University of Virginia Library

CHAPTER XXII

APPROACH OF THE CIVIL WAR

The Constitution Ambiguous. — The Constitution of the
United States was the result of a series of compromises;
and at the time of its adoption, was not entirely satisfactory
to any one. No sooner had it been ratified by the
states than the people became divided into two parties,
one holding that the language of the Constitution should
be construed strictly so that the sovereignty of the states
would never be impaired, the other claiming that the
powers of the Federal government ought to be enlarged,
and that the Constitution should be interpreted so as to
allow this to be done. Out of these antagonistic views
there grew, as time passed, two opposing theories of the
nature of the Union. These must now be stated in order
to make clear the cause of the secession movement, which
involved Virginia and all the other states in a long and
bloody war.

The State-Rights Theory. — On this theory the Union
which the states created was one of limited powers, all
powers not named in the Constitution as specially surrendered
to the Federal government being reserved by the

states. Accordingly, the United States was not a nation
like England, but a league or confederacy between thirteen
separate peoples. The Union being thus in the nature of
a partnership, not limited in time, it followed, by the law
governing such agreements, that the right to withdraw
remained with each state.

The National Theory. — The advocates of the second
theory, called the National theory, held that the states in
ratifying the Constitution had surrendered their statehood
and had formed a nation. According to this view, the
Union was indissoluble, and no state had a right to withdraw
without the consent of the other states.

Which was the True Theory? — The interpretation that
was given to the Constitution at the time of its formation
is not historically uncertain. The evidence, if carefully
examined, is convincing that the Union was regarded as a
league. Mr. Lodge, a Northern writer, who has made a
careful study of the subject, says: "When the Constitution
was adopted by the votes of States at Philadelphia,
and accepted by the votes of States in popular conventions,
it is safe to say that there was not a man in the country,
from Washington and Hamilton on the one side to George
Clinton and George Mason on the other, who regarded
the new system as anything but an experiment entered
upon by the States, and from which each and every State
had the right peaceably to withdraw, a right which was
very likely to be exercised." The above quotation states
correctly the view taken of the Union when it was made.
It was considered a league formed by independent states,
each one of which retained the attribute of sovereignty.[32]

The First Threats of Secession. — The first threats of
secession came, not from the South, but from New England;
and during the latter part of the eighteenth century
and early in the nineteenth, movements were projected to
bring about the withdrawal of New England from the
Union. In 1796 Governor Wolcott of Connecticut declared
that he wished the Northern states, the moment
Jefferson was elected President, would separate from the
Southern. The War of 1812 was very unpopular in New
England, and while it was going on secession from the
Union was openly urged in public meetings by prominent
men.

Virginia and the South. — From the beginning Virginia
had adopted the State-Rights theory of the Union, and
she held to it unwaveringly. She formed no new political
theories, but continued to look upon the Union as a league

between independent states. The South, without exception,
under the teaching of John C. Calhoun, held to the
same conception of the Federal tie. To Virginia and the
South, therefore, the right to withdraw from the Union
was one of the reserved rights of the states. Indeed,
Virginia adopted the Constitution with the express understanding
that she could reassume the powers she had
delegated to the Federal government whenever these
powers should be perverted to the injury or oppression of
her people. Thus before she entered the Union she made
clear her right to leave it.

The North and the West. — As times changed, the North
changed its conception of what the Union was, and gave to
the Constitution a meaning which no one attached to it in
the early days of the republic. At first those who wished
a strong government only held that the United States
ought to be a nation. But under the influence of Daniel
Webster the people of the North adopted the belief that
the United States was a nation. Thus they changed the
original conception of the Federal tie, and held that the
states, in ratifying the Constitution, had formed a Union
that could not be broken. The people of the West generally
held the same political belief. It was natural that
they should do this; for the Western states were created
out of the public domain by the government of the United
States, and for this reason, in them state lines did not have
the same meaning as they did in the South, nor did state
pride have the same influence. There was, it is true, much
difference of opinion at the North and West upon the
question of state sovereignty, many eminent statesmen
and jurists viewing the matter as the South did; but on
the whole the mass of the people at the North and West,
under the influence of the new theory they had formed,

regarded secession as unlawful and as constituting rebellion.

Reasons why the South wished to Secede. — The South
and the North had not only grown apart in their political
beliefs, but their interests had become different. The South
was agricultural, while the North was largely engaged in
manufacturing. Laws that suited one section did not suit
the other, and this led to much irritation. The great cause
of difference, however, was slavery, which had made the
sections hostile to each other. The South, since slavery
had become her peculiar institution, demanded that property
in negroes should be as securely guaranteed as other
forms of property, and desired to have slavery further
extended. Adequate protection for this form of property
the North was unwilling to give, as was shown in the way
some of the states refused to allow the execution of the
Fugitive Slave Law. This rendered the South uneasy.
The Federal government had been created by the states
to give security against domestic, as well as foreign dangers.
But the time had come when it no longer brought
domestic peace. The rights, guaranteed to the South in
regard to her slaves, had already been violated, and were
threatened with further invasion in the future. It could
no longer be said that the Constitution was a Magna
Charta that preserved rights. The realization of this
made the South desire to leave the Union. Under the
same government, the people of the South and of the
North had lived together as brothers for many years;
but the state of feeling between them had now become
very different from what it was in the days of the Revolution.
It must ever be considered most deplorable that the
people of the two sections should have become enemies
ready to take each other's lives.

QUESTIONS

• 1. Was the Constitution of the United States satisfactory to all?

• 2. What two parties sprang up, and what was the result?

• 3. Give the State-Rights theory of the Union.

• 4. The National theory.

• 5. Which was the true one?

• 6. What does Mr. Lodge say on the subject?

• 7. From what section did the first threats of secession come?

• 8. What did the governor of Connecticut declare?

• 9. Which theory did Virginia hold of the Union?

• 10. With what express understanding had she adopted the Constitution?

• 11. By whose influence did the North change the original conception
  of the Federal tie?

• 12. Why did the people of the West hold the same opinion as the
  North?

• 13. In what ways were the interests of the North and South opposed?

• 14. What was the chief cause of the difference in the sections, and
  what is said of it?

• 15. Why did the South now feel uneasy in the Union?

• 16. What is said of the Constitution?