One of the common mistakes we make when studying the Civil War is calling the North industrial and the South agricultural. Yes, it is true that he North was industrializing before the War and the South was not, but we need to call it just that industrializing. The North was not industrial. The vast majority of northerners were still working on farms. So, when we make the comparison it needs to be between two agricultural economies in which one was starting to build an industrial base. A base that was incredibly influential in winning the War.
In 1789, farmers in western Pennsylvania revolted against a new tax on alcohol passed by Congress as part of Hamilton’s plan to fix the economy. Unlike Shay’s Rebellion, which happened before the Constitution, and in some way inspired the need for the Constitution, the Government was strong enough now to squash the Whisky Rebellion. Washington, in a show of force, even rode at the head of the army for several miles. Many today believe that Hamilton hoped the western farmers would revolt against his tax. It allowed the new government to flex its muscles and show the nation that it was in charge.
One of the most intriguing figures in history is John Brown. Growing up Virginia and being fascinated by the Civil War, I was always taught that Brown was the villain. At times I was told his cause was right, but he was a madman. I believe his status has changed, at least in my eyes, as I got older and understood the War more. I think the most telling aspect of Brown is a line from his final speech,
“I have another objection; and that is, it is unjust that I should suffer such a penalty. Had I interfered in the manner which I admit, and which I admit has been fairly proved– had I so interfered in behalf of the rich, the powerful, the intelligent, the so-called great, or in behalf of any of their friends — either father, mother, sister, wife, or children, or any of that class — and suffered and sacrificed what I have in this interference, it would have been all right; and every man in this court would have deemed it an act worthy of reward rather than punishment… I believe that to have interfered as I have done — as I have always freely admitted I have done — in behalf of His despised poor, was not wrong, but right. Now if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments. — I submit; so let it be done!”
I now see John Brown as a man willing to give his life for something he believed in and that puts him on the right side.
With all the arguing and name calling in the congress today, first I am reminded of children in kindergarten. However, historically speaking, I am also reminded of another speech that happened 164 years ago. It goes to show you that nothing really changes. In 1856, Senator Charles Sumner gave a speech in which he criticized the south, but most notably the South Carolina Senator, Andrew Butler. In the speech Sumner said Butler’s having mistress was slavery. He also referred to him as a usurper, tyrant, and imbecile.
Some other great lines about Butler, “copies the British officer who, with boastful swagger, said that with the hilt of his sword he would cram the “stamps” down the throats of the American people, and he will meet a similar failure. He may convulse this country with a civil feud. Like the ancient madman, he may set fire to this Temple of Constitutional Liberty, grander than the Ephesian dome; but he cannot enforce obedience to that Tyrannical Usurpation.”
Lastly, “the Senator touches nothing which he does not disfigure with error, sometimes of principle, sometimes of fact. He shows an incapacity of accuracy, whether in stating the Constitution, or in stating the law, whether in the details of statistics or the diversions of scholarship. He cannot open his mouth, but out there flies a blunder”
Different words, same congress.
My last article dealt with the growing crisis with Iran and the history of American presidents using missile attacks on their enemies. Based on those acts, House Democrats have passed a war powers resolution ordering the president to stop all hostilities with Iran within thirty days. This brings up many Constitutional questions and seems confusing for many. In some ways the Constitution contradicts itself by appointing the president commander-in-chief, while giving Congress the power to declare war. If this seems confusing, that is because it is, even to our political leaders. This is not the first time Congress and the president have tackled this issue and as always it will probably not be the last.
First things first. Article II, Section II of the U.S. Constitution reads, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.” That is it. It does not go on to clarify what that means. At the same time Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 states, “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Here the Constitution does give some clarification. In Clauses 12-16 it reads, “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” From this it seems the Constitution does favor Congress when it comes to war powers.
As I have said before, the Constitution was purposely written vague. It is meant to be interpreted. From only reading the Constitution, it seems as if the Founders wanted to give Congress more authority in warfare. This idea is also supported by statements of the Founders.
Historically, war powers had always been in the hands of the monarch. The monarch could take the nation to war without any consideration for the people’s welfare. When debating the power of our president, the Founders appointed many of the same functions of the monarch to the president, but one area in which the Founders felt restrained was war making. In a radical departure from Europe, the people’s representatives were given the power to declare war.
