Special to the Mirror by Charles Landis.
In her recent book, Trail of Blood, Dr. Joane Freeman, Professor of history and American studies at Yale, makes the case that the first shots fired in the Civil War were not at Ft. Sumner in Charleston but were fired in the Congress in the period 1830-1860 leading up to secession and the War. The country was bitterly divided over slavery, the representatives in Congress reflected the attitudes of their constituents, and Benjamin French, Clerk of the House of Representatives during the period, recorded in seventeen volumes all the anger, insults, and violence in the debates.
However much we may be dismayed by the division in Congress today, nothing compares to what transpired in the three decades leading up to the Civil War. Pistols, Bowie knives, and canes were commonly carried to the floor of the Congress as necessary to either assert a position or to defend against a physical attract. Any comment by a northerner against the southern way of life and the institution of slavery was regarded as an assault on their code of honor. Immediate response was confrontation, verbal and physically assault, or challenge to duel. Bullying of Republican abolitionists by Southern Democrats was a constant abuse.
One can scarcely turn a page in French’s chronicle of this period without reading of the verbal assaults, bullying, or challenges of the Eastern Shore’s Representative, Henry Wise, considered the most important political person in Virginia in the quarter century leading to the War. In the South, dueling in defense of the code of honor was supported and considered necessary under the code. In the North dueling was not approved of but refusal to accept a challenge was considered a sign of cowardice. Adoption of the gag rule requiring the tableting and prohibiting of discussion of petitions relating to the abolition of slavery exacerbated the frustrations of the North.
The Republican abolitionists believed in the promise of the Declaration of Independence that all men were created equal and endowed by their creator with the inalienabel right to freedom. The Democrats in the South believed the Constitution established the legitimacy of slavery and the Supreme Court under Justice Taney opined slaves were personal property (Dred Scott). Both sides believed their cause was just. With the election of Lincoln what had been a cold civil war became the real Civil war.
There are interesting similarities in how the country was divided in 1860 and now. Lincoln was elected with only 40% of the popular vote, (the second lowest in US history) and 59.4% of the electoral vote. John Quincy Adams was the lowest with 30.9% of popular vote and 32.8 of electoral votes. Trump won the 2016 election with 56% of electoral vote but only 46.9% of popular vote. The Southern Democrats feared the “tyranny” of the Republicans under Lincoln and seceded. Today the Democrats allege tyranny of Republicans under Trump and seek to change the results of the election by impeachment or obstruction and resistance to every policy or initiative. Never Trump!
Today, the violence, intimidation, and bullying of Republicans by Democrats is not, as in the pre-Civil War period, by thrashing with a cane or fists, or brandishing pistols and Bowie knives. The threats, however, are still therere as evidenced by attempted assassination, imaging of the severed head of Trump at political rallies, assaults in public places, and need for armed protection of Republican officials not before considered necessary. Bullying is again an integral part of the Democrat party playbook. Democrat leadership calls for assaults on Republicans in any public place(Waters),to kick Republicans when disagree with policies (Booker), and to not be civil to the deplorable Republicans until Democrats are in control (Clinton). The wearing of a red MAGA hat is sufficient cause to bully and fabricate fake news as in the Covington Catholic School case.
The most disturbing cases of bullying occur on the campuses of colleges and universities. Each year there are hundreds of instances of assaults on anyone expressing opinions contrary to the political correctness of the left.
Disunion is not threatened today but there is unfolding an effort by senior officials in the deep state at the FBI and Justice Department to change the result of an election and remove a duly elected President, Trump, by usurping authority and invoking the 25th Amendment.
Media in the lead up to the Civil War was primarily newspapers and pamphlets which reflected sectional interests and prejudice. Often news was reported in the form of anonymous letters out of fear of bullying and physical assault on the reporter. Today, national media is dominated by opinion commentary broadcast 24/7 with 90% of reporting by Democrats with negative commentary against Trump and Republicans which are based on anonymous sources and “what if” speculation. Historians have long regarded the election of Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) as the dirtiest in our history but what has been said against Trump and his family exceed anything I have read of in the past.
