The Constitution Did Not Cause the War in 1861

Many especially Southern historians believe that the Federal Government established by the thirteen independent American States with the ratification of the Constitution of 1788 was directly responsible for the war of 1861, thus destroying the rights and sovereignty of all the existing States and making of them mere “legislative counties” charged with and limited to fulfilling the will of that same federal government. Indeed, there have even been claims that had the post-Revolutionary War government remained under the Articles of Confederation – once properly amended – that the war of 1861 would not have occurred.

But whatever one believes about any issue – and this is especially true with history! – that belief is profoundly affected by one’s understanding of the situation involved. Frequently, additional information leads to a reconsideration of one’s position as it did for me in this matter. Let us consider the belief held by many studying America’s second “civil war” who claim that the Founding Fathers abandoned the valid – if seriously flawed! – Articles of Confederation, to embark upon an effort to create a new “founding document” that eventually destroyed the sovereignty of the individual Colonies/States, placing them under the control of a national government that could, would – and eventually did! – nullify the rights of both the sovereign States individually and the American People collectively. This concern was voiced by, among others, Virginia patriot Patrick Henry during efforts to ratify the new Constitution in Virginia:

“A number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this country, object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving previous notice. If gentlemen are willing to run the hazard, let them run it; but I shall exculpate myself by my opposition and monitory warnings within these walls.” – Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention [June 9, 1788]

However, those making this assertion including Mr. Henry, fail to consider just what the circumstances were before and even under the Articles of Confederation. When one looks more closely at what actually happened during that time, much of the strength of the argument in favor of the Articles is lost. Nothing proves this more than an in-depth study of the revolutionary period where the usefulness of the Articles – or lack thereof – is most obvious. And this is not difficult to understand when one looks more closely at those same “sovereign States,” understanding what they were and did until the outbreak of – and even during – the Revolution itself. Until the end of the French and Indian War the American colonies had been happy to be a part of the great British empire enjoying the Mother Country’s policy known as “salutary neglect.” But the war that had greatly enlarged the British Empire had also resulted in enormous amounts of money expended by Britain, seriously draining its treasury and adding to the tax burden placed on British citizens. Ergo, it was determined that at least some monetary recompense must come from those same colonies that had been defended (at great expense) by England against attacks from both the French and their Indian allies! Once that decision was made, it didn’t take long for the heavy-handed and ill-advised British government to set in motion events that created a much closer relationship among those same colonies!

But it was the attitude of the British upper classes that led to what eventually transpired. Virginia planter George Washington had come up against this attitude many years before when he served in the militia during that same war. British “regulars” had nothing but contempt for him and his fellow colonials and though General Edward Braddock had promised to help the young soldier – whom he respected – secure a commission in the “regulars,” with Braddock’s death, Washington was refused that commission, something he never forgot and probably never forgave! But quite apart from personal passions, this situation was the “status quo” of the economic and social relationship between the “Mother Country” and her colonial “children.” Americans were considered inferior people who could be – and were – routinely cheated! Alas, little did the British – King, Parliament, the aristocracy and the merchant class – understand that most “colonials” remained faithful to “King and Country” because they considered themselves “Englishmen!” But as the financial crisis deepened, more and more Americans realized that this “understanding” was not held by the King, Parliament, the ruling aristocracy and/or the merchant class! And so, by the time the “shot heard round the world” was fired in the Massachusetts countryside in 1775, the diverse colonies had discovered that they weren’t nearly so “diverse” and, more to the point, that they needed each other – at least within a certain set of circumstances. Two so-called Continental Congresses had been called to address the deteriorating situation, the first in 1774 and the second in 1775 after the battles of Lexington and Concord in response to what had become open warfare in Massachusetts. At that second Congress, Bostonian John Adams rose and proposed that the various New England militia that had gathered at Cambridge outside of Boston keeping that British occupied city besieged, be declared the “Continental Army” representing all of the colonies and that a Commander be chosen to lead that army. Adams’ choice for that office was, of course, George Washington, the tall, impressive planter from Virginia who had attended Congress in full military uniform because, he averred, he wanted to assure the Northern colonies that Virginia at least was with them in any open conflict against Britain. For at that point shots had been fired only in the North! The Middle and Southern colonies had been inconvenienced and threatened but not directly attacked. Nor were these colonies altogether sure that they wanted to commit themselves to what was certainly high treason against the most powerful Empire in the world, not having the population, the economic strength or the goods and materials necessary to fight what would be a total war! As well, there was no evidence of a sufficiently strong military force in the colonies that might give them any hope of victory in such a struggle! On the other hand, the cost of failure was unspeakable as the punishment for high treason was to be hanged, drawn and quartered!

