Government Changes After the Revolutionary War vs. Civil War

Introduction: Challenging McPherson's Thesis

Close examination of the reasons for and the results of the Revolutionary War and the Civil War leads to a disagreement with McPherson's position that more radical change in government occurred as a result of the Civil War than the Revolutionary War. In order to understand why this is so, one must consider several issues: the causes of each war, their purposes and intentions, and their ultimate results.

Causes of the Civil War: Slavery and Secession

The Revolutionary War was based on the struggle to become independent from Great Britain, a struggle that began due to a series of taxes imposed upon the colonists. "Taxation without representation" was the initial call to arms; however, the movement grew to encompass other freedoms as well.

The Civil War was an utterly different kind of conflict. While the South invoked the language of freedom, it was always fundamentally an economic issue tightly woven with the institution of slavery. Southerners were outraged and fearful when the federal government decided to regulate slavery in federal territories. This did not affect any existing slave state's right to continue using enslaved labor; it merely stipulated that new territories would be free. The South viewed this as a threat to their control of the government, since more states would enter the Union as free states, thereby shifting the balance of power to the North.

While this concern may have been real, the Southern argument for secession became the excuse to attack the Union. Relying upon the United States Constitution and the Articles of Confederation, South Carolina argued that the original framers — the "forefathers" — intended to "expressly" delegate powers, not merely delegate them as stated in the 10th Amendment: "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States or to the people" (United States Constitution). Before taking steps toward secession, however, the South waited for the presidential election to proceed.

Fearful of outcomes they viewed as detrimental to their way of life, Southerners saw Abraham Lincoln as their nemesis. He represented and personified that fear, despite Lincoln's own protests that such fears were unfounded.

Lincoln's Response: The Cooper Union Address and First Inaugural

While campaigning for the presidency in 1860, Lincoln was invited to speak in New York City at Cooper Union. In that speech, he went to the heart of the matter and sought to reach out to the South. He addressed the issue of the founders' intentions and specifically countered the mistaken position held by Southern politicians. The words "expressly delegate" were at the center of the dispute. While Southern politicians interpreted this language as implied in the U.S. Constitution, Lincoln made clear this was not the case. The Ordinance of 1787, which stated that the federal government was not prohibited from regulating slavery in federal territories, had the support of many original framers of the Constitution who were serving as members of Congress (Cooper Union Address). In 1789, an act was passed granting the federal government authority to enforce the Ordinance of 1787 — again supported by a significant number of the original framers (Cooper). In fact, twenty-three of the thirty-nine original framers were serving in Congress at the time, and support was unanimous on the point that no line divided authority on slavery or precluded federal involvement in the territories (Cooper). The federal government held the authority — not the territories or anyone else.

Finally, Lincoln pointed to the fact that while the 10th Amendment is nearly identical to the corresponding provision in the Articles of Confederation, the word "expressly" does not appear in the Constitution (Cooper). This omission was not accidental. Inferring intent as the South wished to do was, as Lincoln pointed out, a treacherous interpretive slope. Prior to the passage of the 10th Amendment, there had been debate about adding the word "expressly," and despite its appearance in the Articles of Confederation, it was deliberately and intentionally left out of the 10th Amendment (Cooper).

At his First Inaugural Address in Washington, D.C., Lincoln directed much of his remarks specifically toward the South. Aware of Southern fears regarding property and peace, he sought to dispel them directly: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so" (First Inaugural Address). Having disposed of that issue forthrightly, he turned to the problem of secession. He pointed out that the country was formed as a union, and that the Constitution was developed to form "a more perfect union" in perpetuity; therefore, an individual state or group of states could not legally destroy that union (First). Acts against the authority of the federal government were unlawful, and while Lincoln stated he planned no invasion or armed assault on the South, he urged thoughtful deliberation over civil war (First). The facts of war, he argued, would do nothing to address the underlying issues (First).

Eventually war became necessary, and Lincoln found himself positioned to declare the freedom of enslaved people through the Emancipation Proclamation. He suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus as permitted under the Constitution and was forced on other difficult decisions — but he never sought war as a response to his own people.