In the years leading up to the Civil Warr, division was over the Constitutional issues of disunion and equality/social justice. Dr Charles Kessler, Senior Fellow at the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, makes the case that division today is a Cold Civil War between two contrary visions about the Constitution. The conservative/Republican vision is based on the original Constitution as written and amended. The Progressive/Democrat vision is of a “ living Constitution” and the original Constitution must be “infused with new meaning and new ends” to include new rights, powers, and responsibilities to circumvent structural limitations of the original Constituton. To be continued
Res Publica
C. Augustus Landis
Mr. Landis. I applaud your well researched and lucid article. Thank you, the country needs more patriots like you who are willing to step out against the appalling actions of some in our government. The fact that these so called investigations are being funded by taxpayers should make all of us rise up in protest.
Having read the Federalist Papers several times, as well as literally hundreds of essays written pro and con the Constitution from the 1787-88 period in our history as a nation, it is quite clear that in fact the Constitution is a living document, in that it contains within it a mechanism for change by those down the road.
To argue otherwise is to profess and reveal an abounding ignorance of our own history.
As to the Civil War, the seeds for that were sown by the compromise between the northern and southern states at the time of ratification of the Constitution as can be seen in this excerpt from “An Address to the Freemen of South Carolina on the Subject of the Federal Constitution” by David Ramsay writing as Civis in the Columbian Herald, Charleston, South Carolina on February 04, 1787, as follows:
Let us examine also the federal constitution, by the principle of reciprocal concession.
We have laid a foundation for a navigation act.
This will be a general good; but particularly so to our northern brethren.
On the other hand, they have agreed to change the federal rule of paying the continental debt, according to the value of land as laid down in the confederation, for a new principle of apportionment, to be founded on the numbers of inhabitants in the several states respectively.
This is an immense concession in our favor.
Their land is poor; our’s rich; their numbers great; our’s small; labour with them is done by white men, for whom they pay an equal share; while five of our negroes only count as equal to three of their whites.
This will make a difference of many thousands of pounds in settling our continental accounts.
It is farther objected, that they have stipulated for a right to prohibit the importation of negroes after 21 years.
On this subject observe, as they are bound to protect us from domestic violence, they think we ought not to increase our exposure to that evil, by an unlimited importation of slaves.
Though Congress may forbid the importation of negroes after 21 years, it does not follow that they will.
On the other hand, it is probable that they will not.
The more rice we make, the more business will be for their shipping: their interest will therefore coincide with our’s.
Besides, we have other sources of supply—the importations of the ensuing 20 years, added to the natural increase of those we already have, and the influx from our northern neighbours, who are desirous of getting rid of their slaves, will afford a sufficient number for cultivating all the lands in this state.
end quotes
Now, contrast that with what Virginia’s Jemmy Madison is saying on that same subject in FEDERALIST No. 42, The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered, from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Tuesday, January 22, 1788, to wit:
The regulation of foreign commerce, having fallen within several views which have been taken of this subject, has been too fully discussed to need additional proofs here of its being properly submitted to the federal administration.
It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation.
But it is not difficult to account, either for this restriction on the general government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed.
It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union.
Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren!
Attempts have been made to pervert this clause into an objection against the Constitution, by representing it on one side as a criminal toleration of an illicit practice, and on another as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America.
I mention these misconstructions, not with a view to give them an answer, for they deserve none, but as specimens of the manner and spirit in which some have thought fit to conduct their opposition to the proposed government.
end quote
It is from right there that all the subsequent violence discussed in the article, which used to be high school history, derives from as positions hardened after the 21 years had expired.
With respect to the statement above that Dr Charles Kessler, a Senior Fellow at the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, makes the case that division today is a Cold Civil War between two contrary visions about the Constitution, with the conservative/Republican vision being based on the original Constitution as written and amended. while the Progressive/Democrat vision is of a “ living Constitution” and the original Constitution must be “infused with new meaning and new ends” to include new rights, powers, and responsibilities to circumvent structural limitations of the original Constitution, in all truth, based on a study of our political history from before the ratification of the Constitution circa 1786, there have been contrary visions of the Constitution right from Day One, and here I am relying in part on THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC: ITS CONSTITUTION, TENDENCIES, AND DESTINY BY O. A. BROWNSON, LL. D., NEW YORK: P. O’SHEA, 104 BLEECKER STREET, 1866, where in CHAPTER X, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, he states as follows:
THE constitution of the United States is twofold, written and unwritten, the constitution of the people and the constitution of the government.
