself with Lincoln.  And when he used a drone to kill a US citizen without due process, his advisors insisted this was constitutional, citing Lincoln's acts during the Civil War as a precedent.

Now as a preface for this let me make it very clear that I have no sympathy for Alkaida (the US citizen that was killed by the drone was, in fact, an Alkida participant).  And I am absolutely believe that slavery in the US was a great evil which should certainly have been abolished.

That being said, I want to say that if we are to have a clear vision of what we are as constitutionalists, we need to have an understanding of the history of the conflict between Federalists and Anti-Federalists to this very day.


The Federalists and Anti-Federalists

During and immediately after the American Revolution there were "Federalists" and "Anti-Federalists".

Our Constitution (Ratified in 1788) was not our first attempt at governing ourselves.

Our first governing instrument was the Articles of Confederation which established the United States as a Confederation of States.

Under the Articles of Confederation the Federal government was very week.  Many believed that we needed a stronger Federal Government if we were going to succeed as a nation.

There was a great conflict between those who wanted to simply amend the Articles and those who wanted to replace them with a Constitution that would establish a more powerful Federal Government.

Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams were strongly opposed to replacing the Articles and creating a strong Federal Government, and Henry boycotted the Constitutional convention.  (Through a strange turn of events, Henry eventually became a Federalist).

There was much debate about whether or not there should be a new Constitution.  Many feared that the new Federal Government would become to powerful.  As a compromise the

Bill of Rights was suggested to limit the power of the Federal Government.  (these debates are preserved in the federalist Papers).

At first James Madison (who penned the Constitution) was opposed to a Bill of Rights.  His thinking was that his Constitution did not give the Federal Government the power to limit speech or the press, etc. and so we did not need the Bill of Rights.  Thomas Jefferson eventually convinced him that in the future there would be those who would interpret the Constitution to give the Federal Government all powers the constitution all powers it did not restrict from it, rather than to mean that the Federal Government only had powers that the Constitution specifically said that it had.  In the end the Constitution was ratified, with the promise of the Bill of Rights which would limit the Federal Government's power.  The 10th amendment was included in the Bill of Rights, saying:
"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."

With this the Anti-Federalists felt the matter was settled... they were wrong!

Now you may have noticed by now that the Federalists were the party of Big Government... they were used to a strong Government under the King, and they wanted the Federal Government to be like a King.

The Anti-Federalists were the party of limited government and state's rights.  They believed, as Jefferson articulated it, that government governs best which governs least.

Major Federalists were George Washington, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton.

Major Anti-Federalists were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (who had defected from the Federalists).

The following is taken from a Home Schooling Program Class i once created on Early American History:

Ratification. Long and exciting debates arose in the several States, over the ratification of the Constitution, which had to be voted on by the people. On this question citizens were divided into two great political parties:

(a) The Federalists. (This name is derived from a Latin word meaning union or league.) These were the men who favored the Constitution, and wanted to have it adopted just as it came from the Convention. They believed that the Union needed the strong central Government which the Constitution provided for. Among those of this way of thinking were Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, and Madison. Washington wrote to Patrick Henry: " I wish the Constitution which is offered had been more perfect; but I sincerely believe it is the best which could be obtained at this time. And as a constitutional door is open for amendments here after, the adoption of it, under the present circumstances of the Union, is in my opinion desirable." He pointed out that as " the political concerns of this country are in a manner suspended by a thread," anarchy might result if the instrument were rejected.

(b) The Anti- Federalists. This was the name given to those who feared that the proposed new Federal Government might in time become so strong as to destroy the people’s liberties, and that the President might become a despot. They also complained that the Constitution contained no " bill of rights," or promise that the lives, liberty, and property of the people should be protected by the Government. The makers of the Constitution had not thought it necessary to insert such a promise in that document, which gave only definite powers to the National Government; but to satisfy this objection, a "bill of rights" was later supplied in the first ten Amendments. The Anti-Federalists insisted that the States should continue to have greater power than the Nation, as was the case under the Articles of Confederation. They proposed, therefore, merely to amend the Articles, so as to give Congress a little more power as well as some revenue of its own. Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee belonged to this party.

As soon as nine State conventions, the smallest number necessary for adoption, were carried in favor of the Constitution Congress announced to the people in June, 1788, that the new Government could be organized.

(The majority of the people hailed the news with noisy rejoicing. In Philadelphia where the Continental Congress had met, the Declaration of Independence had been adopted, and the Constitutional Convention had done its great work there were great demonstrations of delight. On the following Fourth of July, cannon saluted the sunrise, bells pealed joyously, there was a marching procession of five thousand people, orators proclaimed the coming glory of our country, and at night nearly every building was illuminated with candles in the windows.)