Now we must look at what happened during the Revolution under the Articles. Once war had been declared not everybody was supportive either as colonies or individual citizens as there were not that many who favored independence! Indeed, it has been claimed that, statistically, about a third of the colonists were “patriots,” a third “loyalists” faithful to the king, and the remaining simply wanted to return to “ordinary life.” This lack of a consensus and resultant cohesion redounded badly for the Revolution! Worse, Washington’s military experience was far from what was required to lead an all-out war against the most powerful Empire in the world, especially given the quality and condition of his “army!” Most problematic, however, was that from the beginning Washington was adamant that the military be subservient to and serve at the behest of that Congress! A true “republican,” Washington did not wish to replace the monarchy with a military power structure a la Cromwell. But this also meant that he could not act independently without the “blessing” of that often confused and frequently conflicted body. And so, the more confused and conflicted that body became, the greater threat it was to the army attempting to win America’s freedom! And very soon indeed, factions began to develop in both the army and the Congress! This was made worse when the Southern planter found himself in command of New England militia groups that answered only to their own (elected) officers and willing to fight only on the soil of their own colony and its immediate neighbors – something that Virginia certainly was not! Indeed, it is astonishing that the “war” lasted longer than a few weeks! That it ended in an American victory must be considered a miracle equal to – if not exceeding – the parting of the Red Sea!

Meanwhile, in the Congress it soon became obvious that there had to be some “ground rules,” that these “still colonial” entities could use to direct the war that they had turned over to a Virginia planter who then, in turn, looked to them to provide him with legitimacy in fulfilling that role! And so, on November 15^th, 1777, Congress created the Articles of Confederation. Now, the first shots were fired in April of 1775 in Massachusetts at Lexington and Concord. The battle of Bunker/Breed’s Hill was fought on June 17^th, some two months later. Washington reached Cambridge and took charge of the militia entrenched there on July 2^nd, less than a month after that battle. But the Articles of Confederation weren’t completed until November 15^th, 1777, two years and eight months after the “war” began and they weren’t ratified until February 2^nd, 1781! That means that the war was ongoing and “the Congress” was making decisions – when they did make decisions! – for six years before the Articles legally existed! Even so, once the Articles were ratified, they were found to be so badly flawed that the eventual victory of the colonial cause must again be seen as more an act of God than any reasonably directed national effort!

Let us now look at some of the failings of the Articles after they were ratified. The guiding principle of the Articles rising as they did from thirteen political entities whose histories did not include deep and lasting cooperation – never mind political union! –was the establishment and preservation of the independence and sovereignty of the States and to that end, they consciously installed a weak central government (the Congress), affording to that Congress only those powers the former colonies recognized as belonging to the King and the Parliament. Yet to facilitate the war, there needed to be clearly written rules for a sort of “league of friendship” that became known as the Perpetual Union. As the Congress waited for the document to be ratified, it observed the Articles in the conduct of business; that is, directing the war effort, conducting foreign diplomacy and addressing territorial issues especially involving the Indians. But little of this activity affected all the States at the same time and as each State had the same power while having different concerns and needs, and as each decision had to be unanimous it becomes obvious why this body accomplished so little even when it was able to meet with enough members to form a quorum – something not always possible under the Articles! But as the “Confederation Congress” attempted to govern the continually changing circumstances created by the war, its delegates soon discovered that the limitations placed upon them by the Articles –as in assembling delegates, raising funds and regulating commerce – rendered both the Articles and the Congress impotent to make real and meaningful decisions. Indeed, the Congress was so ineffective during the war that had it not been for private citizens and the King of France committing funds to the army, the revolution would have failed!

