The Day of the Confederacy: A Chronicle of the Embattled SouthStephenson, Nathaniel W. (Nathaniel Wright)
History
The Day of the Confederacy: A Chronicle of the Embattled South
Stephenson, Nathaniel W. (Nathaniel Wright)
Confederate States of America -- History
¹ To the observer of a later age this document appears a thing of haste.
Like the framers of the Constitution of 1787, who omitted from their
document some principles which they took for granted, the framers of
1861 left unstated their most distinctive views. The basal idea upon
which the revolution proceeded, the right of secession, is not to be
found in the new Constitution. Though the preamble declares that the
States are acting in their sovereign and independent character, the new
Confederation is declared "permanent." In the body of the document are
provisions similar to those in the Federal Constitution enabling a
majority of two-thirds of the States to amend at their pleasure, thus
imposing their will upon the minority. With three notable exceptions the
new Constitution, subsequent to the preamble, does little more than
restate the Constitution of 1787 rearranged so as to include those basal
principles of the English law added to the earlier Constitution by the
first eight amendments. The three exceptions are the prohibitions (1) of
the payment of bounties, (2) of the levying of duties to promote any one
form of industry, and (3) of appropriations for internal improvements.
Here was a monument to the battle over these matters in the Federal
Congress. As to the mechanism of the new Government it was the same as
the old except for a few changes of detail. The presidential term was
lengthened to six years and the President was forbidden to succeed
himself. The President was given the power to veto items in
appropriation bills. The African slave-trade was prohibited.
The upper South was thus placed in a painful situation. Its sympathies
were with the seceding States. Most of its people felt also that if
coercion was attempted, the issue would become for Virginia and North
Carolina, no less than for South Carolina and Alabama, simply a matter
of self-preservation. As early as January, in the exciting days when
Floyd's resignation was being interpreted as a call to arms, the
Virginia Legislature had resolved that it would not consent to the
coercion of a seceding State. In May the Speaker of the North Carolina
Legislature assured a commissioner from Georgia that North Carolina
would never consent to the movement of troops "from or across" the State
to attack a seceding State. But neither Virginia nor North Carolina in
this second stage of the movement wanted to secede. They wanted to
preserve the Union, but along with the Union they wanted the principle
of local autonomy. It was a period of tense anxiety in those States of
the upper South. The frame of mind of the men who loved the Union but
who loved equally their own States and were firm for local autonomy is
summed up in a letter in which Mrs. Robert E. Lee describes the anguish
of her husband as he confronted the possibility of a divided country.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account