The American Civil War Was a Failed Revolution

History is written by the victors. This is evident in the American Civil War, as the war took a different distinct meaning for both sides. For the Northern Union states, the war was about preserving the Union and repressing a rebelling South. For the South, however, this war was about preserving their territorial integrity and protecting themselves from the aggressive actions of a centralized state hostile to their interests. Another important difference is that for the North, the end goal of the war was the South’s complete surrender, while for the South, they wished to be independent of the North, although in a similar federal system.  These two differences between the two sides highlight that while the North, the victors, may have thought of it as a Civil War, the south thought about it as a revolution. Which side was right? Was the American Civil War in line with the typical motivations of revolutions? Does the Confederate States of America (CSA) fit the constitutional model of revolution? This paper will analyze these questions. While the American Civil War has entered into history as a Civil War, it actually was motivated by ideological reasons and fits the model of Constitutional revolution discussed in class meaning that the American Civil War should be classified as a revolution. 

The Cause of the Civil War Compared to the Causes for Revolution

     There are three main theories for what causes revolution: Ideology, structural imbalances, and changes in authority. The ideological theory holds that revolutions are caused by the spread of new ideals among the population, which boil down to certain fundamental beliefs. In this model of revolutions, the ideas of the revolution proceed the revolution itself. The Structural imbalance theory holds that issues in the government and stability of a country contribute to a revolution. In this theory, revolution in countries such as Afghanistan would be likely while revolt in Switzerland or Sweden would seem unlikely. Lastly, the authority theory, whose main advocate is Gene Sharp, believes that a change in authority leads to revolution. Authority in Sharp’s mind means the ability to get others to do what you want without forcing them to comply. Without this authority, or with reduced authority, revolution is bound to happen according to this model. The Civil War does not fit neatly into any of these categories, and it has aspects of all three theories.      

The most accurate of these three theories for the Civil War is ideological. The South revolted for the right to own slaves and the fundamental belief that this was a good institution, while the North believed that slavery needs to end. Of course, the civil war was not this clean-cut: the south seceded after Lincoln repeatedly told them he would not forcibly take their slaves. However, the belief among most southerners was still that Lincoln and the whole North were now against slavery. This can clearly be seen through the various justifications that the Southern States gave regarding rebellion. For example, in A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union, Mississippi states that “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.” Additionally, other documents such as Texas’ A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union, blamed the Northern states for wanting to bring “calamities upon both [races] and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.” With this ideological divide between the North and the South, it seems that the Civil War was caused exclusively by ideological differences. However, the main issue is that the Civil War successions came in two waves. The first was when Lincoln was elected, from December 1860 to February 1861. This group was completely driven by Slavery. Notably not included in this first group was Virginia, among 3 others. They stayed in the Union until April when Lincoln ordered the creation of a 75,000-strong army to put down the Southern rebellion. Then these states succeeded, claiming that, as

Virginia wrote in The Secession Ordinance, “the Federal Government, having perverted” its powers justified revolution. Thus, the Civil war was mostly an ideological revolution, but it was not clear-cut.

The Civil War as a Constitutional Revolution

While both the Union and CSA had republican constitutions, the Civil War was a constitutional revolution because the CSA was rebelling against what it believed to be a tyrannical government. In a constitutional revolution, normally an authoritarian leader is toppled and replaced with a republican constitution, but the reason behind the revolution is that the government is tyrannical, or makes decisions without the consent of the people. In the presidential election of 1840, the federal government in Washington decided without the consent of the South, when Abraham Lincoln was elected president without a single Southern state supporting his election. Thus, from the South’s point of view, their goal was to rebel and form a constitution that enshrined the rights they felt that the Federal government under Washington had denied them. These rights included the right to own slaves, increased state sovereignty, and heavily limited the powers of the legislature.      

There were many key differences between the American Constitution and that of the CSA which indicate a large enough change to support a constitutional revolution. The first change was in the preamble. In the CSA’s document, all references to the “common defenses”, “general welfare”, or anything that seemed to make the document refer to the people of the states rather than the states themselves. Moreover, the document also clarified that member states were of “sovereign and independent character” while a member of the CSA. These two changes show the renewed commitment to states’ rights: no longer was the union between the States and the people of those states, it was exclusively established by the sovereign states. The second major change

that the CSA added to its constitution was related to slavery. The main fear of the South that drove succession was that President Lincoln and a supermajority of Congress (enough to pass a constitutional amendment) would pass a constitutional amendment that banned slavery, so the CSA was explicit in its constitution about its protections of slavery; it stated that “No bill of attainder... denying or impairing the right of property in... slaves shall be passed”.  

Conclusion     

The first wave of secession in the American Civil War was caused by the support of the moral value of slavery, which indicates that the war was strongly motivated by the ideological theory of revolutions. However, the second wave that included the largest and most important southern state was not an ideological revolution but rather was caused by the specific action of President Lincoln when he issued the call for 75,000 troops, which is counter to the ideological motivation of revolution. While it was not clear cut that the Civil War was caused by ideological reasons, it was clearly a constitutional revolution, seeking to overturn what it saw as a tyrannical state. This revolution instituted an altered constitution which enshrined many of the reasons for the CSA’s revolution.