In Howard Swiggett’s book, The Great Man, is a chapter entitled An Officer Entrusted with the General Interests of the Confederation. Here the author presents George Washington’s dealings with the Confederation Congress, making clear the enormity of his task in fighting the Revolution! For instance, on January 1^st, 1781, General Stark wrote to inform Washington that he lacked any money to go on leave. Washington – who never took a leave throughout the eight years of the war! – responded that “. . . the military chest was empty.” So, in the middle of a war the army had no money at all! Yet, Swiggett also points out that there always seemed to be money for the needs of Congress and the colonial legislatures however fatuous when viewed against the needs of the army fighting for their liberty without food, clothing or pay!

Washington dealt with several mutinous uprisings that he managed to put down without destroying the moral of his army, a matter praised by French General Rochambeau and others. But the author points out, “Following the Pennsylvania Line’s mutiny, the Massachusetts Assembly voted a gratuity to its troops. As with Rhode Island’s appropriation for the French cantonments and the subscriptions to the bank the year before, it was usually possible for money to be found when there was a will to (find it).” He then goes on, “When one considers the lives and treasure – and the years of the young men’s lives – that could have been saved if this fighting army and its commander had ever been supported by its civil countrymen, the thought is enough to bring down an American’s pride of country in shame.” In another example of the lack of “cooperation” between the army and the Congress under the Articles, Swiggett reports that Washington, having well under ten thousand men, ordered down to him two regiments of the New York Line from Mohawk. When New York Governor Clinton vociferously protested, Swiggett wrote, “Washington sent that national letter he wrote so often and so well:”

“As an officer entrusted with the general interest of the Confederation (the new word; it was all but ratified) in expectation of an active campaign under engagements, which I shall (in any event) find it difficult to fulfill, I cannot, in policy, in justice to the United States, in good faith to our allies, consent to divest myself of so considerable a part of my efficient force, as the two regiments in question.” ~ G. Washington”

Swiggett also reveals how these “States” constantly failed to perform the duties that devolved upon them during the war and, of course, without a strong central government, nothing could be done to influence their actions. He notes that “States were expected to protect their frontiers with their own militia. With some splendid exceptions, they did it badly and in some cases by their aggressions disturb(ed) what peace there was.” Of course, this failure put further pressure upon the Continental Army! When it came to the needs of the army as pronounced by its Commander in Chief, Swiggett declares, “There was no thought of Congress or the governors saying, ‘What will it help most of us to do?’ It must be a constant wonder that that amazing man could keep his fighting edge and communicate it to his troops and behave with an air of expanding confidence. If the object had not been noble, some characteristics which animated him (Washington) would be called guile and duplicity.” But the real question is this: why was it necessary for Washington to be duplicitous to keep the revolution alive?

Indeed, the whole chapter is filled with example after example of activities of Congress (under the Articles) more designed to overcome Washington than the British, while the General’s responses, time after time, prevented the revolution from either going down in flames or up in smoke! Also, much of this activity was designed to assure the liberty of the States at the expense of the power of Congress (that is, the “central government”). Yet, few had the foresight to see that if the Revolution failed, “States” would have fallen to the tyranny of the King, a matter that could not be cured by “secession” as done successfully in 1776 and unsuccessfully in 1861! Swiggett ends the chapter with a reiteration of the question regarding the “help” Washington received from his civilian masters functioning under the Articles:

“The do-nothingism of the civil authorities is so flagrant, so apparently without excuse, that one seeks in vain for its cause. It seems only common sense to suppose there must have been good reasons which have not been recognized. Yet what were they? The ‘diffusion of the population,’ making it difficult to create public opinion by communication? The impossibility of combing out the Loyalists in any state? The lack of wealth and a sufficient medium of exchange? No doubt these and many tangible factors contributed, but in addition there seems to have been even then a species of braggadocio, characteristic of Americans at their worst.”

