Did the North's Civil War victory cause the abortion epidemic?

[awfulthings9]

Alternatively titled, “Was the South Right?”

My post proposes two questions, the first necessary for addressing the second.

Question one: Was the North justified in using force to keep the Southern states in the Union?

For question two, I’ll point out that many hold the theory that, should states have the right to decide the legality of abortion on an individual basis, it would inevitably spell the death of the institution through the nation as a whole. Here is Jimmy Akin’s analysis of this theory.

Question two: Did the defeat of the Southern states set a precedent of control within the central government that makes individual states virtually impotent in trying to make independent legislation that criminalizes abortion?

In other words, would Roe Vs. Wade have been meaningless if the Southern states had successfully ceded from the Union, establishing the autonomy of the individual states?

 

[awfulthings9]

Any takers?

I thought this would be an interesting one as, unless one discounts the theory (which is entirely possible), it calls for a choice between two uncomfortable extremes:

Either the South was within its rights by breaking away and the North wronged those states.

Or the South was committing an atrocity, which the North was correcting, and many of the aborted children since Roe v. Wade are the collateral victims of that victory.

Or not?

 

[steveandersen]

Alternatively titled, “Was the South Right?”

My post proposes two questions, the first necessary for addressing the second.

Question one: Was the North justified in using force to keep the Southern states in the Union?

Yes of course.
The confederates seized Federal property and fired upon Federal troops.
Not all Southern citizens agreed with secession and, as US citizens, they were entitled to the protection of the US government.

For question two, I’ll point out that many hold the theory that, should states have the right to decide the legality of abortion on an individual basis, it would inevitably spell the death of the institution through the nation as a whole. Here is Jimmy Akin’s analysis of this theory.

Prior to Roe v Wade states did decide the issue individually. A return to pre-Roe days would imply that the federal government couldn’t have a say one way or another.

If you want to argue that the Federal government can regulate and even ban abortion you can’t argue that it is also strictly a state issue.

Question two: Did the defeat of the Southern states set a precedent of control within the central government that makes individual states virtually impotent in trying to make independent legislation that criminalizes abortion?

In other words, would Roe Vs. Wade have been meaningless if the Southern states had successfully ceded from the Union, establishing the autonomy of the individual states?

Well obviously if they were no longer US states then they wouldn’t be subject to US case rulings. (and since Roe started in Texas the case would have gone to Richmond rather than DC… maybe) so in that respect it would be meaningless

BUT while secession would have set the precedent that each state could do what it wanted regardless of prior national law that is not necessarily a Good Thing.
Remember one of the underlying arguments in the Recent Unpleasantness was whether states could decide individually on the issue of chattel slavery. And remember all that trouble regarding voting rights and education? Local decisions are not necessarily the best decisions.

For good or ill State governments are just as susceptible to the foibles of man as the Federal government is.

Don’t blame abortion on the Yankees.
prior to Roe (with the exception of the 4 states where abortion on demand was allowed) the southern states appeared to have less stringent abortion policies

 

[awfulthings9]

Yes of course.
The confederates seized Federal property and fired upon Federal troops.

This is a good argument for Northern retaliation against a hostile force. But not to the North requiring that histile force to remain a part of the Union. Seizing of federal property and firing upon Federal troops could have been punished in other ways other than required membership in the Union.

Not all Southern citizens agreed with secession and, as US citizens, they were entitled to the protection of the US government.

Where are they granted that entitlement to protection from the decisions of their own state governments, made up of elected officials? If that is in the constitution or another binding document, I would agree, but if it is just idealism, I cannot. Actually, three of the thirteen states that ratified the constitution did so only upon reserving the right of secession. As all states are granted equality in rights through membership in the Union, this right extends to the others. Nowhere does the Constitution give the North the liberty to mandate membership in the Untion.

Prior to Roe v Wade states did decide the issue individually. A return to pre-Roe days would imply that the federal government couldn’t have a say one way or another.

I agree. I would also say that to have legalized abortion in a few states is a lesser evil than to have a nationwide (and possibly irrevocable) protection of abortion.

