Another 'Lost Cause?' I hope not!
Since I became a conservative (at least of sorts), it has never ceased to amaze me how many of my compatriots on the Right are in love with the Confederacy. Especially since I'm a bit of a Civil War buff, I've never quite seen the appeal in an entity which (however much its romantic admirers are in denial on the point) was from its inception dedicated to the proposition that all men are not created equal.
But romantics are romantics, and people in love see in their beloved pretty much what they want to see, whether it's there or not. To many conservatives, it seems, the decentralized CSA had essentially the kind of government the U.S. Constitution really calls for, and the Founding Fathers really had in mind. Never mind that the respective strength of the state and local governments was a matter of controversy among the Founders, and never mind the bitter lesson the newborn Union learned when it tried to govern its affairs via the misbegotten Articles of Confederation. However much the modern ideologues of the Right might cherish the idea of a loose confederation of sovereign nations, and however much the rhetoric (and even, to some degree, the practice) of the American body politic prior to the Civil War might support it, the entire trajectory of American history has been toward a centralized government- not one, necessarily, which rode roughshod over the prerogatives of the several states, but certainly one with sufficient authority to maintain minimal harmony among them and achieve the goals laid out in the Constitution's Preamble.
The irony for anyone who has studied the Civil War with any degree of objectivity, of course, is that "states' rights" was more than the slogan which gave the Confederacy birth; it was also the disease it died from. There is a great deal of truth in Lee's explanation, given at Appomattox, for the Union victory: "overwhelming numbers and resources." But one cannot study the brief history of the Confederate government in any depth at all without being struck by its inability to marshal even the limited resources it had, because each of the States exercised a virtual veto over every move Jefferson Davis and the central government made. Everything from the appointment of generals to the levying of troops and the requisitioning of supplies depended not on the force of law, but on Davis's powers of persuasion. As it happened, the Confederacy's governors (and statesmen generally) were a stubborn, individualistic and not always practical lot (not a little like ideological conservatives today), and trying to cajole enough cooperation from them to make the effective running of a country, much less the effective fighting of a war, more than a little like herding cats. Jefferson Davis is a singularly unappreciated figure in American history; it was a virtual miracle that under his leadership (or such leadership as he was allowed to exercise) the Confederacy did as well as it did!
The examples of the Articles of Confederation and the Confederate debacle are what prevent me from buying whole-heartedly into the ideology of the Right. I agree with Jefferson that "the government is best which governs least-" but with a significant qualification: I believe in the least possible government that will get the job done. Small government to me is a goal secondary to effective government, and American history strikes me as one long lesson on the theme that where smallness as such becomes a fetish, effective government becomes impossible.
But the Confederacy never truly surrendered. It simply took the war into a new arena: that of the written word. A generation of Southerners romanticized the morally perverse, governmentally inept and militarily impractical mess that was the Confederate States of America into the Lost Cause, an epic tragedy wherein better men and ideas were overwhelming by sheer weight of money, numbers, and resources. The Confederate became a cavalier, perversely seen as fighting- of all things- for freedom against the vile, gauche and tyrannical Yankee. Thus was what Grant rightly called "one of the worst (causes) for which men have ever fought" transformed from a petulant insurrection into a great crusade. Thus was a demonstrably impractical and even absurd system of "government" rationalized into the ideal. Even after all this time, it never ceases to amaze me when I encounter a fellow Republican for whom Abraham Lincoln was a villain!
Florence King of The American Spectator summarizes a new book- How the South Really Lost the Civil War, by David Eicher- on this theme this way:
"The Confederacy was born sick," writes David Eicher, and placed in the waiting arms of history's finest Catch-22: Having seceded from a strong, centralized government, the South had to construct a strong, centralized government of its own if it wanted to be powerful enough to guarantee the sacred principle of States Rights. To free itself from one Union, it had to submit to another.
Catch-22.
