The American Civil War was a conflict that raged between eleven southern states and twenty-three northern states from 1861 to 1865. It is a very clear example of Federalism vs. Anti-Federalism in that the South did not think that the federal government in Washington D.C. should have power or control over state policy. States thought that they should have the right to determine what is right and wrong in the area under their jurisdiction so that, ideally, the will of the people could be better carried out. States' Rights advocates saw the Constitution as a pact that unified the states, not a document that surrendered all their power to Washington.
On the other side of the coin were the Federalists who believed in the power of the strong, central government to enforce fundamental human rights. Abolitionists and Nationalists were two major groups that opposed anti-federalist efforts. The former thought that the federal government needed to step in and stop the South from violating human rights through slavery and the latter thought that States' rights would create a weak, inviable nation that was less one country than an assembly of smaller government entities that would not be able to function as a nation.
Ironically, although anti-federalists thought that states should be able to pretty much do what they want, Southern slave owners also thought that they should be able to take their slaves anywhere in the USA and still have them remain their slave despite laws that outlawed slavery in many northern states--basically, that meant that they were saying that people shouldn't have to listen to the federal government in these cases, but in those cases, you should.
During the Antebellum Era, the friction between and separation between the anti-slavery, pro-federal North and the pro-slavery, anti-federal South increased. The North tangibly discouraged slavery through laws that established tariffs on southern goods and compromises that threatened the South's slave-dependent economy. When Lincoln was elected president, the South feared that slavery didn't have a chance in...America. The voice of the slave states was already minor in federal government, so they decided that now was the time to secede from the Union. Before Abe even took office, seven southern states had seceded from America, receiving little resistant from Buchanan, who was a Lame Duck at this point. President Buchanan even said that declaring war on a state that has withdrawn from the union and entered the confederacy "is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress."
Nonetheless, Lincoln ended up fighting for the Union against the Confederate States of America, reunifying the country and freeing 3.5 million slaves at the cost of over a million casualties, a country that was still divided in the hearts of her people, the crushed southern economy that is perhaps still recovering, and, well, three and a half million slaves that didn't have homes, jobs, food, etc. Nevertheless, although Federalism won the Civil War, anti-federalism was not stifled in America but continued as a strong force even during the Reconstruction era.
'The slave went free; stood a brief moment in the sun; then moved back again toward slavery.' ~ Black Reconstruction in America (1935) by W.E.B. DuBois
Some Federal Issues
Nationalism
Abolitionism
Jurisdiction (extends to where?)
Tariffs
Some Anti-Federal Issues
States' Rights
Slavery
Interviewee: Roger Schlottman
All Questions were asked in the context of the Civil War
What do you think of States' Rights?
I believe in very, very strong States' Rights and a weak central government. The more responsive and local a government is to its people, the better and quicker it can react to their needs. People in different communities have different needs and different lifestyles, the people in La Jolla as supposed to Barrio Logan have different issues and community standards--what is right for one is often not right for the other.
But what does local government have to do with States' Rights?
As I already stated, the smaller the government, the more responsive it can be to its citizens' needs. One of the major challenges of a large, central bureaucracy is that it attempts to meet the needs of millions of diverse people with varying opinions, religions, practices, beliefs, and cultures. Basically, States are a form of a much more local government than a national government, which tries to make one size fit all.
And what does all of this have to do with the Civil War?
Because the federal government ignored the southern states' needs, like lower tariffs, cheap labor, etc.
In order to free three and a half million slaves the federal government killed almost one million Americans and maimed almost five-hundred thousand. We also destroyed the economy of the South for the next hundred years and although African-Americans were freed from slavery, they remained slaves to discrimination, segregation, and the Jim Crow laws.
The most important point, in my opinion, is that slavery would have died out within the next 10 or 20 years. The U.S. was the last major industrialized country that had slavery.
Are there any Federal issues concerning the Civil War that you have an opinion on?
Conscription. Conscription happened for the first time under Lincoln. They also controlled the press and restricted freedom of speech. These precedents have, except for maybe World War II, not served us well (i.e., WWI, Korea, Vietnam).
Are there any good things about Federalism, especially during the Civil War?
No, can you? Wait a minute, I thought of something. It helped speed along the industrialization of the North producing war goods. The transportation and industrialization systems were in place after the war for the North to start expanding.
But can't people's fundamental, constitutional rights be abused and violated without a strong, central government to enforce them?
Do you mean like the African-American's rights after the strong, central government prevented the secession of the South? No, just kidding. To bring it to today, I believe if you have a state that supports equal rights, equal pay for women, gay rights, etc. that those people will flock to a state where they are treated respectfully, where justice is done, and opportunity is available for all; and those states will flourish because of the rightness of their laws. That it will be a vibrant, strong, economically viable state as opposed to those other states that do not have an equal playing field in place, states which will suffer.
I call it the natural selection of government policy, where the most responsive, flexible, and honest government thrives. This would give us 50 different experimental governments that would show which ones would be the most viable over time, ideas that they could then share with the other states which they could decide if those policies would be a good fit for their state.
But wouldn't constitutional rights still be abused by some states?
Sure. But isn't that already happening today? And isn't this a more honest system, one that rewards good government behavior and open policies? Eventually, less constitutional rights, I believe, would be violated because that doesn't promote economic viability. For example, people are trying to get into the U.S., as opposed to any place where human rights are not respected and economic opportunity is not available.
In my state, all water and power would be operated on a non-profit basis. Public transportation would also be operated on a non-profit basis, with education and healthcare being funded by the state, giving all people a level playing field from which to pull themselves up. One last thing, my police wouldn't have guns.
No comments:
Post a Comment