If you want to argue that the Federal government can regulate and even ban abortion you can’t argue that it is also strictly a state issue.

I’m not trying to argue one way or the other, but simply posing the question of whether or not Federal control has created for us a greater evil than if individual states legalized abortion.

Well obviously if they were no longer US states then they wouldn’t be subject to US case rulings. (and since Roe started in Texas the case would have gone to Richmond rather than DC… maybe) so in that respect it would be meaningless

Yes.

BUT while secession would have set the precedent that each state could do what it wanted regardless of prior national law that is not necessarily a Good Thing.

I’m not arguing that it is or isn’t.

Remember one of the underlying arguments in the Recent Unpleasantness was whether states could decide individually on the issue of chattel slavery. And remember all that trouble regarding voting rights and education? Local decisions are not necessarily the best decisions.

But many historians see other (and possibly more effective) solutions to these problems. My proposal is to explore whether the particular solution which was taken was the most effective. Definitely, the South could of gone ahead with secession and economic obsticles could have been placed in their way by a more powerful North that would have ended unfavorable practices.

For good or ill State governments are just as susceptible to the foibles of man as the Federal government is.

I won’t disagree. But does having such a strong Federal government limit ones ability to escape, geographically, from these problems. Arguing that secession might have had beneficial effects is not to say that every state would break away with future controversies, but the threat of such a thing happening would have held back abuse of Federal power. Or maybe not. I don’t have an opinion - just a topic. I’m really playing devil’s advocate in a lot of this.

Don’t blame abortion on the Yankees.

I don’t. I blame it on evil.

prior to Roe (with the exception of the 4 states where abortion on demand was allowed) the southern states appeared to have less stringent abortion policies

No argument there. I’m simply starting a debate about the solution, not the virtues of the South. I think for purposes of this discussion, we can all agree that abortion, but also slavery, are both reprehensible.

Thanks for responding. I’m glad somebody finally did!

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Alternatively titled, “Was the South Right?”

My post proposes two questions, the first necessary for addressing the second.

Question one: Was the North justified in using force to keep the Southern states in the Union?

For question two, I’ll point out that many hold the theory that, should states have the right to decide the legality of abortion on an individual basis, it would inevitably spell the death of the institution through the nation as a whole. Here is Jimmy Akin’s analysis of this theory.

Question two: Did the defeat of the Southern states set a precedent of control within the central government that makes individual states virtually impotent in trying to make independent legislation that criminalizes abortion?

In other words, would Roe Vs. Wade have been meaningless if the Southern states had successfully ceded from the Union, establishing the autonomy of the individual states?

Are you inferring that had the South won the Civil War (not the “War of Northern Aggression”) what governmental enditity that would exist in the place of The United States would be better?

The two issues are not related due to the large timeframes between the two and totally different times in the history of the US.

What else would have changed if we would be living in the Confederate States of America now? Quite a bit, intertwining it with the abortion issue alone is misrepresenting history both in the 1960’s and 1860’s.

 

[dawgfan]

I think that abortion could have easily (although more slowly) found its way to an Independent American South (regardless of whether there was a strong central government or not).

 

[steveandersen]

This is a good argument for Northern retaliation against a hostile force. But not to the North requiring that histile force to remain a part of the Union.

why?

Seizing of federal property and firing upon Federal troops could have been punished in other ways other than required membership in the Union.

Like what?
Secession or union are mutually exclusive solutions
You can’t secede just a little bit
South Carolina tried it in 1832 and found that it didn’t work

Where are they granted that entitlement to protection from the decisions of their own state governments, made up of elected officials?

Article VI, Clause 2

• This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in** every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding**.*

While Madison, Jefferson, Calhoun et al argued for Nullification & Interposition it was strongly opposed by the Federalists, Jackson’s Democrats, and later Lincoln’s Republicans.

I’m sure the ideas won’t go away but there is the glaring precedent.

If that is in the constitution or another binding document, I would agree, but if it is just idealism, I cannot.

much as some folk hate to admit it the supremacy clause is in there

Actually, three of the thirteen states that ratified the constitution did so only upon reserving the right of secession. As all states are granted equality in rights through membership in the Union, this right extends to the others. Nowhere does the Constitution give the North the liberty to mandate membership in the Untion.