Could the Confederacy have overcome this conundrum? Perhaps, Eicher suggests- if its leaders had been less stubborn and at the same time both more practical and more philosophically agile. But alas, the collection of "fire-eaters" and proto-paleoconservatives who led the Confederacy were neither. They were a group of bulls congregated in a china shop, and it really is no surprise that by the time they got through, everything around them lay in ruins.
What should we make of the fact that this review (a favorable one) is found in The American Spectator, one of the leading journals of American conservatism? We should, I think, take to heart the lesson the Confederacy holds for conservatives today. Ideology is great- essential, in fact. But if one is unwilling to make the occasional compromise with reality (as pro-Confederate conservative romantics often castigate Abe Lincoln for doing in his various quite necessary wartime measures which to say the least pushed the constitutional envelope), one's ideology becomes mere self-indulgence.
Any conservative even tempted at this point to sit out the coming election needs to take a breath and ask himself whether he is really willing that the Wild Bunch that is the Democratic congressional leadership have the running of the legislative branch for the next two years simply in order to send the Republican party a lesson it will undoubtedly have learned quite well by 2008 in any case. Should the nation suffer for the sins- both real and imagined- of the Republican party?
Hopefully modern conservatism will give up its romance, and learn to actually exercise power. Human nature being what it is- and what conservative ideology so perceptively proclaims it to be- it is simply impossible to avoid the paradox that in order to limit the government's power, it is necessary to exercise it. And in order to exercise it, one has to have it.
Comments
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was the same kind of centralizing power-grab which the Southerners later accused the North of. "States Rights" was a convenient (and, as you submit, ultimately enfeebling) rock to hide behind. It was the North (specifically the state of Wisconsin) which had first exercised such rights, much to the anger of the South. In the case of United States v. Ryecraft, the U.S. Government (with a Justice Department (not yet called that) & Supreme Court packed with Southerners) attempted to prosecute the men who rescued a fugitive slave. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin intervened and declared a Federal law to be unconstitutional. Needless to say, the Southerners were not pleased at this exercise of "States Rights". For a great book on the subject, see here.
I used to almost be one of those conservatives you speak about, so I know the mindset. For example:
"But the Confederacy never truly surrendered."
The Confederacy never surrendered in any way whatsoever, Mr. Waters. Lee surrendered the army, but there is no Peace Treaty between the Federals and the government of the Confederacy. (Carry this out to the logical conclusion...)
I have had a change of heart recently and now I find I agree with Luke's Uncle Owen. Idealistic crusades are damn foolish.
Here is a semi-on-topic question. What makes the Lincoln Memorial a temple?
It's a temple, first, to the memory of a remarkable man- like Ronald Reagan, exactly the man American needed to lead it at that precise moment. I consider Lincoln and Reagan- in that order, with FDR, Washington, Teddy, and Tom Jefferson following- to be our greatest presidents.
It's also a temple to the notion that North or South, Iowa or Georgia, Vermont or New Mexico, we are all Americans. We belong to each other. The "temple" concept is metaphorical, of course- though Robert Bellah did an interesting piece of writing about the messianic character of Lincoln's role in American folklore.
I forgot, btw, to include this parallel in the post, but one of the reasons why Poland has always been a doormat in European history is that at the time when other European nation-states were getting it together, the Polish Sejm, or Parliament ( http://tinyurl.com/y2ghm6 ) had an odd constitutional arrangement by which every single member possessed a power called the "librium veto." This did not mean that they were all on tranquilizers :)- but they might as well have been!
The "librium veto" meant that no legislation could be passed if any member of the Sejm objected to it! Every single action of the body had to be unanimous! The consequences, of course, were disasterous; nothing got done! But the Poles were proud of their system, which apparently had worked well in the Middle Ages, when it was pretty much the nobles and the landowners who comprised the Sejm, and individual nobles were encouraged to subordinate their personal interests to those Poland as a whole. Somehow, the idea that the librium veto could also be paralyzing never quite occurred to the Poles, or enough of them to change a system everybody was in love with.
