In Some Ways, We are Still Fighting the Civil War
In the last post of How We Got Here, I described how the forming of the U.S. Constitution embedded a conflict between Northern and Southern states, or more importantly, the classic struggle between those that live an urban lifestyle versus those the live a rural lifestyle. This struggle led to the Civil War.
Before we go further, let's get the conflict right. The Northern states which I describe as urban was not that urban. In 1850, 65% of the U.S were farmers, as oppose to 2% today. That the percentage was higher in the previous 71 years is a safe assumption. Of course, the Industrial Revolution is happening during this period and primarily in the North, but it's happening slowly at this time.
As is now, the Constitution gives states the power to decide who can vote (though now affected by the 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, and 26th[1].) Most States viewed wealth (owning property) as a requirement, believing only those economically independent and with a financial stake in the country could vote "intelligently". Not until 1840, had all States removed this requirement. Until 1913, Senators were not elected, they were appointed.
So, during this period, America was primarily and culturally a rural nation. The Federal Government was limited and run by the rich educated elite. Politicians are still accountable to the people, but the idea of a "common man" or "populace" representative "of the people" is not even being considered until 1824[2]. What this means is that the "urban" vs "rural" dynamic we've been talking about was not, at this time, as much a conflict between elites and non-elites, but those elites that prospered from factories versus those that prospered from plantations. In other words, those that built wealth from cheap labor, including immigrants, versus those that built wealth from slaves.
Continuing along the theme of "urban" vs "rural" and the growing conflict between the North and South. These trends are known as Sectionalism, the cultural difference between the North and South as a result of the Industrial Revolution and argument over slavery that eventually led to the Civil War. Now the idea of Sectionalism has some historical controversy, because depending on how you treat it, slavery is either emphasized or deemphasized as the cause of the Civil War. I'm somewhat forced here to give my own interpretation that the growing conflict came down to tariffs, slavery, and eventually the expansion to the West. But, really slavery.
A big part of politics of this era was tariffs. As I pointed out in the last post, until 1856 tariffs accounted for 50% to 90% of the federal income. Up to the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807, there was some politics around the slave trade, but not on owning slaves. Much was done at the state level among the Northern States, but after 1808, federal institutions did more to protect the rights of slave owners to keep slaves such as the infamous Dred Scott Decision and Fugitive Slave Act. Until the fall of the Whig Party in 1852, the federal politics, at least, tolerated slavery and argued about tariffs.
That's not to say the slavery debate was absent. The Abolition Movement began before pen touched the pages of the Constitution and continued as the ink dried and the paper yellowed. Instead, it was more behind the scene politics. But as we discussed in the last post, southern states had created structural advantages to limit interference at the federal level. The abolitionists were more a cultural than a political threat, and worse a reminder of their hypocrisy. The rich slave owners of the South may have been politically safe, but not morally so.
Now, let me indulge in some personal observation. When people make the compromise of doing something wrong for personal gains, such as slavery, they don't just say to themselves "oh well". They form rationalizations claiming they are right and perhaps even noble. If contradicting opinions only come from outsiders or those without power, these rationalizations become stronger and can be based on even looser reasoning. In the best of cases, over time the wrongdoings eventually end, especially as the opportunities and threats to profits vanish. But, often the wrongdoings worsen as those involved become more entrenched in the beliefs that they are just. It's as if, behaving wrongly is no longer for personal gain but the need to avoid admitting you were ever wrong. And, once those wrongdoings disappear, the rationalizations can persist for generations.
This was the case for powerful southerners. An entire ideology formed justifying slavery as correct, natural, and even generous. This included a racist appeal to white supremacy, strained ideas that they were making the slaves' lives better, and even out of context quotes from the Bible. Furthermore, the North was unworthy to judge the South because of their abusive practice towards laborers and their use of tariffs to oppress the South.
The Constitution had already limited direct intervention from Northern states, so the slave owners just needed to convince the poorer southern non-slave owners. The abolitionists were painted as judgemental outsiders insulting all of the "southern way of life". The idea of "state's right" became fetishized to a point of national identity[3].
So, here we have the case I described before. Slave owners developed an elaborate rationalization for slavery, which required no real logic since only outsiders could contradict them. Given time, the Industrial Revolution and expansion West was slowly removing the need for slavery, but the South had become entrenched in their own rationalizations[4]. Making matters worse was the constant threat of slave revolts, which required ever more brutal forms of oppression. The South was a culture always under siege from outsiders and at threat from "inferiors" among them[5].
Tensions worsened as America expanded West. Eventually, the frontier became states, and as each was added, they could tip the balance towards the North or the South. Whether or not a new state prohibited slaves ("free") or not ("slave") became a serious matter. Eventually, it was all too much. Three "free" states were added in three years, Minnesota, Oregon, and Kansas. The Whig Party disbanded giving rise to the Republican Party, which did include abolitionists. And, an "abolitionist" president, Abraham Lincoln, was elected. The Civil War began.
Of course, the South lost, ending slavery and any serious arguments of state sovereignty. However, we still live with the legacy of the Civil War and its causes. The South had used the same arguments for Secession, they used to justify slavery: States Rights, an unjust Federal Government, and a threat to the "southern way of life". Perhaps, they really did believe them. The rationalizations had been used so long, they would have moved to that stage of persistence I talked about before. Certainly, the poor farmer that died on the fields of battle believed them.
I started with how the country began with an embedded conflict of "urban" versus "rural", and the lead up to the Civil War had refined them. What had been arguments between rich elites to stay rich had led to bitter war. Still, on to today, we will hear political arguments of an overpowering Federal Government, threats to the "common way of life", and appeals to resentments towards judgemental outsiders. Nothing is new about these arguments. They are standard political rhetoric, but now they have a historical context, have a siege mentality, and could all be put under the umbrella of State's Rights[6].
The other side had learned it's lessons as well. The abolitionists had won through the use of activism and the Federal Government to make the nation more just. This would echo in the movements of Suffrage, Temperance, Civil Rights, both sides of abortion, and many of the other "moral" movements that fuel our politics. What some would see as judgemental "elite and urbanite" outsiders, others would see as moral warriors who will eventually be vindicated by history.
The legacy lives on.