And the three states that claimed extra rights (if there were three) had the liberty to impose their will on all the others?
You can’t have it both ways.

 

[steveandersen]

continued

I agree. I would also say that to have legalized abortion in a few states is a lesser evil than to have a nationwide (and possibly irrevocable) protection of abortion.

yes

I’m not trying to argue one way or the other,

you did ask “was the South right?”

but simply posing the question of whether or not Federal control has created for us a greater evil than if individual states legalized abortion.

Greater power has the possibility of both greater evil and greater good

I do think that subsidiarity is a good model for government
In general the States should regulate the practice of medicine….however once you have both state and federal money involved it becomes complicated

if you take money from Uncle he gets a say in how it is spent

Yes.

I’m not arguing that it is or isn’t.

But many historians see other (and possibly more effective) solutions to these problems. My proposal is to explore whether the particular solution which was taken was the most effective. Definitely, the South could of gone ahead with secession and economic obsticles could have been placed in their way by a more powerful North that would have ended unfavorable practices.

Monday morning quarterbacking is always nice but you and I and the historians weren’t there so we’ll never know.

I suspect that the Confederate states would have floundered. The slavery issue would have made them a pariah nation(s)
Ultimately a conflict with the US over the harboring of escaped slaves, northern access to the sea via the Mississippi or the Chesapeak, or despiuted lands out west might have lead to war.

I won’t disagree. But does having such a strong Federal government limit ones ability to escape, geographically, from these problems.

Yep, by design.

Arguing that secession might have had beneficial effects is not to say that every state would break away with future controversies, but the threat of such a thing happening would have held back abuse of Federal power. Or maybe not. I don’t have an opinion - just a topic. I’m really playing devil’s advocate in a lot of this.

I don’t. I blame it on evil.

I think that the threat of succession would weaken the union even if it weren’t carried out.
How can the government speak with authority and guarantee its citizens their rights if its component parts could up and leave at any moment?

To my mind that would be like a marriage where the parties are always threatening divorce.

No argument there. I’m simply starting a debate about the solution, not the virtues of the South. I think for purposes of this discussion, we can all agree that abortion, but also slavery, are both reprehensible.

Thanks for responding. I’m glad somebody finally did!

Sometimes I just can’t stop myself from typing

Thanks for the good topic

 

[awfulthings9]

Are you inferring that had the South won the Civil War (not the “War of Northern Aggression”) what governmental enditity that would exist in the place of The United States would be better?

No. I’m not. I’ve been very clear that this is not what I’m arguing. I’m playing Devil’s Advocate and suggesting that even a good might have negative consequences, and am trying to explore the possibility that one of those is the proliferation of abortion.

The two issues are not related due to the large timeframes between the two and totally different times in the history of the US.

Timeframe has nothing to do with it. Would you argue, based on this logic, that a political issue that would arise due to our form of government and taxation today would have nothing to do with our liberation from Britian’s form of government and taxation simply because of a large timeframe and period in history? If there is a fallacy in my proposal (and there probably is), it can’t be as simple as timeframe. After all, don’t we tell our kids to study history because it repeats itself?

What else would have changed if we would be living in the Confederate States of America now? Quite a bit, intertwining it with the abortion issue alone is misrepresenting history both in the 1960’s and 1860’s.

Who said we would be living in the Confederate States? I personally think their system of economics, government, and social standards would have caused it to either shrivel or die long ago. If not, I would have the perfect freedom to move out of the Confederate States. Tell me, though, specifically where I misrepresented history in either period. Maybe I put something that was factually wrong? If it is a problem with the proposition, I would need a more specific critique so I can respond.

Again, I need to point out that none of this has anything to do with my personal feelings. I’m proposing what I think is an insightful discussion, and one from which we can benefit as it causes us to analyze both history and our political institution. Are we not to test all things?

 

[awfulthings9]

I think that abortion could have easily (although more slowly) found its way to an Independent American South (regardless of whether there was a strong central government or not).