The written constitution is simply a law ordained by the nation or people instituting and organizing the government; the unwritten constitution is the real or actual constitution of the people as a state or sovereign community, and constituting them such or such a state.
It is Providential, not made by the nation, but born with it.
The written constitution is made and ordained by the sovereign power, and presupposes that power as already existing and constituted.
The unwritten or Providential constitution of the United States is peculiar, and difficult to understand, because incapable of being fully explained by analogies borrowed from any other state historically known, or described by political philosophers.
It belongs to the Græco-Roman family, and is republican as distinguished from despotic constitutions, but it comes under the head of neither monarchical nor aristocratic, neither democratic nor mixed constitutions, and creates a state which is neither a centralized state nor a confederacy.
The difficulty of understanding it is augmented by the peculiar use under it of the word state, which does not in the American system mean a sovereign community or political society complete in itself like France, Spain, or Prussia, nor yet a political society subordinate to another political society and dependent on it.
The American States are all sovereign States united, but, disunited, are no States at all.
The rights and powers of the States are not derived from the United States, nor the rights and powers of the United States derived from the States.
The simple fact is, that the political or sovereign people of the United States exists as united States, and only as united States.
end quotes
Now, keep in mind that when these words were written, the Civil War was over, secession had failed, and people were looking for reasons for the madness in their times, just as those of us who lived through the Viet Nam times search for some kind rational reason for all that to have happened.
From a reading of Brownson as follows, it is clear that even the so-called founding fathers were not sure what the Constitution actually was supposed to mean in terms of government, to wit:
The sovereign people are not the people outside of State organization, nor the people of the States severally, but the distinct people of the several States united, and therefore most appropriately called the people of the United States.
This is the peculiarity of the American constitution, and is substantially the very peculiarity noted and dwelt upon by Mr. Madison in his masterly letter to Edward Everett, published in the “North American Review,” October, 1830.
“In order to understand the true character of the constitution of the United States,” says Mr. Madison, “the error, not uncommon, must be avoided of viewing it through the medium either of a consolidated government or of a confederated government, whilst it is neither the one nor the other, but a mixture of both.”
“And having, in no model, the similitudes and analogies applicable to other systems of government, it must, more than any other, be its own interpreter, according to its text and the facts in the case.”
end quotes
So there we have Jemmy Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” telling us the Constitution must be its own interpreter, according to its text and the facts in the case, which seems to strongly imply a living document to me, anyway.
Getting back to Jemmy:
“From these it will be seen that the characteristic peculiarities of the constitution are: 1. The mode of its formation, 2. The division of the supreme powers of government between the States in their united capacity and the States in their individual capacities.”
“1. It was formed not by the governments of the component States, as the Federal Government, for which it was substituted, was formed; nor was it formed by a majority of the people of the United States as a single community, in the manner of a consolidated government.”
“It was formed by the States; that is, by the people in each of the States, acting in their highest sovereign capacity, and formed consequently by the same authority which formed the State constitution.”
“Being thus derived from the same source as the constitutions of the States, it has within each State the same authority as the constitution of the State, and is as much a constitution in the strict sense of the term, within its prescribed sphere, as the constitutions of the States are within their respective spheres; but with this obvious and essential difference, that, being a compact among the States in their highest capacity, and constituting the people thereof one people for certain purposes, it cannot be altered or annulled at the will of the States individually, as the constitution of a State may be at its individual will.”
“2. And that it divides the supreme powers of government between the government of the United States and the governments of the individual States, is stamped on the face of the instrument; the powers of war and of taxation, of commerce and treaties, and other enumerated powers rested in the government of the United States, are of as high and sovereign a character as any of the powers reserved to the State governments.”
Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Webster, Chancellor Kent, Judge Story, and nearly all the old Republicans, and even the old Federalists, on the question as to what is the actual constitution of the United States, took substantially the same view; but they all, as well as Mr. Madison himself, speak of the written constitution, which on their theory has and can have only a conventional value.
Mr. Madison evidently recognises no constitution of the people prior to the written constitution, from which the written constitution, or the constitution of the government, derives all its force and vitality.
