Search

This paper intends to examine the Constitution of the Confederate States of America critically to assess its merits and demerits. The purpose of this paper is not to evaluate the C.S.A. Constitution or its framers in regard to slavery. Clearly, by refusing to recognize the injustice of slavery and the Declaration's assertion that "all men are created equal," the C.S.A. Constitution cannot be admired. However, in its changes to the basic structure of the federal government, the C.S.A. Constitution might provide actual and perhaps even preferable alternatives to the form of government established by U.S. Constitution. Jefferson Davis asserted that the C.S.A. Constitution was a light which revealed the "true meaning" of the founding fathers.1 This paper will assess Davis's claim. It will do so primarily by comparing the preambles of each Constitution and the supporting documents which help to explain the essential purposes of government therein stated (e.g., the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist papers, Alexander Stephens's "Corner-Stone" speech). Such analysis will indicate that Davis is incorrect; the C.S.A. Constitution does not represent what the founding fathers intended in the original U.S. Constitution; the preambles establish different visions of the federal government. Even though the C.S.A. Constitution does not appear to embody the "true meaning" of the founding fathers, nevertheless the ways in which it diverges from the U.S. Constitution deserve attention. These changes will be evaluated to discern whether they either improve upon or adulterate the U.S. Constitution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the spring of 1865 the Confederacy made a last, desperate gamble for victory when it decided to use African-Americans as soldiers in the Army. Given the plantation history of the South, the strong proslavery arguments developed in the previous decades, and that preservation of slavery was one of the principal war aims of the South when it seceded, the decision to arm slaves called for a major re-evaluation of the philosophy upon which the Confederacy had based its existence. For who would have guessed that the South would ever voluntarily give up the very institution that had created the turmoil and confrontation with the North for decades. Was not the South stubbornly attached to slavery? How could they change their minds? What produced those changes? Who was behind those changes? No doubt the choice was made easier by the logic of desperation, the humiliation and dishonor of a possible defeat, and the realization that slavery was to be doomed regardless of what decision the South made. None of this however, makes the fact less astonishing. This paper uses the Southern Confederacy as a case study that shows that states, when confronted with self-preservation, can make political decisions in direct contradiction with even their initial war goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigates the role that the former Confederate States of America have on the entry of black-owned firms in the southern United States. Elected officials holding onto vestiges of southern slavery maintain a racist culture revealing a "taste for discrimination" and implement biased policy (Becker, 1971). Consequently, these biased elected officials who have some authority over the distribution of public contracts and policies continue to encourage anti-competitive and discriminatory practices in credit and capital markets. The results reveal that the former Confederate States of America through public policy create a market environment that has a significant and negative effect on black-owned firm entry. This suggests that among the various explanations for the dearth of black entrepreneurs, political entry barriers in the old south also appear to be important. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines the financial strategies employed by the Confederacy in the U.S. Civil War. Relationship between financial choices and the success of failure of military engagements; Discussion of the Confederacy's financial strategy driven by their commitment to states' rights; Analysis of the Confederate Congressmen's choices over financial policies.

This paper looks at the veto bargaining process in the non-partisan settings of the Confederate States of America. In a comparison of the U.S. and Confederate Houses Jenkins (1999) has demonstrated that the vote choice of individual members of Congress was influenced by the existence or absence of parties. We make a similar argument and claim that the absence of parties was responsible for frequent vetoes and override attempts with only one successful legislative override in the Confederacy. By relying on the Journal of the Congress of the Confederate States of America, we show that the absence of parties had several consequences regarding the nature of the veto bargaining process as well as the quality of legislative output. Signaling and the anticipation of preferences were difficult between the chambers of Congress and the president which explains the large number of vetoes by President Davis. Without parties legislative coalitions became fragile while the lack of partisan leadership structures made floor activity highly unstructured, less predictable and time consuming. All this sheds light on why override attempts were often made, but rarely succeeded. In general, our findings suggest that legislative parties matter - and to a significant degree - not only in structuring the vote choice, but also when it comes to interbranch bargaining and conducting business on the floor. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Taking lead from the perceived paucity of philosophical discussion on the issue of secession this paper will attempt to show that the U.S. Civil War was at once both legitimate and illegitimate when examined in light of Montesquieu's writings. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is an examination of ex-Confederates' struggle to come to terms with the eradication of state secession from the Union in the aftermath of the Civil War and to reconcile their post-war loyalty oaths to the U.S. government with their pre-war belief in the primacy of state citizenship. Under the terms of President Andrew Johnson's Amnesty Petition of May 1865, ex-Confederates who wanted to escape prosecution for treason were required to take an oath of allegiance to the United States Constitution and "the Union of the States thereunder." Swearing such an oath necessarily conflicted with the state sovereignty principles and localist sensibilities of these ex-Confederates, and the more than 15,000 amnesty petitions filed with President Johnson reveal that many of these men attempted to reconcile their pledge of loyalty to the federal government with their lifelong adherence to secessionist principles. Instead of boldly stating that the triumph of the Union army had convinced them of the faulty logic behind secession, ex-Confederates repeatedly likened the late Civil War to the medieval legal practice of trial by battle, wherein a legal dispute had been settled through ritualized violence rather than rational debate. The war had persuaded ex-Confederates that the right of secession could not be safely exercised, but it had hardly proved the unconstitutionality of secession to their satisfaction. Comparing the Civil War to a trial by battle thus afforded ex-Confederates a way of confirming their loyalty to the federal government without repudiating their firmly-held belief in state sovereignty constitutionalism. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]