Probably so. I think Steve already made that point. I’m not proposing that the strong central government put abortion into the South (and by no means am I trying to portray the South as the saviors of humanity). Rather, I’m simply exploring whether the Northern victory set a precedent that handicaps each state’s ability to rid itself of abortion. I agree whole-heartedly with your post.

 

[awfulthings9]

why?

Because the examples you gave were examples of illegal acts on behalf of the South and deserved retaliation. I’m not suggesting the North shouldn’t have reacted with force. The hypothetical question, however, is whether an additional act of that force should have been (as it was) to preserve the union.

Again, my disclaimer - no personal opinion here - just civil conversation.

Like what?
Secession or union are mutually exclusive solutions
You can’t secede just a little bit
South Carolina tried it in 1832 and found that it didn’t work

I agree. However, my point was that there are ways of disciplining unruly peoples without forcing membership in one’s country. We seemed to handle Japan sufficiently without making it the 51st state. Perhaps economic sanctions on the South would have crippled it and effected the appropriate apology and reparations. After all, most foreign governments were refusing to acknowledge them as a government.

Article VI, Clause 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in* every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding***.

I agree that every state is bound thereby to “this constitution”, the “laws of the United States”, and “all Treaties made”. However, what specific parts of the constitution, laws, or treaties were the Southern states breaking by trying to discontinue being states?

While Madison, Jefferson, Calhoun et al argued for Nullification & Interposition it was strongly opposed by the Federalists, Jackson’s Democrats, and later Lincoln’s Republicans.

I’m sure the ideas won’t go away but there is the glaring precedent.

Agreed,

much as some folk hate to admit it the supremacy clause is in there

See above response.

And the three states that claimed extra rights (if there were three) had the liberty to impose their will on all the others?
You can’t have it both ways.

Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island. What will were they imposing on others? To leave?

 

[awfulthings9]

First, off, Steve, I’m really enjoying this. I was hoping for someone who would really challenge me on this issue (not that I’m a history buff or a political nut. Thanks for being a good sport and playing along.

continued
yes you did ask “was the South right?”

Yes, I did ask it, but I didn’t answer it. I’m trying to be Devil’s Advocate because nobody is taking the other side but me and it would be a boring thread if someone didn’t play the villian.

Greater power has the possibility of both greater evil and greater good

Yes.

I do think that subsidiarity is a good model for government
In general the States should regulate the practice of medicine….however once you have both state and federal money involved it becomes complicated

if you take money from Uncle he gets a say in how it is spent

Agreed.

Monday morning quarterbacking is always nice but you and I and the historians weren’t there so we’ll never know.

Nope, but this doesn’t preclude a civil discussion of ideas and possibilities.

I suspect that the Confederate states would have floundered. The slavery issue would have made them a pariah nation(s)
Ultimately a conflict with the US over the harboring of escaped slaves, northern access to the sea via the Mississippi or the Chesapeak, or despiuted lands out west might have lead to war.

Agree, and I would propose (as Devil’s Advocate) many would have asked for permission to rejoin the Union without the use of force.

I think that the threat of succession would weaken the union even if it weren’t carried out.
How can the government speak with authority and guarantee its citizens their rights if its component parts could up and leave at any moment?

Can’t the government also act as a peacekeeper and protector of rights on foreign soil? It seems to be the philosophy of the US and the United Nations.

As DA, I would take your question and paraphrase it, changing it to ask, "How can the individual states guarantee its citizens (even the unborn) their rights if they cannot up and leave an overreaching central government at any moment?

To my mind that would be like a marriage where the parties are always threatening divorce.

I’ve known men who have changed destructive behavior, though, because a wife made that threat.

Sometimes I just can’t stop myself from typing

Thanks for the good topic

It’s only as good as the conversation that follows. So thanks to you!

 

[Fred_4]

Interesting discussion. But my answer would have to be, um… no. No more so than the Declaration of Independence caused abortion because it expounded upon individuals’ rights vis a vis the government.