Later, the other four States also gave their consent. " Now," triumphantly wrote John Adams, who was a strong Federalist, " the thirteen clocks all struck together.

Federalists and Anti-Federalists. During the long and sometimes bitter debates over the adoption of the Constitution, it was natural that men should form very decided opinions about the best methods of carrying on the government of the proposed union of the States. By the time President Washington began his Administration, two political parties had come into being Federalists and Anti- Federalists.
(The Anti-Federalists afterwards called themselves Republicans, and then Democratic- Republicans; and still later, Democrats. After the adoption of the Constitution, both Federalists and Anti- Federalists favored that instrument; they then differed only as to how it should be interpreted. It was Washington s desire to have both parties represented in the Government; of the offices named below, the Federalists held a majority, Jefferson and Randolph being the only Anti-Federalists. Washington’s first Cabinet consisted of four members: the Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson; the Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton; the Secretary of War, General Henry Knox (these three administrative Departments were the only ones in existence at this time) ; and the Attorney-General, Edmund Randolph. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was John Jay.)

Citizens joined one party or the other, according to their way of thinking; and, as is always the case in times of great political excitement, they were very impatient at the ideas of those who differed from them.

"Liberal construction" and "strict construction." The most important question at the beginning of the Government was, How much power should the Nation have over the affairs of individual citizens of the various States? The framers of the Constitution did not make this at all clear; they left the legislative branch of the Government (Congress), together with the judicial branch (the Federal Supreme Court), to decide that great question in the future.

(If a law passed by Congress is not in accord with the Constitution, then the Court may annul it.)
Federalists and Anti-Federalists held opposite views as to how it should be decided:
(a) Should Congress have the authority to do anything and everything in the way of government except only those things that the Constitution expressly said it should not do? The federalists said "yes " to this; for they believed in making the Union a strong central power, stronger than the States composing it. They asked for a "liberal construction" of the Constitution, and "national supremacy."
(b) Should Congress have such authority as was expressly given to it by the Constitution, and no more? Such was the opinion of the Anti-Federalists, who stood for "strict construction " and "state rights." They did not believe in centralized power, for they wished the States to remain Stronger than the Nation.

The controversy would eventually lead to the great Civil War, which resulted in the final triumph of the Federalist idea of "National Supremacy over "State Rights."


Conflict Between North and South from the Beginning

Now although Washington was a Federalist, he respected the Bill of Rights and he kept the Federal Government restrained. 

Washington Urged to a Second Term. At the end of Washington’s first term, as he was preparing to retire and go back to Mt. Vernon to just be a farmer again, the leaders of the opposing parties both wanted him to reconsider with Hamilton and Jefferson pleading with Washington to stay on for a second term.

Jefferson is credited as stating: “North and South will hang together if they have you to hang on.”

Washington finally consented to such sentiments and was again the obvious choice of the Electoral College as they re-elected him in February of 1793.

That's right, the division between North and South was already brewing!  And it had nothing to do with slavery, at the time they were ALL slave states.  This was a division between Big Government Federalists and Limited Government, States' Rights Anti-Federalists.

Washington was a restrained Federalist, a Federalist that the Anti-Federalists could live with.

At this point I should say that these two parties eventually took other names, and these names have changed throughout history as these two parties have even changed... but the ideals remained the same Big Government vs. Limited Government.

The Anti-Federalists the Republican Party.  Historians call these "Republicans" the "Democratic-Republican" Party because they later changed their name to Democrats (ironically becoming the ancestor of the modern Democratic party, but we will cover that later).

So after Washington (who had no official party affiliation), Federalist John Adams became the first Federalist Party president (and the second President of the United States).

During the Adams administration the US became involved in an undeclared war with France.  During this time the Big Government Federalists made a big power grab.

Alien and Sedition Laws. While this war was in progress, still more serious trouble was brewing at home. Many of the newspapers in the United States were at that time conducted by men, mostly foreigners, who favored France. These editors made a practice of viciously abusing President Adams and his Government, and trying to get our country into trouble with Great Britain. Congress tried to check these offenses by passing two laws, 1798:

(a) The Alien Law authorized the President to banish from the country any foreigner whose presence here was harmful to the nation. This law was never put in force.

(b) The Sedition Law provided for the punishment of persons who spoke or wrote maliciously about the President or the Government. Under this law a number of persons were punished.

Virginia and Kentucky pass Nullification Resolutions. These laws aroused the fierce anger of the Democratic-Republicans. They declared that such legislation concentrated power in the hands of the Federal Government, interfered with freedom of the press and freedom of speech, and was not according to the intent of the Constitution. The legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky went so far as boldly to resolve that these obnoxious Federal laws were “unconstitutional," therefore "void and of no force," and that the States would be justified in not allowing them to be enforced within their borders.