It's a mistake to fall in love with specific constitutional arrangements, however clever. These, of course, should be distinguished from general philosophical principles. But if history teaches us anything, it's that when nations (or would-be nations) are inflexible not only about principles, but about the way those principles are implemented in the fluid course of history, they're apt to get the short end of the stick.
Einstein once commented that he'd noticed that the universe was remarkably unimpressed by his personal preferences. Sometimes people- and nations- never do notice that.
The problem with this is that each southern state was readmitted to the Union.
This is an official admission that those states did, in fact, leave the union. If those states were not part of the Union and had to be readmitted, the Confederacy was an independent power. Governments do sign peace treaties with independent powers. Your claim that the rebels were unsuccessful is weak.
Oh, and one of those modern conservative Confederate sympathizers would probably say those readmissions were invalid because they were forced under the sword and involuntary.
Of course?
You can make assumptions if you want to, but as for me, I'm inclined to take bold declarations at face value unless I see good reason otherwise.
IN THIS TEMPLE
AS IN THE HEARTS OF THE PEOPLE
FOR WHOM HE SAVED THE UNION
THE MEMORY OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN
IS ENSHRINED FOREVER
In this temple... who am I to argue?
Unless, of course, you have a little building in your right ventricle.
In other words, they ceased to be entities having any say so either way. Conquered provinces, to be dealt with as the victors chose.
Again, a theory which ran counter to the way Lincoln saw things, but he was dead.
"Hopefully modern conservatism will give up its romance..." I fear that the feds have their power, and are not afraid to use it. The Department of Education is a "temple" to the meaninglessness of the tenth amendment. I hope I don't sound to militia oriented, (I'm not at all) to recall Waco at this point. The deep frustration is in the reality that they will never give up the power they have.
A part of me likes to think that I'll be pleased with the republican turnout on election day. If so, it might well be the romance, and perhaps not the reality that makes it so.
The Tenth Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the Department of Education. The Tenth Amendment discusses powers, not responsibilities or areas of activity. I've never been able to get a handle on the logic which leads people to the opposite conclusion.
The good part about our system is that we get to decide who they are going to be. And they have to have power, or we'll end up in the same boat the Confederacy ended up. I just hope that they don't end up being Nancy Pelosi and John Dingle and Harry Reid.
The question is how the power is used.
I have never heard this arguement. There is a certain amount of logic to it. It makes perfect sense, but only after you realize that the US is an empire.
You are thinking of amendment 17.
Other amendments that erased the illusion that states had any soverignty are 14 and 16.
The only symbolic relic of state soverignty left is the electoral college. This may or may not be corrected. People talk about getting rid of the EC, but they aren't in any hurry. It is wholly symbolic. We saw in Bush v. Gore that the Federal Government will not hesitate to step in to make sure states choose thier electors "correctly".
The interesting thing is that the Florida Legislature in 2000 was ready to throw the election results out and choose their own slate of electors. They had every right to do this--at least on paper. This would be a dangeous assertion of power, however, and set bad precedent. The Supreme Court quickly stepped in to short-circuit this plan.
America is an empire, rph098. It is not something to worry about, but it is better if you realize it.
The fact remains that if the Legislature appointed a slate of electors, that slate of electors would be the Legislature's. It doesn't really matter if the names on the slate are the same as would have been if the republicans we found to have won the popular vote.
What do you think would happen if a state legislature decided it was going to forgo a popular election altogether and simply appoint electors. They have the theoretical power to do this, but do they have the power to do this in practice?
I long ago (pre-'94) had a rare conversation with a genuine democrat staffer. I asked him how he could be so complacent about whatever the latest power grab the democrats had managed to pull off. Surely, I reminded him, the pendulum will swing someday and republicans will have the same power. Can't you see how you would perceive the awesome power of the federal government if your despised republicans were in power?
His arrogance had no limits: "We'll just have to see to it that it never happens."
I think that Jimmy Carter TOOK "responsibility" for the education of American students away from the states deliberately to expand the "power" of the federal government, without any concern for whether actual learning would be achieved by the creation of a dept of ed.
