The last few years I have undergone a period of cage-staginess regarding the way history has portrayed the Civil War, its causes, and the narratives surrounding the two major players, North and South. For the longest time, my understanding had been shaped by high school and college history courses, which tended to paint the North as good, and south as bad.
Lincoln and the Republicans were the slave saviors, Davis and the Democrats were the devil’s slave holding minions.
I have been drawn to have a softening view towards the southern cause, in large part due to learning more about men like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. They seem like noble men caught in a moral dilemma, who sought to be faithful in the spheres in which they lived and moved.
However, a thought has occurred to me, which is that though there were no doubt motives, players, and schemes on both sides of the war which could be judged as evil in some cases, and noble in others, it seems that the modern day Democratic Party has not actually moved on from their slave holding days. As I look at issues like abortion, their libertine views on sexuality, their tendencies toward anarchy and hatred for the rule of law, all meant to hold on to power, it seems like we are experiencing the logical end of what it was that the south was trying to hold on to. Put another way, it seems like the Democrats are the same today as they were yesterday, having slapped the chains of abortion on the blacks rather than the chains of chattel slavery, and have convinced the modern slaves that this is freedom, hence, maybe the North was, whatever their motivation, right in waging war, even though it doesn’t seem to have changed much of anything. Someone help me think through this.
You’re doing quite well, yourself. Keep on. Love,
Mr. Sabie,
Your cage-staginess followed by second thoughts closely matches my thinking on this.
Constitutionally, from what I have studied, the North had the better of the argument. Southern secessionists argued then and argue still today that a state had the authority to leave the Union at any time, so long as a majority of citizens or the state legislature approved it. Common sense tells you that, if this were right, the federal government would have virtually no power or authority. The entire reason the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution was that the existing Articles of Confederation were inadequate, and allowed individual states too much power and authority. Why would they have allowed a state to simply bug out whenever that state felt it was being put-upon by the federal government?
Google Andrew Jackson’s speech to the nation during the Nullification crisis, which I want to say happened in the 1830s. Jackson was the founder of the Democratic Party and he was a Southerner. As South Carolina tried to nullify a federal tariff they felt was too high, Jackson put the hammer down and defended federal authority and attacked the South Carolinians for violating the Constitution, and the Union which it represented. If you read Jackson’s speech it sounds very similar to what Union men were saying years later.
It’s not that secession is entirely illegal. It’s that secession needed to have the approval of the other states. What value is there to a marriage if one party can leave whenever they want, no questions asked? What value is there to church membership if, whenever I don’t like something, I can just up and leave?
The other relevant thing to say here is that the Civil War happened, in part, due to political fanaticism and belligerating on both sides. Beyond mere words, both sides were trying to use the power of government to get one over on the other side. Southern politicians approved of decisions like Dred Scott which actually did force Northern anti-slavery states to accept the morality and even the practice of slavery in their own borders. This was using the federal government to trump state’s rights.
The belligeration fueled paranoia on both sides. Southerners feared that Northerners were out to free all their slaves in an instant. Northerners feared that a threatening “slave power” was trying to take over their country, and even get their country into wars to protect and expand their system. Each side tried to see what it could get away with, and how the delicate compromises of the Founders could be stretched. Eventually, both sides realized the other one had far more resolve than they had figured. The miscalculation led to the most brutal war in our history.
It’s easy to see parallels to what is going on today, although I don’t think we today are actually on the brink of another civil war. But we do lack respect for authority, and we like to use belligerent political rhetoric.
Back to your OP, I do think there is much we can learn from Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee. Note that Gen. Lee warned against secession before it happened, but once the decision was made, decided to fight with the men of his own state. Gen. Lee warned against the passions that were leading to war.
Northern agitation against slavery was wanting biblically. Go back to Pastor Spurgeon’s sermon the topic. If slavery is everywhere and always a great moral evil, what do we make of Abraham? The historical problem the South was facing did not have an easy solution; it is too easy for us to claim the moral high ground. It was of course quite hypocritical for Northern states which discriminated against free blacks to demand that Southern states immediately free their slaves and give the freed slaves full civil rights.
Millenarian politics which allow no compromise can get you in trouble. Living in a country full of sinners, we can hope to control sin, or perhaps even redirect it, but trying to eliminate it entirely is utopian and dangerous.
Thanks Ben, you’re always helpful on this stuff