Other authors also make note of the ongoing situation regarding the response of Congress – as an offshoot of the ongoing response of the States –  to the war in general and the Continental Army in particular. After the British army returned to New York, at Christmas, 1778, Washington visited Philadelphia. He was horrified not only by the condition of the city and its inhabitants, but by the Congress then sitting in the “capital” whom Washington considered to be mediocre at best, calling that body “that great impediment.” One of his officers, Lt. Col. Ebeneezer Huntington of Connecticut was far less diplomatic!

“I despise my countrymen,” he wrote, “I wish I could say I was not born in America. I once gloried to it but am now ashamed of it  . . . You must immediately fill your regiments and pay your troops in hard monies. They cannot exist as soldiers otherwise. The insults and neglects which the army have met from the country beggars all description . . . and all this for my cowardly countrymen who flinch at the very time their exertions are wanted and hold their purse strings as though they would damn the world rather than part with a dollar to their army.”

But this response by Congress was nothing new! In the beginning of the war, in a letter to adjutant Joseph Reed written on November 28, 1775, from Cambridge, Washington made his own sentiments known regarding the financial support of the army by the Congress:

“What an astonishing thing it is, that those who are employed to sign the Continental bills should not be able or inclined to do it as fast as they are wanted. They will prove the destruction of the army, if they are not more attentive and diligent. Such a dearth of public spirit, and want of virtue, such stock-jobbing*, and fertility in all the low arts to obtain advantages of one kind or another, in this great change of military arrangement, I never saw before, and pray God I may never be witness to again. What will be the ultimate end of these maneuvers is beyond my scan. I tremble at the prospect.” ~ G. Washington

It is obvious that this letter, written, as noted, at the very beginning of the conflict, represents not a lack of the ability to pay, but rather, the lack of desire and, as Washington points out, that situation arose from a lack of “virtue.” It was apparent to His Excellency that at least some in the Congress believed that such money could be put to “better use” (in their opinion!) than supplying the army raised in defense of that same Congress. It is in this understanding Washington uses the word “stock-jobbing,” meaning “speculative exchange dealings,” something we today call “insider trading.” To Washington, the hesitation by Congress to provide money to his army obviously represented the desire to make use of that same money in the hopes of gaining individual profit. Again, all of the foregoing is “first person” testimony and clearly demonstrates that all claims of the worthiness of those “sovereign States” during this most essential period of the nation’s genesis while acting under the Articles is, to a great extent, false, raising doubts as to what would have happened after the war had the government remained under those same Articles. Indeed, it is easy to understand why, at war’s end, those attempting to bring into being a new nation, desired – nay demanded! – a much stronger and more active and effective central government! To have returned to what Alexander Hamilton called “the tyranny of the States” that existed under the Articles was to discard the cause for which so many had suffered, fought and died.

Unfortunately, matters only got worse after the Treaty of Paris in 1783 ended the shooting war. At that time, had it not been for Washington’s personal intervention, the existing “government” of the new nation might have fallen to a military coup brought about by the ongoing failure of Congress to respond to the needs of its now victorious army! But though that fate was (barely) avoided, the economic state of the former colonies after eight years of war was such that discontent was everywhere and ongoing civil disorder seemed “in the making” throughout the land until one real uprising – Shays’ Rebellion – saw the open rejection by ordinary Americans of the status quo as it existed under the Articles! In John Avalon’s book, Washington’s Farewell, the author makes note of the former Commander in Chief’s response to that unnerving incident:

“Washington watched Shay’s Rebellion with alarm, writing General Henry Knox, “If three years ago any person had told me that at this day, I should see such a formidable rebellion against the laws and constitutions of our own making as now appears I should have thought him a bedlamite – a fit subject for a madhouse.”