Some believed the president was best served with all war powers, but too many saw too much military power in one branch as a threat to democracy and so gave the power to Congress. The compromise came in the way it is written. Originally, the clause in Article I read Congress has the power to “make” war. That was changed to Congress has the power to “declare” war. The thinking was that the president as commander-in-chief needed the ability to use the army in self-defense if Congress was not in session. What seems to be agreed today is that the Founders’ intention was to give the president power to wage a defensive war.
For most of our history, there was no reason for debate, as the wars we fought were seen as defensive, whether they were or not. James Madison received a declaration of war when the U.S. was attacked by England in 1812. James Polk claimed America was attacked by Mexican forces and hence a declaration of war was needed. Lincoln told Congress there was open rebellion. McKinley asked for a declaration of war after the believed attack on the USS Maine. Woodrow Wilson needed to keep the world safe for democracy and FDR needed to save us from the Nazis and Pearl Harbor.
Even though each of these wars was officially declared as a war, what we see is that the presidents, each time, taking on more power for themselves. Lincoln constantly fought with Congress over the war, constantly taking more authority to himself. The Emancipation Proclamation is a great example of a war act Lincoln made without congressional approval. After WWII, presidents took even more power for war. With the Cold War it was easy for them to continue with the idea that the commander-in-chief had responsibility for defense. With beliefs such as the Domino Theory, it was believed that we must stop communism everywhere in order to stop it here. So, wars such as Korea and Vietnam were conceived as defensive wars–which presidents took us into without an official declaration. I should say that starting in the 20th century we saw the president take on more power and responsibility in almost every aspect, not just war making. Presidents today cannot get away with half what they did in the 19th Century.
Finally, during the Vietnam War, Congress decided to take back some of their war powers and in 1973 passed the War Powers Resolution. Because of limited space, I can only summarize the effects of the resolution and have to skip important steps. Basically, the president has, in the end, 90 days to use the military until he has to pull back, unless either given permission by Congress or the U.S. is under attack. It is suggested he confer with Congress before any actions taken, but not required. After any attack, the president is required to report to Congress within 48 hours. However, what that should look like is not spelled out. This became an issue with President Trump when Democrats and even some Republicans were not satisfied with the president’s report after the recent missile attack.
Presidents have seen the Wars Powers Resolution as unconstitutional. Nixon vetoed the Resolution on the grounds it handcuffed his ability to act as Commander-in-Chief. Other presidents have also argued against this. In 1983, the courts did agree that the president did have the right to sign or veto any war resolutions passed by Congress, making it necessary to compromise.
Historically Speaking, reading the notes from the Founders does seem to favor the Congress in the ability to make war, but also that the powers should be shared. War powers seem to follow the same track as most congressional/presidential powers. What we see is that in the 20th Century Congress allowed the president to slowly strip away congressional powers.
As I wrote in an earlier column, we saw the same things with tariffs. Maybe we are seeing a new trend of Congress trying to reclaim their power. We will not know until the majority power in Congress is the same as the party of the president to see if this is a real change or, as I guess, just a political show against a president from a different party.
For my Texas readers, if any of you are interested I will be speaking at the Weatherford College Interdisciplinary Academic Conference on Feb 27 at 5:00. The Conference is free and open to the public. For more information you can call 817-598-6326. If you attend, make sure you come by and say hello.
Dr. James Finck is an Associate Professor of History at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma and Chair of the Oklahoma Civil War Symposium. Follow Historically Speaking at http://www.Historicallyspeaking.blog or Facebook at @jamesWfinck.
In early America, freedom meant something different than today. Freedom meant land ownership, or least owning your own business. If you worked for someone else then you could not be free. Before secret ballot voting, employers could force their workers to vote for who they chose, making you not politically free. Because of this the Founders only allowed white-male, landholders to vote, they were the only truly free people in 1789.
One of the causes of the Civil War was the breakdown of the political parties that held the nation together. In 1852, the Whig Party fought over who their next presidential candidate should be. The South wanted Millard Fillmore, who was strongly pro-slavery. The North wanted Winfield Scott, who was not. When Scott was nominated, the southern Whigs began abandoning the Party for the Democrats or other pro-slavery elements, beginning the slow death of the Whig Party. When the parties fell apart the nation followed.