No more so than Columbus’ discovery of the new world led to global warming as the western hemisphere provided specie and raw materials which fueled the industrial revolution.

No more so than the U.S. victory in the Pacific during WWII caused the ascension of communism in China by getting the Japanese out of the way. yada yada yada

 

[awfulthings9]

Are you inferring that had the South won the Civil War (not the “War of Northern Aggression”)

Who are you quoting here? I didn’t call it the War of Northern Aggression, but your post makes it seem as though I had.

But as long as we are discussing semantics and titles, is “Civil War” really the correct label? The definition of a civil war is one in which two parties are fighting over control of the same government. In the American Civil War, this wasn’t happening. The South had no desire to take over the Union government. It wanted to depart and form its own government.

Kind of like what happened during the Revoluntionary War.

 

[awfulthings9]

Interesting discussion. But my answer would have to be, um… no. No more so than the Declaration of Independence caused abortion because it expounded upon individuals’ rights vis a vis the government.

No more so than Columbus’ discovery of the new world led to global warming as the western hemisphere provided specie and raw materials which fueled the industrial revolution.

No more so than the U.S. victory in the Pacific during WWII caused the ascension of communism in China by getting the Japanese out of the way. yada yada yada

Are you arguing that those things weren’t causes? Perhaps not primary causes, but causes all the same? In fact, it seems you made a good argument that they were.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Who are you quoting here? I didn’t call it the War of Northern Aggression, but your post makes it seem as though I had.

But as long as we are discussing semantics and titles, is “Civil War” really the correct label? The definition of a civil war is one in which two parties are fighting over control of the same government. In the American Civil War, this wasn’t happening. The South had no desire to take over the Union government. It wanted to depart and form its own government.

Kind of like what happened during the Revoluntionary War.

I have been on other boards and down south the term “War of Northern Aggression” is used pretty frequently. The term “Civil War” is mostly used by those with roots in the north and west.

Somewhere across the Mason-Dixon line, the war still goes on for many people as old matters refuse to die off with generations.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

No. I’m not. I’ve been very clear that this is not what I’m arguing. I’m playing Devil’s Advocate and suggesting that even a good might have negative consequences, and am trying to explore the possibility that one of those is the proliferation of abortion.

Timeframe has nothing to do with it. Would you argue, based on this logic, that a political issue that would arise due to our form of government and taxation today would have nothing to do with our liberation from Britian’s form of government and taxation simply because of a large timeframe and period in history? If there is a fallacy in my proposal (and there probably is), it can’t be as simple as timeframe. After all, don’t we tell our kids to study history because it repeats itself?

Who said we would be living in the Confederate States? I personally think their system of economics, government, and social standards would have caused it to either shrivel or die long ago. If not, I would have the perfect freedom to move out of the Confederate States. Tell me, though, specifically where I misrepresented history in either period. Maybe I put something that was factually wrong? If it is a problem with the proposition, I would need a more specific critique so I can respond.

Again, I need to point out that none of this has anything to do with my personal feelings. I’m proposing what I think is an insightful discussion, and one from which we can benefit as it causes us to analyze both history and our political institution. Are we not to test all things?

Ok, you probably should have pointed it out you were playing Devil’s Advocate at the start then.

Yes, history can often repeat itself but not when comparing a widespread group of issues (state’s rights in 1860) with a single issue of today (abortion). This sets up a many to one historical relationship which makes interpolation from the future or extrapolation from the past extremely difficult.

The only way the State’s Rights part of your thesis would come around in the 1860’s would have to have been a Confederate States Victory (or at least a stalemate). At that point we would have either all Confederate States of America (slavery and all included) or the CONUS broken up roughly at the Mason-Dixon line with the USA and the CSA either at peace or still doing border skirmishes (I lean towards the latter). The west would be up for grabs with some going CSA and some USA.

At this point of extrapolation from a fictional timeline from 1865 in relation to the state/federal rights issues in the USA over abortion becomes pretty much impossible to do as you would have to extrapolate on many gross assumptions many political shifts into the future, which we all know cannot be done. That makes the conclusion meaningless when talking about alternate timelines.

