This is the problem with the propaganda they teach our children in school. I, too, was brought up with the notion that the "Civil War" was about slavery. We can thank Lincoln's Emancipation Proclomation for that. That's the only reason he wrote it, to turn world opinion against the Confederacy. It wasn't until many years later that I came to the realization that the war was about federal government vs. states rights. Now, it seems, we are on the cusp of a rehash of that same arguement. Which has more authority, the states or the fed? The Constitution is actually quite clear on this, if anyone in DC will sit down and actually read the thing, and not attempt to "interpret" it.

Slavery was certainly an issue. But it wasn't the issue. It's hard for people in our country today to get a sence of a person's loyalty to their state at that time. Twice as many free blacks lived in the South as in the North at the time of the war. Many black's owned slaves themselves. The first legally owned slave for life was in Virginia, a British colony at that time. The ironic thing is the man that sued to keep a slave for life was a man named Anthony Johnson, Anthony Johnson was a black man.

It was not an issue about states' rights verses federal rights but it was a class of cultures. The more rdgid Southern social strata against the turmoil and arguement of the North. Recognize the North was expanding rapidly from people coming to america. In the years before the Irish had fled Ireland because of the famine and had put up with "no dogs or Irishmen" signs in New York and other places. The anarchy involved with introduction of large masses of people from other countries lead to a difference of opinion on how to run the nation from an economic standpoint. The North wanted high tariffs to protect new industry and the South wanted low tariffs to provide a high value (purchasing power) for the crops that wre harvested. These ideas got fixed into the political game going on in Washington and lead to an extreme falling out in the country. Does any of this sound familar?

As usual Walter Williams hits another one out of the park.

The victors in almost every human conflict dig their own graves (eventually) when truth itself becomes a victim.

The multitude of stories concerning our "history" always must be measured by "what actually occurred" unclouded by the breathless fervor of having achieved victory, for victory alone shall not for long endure without truth on its side.

Thank-you Dr. Williams for your continuing battle for truth.

Dr. Williams, you just don't understand these things. As an economist you are not qualified to judge historians. You deal in mathematics & facts, neither of which apply to history. The proof? Two quotes, from two up-and-coming younger historians: "You can't let facts get in the way of the big picture" & "Interpretation is what counts, not facts."

Yes, the war was about states' rights, but in particular about states' rights to continue "negro slavery." In the constitution of the Confederate States there are 4 mentions of continuing slavery, including that "No ... law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." (art 1, sec 9(4)) Also, only states that allowed slavery could be admitted (art IV, sec 3(3)). (You can see the constitution of the confederate States at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp )

They were all for states' rights, as long as the states wanted to be slave states. It reminds me of someone saying they're "pro-choice," not wanting to admit that they're pro-abortion.

(I agree that it was a failed war of independence, not a civil war, and that the federal constitution does not address states wanting out.)

Thanks for reinforcing what I learned years ago in public school about 'Black Confederate Soldiers' fighting for the South during the war between the states. You and any other teacher, professor or instructor of any type would be hard pressed to find any reference in the material used in the classroom today to Blacks in the Confederacy. It's like an entire country is in denial.....

1) Name a nation anywhere which contains a provision in its foundational documents, ie., whatever their documents are that stand in place of our Constitution, that provides for its own destruction. You won't find them. Neither is there any provision in our Constitution for the disunion - the destruction - of the United States. (The meaning of this omission is the question that was settled – whether you think rightly or wrongly - by force of arms in the 1860s.) Note that our sovereignty is divided in our system - partly held by the Federal government, partly by States and local governments, and partly by citizen. It is not solely the Federal government’s but neither is our system the loose confederation of States we had under the failed Articles of Confederation. Note that the Confederate Constitution was much more like the Articles of Confederation than the US Constitution. I think this speaks to a preeminence of “States Rights” over national unity in their (the CSAs') minds.

2) The War was about Secession, the Union forces believing it was not allowed and would not be tolerated, and the Confederate forces believing it was their right. However, it is disingenuous to assert that it was not about slavery. The "peculiar institution" was the reason for the secession. It was deliberately provoked by the "fire-eater" Democrats who, after 10 year of sustained effort to promote secession, broke the Charlestown convention and thereby deliberately assisted the election of Lincoln. (They had another conventions and a "rump" convention and thereby divided the Democratic ticket, that is, they ended up with 2 Democratic Pres/VP nominees: Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois and Vice President John C. Breckenridge of Kentucky for President. This was a sure and deliberate loosing strategy.) Then they did the typical Democrat thing and demonized Lincoln both during the run-up to the election and afterwards. “Ape Lincoln” was among the mildest ad hominem attacks. It is worth noting that states began seceding - South Carolina 12/20/1860 - even before Lincoln’s inauguration -3/4/1861.

3) IMO, "States' Rights" is the cry used to sucker the Southern people into succession and fighting the war by the wealthy plantation owners/slave holders who felt their "peculiar institution" was at risk. (These were the political class and leaders of the South in their day.) I should also point out that it was not just a matter of maintaining slavery in the states; a real issue and ongoing battle was whether or not to allow slavery to expand into the territories and the states formed from the territories. IMO, both the claims about Lincoln that helped provoke the succession and that the war was about "States Rights" was demagoguery at its worst.