The organization of the American people, which he knew well, – no man better, – and which he so justly characterizes, he supposes to have been deliberately formed by the people themselves, through the convention – not given them by Providence as their original and inherent constitution.
But this was merely the effect of the general doctrine which he had adopted, in common with nearly all his contemporaries, of the origin of the state in compact, and may be eliminated from his view of what the constitution actually is, without affecting that view itself.
end quotes
That was going to lead to the once-famous Webster-Hayne debates in the Senate, which debates set the stage for all that was to come after, leading up to the opening shots of the Civil War, itself.
More on that to come.
CIRCA 1830
As seen in the Webster-Hayne debate, partisans of rival sections and philosophies of government confronted each other convinced of the legitimacy of their respective interests, the justness of their respective causes, and the correctness of their constitutional arguments.
On the one hand, the ambiguity of power relations in the federal Union encouraged bargaining and compromise between the constituent parts of the system because much political history could be cited in support of the belief that compromise was the price of union.
On the other hand, should issues arise not amenable to compromise, partisans might conclude, contrary to the official theory of American federalism, that sovereignty could not in fact be divided between the states and the general government.
In this view, sovereignty must either be consolidated in the nation or be exercised by the several states.
Elevated to the level of constitutional principle, this perception could lead to polarization between the parts of the federal system.
Yet if a strategy of polarization were pursued to its logical conclusion, resulting in the violent confrontation anticipated in Webster’s second reply to Hayne, there could be no predicting the outcome.
As never before, the peril inherent in the structure of federal politics — along with the opportunity and need for responsible statesmanship — appeared in the great debate of 1830.
Senators who spoke after the personal encounter between Webster and Hayne had been concluded were conscious of the historical significance [xv] of the debate.
Edward Livingston expressed the purpose of the extraordinary deliberation in observing: “The publication of what has been said, will spread useful information on topics highly proper to be understood in the community at large.”
“The recurrence which has been had to first principles is of incalculable use.”
“The nature, form, history, and changes of our Government, imperceptible or disregarded at the time of their occurrence, are remarked; abuses are pointed out; and the people are brought to reflect on the past, and provide for the future.”
Profound changes have occurred in American society since the early nineteenth century.
Yet, to a remarkable extent, the issues raised in the Webster-Hayne debate remain relevant and controversial in American government and politics.
A record of the deliberations of early Republican statements on these issues at a critical moment in the development of the American political tradition has practical worth for Americans today as they reflect on the meaning of republican liberty.
Herman Belz
University of Maryland
1998
So, in 1789, the American people of that time ratified a form of government which to the knowledge of anyone living at that time had never previously existed on the face of the earth, so it is not all surprising that nobody back then seemed to know exactly what it was, and who had what political power.
And a common misconception I still hear uttered by fools today, is that back then, we were all good friends and great buddies who all shared common goals and aspirations, and yes, the AMERICAN DREAM of a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.
Not hardly.
As the website for the American Battlefield Trust informs us, which used to be high school history, thirty years before the Civil War broke out, disunion appeared to be on the horizon with the Nullification Crisis.
What started as a debate over the Tariff of Abominations soon morphed into debates over state and federal sovereignty and liberty and disunion.
These debates transformed into a national crisis when South Carolina threatened secession, an explicit threat of disunion.
However, the United States narrowly avoided a civil war through compromise and the reaffirmation of executive authority.
end quotes
So, at the time the Constitution was ratified, there was a threat of disunion and civil war, especially between New York state and Vermont over what were known as the Hampshire Grants, and by 1830, there was still the threat of disunion and civil war, and then finally, the gloves came off and we actually had one.
Where is the mystery?
As to the Tariff of Abominations, since 1816, the United States used tariffs to protect American industry against foreign competition, and protective tariffs formed the foundation of Henry Clay’s American System which served as the main economic policy of the United States until President Andrew Jackson’s election.
The first tariff passed was relatively low, but it progressively rose each year until 1828, with what became known as the Tariff of Abominations.
Representative Silas Wright, an ally of Jackson, first proposed this tariff in 1828 as a ploy to help Old Hickory’s presidential campaign.
