The Confederate and U.S. Constitutions and the Ways They Contrast When considering what events have had the most sizable impact on America, the Civil War is certainly in contention. A transformative reckoning over the fate of the nation, the war ushered in a new era of America: a recognition of federal preeminence and legislated acceptance of equality of races, though certainly not complete at that time. The results of the war have had far-reaching implications in the institutions of today, and one needs only to watch the debate over Confederate symbols to see the still-bitter fight over issues from that time period. Highlighting the causes of the Civil War is the Constitution adopted by the Confederacy in its infancy. An integral document to the Confederacy’s creation, its outlining of Southern aims provides an insightful glimpse into the fundamental divides in America that led to war, and, to a lesser extent, to conflict today. Better understanding the Confederacy’s founding document begins with examining the principal differences with its Union counterpart. What drastic changes would the disgruntled, avowed slaveholders of the South deliver upon the Constitution? Analyzing the two documents, the answer is surprising in that very little was changed. No matter, the words changed certainly altered the intent of the document in an overtly racist and states’-rights way. The end of the last sentence in the preamble presages the religiousness of the text: “--invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God--do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.” 1 Including more direct references to God shows how Southerners so badly wanted--and needed--to sanction their departure on religious grounds. Another facet to the appeal to God by Confederates was the logical implication that if they had the favor of God, the Union clearly did not. 1“ The United States Constitution,” US Constitution, https://www.usconstitution.net/const.html. Further analysis of the preamble shows the importance of the presence of two additional segments--”... each state acting in its sovereign and independent character…” and “....to form a more permanent federal government…” 2--demonstrating the beginning of the Southern attempt at reconciliations of a polar duality, that of country and of state--which they never realize. In the former phrase, one can see the validation of states’ rights to decide whether they ought to secede, yet at the same time the attempt to forge a unified front to carry on war. The desire of the South to be in a United States it defines is never on greater display. For example, Jefferson Davis described the new constitution as: “a Constitution differing only from that of our fathers in so far as it is explanatory of their well-known intent.” 3 Furthermore, the preamble contains the replacement of “...to form a more perfect union..” with “...to form a more permanent federal government… 4” a profound linguistic overhaul. The replacement is a subtle refutation of all the Union was and its designs. That succinct rebuttal of the U.S. as it was in 1861 was two-fold: the country changed too much and should not have been allowed to do so in the first place, and all further societal and governmental change must be precluded in order to maintain the country as a habitable place for future generations. The use of “permanent” also seems to imply that the U.S. was bound to dissolve and it was not the Confederacy’s fault for finally heralding it. Therein lies the root of Southern differences from the North: the paths of the two regions had diverged so far as to make Southerners feel they had lost 2“ The United States Constitution,” US Constitution, https://www.usconstitution.net/const.html. 3 A aron Hall, “Reframing the Fathers’ Constitution,” The Journal of Southern History , doi:10.1353/soh.2017.0081 4 “ The United States Constitution,” US Constitution, https://www.usconstitution.net/const.html. the country of their forebears. Consequently, secession and formation of a new country seemed to be the proper response to the disavowment of the founding principles. Echoing the resistance to change in the C.S.A Constitution is the very first article which addresses the legislative branch and its electoral processes. A glaring contrast to the U.S. Constitution was the focus on citizenship and those who were being barred from participation. While the U.S. Constitution briefly mentioned that only citizens would be allowed to vote and hold office, the Southern version blatantly advertised “citizens of the Confederate States” as a clear indication of nativist and prejudicial sentiments. Even more glaring were the explicit references to slaves as property--a right viewed as inalienable to many at the time. The Southern rallying cry of the centrality of slavery to America’s existence was highlighted by the addition of an accommodation to the Upper South through the first clause in Section 9 of the 1st Article of the C.S.A. Constitution: “The importation of negroes of the African race, from any foreign country, other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.” 5 The addition of such a statement would seem diametrically opposed to the South’s aims. After all, were they not a slave-holding populace that wanted more slaves? As explored by James McPherson in Battle Cry of Freedom , the Upper South was using far fewer slaves by the year 1861 and so many wealthy planters became even wealthier through the north-south trade of slaves in the U.S. Barring further importation can then be seen as a placating measure for the Upper South, which had more reservations about secession and their willingness to fight for slavery. It is also important to note that at the time of the writing of the C.S.A. Constitution 5 “ The United States Constitution,” US Constitution, https://www.usconstitution.net/const.html. none of those critical states were in the Confederacy. The inclusion of such wording shows how the Confederacy was really an enterprise undertaken to enrich the wealthy planters who had the most to lose from the loss of slaves. In that way, such sentiments and clauses foreshadowed the way in which a divide between wealthy and poor emerged near the end of the war--which only exacerbated the fall of the South. 6 Taken as a whole document, the C.S.A. Constitution shows the fierce independence of the Southern states and their contrasting views with the North about what society should be and how. The pointed inclusion of slavery as something permanently legal and impossible to limit in intra-state trade set the field for the Emancipation Proclamation and the cessation of slavery in seceded states. Retroactively, great debate has long raged on the true reasons for the war. A diversity of opinion and civil discourse can be helpful, but the views outlined in the C.S.A. Constitution show a consistent defense of slavery as a greater piece in state independence. As Robert H. Smith, one of the Southern framers, put it: “[W]e have dissolved the late Union chiefly because of the negro quarrel.” 7 Slavery and its trade was not the only Southern complaint; the use of tariffs felt extremely one-sided and beneficial to the North at the cost of the South. The tariff dichotomy largely resulted from the differing foci of the regional economies. While the South was an exporter of commodities and importer of finished goods, thus susceptible to tariff wars, the North had a more advanced economy and was able to be far more self-sufficient. 8 Agriculture founded on slaves was the 6James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom (New York: Ballantine Books, 1989). 7Aaron Hall, “Reframing the Fathers’ Constitution,” The Journal of Southern History , doi:10.1353/soh.2017.0081 8 H istory.com Editors, “Confederate States of America,” History.com , Aug. 21, 2018, https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/confederate-states-of-america. primary goal of the South, and developments that helped independent white workers were discouraged. 9 The reasoning for tariffs was also pro-North in that they sought to protect nascent industries--none of which the South had in any comparatively large number, something they would regret when it came time for the production of war materials. Therefore, the inclusion of tariff restrictions and limits on spending money on other states’ improvements were all pointedly designed to prevent an industrial region gaining at the expense of rural ones. Like other debates in 1861, the parallels can be easily extended to modern day in examples such as the urban vs. rural divide. While the Confederacy ultimately met a quick demise and its Constitution imparted few advantages, one section of the Constitution proved to be beneficial for its aims and forced austerity to better finance the war. That clause is the 7th of the 8th section of Article 1, “...but the expenses of the Post Office Department, after the first day of March, in the year of our Lord eighteen and sixty-three, shall be paid out of its own revenues.” 10 That clause and subsequent appointment of John Reagan as Postmaster General led to a fiscally-efficient service. In his tenure, rates were negotiated lower and inefficient areas of the postal service were pared away. The result was a post office running a yearly surplus. 11 However, some complained of the lack of service and thus the debate over the goals of the post office persisted even then.