There is no line between "power" and "responsibility." They are much more like heavily overlapping circles.
I've got you in my favorites. You feature some great articles and I'm very happy I found your site! As soon as I figure out that link thingy, you'll be on mine.
rph098
Carter did what he did because the states weren't doing an adequate job of meeting their responsibilities in the field of education. They lack the power, in the form of funds- and in some cases, wisdom.
Thanks for the compliment. What's your blog's URL? Do you use Blogrolling? If not, it's really easy. Email me and I'll fill you in.
Actually, if it weren't for thousands of perfectly legal military ballots which arrived without postmarks being thrown out (Florida law specifies that military ballots don't need them) and thousands of illegal ballots cast by prisoners in Florida's penitentiaries that were counted, the result in Florida wouldn't have been close enough to contest.
Military votes statewide went to Bush by about the same margin by which the felons' votes went to Gore- about two to one. There really was never any honest-to-goodness doubt that if the legitimate ballots and only the legitimate ballots had been counted, Gore would have had to concede on election night. In fact, he did. He had already made his phone call to Bush and was on the way to make his public concession speech when he found out how close the manipulated returns were, and changed his mind.
It was at that point that the lawyers and other specialists were called in from the outside- including one Democrat whose specialty was manual recounts of punch card ballots, who boasted that he could steal any election if you could just get him to within a hundred votes. Just a matter of handling the cards enough to invalidate ballots for the other guy by punching out new chads, and "voting" blank ballots by slight of hand.
Manual recounts of punch card elections have always been notorious for being easy to steal. That's why he was in Florida!
I don't think Jimmy Carter acted because he was a power-crazed monster. Ascribing bad motives to people who take actions we don't agree with strikes me as uncomfortably similar to what the Left has done to Dubyah since day one.
Quite probably, but the fact remains that they do not have the right in practice that they do on paper to elect a slate of their own electors.
There is no objective reason why "the popular vote" holds any moral goodness in and of itself. What matters in the day-to-day lives of the people is how the President governs, not how he got there. Why is the idea of the State Legislatures appointing electors (or Senators) so repugnant?
It is because the popular vote is a sacred part of the state religion (of which the Lincoln Memorial is a temple).
Voting is a civic duty! We are told. Why?
The sacredness of the popular vote comes from the fact that despite the silly distinction between a "republic" and a "democracy" some paleos try to make, the latter is merely a subset of the former. We are both. And if the Supremes hadn't intervened, the Florida legislature would in fact have gotten away with it in 2000.
I've written a great deal about the American national religion, and read a great deal more. As Bellah points out, Lincoln himself is indeed a part of the mythology of the civil religion, and perhaps the Lincoln Memorial's status as a "temple" could be read that way if one was absolutely determined to. But there's no reason not to take it at face value, and any suggestion that it's called a temple as a conscious endorsement of the American civil religion is simply absurd.
Voting is a civic duty because our entire system assumes the accountability of those in office to the people. And as much as malcontents might whine from time to time on the Left as well as the Right, the main reason why it doesn't result in more such accountability is that most of us don't pay attention. If every dissatisfied conservative, for example, had done what he or she theoretically could have this year, candidates more to their liking would have defeated even entrenched incumbents in the primaries, and we'd be facing a much different lineup in the congressional races.
The fact is that most of the abuses in American political life are a function of the apathy of the American voter. We neglect our duty to "cast our whole vote," and the result is inevitable.
The main virtue of democracy is that we get the government we deserve.
However, I fully plan on doing what every dissatisfied conservative in my district could theoretically do... vote third party. They won't, however. Voting third party violates the national religion.
_______
The government we deserve? :O
Let's hope it never truely comes to that!
While voting for a third party is ineffectual at best, at least you will be performing your civic duty.
Again, your suggestion that doing so violates our "national religion" is absurd and supported by nothing in particular. Simply falling in love with a phrase, Jeff, doesn't make it the expression of a coherent thought, much less a cogent one.