August 20, 2018 ~ Language is the tool we use to communicate ideas to others, but to some there are words and phrases that garner a negative emotional reaction when spoken by others. Racial slurs and excessive use of profanity are among the category of language that illicit a negative emotional response from those hearing them. Yet there are two words, when spoken by themselves are innocent enough, but when combined illicit a predominantly negative response from those hearing them; those words being civil and war. Put those words together, as in Civil War, and the minds of most Americans immediately think of racism and slavery, when the truth is that the actual conflict was not about those things at all.
A civil war is defined as one in which two opposing forces fight for control of a single system of government. That is not what happened in 1861 when the Southern States of America seceded from the Union; upon seceding they formed their own system of government and merely wanted to be left alone to govern themselves as they saw fit. This war was more a war for independence than it was a civil war; although trying to get people to see it from that perspective has been difficult, at best. In truth, what you call the Civil War was a war between two sovereign nations, with one, the Union, seeking dominion over the other, the Confederate States of America.
To understand this you need to at least understand the status of the States at the end of the American Revolution and how this system of government we have came into existence. At the end of the Revolution each State became a distinctly separate and sovereign entity; a mini nation unto themselves. Each State had agreed to join a confederacy for their mutual benefit and protection, but retained almost all their sovereignty and independence under this confederation.
Then along came James Madison and his delegates to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787; who were supposed to only come up with amendments to strengthen the Confederation of sovereign States. But what they did was draft up an entirely new system of government with a great deal more power than the existing Congress established by the Articles of Confederation.
The question is in what capacity did the people agree to accept this newly proposed system of government. Did they do so as citizens of their respective States or did they do so as citizens of one united nation which was being established by the Constitution? The Preamble states that it was “We the People of the United States of America” when in reality it should have said, “We the People of these sovereign States united.”
People today take it for granted that we have a system of government created by the Constitution; even though most of them don’t care that this system of government has not adhered to the limits that constitution imposes upon them. Yet in 1787 and 1789 the question of whether to adopt this new system of government was the hot topic of discussions across the entire country as it existed at that time. What powers would this new government hold and what power would be retained by the States was the subject matter of discussions far and wide; and there were those who argued both in favor of and in opposition to the proposed plan all across the country.
In 1787 a person identified themselves by their citizenship of the State they lived in; there were Virginia citizens as well as New York and Massachusetts citizens. There would not be a United States Citizen until after the Civil War when the 14th Amendment was forced upon the defeated Confederacy; but I get ahead of myself.
Therefore, when the people gathered together in conventions and assemblies to vote upon whether to accept or reject this so-called constitution they did so as citizens of the States wherein they resided. This is reflected in the Ratification Statements of the States themselves. For instance, the Ratification Statement for the Commonwealth of Virginia begins by saying, “We the Delegates of the People of Virginia…” The Ratification Statement of New York is similar in wording, “WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York…”
I show you this for two reasons. First off those who attended these ratifying assemblies did so as citizens of their State, not as citizens of some consolidated Union. Secondly, those who ratified the constitution did so on the understanding that it would adhere to the powers they were promised it would exercise; and that should it not they retained the right to withdraw from this Union of States and resume their status as free and independent States with all the power and authority of a nation.
This ability to withdraw from a voluntary Union of States was widely held as the right of each of those that had agreed to be governed by the government established by this constitution. In fact, both Virginia and New York included wording in their Ratification Statements declaring that to be the case. Virginia’s Ratifying Statement states, “…Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression…” New York’s Ratifying Statement declares it thusly, “That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness…”
This whole idea flows from the concept of delegated power. The people, as I have attempted to show in the past, are the source from which all political power flows. By way of written constitutions, or charters, the people delegate certain powers to governments to act on their behalf for specific purposes, and that when government oversteps it’s just authority that power can be revoked and it then returns to the source from which it came; those who established the system of government in the first place.
The people, acting as delegates of their sovereign States, agreed to accept this constitution, and the government it established, on the condition that it adhere to the specific powers given it. They never surrendered their sovereignty and independence to the entity known as the federal government; they only bequeathed it with certain powers to act on their behalf. After years, nay, decades of perceived abuses some of the States in this union decided to exercise their right to leave that union and establish for themselves their own system of government; just as their ancestors had done in 1776 when they separated from the British Empire.
Yes, repeated attempts to interfere with the institution and expansion of the institution of slavery was among the reasons why some of these States chose to leave the Union, but you have to remember, slavery was perfectly legal under the Constitution at that time, and for a Northern State to interfere in the internal affairs of a Southern State was akin to an act of war against them.
Was slavery right? Hell no! But those who drafted the Constitution chose not to include wording that would have banned it forever; knowing that if they did their precious Constitution would never have been accepted. So they kicked the can down the road, so to speak, for future generations to deal with. The important point is THERE WAS NO LAW PROHIBITING THE POSSESSION OF SLAVES IN 1861!!!