4) Unless you think that slavery should still exist, the sad thing is if they had not seceded and worked with Lincoln, they would have been better off. He was promoting a gradual, compensated emancipation extending as late as 1900. (Not to mention all the cost, blood, and destruction caused by the war.)

5) Civil war is "war between parties, factions, or inhabitants of different regions within the same nation." To assert as the author does with his limited definition that the war from 1861 to 1865 was not a "civil war' by definition is to takes sides, at the least. In the Emancipation Proclamation, President Lincoln refers to "the States ... then in rebellion against the United States..." Since it was, at the least in the author's terms, a *failed* war for independence, it can properly be termed a “rebellion” and therefore properly termed a civil war.

I cannot trust a man to control

others who cannot control himself.

---Robert E. Lee (1807-1870)

Thank you Mr. Schuerger! I understand and appreciate the concept of States' rights and believe the the Civil War forever changed that from what was intended by the Founders. Our present government would be unrecognizable by the Founders, whether Federalist or Democratic-Republicans. However, I agree with each of Mr. Schuerger's points above and have reached these premises myself after studying Civil War history, including Southern apologists. Without slavery, there is no Civil War. The whole situation was far from clear-cut and I do not deny the overreach of power and the awful casualties of the Civil War, both human and political. But it is necessary to look at all the facts before jumping on the CSA bandwagon.

Slavery was and is morally wrong. Despite its immorality, it has been an institution since man has inhabited this planet. It is still around, mostly in 3rd world countries. A Confederate private was asked by a Yankee Major why he was fighting against the north when it was fairly clear the man probably did not own slaves. His answer was as follows: "Because this is OUR damned land and your damned foot is on it!" Therein lies the crux of the argument. No one, including those commenting here, wants to be told by someone else what they can do with their property, money, land, culture when that someone else is not part and parcel of that batch of important stuff just listed. Whether you know it or not, some folks from some parts of the country do not understand the cultures in other parts of this country. It would be a bit presumptuous of me, from the deep south, to go to Brooklyn and begin dictating how they are to live. I would think that a lot of the earned wealth and stability of the United States produced in the first half of the 19th century was as a result of a major contribution by the south, including farmers, plantation owners, cotton shippers, cotton brokers, sugar dealers, etc. Slavery was not begun by southerners. The mansions in Boston near the harbor are there in large part due to the slaving activities of Massachusetts yankee ship owners and captains. The way the issue of slavery was handled has lead to a country crippled by a class of people who believe that they have been permanently aggrieved and that the debt can never be repaid. Frankly, no black man in America living today has ever been a slave, and I know of no white folks who have owned slaves. But did you know that there were several companies of American Indians that fought on the side of the South? And others that fought for the Yankees? Were their sentiments about slavery? Not likely, though the Cherokees of North Georgia did own slaves and plantations. I think the Indians have a better case against the white man than the blacks. Some of my ancestors were slaughtered by the Nazis. Should I continue to demand apologies and retribution against the German people ad nauseum? Does anyone realize that the invention of the cotton gin was what caused cotton farming in the south to become profitable? Prior to that time it was not profitable enough to fool with due to the labor of picking out the seeds and hulls. Maybe an easier remedy, rather than causing the deaths of 617,000 men and setting the south back a hundred years, would have been to simply burn all the cotton gins and ban them from the country. End of problem. By the way, I did not know the CSA had a "bandwagon", just a nation of pretty decent folks.

I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the South, not least because my late mother was born south of the Mason-Dixon Line and raised me properly. I have also soujorned in southern realms such as the environs of Ft. Polk, LA and locations in Georgia. The Southern folk are well known for their patriotism and faith, and serve in the Armed Forces at a greater rate than any other part of the country.

However interesting to discuss, we do not need to re-fight the Civil War (or whatever favorite name you have for the most tragic conflict in our history) if we want to support and defend States' Rghts. I think what we need to do is hold the Federal Government's collective feet to the fire, to use an old expression, when it comes to the Constitution in general and the 10th Ammendment specifically.

I also think repealing the 17th (direct election of Senators) would be good. No one represents the States' interests, which is what the Senate was intended to accomplish. As things stand today, States are becoming nothing more than convenient administrative units for the Federal Government to manage.

History is good to study, if only to try and understand how we got to the place we find ourselves. It is good to hear the "stories of our tribe" so that we may know who we are. This good enables us to understand American Exeptionalism, which the current occupant of the White House does not. Lastly, it helps to provide perspective for the next time you hear some breathless newsie start expounding with superlatives.

You make some very good points, BoFromTexas. You trigger some information from my cranial storage system. Some of this might be additional data and some might be things you already know. Interesting subjects, and I am not trying to start a brawl here.