(The Virginia Resolutions were written by Madison, and were not so bitter as those of Kentucky, which were drafted by Jefferson.)

Congress soon repealed the two laws that had aroused such opposition. But the passage of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions continued to be events of great importance, because of their new and startling claim that Federal laws might be nullified by States that did not approve of them. (That is, declared not binding on the objecting State.)

Those who believed in "strict construction" of the Constitution, or "state rights," were inclined to favor this doctrine, that the Constitution was merely an agreement between sovereign States, which any of them might break whenever they wished. The Federalists pointed out, however, that if nullification were to be permitted whenever a State disliked some Federal law, there would soon be no Union at all. Thus the momentous question as to whether or not the rule of the Union was to be supreme over that of the States had again come to the front to threaten the welfare of the Nation.

As a result of this controversy Adams (having served only one term) lost the next election to Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson served two terms, and was followed by James Madison for two terms.  In fact the Anti-Federalist (Democratic-Republican/Democratic party) held the office until 1841.  (The Party became known as the "Democratic Party" by 1829 with the Jackson presidency).

The Federalists never won the presidency again, and soon disband.  The Federalists themselves re-organized in 1833 as the Whig Party and did not win a Presidency until 1841 (Hilliam Harrison).

The Whig party also dissolved and the Federalists reorganized as the "Republican Party" in the 1850s.  Abraham Lincoln became president in 1860, becoming the first Republican president.


Now you may have noticed a shell game here, which will more complex as time goes on.

The War of Northern Aggression

Now we have come to the time of the Civil War, or as it was called in the South "The War of Northern Aggression."

Now it is important to begin by dispelling the false claim that has become so popular, that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves.  The Civil War was not fought over slavery.  This can be shown in many ways:

1.  The Dred Scott decision in 1857.  This is often cited as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever.  In reality this decision was not saying that slavery was good, or that it should continue.  It was simply stating that the framers of the Constitution had not intended the Bill of Rights to free the slaves, and that it would take a Constitutional Amendment and not a Supreme Court decision to free them.  Here the court was tempted with an opportunity to step into an activist role, and do something good, free the slaves, right a horrible injustice, all they had to do was say that the Constitution meant something that the framers clearly did not intend it to mean.  It is known that the framers visited the issue of slavery, and failing to settle the matter, kicked the can down the road to be resolved by constitutional amendment later, and the court came to the same conclusion.  Whether we see this decision as right, or wrong, the fact is that it established that only a Constitutional amendment could free the slaves.

2.  Most southerners did not even own slaves, only a small minority owned slaves.

3.  There were actually four Northern Slave States (Kentucky, Delaware, Missouri and Maryland) which continued to hold slaves through most of the Civil War.  You may notice that the Emancipation Proclamation freed only slaves south of the Mason Dixon line... it seemed Northern Slavery was just fine.  In fact Maryland borders Washington DC.... Lincoln could have taken a short walk to find slaves working in fields in the Union if he wanted to free slaves.

4.  Robert E. Lee was against slavery, but Grant had been a slave master.

In an 1856 letter Lee said slavery was "a moral & political evil".  In a handwritten legal document, dated January 2, 1863, Robert E. Lee promised to "hereby manumit, emancipate and forever set free" the slaves once owned by his father–in–law, George Washington Parke Custis, who had died in 1857.  Lee supported the work by his wife and her mother to liberate slaves and fund their move to Liberia, his wife and daughter set up an illegal school for slaves on the Arlington plantation.  Lee was also involved in freeing many slaves in the South during the war.

By contrast, during the years 1854 to 1859 Grant lived at White Haven Farm with his wife, Julia, and their children, managing the farm for his father-in-law, Colonel Dent where he oversaw slave labor.

5.  While the Constitution of the confederacy continued to maintain the institution of slavery, it also made a major step toward phasing out slavery, making the import of any new slaves unconstitutional.
So what was the real cause of the War of Northern Aggression?

To find the answer we can look at some very old history books.  The following is taken from a history book used in American schools in the early 20th Century:

The North and the South differed from each other both in the
physical characteristics of the land, and in the habits and
opinions of the inhabitants.

(a) The South had few important towns, and not many
factories. The principal business was farming, and this
was done on large plantations. The warm Southern climate
is well suited to out-of-door life ; and we have seen that the
soil of that region is adapted to the raising of large single
crops, like tobacco, cotton, rice, and indigo.

The North has a colder climate than the South, which
leads to the indoor employment of many of its people, and
thus to larger centers of population and manufactures. By
1830 that section had come to contain many prosperous
cities and towns. Numerous factories of different kinds had
been established, and Northern merchants and shipowners
carried on a profitable commerce with all parts of the world.
The farms of the North were small, compared with the great
Southern plantations, and on them were raised a consider
able variety of crops.