It was this act that, according to Avalon, foreshadowed the “mobocracy” feared by men like Washington and Madison that “contributed more to the uneasiness which produced the [Constitutional] Convention, and prepared the public mind for a general reform” than all the failings of the Articles of Confederation.” But there were other sinister signs of the public mistrust of the current governing arrangement. Again, according to Avalon:

“Amid the drift, whispers of monarchy were returning. To Washington, this longing for a monarch was as threatening as Shay’s Rebellion. ‘I am told that even respectable characters speak of a monarchal form of government without horror,’ he wrote to John Jay. ‘From thinking proceeds speaking, then to action is often but a single step. But how irrevocable and tremendous! What a triumph for the advocates of despotism to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves, and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal and fallacious!’”

As reported in the book, George Washington: Writings, edited by author and Washington expert John Rhodehamel, on March 31^st, 1783, Washington wrote to former Aide de Camp and trusted advisor, Alexander Hamilton on his views regarding what the victory of America over Great Britain was going to mean:

Dear Sir,

I have duly received your favors of the 17^th. & 24^th. ulto. I rejoice most exceedingly that there is an end to our warfare, and that such a field is opening to our view as will, with wisdom to direct the cultivation of it, make us a great, a respectable, and happy People; but it must be improved by other means than State politics, and unreasonable jealousies & prejudices, or (it requires not the second sight to see that) we shall be instruments in the hands of our Enemies, & those European powers who may be jealous of our greatness in Union to dissolve the confederation; but to attain this, altho the way seems extremely plain, is not so easy.

My wish to see the Union of these States established upon liberal & permanent principles, & inclination to contrite my mite in pointing out the defects of the present Constitution (the Articles vp), are equally great. All my private letters have teemed with these Sentiments, & whenever this topic has been the subject of conversation, I have endeavored to diffuse & enforce them; but how far and further essay, by me, might be productive of the wished for end, or appear to arrogate more than belongs to me, depends so much on popular opinion, & the temper and disposition of People, that it is not easy to decide. I shall be obliged to you, however for the thoughts which you have promised me on this subject, and as soon as you can make it convenient.

No man in the United States is, or can be more deeply impressed with the necessity of a reform in our present Confederation than myself. No man perhaps has felt the bad effects of it more sensibly, for to the defects thereof, & want of Powers in Congress may justly be ascribed the prolongation of the War, & consequently the Expenses occasioned by it. More than half the perplexities I have experienced in the course of my command, and almost the whole of the difficulties & distress of the Army, have their origin here; but still, the prejudices of some, the designs of others, and the mere machinery of the majority, makes address & management necessary to give weight to opinions which are to Combat the doctrine of those different classes of men, in the field of Politics.

In September of 1786, Washington, fired up with renewed excitement referable to an old plan to construct a canal upon the Potomac to further commerce, called a conference of members of the Virginia and Maryland legislatures regarding the possibility of proceeding with that plan. This first truly successful inter-State effort led to the contemplation of creating a governing structure that would permit all the States to work together to solve the existing problems for it was by that point, common supposition (both at home and abroad) that these thirteen little “countries” would soon destroy themselves and, in consequence, be invaded and occupied by one (or more) of Europe’s Powers, possibly even Britain itself! Indeed, many in the British government had suggested early on leaving the colonies alone because their efforts at “independence” would eventually dissolve into chaos – as was being proved at that time!

