Prof Reynolds has this to say about those who feel that things would be better if the South had won:
Oh, anyone who reads Confederates in the Attic (and everyone should) can grasp the way in which the Civil War can capture people's imagination. But wishing the South had won? Ridiculous. Anyone who wishes that should read Harry Turtledove's all-too-plausible alternate history novels (here's the first in the series) in which the South did win the Civil War, leaving the United States looking, well, like Europe. Ugh.
My feelings on this are complicated. The South stood for many things other than slavery; limiting the role of the federal Government, maximizing individual freedoms, and free trade. These are things that I believe in, and all have suffered since the conclusion of the War. The Union victory represented the triumph of unrestrained federalism over State sovereignty. While this triumph may have been necessary for America to achieve the greatness it has, I think it also sowed the seeds of our eventual downfall. The Federal government increased it's authority beyond that which the Founding Fathers envisioned, and did so at bayonet point, in the process corrupting the dream.
However, had the South won, would things be any better? I don't know. I think if their had been a quick resolution to the War, for example if Stonewall hadn't gone missing during the Seven Days campaign, and the Union Army had been cut off and captured, The USA and the CSA would have gone separately for a time, but eventually merged into a strong alliance.
But that's just the optimist in me...
More than likely, the CSA would have splintered further, as the border states split off from the Deep South. Both nations would have competed for the Western territories, which likely would have remained largely in Spanish and Mexican hands, with Texas establishing it's independence. How would WWI and II gone without a United States? I can think of any number of possibilities, none of them good.
Yet I still believe that even though a strong, united America was the best possible outcome, I don't believe that the ends justify the means, and that there will be a price to pay in the future.
But that's just the pessimist in me...
Posted by Rich at January 6, 2003 9:36 PMI tend to subscribe to an alternate theory -- that the problem of unrestrained Federalism derives not from the outcome of the civil war, but from the passage of the 17th Amendment.
The Constitution originally called for the House to be elected by the people, and the Senate to be appointed by the state legislatures. This created a balance of power -- the House, elected by and answering to the people, would have a natural inclination to increase the power of the Federal government, and the Senate, appointed by and answering to the state legislatures, would have a natural inclination to maintain the authority of the States and restrain the transfer of power to the Federal government.
The change in Constitutional structure having been made, both houses now are elected by -- and answer to -- the people. The state legislatures are effectively unrepresented, and the result has been a steady accumulation of power and authority away from the States and toward the Federal Government.
Posted by: John Schulien on January 7, 2003 9:38 PMExcellent point, and thanks for sharing it, John. I hadn't thought about it in those terms, but it makes sense that the 17th did accelerate the erosion of State Sovereignty, but it started years earlier. Actually, the struggle between the States and the Fed started roughly the same time the ink dried on the Constitution. Conflict was inevitable, and as demonstrated by the War, a strong federal government wields power more efficiently than a loose confederation, albeit at the cost of some liberty. The 17th merely recognized the new reality.
Posted by: rich on January 8, 2003 11:19 PM