Entry details

Curzon
Author

Curzon

Date

August 4th, 2006

Tags

,

Comments

7 Comments so far.
Add yours.

The Confederate Constitution

Via Felipe comes this very interesting comparison: The US Constitution v.s. the Confederate Constitution. How were the two different?

To site a few specific comparisons between the two constitutions:

*For all the complaining about federal tyranny, the Confederacy took essentially no powers away from its federal government.

*The CSA’s constitution’s punctuation, capitalization, and in some cases spelling, are all updated from 18th Century to 19th Century English standards.

*The Confederate Constitution banned importing new slaves!

In summary:

Overall, the CSA [Confederate] constitution does not radically alter the federal system that was set up under the United States constitution. It is thus very debatable as to whether the CSA is significantly more pro “states’ rights” (as supporters claim) in any meaningful sense. At least three states rights are explicitly taken away- the freedom of states to grant voting rights to non-citizens, the freedom of states to outlaw slavery within their borders, and the freedom of states to trade freely with each other.

States only gain four minor rights under the Confederate system- the power to enter into treaties with other states to regulate waterways, the power to tax foreign and domestic ships that use their waterways, the power to impeach federally-appointed state officials, and the power to distribute “bills of credit.” When people champion the cause of reclaiming state power from the feds, are matters like these at the tops of their lists of priorities?

Comments to this entry

Catholicgauze
August 4, 2006
4:13 pm
An interesting note is that as the Civil War progressed the CSA Federal government became more extreme. Salt was nationalized and election results from Eastern Tennessee (where pro-Unionists were elected) were ignored. The book Look Away by William C. Davis looks at the political history of the CSA.
Joseph Steinberg
August 4, 2006
11:18 pm
Godd point, Catholicgauze. And, as Davis also points out, the slave ban provision was both disputed and self-serving. States with large white populations did not want small states like South Carolina to increase their representation in the CSA Congress by inflating their population figures with newly-inported slaves. Also, new imports would drive down prices. That would not be good for established landowners.

The one constitutional improvement was the line-item veto.
Dan Nexon
August 5, 2006
3:55 am
I thought the notion that the Civil War had much to do with "states rights" was pretty much demolished. Historians, for example, have found that many of the people who argued, after the fact, that they were fighting to protect federalism were, in the run up to the war, arguing that they need to go to war to preserve slavery. There was great piece in the NYRB by James M. Mcpherson on the "Myth of the Lost Cause" in which he--or one of the authors he discusses--points out that it was the northern states who, prior to the Civil War, had the most cause to start a war over states rights.
Joseph Steinberg
August 5, 2006
6:27 am
Davis argued In Look Away, that slavery as an issue was inextricably linked with economic and political issues that went back at least to British Toryism. The great men of the oligarchy in the South opposed the democratizing trends of Hamilton and Clay's American System. And then, Lincoln, who made his career on his support for Clay and protectionism (for all the propaganda about his industriousness, at many points in his career, all his income came from office, unlike men, like Jeff Davis who were self-sufficient landowners). Southrons were not the only ones who opposed the American System. Anyone who made their careers from cotton hated protectionism. New York threatened to secede, and I beleive there were proposals for three different confederations in existence at the beginning of the war. Lincoln, according to Donald, tried to keep slavery off the table, to keep his coalition of northern and middle states from bolting. Military victories, like Atlanta, and the absence of foreign support for the South gave Lincoln the opportunity to use slavery as a rallying cry to drive the North to finish the war. But, the war was always about the big oligarchs and their families keeping a hold through state representation in Congress that fueled the war. And, it continued, according to Davis. The oligarchs survived to keep control of their economic scraps in their states, even if the North got the American System. Looking at the late 19th century, the Northern capitalists weren't the only ones who got what they wanted. The Southrons were pretty much left alone until the twentieth century, and even in Congress and in certain figures, maintained power. Think of the House Speakers and McKinley's manager Hanna (Karl Rove's hero). Morris' bio of TR talks about how much northerners continued to placate Southrons even into TR's presidency. There was that great episode where he snuck Booker T.Washington into the White House and the South almost screamed in unison.