But Washington having demonstrated by his “conference” that Americans could work together and as more states became interested in gathering to address these momentous issues, a meeting was set (supposedly to revise the Articles!) for May 25^th, 1787, in Philadelphia. And so was held what became the Constitutional Convention! To avoid any appearance of treason with this attempt to create a new governing document, the first thing necessary was to choose a man to preside over the convention whose honesty, integrity and rejection of personal power made him “safe” in the minds of all concerned. For the greatest fear in the country was the eventual installation of a king as Washington had already pointed out to John Jay! And so, the call went out to Mount Vernon and once again, Farmer Washington with great reluctance, responded to the call of his country! Thus, on May 25^th, 1787, the Constitutional Convention was gaveled into order and the long process of creating a new form of government was begun. On June 21^st, 1788, the results of that Convention replaced the Articles as the newly created Constitution was ratified by the requisite number of States involved in its creation.

Of course, immediately came the old concern about a king. No government at that time was without either a king or an emperor at its head and many wondered if this “President” would not quickly become one such in reality if not in name given that, according to the Constitution, there was no limit to the number of terms that this man could serve and any election might very well create a “President for Life!” As this was the case, the Founders put forth the safest possible candidate, that is, that same fellow who had turned in his commission as Commander in Chief when the army was the only power extant in the country and who never pushed his own policies, ideas or beliefs on the Constitutional convention over which he had presided – George Washington! Indeed, it eventually became known that the presidential office was, in fact, created with Washington in mind!

And, of course, it was Washington who with great care, established the presidency over the course of two four-year terms. He wanted to retire after the first term but the French Revolution, a war between France and Britain and the ugly fight that arose between those who supported the Constitution [Federalists] and those who wanted to go back to the concept of the “sovereignty of the States” as it existed under the Articles [Democratic-Republicans] – an arrangement that had failed so spectacularly during the Revolution itself – did not permit! Finally, Washington was able to retire in 1796 with the first peaceful transfer of power from one “Chief Executive” (President) to his incoming replacement, a President and not a King! But Washington knew the dangers inherent in any attempt to establish a government run by The People and he continued to write copious warnings on the matter centered on the Constitution, a document that he had sworn to uphold:

But if the laws are to be so trampled upon with impunity, and a minority is to dictate to the majority, there is an end put at one stroke to republican government, and nothing but anarchy and confusion is to be expected thereafter. George Washington (1851). “The life of General Washington: first president of the United States”, p.216

However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. George Washington (1989). “Maxims of George Washington: Political, Military, Social, Moral, and Religious”, Mount Vernon Ladies Assn.

The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure. George Washington (1836). “The Writings of George Washington: Being His Correspondence, Addresses, Messages, and Other Papers, Official and Private, Selected and Published from the Original Manuscripts; with a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations”, p.367

The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. Farewell Address, Philadelphia, Pa., 19 Sept. 1796

Precedents are dangerous things; let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the Constitution be reprehended: If defective let it be amended but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence. George Washington (1852). “The life of General Washington: first president of the United States”, p.142

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. George Washington, John Jay, Jared Sparks (1850). “Washington’s Farewell Address to the People of the United States of America”, p.33, New York : J. Wiley

The Constitution which at any time exists, ’till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all. Farewell Address, Philadelphia, Pa., 19 Sept. 1796

In other words, the Constitution could only be changed by the Amendment process that was supposed to represent “an explicit and authentic act of the whole People.” However, amended or not, the Constitution was, according to Washington, “sacredly obligatory upon all.” Alas, very little that took place even during Washington’s presidency – much less in the 1860s or even in the 20^th and 21^st Centuries – can be considered “an explicit and authentic act of the whole People” and hence “constitutional” in the true meaning of that word. All that can be said is that each period saw an ever-greater fall from and rejection of the nation that George Washington and many other Founders believed would be born of their monumental efforts in war and peace. These were the dangers he foresaw for the nation and its Constitution and he presented at least some of them in depth to his fellow countrymen in his Farewell Address, a document read annually in our present Congress:

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

Throughout his period of service, George Washington was always conciliatory rather than aggressive, seeking acceptable compromise when required though never permitting “accommodation” to “compromise” what he knew to be right and good. He never demanded anything but discipline and courage from either soldiers or politicians, both of which he himself willingly displayed often at the risk of his reputation and even his life. Indeed, many, not understanding the history that led from the presidency of Washington to that of Lincoln, have blamed the South for abandoning the Union against Washington’s fervent pleas for its retention. But they fail to consider that those who misused the South for financial and political gain were the first to abandon “(t)he unity of government which constitutes you one people (and) is now dear to you.” Had the South and her people remained “dear” to the rest of the Union rather than a despised repository of freely appropriated wealth, the War of Secession would never have taken place! It would not only have been unnecessary but it would have been rejected by decent Americans of all sections. Remember, General Robert E. Lee rejected secession and only “went with Virginia” when she was treasonously invaded by an unrestrained federal government acting contrary to the Constitution with the backing of “sovereign States” that had forgotten the unity protected by that Constitution as preached by Virginian George Washington.

The history of the United States from 1800 to 1860 is a time bereft of any man of the stature of George Washington who went to rest with his fathers in 1799. But he knew that as the bane of parties took hold of the political process, the dream that had sustained him through those long, weary years of struggle and suffering was dying even at its birth. He tried to rally his countrymen to see what he saw, but, alas, he could not. His time had passed. And when his federalist friends tried to talk him into making another run for the Presidency in response to increasing party conflicts, he told them that his name would not be enough to assure his victory though he had twice been elected unanimously! Why? Because those not of the party that presented him as a candidate – the Federalists – would have sooner voted for a broomstick than someone who was not a Democratic-Republican! It was no longer a matter of the quality of the candidate but of the agenda of the party that had put that candidate up for office. Sound familiar?

Let us now go back to Mr. Henry and his concerns as he rejected the newly created Constitution:

“A number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this country, object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving previous notice.

The gentleman proved both prescient and correct in his view of the results as they came to fruition in 1861– and after – but we must ask, was this the fault of the Constitution or the fault of the men whose actions undermined and eventually nullified that document? Indeed, before we blame the Constitution for the loss of State sovereignty as do so many of my Southern friends, we must recognize another document whose meaning and purpose have, as with the Constitution, often been ignored and even held in contempt and loathing despite its Author. Few intelligent people blame this document for its apparent failure to bring about what it promised or for the crimes committed in its name. What is this document? Why, the Holy Bible, of course. And mankind has had that Compact far longer than Americans have had the Constitution! As that is the case, why should we demand of the Constitution what even God has not been able to obtain through His great “Document?” No, as Shakespeare said in Julius Caesar, “The fault, dear Brutus is not in our stars (or our “documents!”), but in ourselves.” In the same way the “fault” in our government that led to the conflict in 1861 did not arise from our Constitution but in spite of it! However, once the original concept of a government acting with the consent of the governed had died in blood, treason and treachery in the 1860s, it wasn’t difficult to destroy what remained using the amendment process designed to protect and perpetuate that document’s original purpose – an independent nation governed by a free people.

It is time to recognize that the advocacy of “States Rights” in these circumstances fails to admit that the “States” did not always act for the best even for their own citizens, much less for the rest of the Union. Indeed, had the States outside the South done so, where would Lincoln have found the men required for his war?! Were these “soldiers” not also from “States” acting at the behest of that same government choosing its unconstitutional and treasonous instructions over the welfare of their “sister” States? Actually, the only real hope that the Founders had of preventing larger, stronger States from eventually devouring smaller, weaker ones – and then being consumed by European powers – was that same “Federal Government” created by that same Constitution! Nothing else could have validated even the conception of “States’ rights!” But through the weaknesses of our Honored Founders and their immediate descendants, the promises made by the Declaration, won in the Revolution and guaranteed by that same Constitution were not enough to prevent the catastrophe prophesied by America’s First and greatest Patriarch, George Washington.

Valerie Protopapas

Valerie Protopapas is an independent historian and the former editor of The Southern Cavalry Review, the journal of The Stuart-Mosby Historical Society.

View all posts