American Indians were from different tribes and had somewhat different cultures from each other, not to mention differences from those of us from European ancestry, so these are only general statements that may not be universally true. Many Indians warred on and enslaved each other, not only black people of African origin, and some enslaved whites as well. The white slaves were mostly women and children, some of which were taken into some of the tribes (ie, "adopted" into the tribe rather than strictly slave labor) and some of which were treated as no more than beasts of burden.

As to slavery, the number black Africans enslaved (actually by other black Africans, generally from other tribes from raids or war, and then sold to the slave traders) was no where near the number of European Christians enslaved by the Barbary Pirates in the Med. That is why various nations paid tribute, and why we have a Navy and the Marines sing about "the shores of Tripoli." It is also worth noting that many Africans were sold to the Caribbean sugar plantations, where the conditions were much worse and the life expectancy much lower than in the United States. At one time slaves could legally be held in any of the States, btw.

Another point about the slave trade is that yes, the New England shipping industry provided much of the slave trade, but mostly it was generally disapproved of and thus was not acknowledged. (It was often much like smuggling, which thrives when the tarrifs get beyond what people think is reasonable and high enough to be profitable.) Remember, this is the land of the Puritans we are talking about.

A more common thing in the North was "indentured servitude" in which a person would agree to work for someone for a period of years, typically to pay for the passage from Europe and to cover their upkeep during this period. A somewhat similar thing was an Apprenticeship, in which parents contracted to place their children in service with a Master with the understanding that they would be taught the trade.

Another reason for some of the Abolitionist sentiments of the North was that it did not want the perceived competition with Industry. Quite often with those who do not know the economic situation, slavery looked cheaper than hiring workers. A slave was a seriously expensive and valuable asset, who was not routinely abused any more than most people abuse their horses. (Harriet Beecher Stowe was a novelist and propagandist, not a historian.)

Along the subject of cotton, good old utilitarian cotton was a luxury fabric before the cotton gin made it economical. The cotton gin was not to blame and the cotton industry has survived around the world without slavery. The South's withholding cotton (they actually destroyed some in hopes of building the scarity, thus increasing cotton's value, as well as wanting getting Great Britan to intervene on their side) from Great Britan's textile industry resulted in the cotton industry in Ceylon, now known as Sri Lanka, if I have my geography straight. Since you may remember that Abolitionism began in England, I doubt there was slavery in Ceylon growing and picking cotton for the Brits.

The Abolition movement is also the child of the Great Awakenings (Christian revivals.)

Anyone know which section of the Constitution bans Secession? James Madison call your office

I find it difficult to reconcile a clear understanding of our Declaration of Independence with a rejection of the idea that there is a right to secede from a political band. There are rights that are not enumerated in the constitution which are unalienable, self-evident and unabridged by the US constitution. If it were true that we did not have the right to secede when a government has become intolerable, we are nothing more than slaves, represented or not.

Let me say, though, that this is a very interesting discussion, of course inspired by Dr. Williams.

... "-- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,...

That's why the South was perfectly legit in seceding from the "Union".

Also, let's not forget. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't "free" anyone as it only proclaimed the slaves in the states that had seceded, to be free. Since those states were no longer part of the USA, the E.P. carried no legal authority within the CSA. Also, the E.P specifically exempted those slave states, such as Maryland, that had not seceded.

I, too, agree that the 17th amendment needs to be repealed, right along with the 16th. (see fairtax.org)

The most powerful arguments for secession are contained in 12 Treatises written by Timothy Baldwin (son of Chuck Baldwin), "A Concurring Opinion for Secession," and, can be found at: http://newswithviews.com/Timothy/baldwinA.htm

Every word in these twelve treatises is worth remembering.

We especially need to remember that the Founding Fathers of this Nation had just successfully seceded from the worlds most powerful Global Empire, and, the "Right of Secession" weighed heavily on their minds. It was implicit in the writing and passage of the 10th Amendment.

Tad,

Youre quote "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it---" is taken from the Declartion of Independence not the Constitution. I can't find any remedy other than Article. V of the Constitution which deals with the Amendments.

The issue of "states rights" caught my attention.

States do not have rights.States have powers,the 10th amendment is very specific.

Finally no man has "the right" to enslave another.No institution of government may grant that right.To do so you stand in forfeit of any and all rights yourself.

Another question that has occurred to me in the assertion that the Southerns fought to defend their homes is, why then, did they invade the Union a number of times and locations both East and West beginnning in 1862? That was not "repelling the invader."

Also, I think the common view at the time and the histories as well are far too Eastern-oriented. I think it is due mostly to the fact that the East is where both Capitals were (Washington and Richmond) and the bulk of the population as well. Personally I think the Victory at Vicksburg was more important militarily than Gettysburg (both occurred the same weekend) and gets short shrift. Vicksburg cut the Confederacy in half and gave unlimited access up and down the Mississippi to the Union. This, IMO, was far more important. The rail line from the West went through Vicksburg and Carthage, which had already fallen, if I recall correctly. This was a serious loss of supply to the South. It began with the invasion up the Mississippi and conquest of New Orleans, which is hardly even recognized by most people.