With respect to regional and sectional disagreements and jealousies, and plain old politics, the tariff raised duties to between 30-50% on certain raw materials, which protected the Mid-Atlantic and western states which produced these raw materials, but left southern states—and its cotton and tobacco industry—unprotected.
In shades of today with the Soybean Imbroglio with China, in retaliation for the high tariff, foreign markets blocked the sale of American cotton, the South’s chief export and the cornerstone of their economy which caused economic issues in the South.
Despite the South’s fervent objection to this tariff, Jackson maintained southern support for his campaign and by backing this tariff garnered support from states such as Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Kentucky, and Missouri, which proved to be vital in his campaign and helped him win the presidency.
In 1828, Jackson’s soon to be Vice President and ally John C. Calhoun of South Carolina wrote an anonymously published a pamphlet titled “Exposition and Protest” which passionately criticized the tariff and laid the groundwork for nullification theory.
Despite southern objections, the tariff passed and went largely forgotten in American consciousness, where it again resides today, until an exchange on the Senate floor between South Carolinian Senator Robert Hayne and Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster in January 1830 which reopened the debate.
Hayne argued that state sovereignty permitted the nullification of federal rulings when those rulings infringed on states’ rights, going so far as to argue for secession in order to preserve state and personal liberty.
Webster famously responded with “liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable.”
Sowing the seeds for the actual civil war to follow, to Webster and many other unionists, people, not states comprised the union, and nullification propagated secession which in turn would destroy the union: the sole protector of liberty.
Thus, to preserve liberty, one must preserve the union.
On the other hand, nullifiers did not believe in this link between union and liberty but rather argued that it was the states alone which protected individual freedoms from an overreaching federal government.
The issue of nullification divided the White House as Vice President Calhoun staunchly supported states’ rights and served as a spokesman for nullification by revealing he wrote “Exposition and Protest.”
Jackson, on the other hand, supported states’ rights, but not at the expense of the Union and once stated he “would rather die in the last ditch than see the union dismantled.”
In 1832 Congress replaced the Tariff of Abominations with a lower tariff; however, that was not enough to satisfy the South Carolinians who had made faint threats of nullification since 1828.
Almost immediately following Jackson’s re-election in 1832, South Carolina, fortified by the recent election of many state nullifiers, formed a convention that denounced the Tariff of Abominations and its 1832 revision and formally adopted an Ordinance of Nullification.
This ordinance declared those tariffs null and void and forbade the collection of duties within the boundary of the state following February 1, 1833.
Finally, the ordinance declared that any act of force by Congress against South Carolina would lead to its immediate secession from the union.
In the past Jackson simply acknowledged the supremacy of union over state sovereignty without taking any direct action; however, this explicit threat of secession forced him to act against these nullifiers.
Jackson advised his Secretary of War Lewis Cass to prepare for war, and over the course of a few months, Cass complied arms and enlisted a militia in preparation to enter South Carolina to enforce the tariff and prevent secession.
During his war preparations, Jackson engaged in a national public relations campaign to discredit nullification in the mind of the American public.
Jackson gave speeches against nullification that vehemently denounced South Carolina and promoted unionism.
Jackson also gave a special speech to Congress asking them to reaffirm his authority to use force to ensure the execution of United States laws, which Congress complied with in a bill aptly known as Jackson’s force bill.
Despite his preparations, Jackson did not desire a civil war, but rather hoped the nullifiers would back down against his threats.
In response to Jackson’s vigorous actions, South Carolinians delayed the enactment of their ordinance.
Jackson, in turn, discretely supported Speaker of the House Henry Clay’s efforts to lower the tariff that caused this crisis.
On March 2, 1833, Congress passed both Jackson’s and Clay’s tariff reduction.
In response, South Carolinians rescinded their Ordinance of Nullification and the crisis passed.
Although not the first crisis that dealt with state authority over perceived unconstitutional infringements on its sovereignty, the Nullification Crisis represented a pivotal moment in American history as this is the first time tensions between state and federal authority almost led to a civil war.
Ultimately, the spirit of union prevailed, and Americans reached a compromise which avoided war.
However, this crisis laid the groundwork for the secession theory that reemerged in the 1850s at a time of heightened sectional tensions.
By then the United States would not be so lucky, and debates over slavery and the legitimacy of secession would plunge Americans into a horrific civil war.
And thus was American history made.