Saturday, July 10, 2010

Was the Civil War Constitutional?

In the following the constitution refers to the constitution of the United States or the Union and not that of the Confederacy. I will argue that

(1) From Lincoln's perspective he was not violating the constitution, to the contrary he was defending it, and
(2) From the perspective of the Confederacy Lincoln was not violating the constitution

Since these are the two primary perspectives I conclude that the Civil War was not a violation of the constitution.

Article 1 Section 10
Powers Prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance or Confederation; ... link

The states came together to form the Union, hence their existence is independent of the Union and the powers prohibited, at least from the Union's perspective were not conditional. This is exactly what the Supreme Court found in 1877 in Williams vs Bruffy.

The Confederate perspective was to invent an additional qualification, Powers Prohibited to States (as long as they don't secede). Of course no such qualification exists. But from the Confederate perspective, the states seceded and were no longer obligated to uphold the constitution and hence the Confederacy was legal since the law/constitution was not applicable since it was the law of a foreign land. From this perspective the Civil War was not a civil war at all but a war between two nations. There's nothing in the constitution prohibiting warfare with foreign nations, conquest and and even plunder as happened several times during history, with Mexico with regards to Texas, or with native tribes etc.

Hence irrespective of the right to secede or not the war was not a violation of the constitution.
Read more!