 

[consumedconvert]

I haven’t had time to read all the posts yet, but . . .

The North was in no way justified in forcing the South to remain through bloodshed. (Never try saying that in the Land of Lincoln, BTW). Over half a million Americans died in that war. Tragic, pathetic, and unnecessary.

 

[awfulthings9]

Ok, you probably should have pointed it out you were playing Devil’s Advocate at the start then.

I didn’t intend to at the start. For the record, I haven’t stated what my personal opinion is, one way or the other. It may very well be that I agree with my original premise, while it may be that I find it ridiculous. I’m more interested in seeing the development and exploration of ideas than in convincing anyone to agree with my silly views of the world.

Yes, history can often repeat itself but not when comparing a widespread group of issues (state’s rights in 1860) with a single issue of today (abortion). This sets up a many to one historical relationship which makes interpolation from the future or extrapolation from the past extremely difficult.

Good explanation. Thanks. With due respect, though, isn’t it a many-to-one comparison only because those are the terms in which it was phrased in your post? For instance, there was a widespread group of issues that fall under the heading of “state’s rights” in 1860. However, there is a widespread group of issues that potentially falls under that heading today. Aside from abortion, I can think of several off the top of my head - immigration, health care mandates, definition of marriage, federal minimum wage, etc. Some would argue that many of the issues that the federal government legislate are outside of its constitutional design (that it should be limited to areas of, say national security and commerse, to name a couple from a very short list). Many of those who hold this view would argue that the federal government really established an unfair supremecy over the state governments when it took victory in (what that group would consider) an illegitimate war.

So, I guess it is a matter of how one defines the perimeters of the discussion. While you see it as many issues (states rights) compared to one (abortion), my post (though perhaps not me personally) is proposing that it is a comparison of one issue (states rights) to one (states rights), with the abortion epidemic being a consequence of the connection.

But I could be wrong.

The only way the State’s Rights part of your thesis would come around in the 1860’s would have to have been a Confederate States Victory (or at least a stalemate). At that point we would have either all Confederate States of America (slavery and all included) or the CONUS broken up roughly at the Mason-Dixon line with the USA and the CSA either at peace or still doing border skirmishes (I lean towards the latter). The west would be up for grabs with some going CSA and some USA.

I’m not sure I follow why this is the only way the comparison can be made (or that might not be what you meant by “come around”). For sure, this is the only way it could be tested and proved true or false, but I may be missing something.

At this point of extrapolation from a fictional timeline from 1865 in relation to the state/federal rights issues in the USA over abortion becomes pretty much impossible to do as you would have to extrapolate on many gross assumptions many political shifts into the future, which we all know cannot be done. That makes the conclusion meaningless when talking about alternate timelines.

Oh, I agree that one could never accurately extrapolate in this manner. One could really see my original post as more of a analogical way of asking the question - Does the federal government currently possess more power than our founding fathers intended? And then the question - At what point in our history (whether there is a proveable connection or not), did we first see an establishment of this excess of power (assuming it exists).

Peace, brother - good discussion!

 

[awfulthings9]

I haven’t had time to read all the posts yet, but . . .

The North was in no way justified in forcing the South to remain through bloodshed. (Never try saying that in the Land of Lincoln, BTW). Over half a million Americans died in that war. Tragic, pathetic, and unnecessary.

Somebody taking the other side!

So … how do you feel about the second half of the OP, that this “tragic, pathetic, and unnecessary” event set a precedent that, through an excessively powerful central government, has allowed abortion to become a more widespread evil than it would have if a successful secession had happened?

And …

Given the Distributist philosophy that you’ve strongly promoted in other threads and on your blog, I’m just curious if you feel that an America in which much stronger state’s rights existed would permit a distributist system as well as you feel our current system would? At first thought, it seems the answer would be “no” as having such autonomy at the state level would seem to effectively turn them more strongly into competitors with one another, creating a de facto “capitalist” society. I haven’t given this much thought (and don’t want to express my opinion one way or the other about distributism) - just curious to see your thoughts as most of your blog appears to be written with the government understood to exist as it does today.