(b) Northern manufacturers had, by this time, come to
be eager for high-tariff legislation that should virtually shut
out all foreign-made goods.  

(The argument of the manufacturers was that a high tariff would encourage
men to start new industries in the United States; that these would employ
large numbers of workmen, at good wages, who would purchase produce from
the farmers; that a manufacturing nation could be independent of other na
tions, in time of war; and that the tariff on imports would at the same time
bring much revenue to the Government.)


But the Southern planters would have liked to
continue their trade with Europe, which
they could easily carry on by means of the sailing-vessels
that took their crops across the Atlantic. They were opposed
to a high tariff, for it caused them to pay large prices for all
their imports. They thought they ought to be allowed " free
trade " that is, the right to bring over to their planta
tions whatever foreign-made articles they wished, free of
duty. They had almost no manufactures of their own, and
were not pleased at being forced to pay out of their own
pockets for " fostering the infant industries " of New Eng
land.

(c) Northern manufacturers and merchants wanted to
sell their goods to settlers in the interior of the continent.
For that reason they asked the Federal Government to
deepen the rivers upon which boats and barges might carry
cargoes toward the West; and where necessary, to build
canals connecting east-flowing with west-flowing waterways.
Their wishes were heeded by Congress, which consented
to undertake several such schemes of "internal improve
ments," some of them at great cost.

(Between 1824 and 1828, two and a third million dollars
were voted by Congress for this purpose.)

The South was provided by nature with as many navigable
rivers as it needed for its own ocean-going vessels, so
was not much interested in these improvements. The cost
of them ought, Southern statesmen said, to be met by the
States that were directly benefited, not by the entire Nation.
The fact that a good share of the money collected at the
custom-houses because of the tariff was spent on internal
improvements was very annoying to the South.
( A History of the United States for grammar schools
Rev. ed. by Reuben Gold Thwaites and Calvin Noyes Kendall.
Published 1922 pages 270-271)

So the primary reasons that the Southern States seceded was over unfair taxation and the right of free trade.

The Southern States were outvoted in Congress.  They found themselves being forced to pay the bulk of the nations tax bill, while their money was being spent in the North.
In my previous blog, I established that the South had the Constitutional right to secede.

Now we come to Abraham Lincoln's actions and the Civil War.

The Constitution grants only Congress the power to declare war, yet congress chose not to declare war on the South.  Lincoln therefore forced a war by resupplying Fort Sumter in the South, ultimately forcing the South to fire on the fort, or accept foreign occupation.

Lincoln suspended the right of Habeas corpus, which requires a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court.  Under Lincoln's theory the southerners were guilty of Treason, but the Constitution is very specific about Treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

In fact the Obama administration claimed the same right to execute Americans it found guilty of Treason without due process, because Lincoln did.

Also the Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional.  This does not mean slavery should not have been abolished, but abolishing it would take a Constitutional Amendment.  (Remember the Dred Scott decision?)  This would be like a Republican president today issuing an executive order banning abortion, because he disagrees with Roe vs. Wade.  In fact even after the war, the Thirteen Amendment ended slavery... why not just another Emancipation Proclamation freeing slaves North of the Mason Dixon line?

Under Lincoln as Commander and Chief, after ordering almost all civilians to leave Atlanta, Sherman gave instructions that all military and government buildings in Atlanta be burned.  Many private homes and shops were burned as well. This was to set a precedent for future behavior by his armies.  Was this Constitutional?  Can you imagine a president today doing that?

This is just the beginning of Lincoln trampling on the Constitution.
After the war, and his assassination, Lincoln became virtually deified.
The War also resulted in a major victory for big government Federalists.
As one Southern writer wrote of the fall of the South:

With its failure the United States of America that we know was born. The South, the Northern Republicans said, rebelled.  To crush the “rebellion” the North wrought a revolution.  The old union of states federated together for specific and limited purposes died, to be succeeded by a new nation in which the states, North and South alike, have contentedly sunk from the sovereignty they so jealously maintained in 1787 to become little more than convenient administrative subdivisions of government.
(The Story of the Confederacy; Robert Selph Henry 1931; p. 11)


How the Two Parties Switched Places

The Republican Party went on to become the Progressive party of Theodore Roosevelt.  And through a strange turn of events the Progressive baton was passed to Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Democratic Party.

Interestingly a man named Ronald Reagan campaigned for FDR, and later felt betrayed by the Big Government Federalism that was creeping into the Democratic Party.  He left the Democratic Party for the Republican Party, saying "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me."
Limited government conservative Democrats followed him into the Republican party and today we have a complete switch.... ironically the Republican Party is now the limited government Anti-Federalist Party and the Democratic Party has become the Big Government Federalist Party.