I think it was Shelby Foote who quipped that the only lesson learned from the Civil War was that disagreements were fine, but northerners and southerners just can't kill each other anymore. Foote's also argued in his history that the slavery issue was subsequently overblown.

Actually, I thought Peterson's tri-bio of Clay, Calhoun, and Webster caught the genesis of the problem as depicted in the three great men's relationship. From a triumvirate based on vague nationalism, like the country, each couldn't talk to each other because each of their own ambitions based on their divergent visions finally tore them asunder. Slavery was a convenient tool for each man's ambitions, as in the sections of the country. The slaves were doubly victims, rubes of every white American pol with an interest and an ambition as well as unpaid labor.
terry mc falls
August 5, 2006
5:17 pm
Do you think that the poor southern farm boys,marched north with little training, poor equiptment,slim chance of surviving a serious wound,to secure the economic future of the rich land owners and their slaves?? You must be joking.
JohnR
August 5, 2006
9:45 pm
In addition to the other similarities noted above, I have read somewhere that when the constitution was being debated in Montgomery, Alabama, the issue of the right to secede came up. The delegates decided that Confederate states would NOT have the right to secede from the Confederacy, if my memory serves. Plus ca change, plus ca meme.
Joseph Steinberg
August 6, 2006
1:10 am
Mind you, I'm taking this from Davis (these are not my arguments here):

JohnR: All I found was a reference to a debate on the secession issue. Indeed, moderates wanted a statement that the nullification doctrine was no longer valid in the CSA, but Ultras disagreed. There was no conclusion to this debate as other issues took precedence. BTW, the next issue was reform of the spoils system, or political patronage, which was abolished well before the US did the same.

terry mc falls: Confederate sentiment was always diverse. One of the effects of the very "nationalistic" CSA constitution was the resort to laws and court decsions to enforece strict obedience to all sorts of contingencies. Many women (for that was who were left after conscription) complied, but many men, with their families' consent, resorted to brigandage against anyone entering thei localities. Condeferate sentiment was based on home, county, and State, and many rebelled against the CSA for the same reasons they hated the USA. Military commanders often acquired direct command over jurisdictions just to get food. Dsertion was rampant in both armies, because these were not volunteer armies per se. There were volunteers, but many more were poor conscripts, who, like in the USA, could not pay not to serve. This created a double bind, because all those conscripts were needed to work in factoris and fields. When slaves were commandeered for camp labor, many men just deserted to help their families. Davis recounts this in great detail using letters, court documents (judges often ruled in favor of deserters who were brought in front of them by military commanders). Commanders had to use resourcdes just to get food and retrieve deserters and brigands. Ironcially, the courts functioned like US courts, sometimes acquiring the arrogance of American courts before the war. Southerners began to hate both the CSA and the USA equally. Davis' account draws a line between the enthusuasm of 1861 and the gangs of men who preyed on reconstruction states in the 60s and 70s, and then went west.

Davis also recounts the "scholarly" genesis of many of the popular pseudo-scientific theories on race and southern culture people held, and elites put into practice through their draconian laws, like amrtial law, conscription (the first conscription law arose in the CSA, not the USA), and confiscation of property. Yes, many people foungt only in their states, and only until they were needed at home. Few were patriots on either side, but the pay did help their families. Actually, I woulod argue it was easier to get a Southerner to fight the invader, than to convince a northerner to invade. That was the purpose of the 1862 Emancipation Proclamation. Black soldiers also releived Lincoln from having to conscript whites already weary of war.

So, ins hort, yes, and if not, there was a gun with the law written on it to compel a man to fight. In addition, money was money especially in a region where inflation steadily increased and production was falling in all sectors. The rich had their ddges like selling goods across lines (poor southerners, too), gold, and foreign banks, if not just outright emigration.