So to say that the Civil War was a war to end slavery is like saying the Civil War was a war against the Constitution itself; which it was in truth, because Abraham Lincoln had no Constitutional authority to use force against those who wished to withdraw from the Union.
There were many reasons why the Southern States chose to secede from the Union; with slavery being just one of them. But the war itself; with all the death and destruction, came only when Abraham Lincoln chose to invade the South with an army and beat them into returning to the federal fold, as it were.
In a letter to Horace Greeley, Lincoln stated his real reasons for the war, “I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.”
If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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.”
Lincoln was of the belief that the Union was perpetual, that no State could voluntarily leave it. Yet the Ratifying documents of both New York and Virginia say otherwise. In fact, when President Thomas Jefferson was in the process of making the Louisiana Purchase a group of New England States discussed seceding from the Union. In 1811 the prominent Massachusetts Congressman stated, “If this bill passes, the bonds of this Union are virtually dissolved. The States, which compose it, are free from their moral obligation. And as it is the right of all, so it will be the duty of some to prepare for separation, amicably if they can, forcibly if they must.”
I share this with you so that you don’t get the idea that secession was some hair brained idea concocted by the South in 1861; that it was widely believed to be the right of any State, or group of States, to separate from a voluntary union of States; and that there was no legal grounds by which the government created by the Constitution could stop them.
In fact, in a textbook that was widely used by the instructors at the West Point Military Academy, legal expert William Rawles writes, “The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States, and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to one and the same people. If one of the States chooses to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so; and the Federal government would have no means of maintaining its claim, either by force or right…”
After reading all of that I have but one question for you: Do you believe that it was the right of a State, or a group of States to leave the Union; or do you believe, as Abraham Lincoln did, that the Union was perpetual and that any attempt to leave it was an act of rebellion or treason?
You see, Lincoln was of the belief that the States had never actually left the Union; that what was happening was a rebellion within the States against the federal authority. He said as much in his letter to Greeley, “… The sooner the national authority can be restored…”
Yet during his little war against the South he shut down newspapers critical of his war, he imprisoned journalists who wrote in opposition to it, and he suspended Habeas Corpus; leaving those jailed with no means to plead their case before a court of law. Not only did Lincoln do these things, (against Northern journalists I might add), he also supported the actions taken by his commanding generals to destroy the infrastructure of the Southern States and to treat every person they encounter as the enemy; whether they were bearing arms or not.
Then, after the South had been beaten into submission the government turned around and changed its mind; saying that before the Southern States could resume their status in the Union they must agree to the Reconstruction Laws that would govern them upon reentering the Union. How could the government say that the States had never left the Union, then turn around and say before they could reenter the Union they must agree to certain conditions?
In any case, military districts were established with former Union Generals commanding over them; violating the Constitutional protection of a Republican form of government found in Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution. The government then forced the South to ratify the 14th Amendment, creating United States citizenship for the first time; something which haunts us to this very day if you would but research the truth about that unlawful amendment. Carpetbaggers and others flooded into the South because the laws passed by Congress stated that anyone who had pledged allegiance to the Confederacy could not hold office.
The Bible tells us the parable of the Prodigal Son, a young man who squandered his inheritance and returned to his home to beg his father’s forgiveness, only to be welcomed home by a feast and festivities. Well that certainly wasn’t how the South was treated in the years immediately following the end of hostilities. I need not but repeat the words of Thaddeus Stevens, Congressman from Pennsylvania, to show how the South was treated after this so-called Civil War, “The talk of restoring the Union like it was, and the Constitution as it is, is one of the absurdities which I have heard repeated until I have become sick of it. There are many things which make such an event impossible. This Union never shall, with my consent, be restored under the constitution as it is … The Union as it was and the Constitution as it is–God forbid it. We must conquer the Southern states and hold them as conquered provinces.”
Have you ever heard of a watershed moment? A watershed moment is a turning point or a historic moment where things change drastically in the life of a person or of a nation. In this case the Civil War was a turning point which saw our government reverse the roles in this country where it went from being the servant of those it represented to it becoming their master.
The belief that the States agreed to a voluntary union and that they could, at any time, leave that union died a bloody death alongside those who died defending that belief on the battlefields of Gettysburg, Shiloh, Antietam, and Manassas, and America has never been the same since.
All I ask is that you let the facts speak for themselves; put aside what you have been taught in schools and do some research on your own on the period of American history known as the Civil War; you might find that it wasn’t so civil after all; that it was, in fact, the end of the Republic established by our Founders in 1789.
That is why this does not offend me; because I realize what it truly stands for.
~ The Author ~
Neal Ross, Student of history, politics, patriot and staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Send all comments to: bonsai@syix.com.
If you liked Neal’s latest column, maybe you’ll like his latest booklet: The Civil War: (The Truth You Have Not Been Told) AND don’t forget to pick up your copy of ROSS: Unmasked – An Angry American Speaks Out – and stay tuned – Neal has a new, greatly expanded book coming soon dealing with the harsh truths about the so-called American Civil War of 1861-1865. Life continues to expand for this prolific writer and guardian of TRUE American history.