Albert T. Bledsoe’s book, “The War Between the States: Or Was Secession a Constitutional Right Previous to the War of 1861-65,” is a pivotal work that delves into the constitutional and legal aspects of the American Civil War, particularly the right of secession. Bledsoe, a Southern intellectual and former Confederate officer, presents an argument defending the legality and legitimacy of Southern secession from the Union, challenging the prevailing Northern interpretation that secession was treasonous and unconstitutional.
Overview:
- Title: The War Between the States: Or Was Secession a Constitutional Right Previous to the War of 1861-65
- Author: Albert T. Bledsoe, A.M.
- First Published: 1866
- Main Theme: The book seeks to prove that secession was a constitutional right before the Civil War and that the Southern states acted legally in separating from the Union.
Key Arguments and Themes:
Secession as a Constitutional Right:
- Bledsoe’s central thesis is that secession was a legitimate and constitutional right of the states under the original compact of the Constitution. He argues that the United States was formed as a union of sovereign states that voluntarily entered into a compact, with the implicit understanding that they could leave if the federal government overstepped its bounds.
- He critiques the notion that the Union was indissoluble and emphasizes that the Constitution did not explicitly forbid secession. Thus, according to Bledsoe, the Southern states were within their legal rights to withdraw from the Union in 1861.
States’ Rights and Sovereignty:
- The author places significant emphasis on the idea of states’ sovereignty, asserting that the federal government was created by the states and was subordinate to them. Bledsoe argues that each state retained the right to govern itself independently of the federal government, except in matters explicitly delegated to the central authority.
- The Tenth Amendment plays a key role in his argument, as it reserves to the states all powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.
Compact Theory of the Union:
- Bledsoe supports the compact theory of the Union, which holds that the United States is a federation of states that have entered into a mutual agreement or compact. This agreement, he argues, could be dissolved if one party (the states) felt that the other (the federal government) had violated the terms.
- He contrasts this view with the nationalist theory of the Union, which asserts that the federal government has ultimate authority and that the states are subordinate entities within an indissoluble nation.
Defense of Southern Secession:
- Bledsoe defends the South’s decision to secede, arguing that the Southern states acted to preserve their sovereignty and protect their rights. He maintains that the Southern states had valid grievances, including the Northern states’ violation of constitutional principles and their disregard for Southern interests, particularly regarding states’ rights and slavery.
- He contends that the Southern states’ decision to secede was not an act of rebellion but a lawful response to the perceived overreach of the federal government.
Critique of Northern and Lincoln’s Position:
- Bledsoe critiques the Northern perspective that secession was illegal and unconstitutional, as well as President Abraham Lincoln’s justification for using military force to preserve the Union. He argues that Lincoln’s actions were based on a flawed understanding of the Constitution and that the use of force against the seceding states was an unconstitutional overreach.
- Bledsoe believes that Lincoln’s actions undermined the principles of self-government and consent of the governed, principles that the Union was originally founded upon.
Historical Precedents and Legal Interpretations:
- To support his arguments, Bledsoe references historical precedents, including the debates surrounding the ratification of the Constitution and early political disputes over states’ rights, such as the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, which argued that states had the right to nullify federal laws they deemed unconstitutional.
- He also draws upon legal interpretations from leading American jurists and political figures, including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, to make the case that secession was a viable option for states when the federal government exceeded its constitutional authority.
Structure of the Book:
The book is divided into several chapters, each addressing different aspects of the constitutional debate over secession. Bledsoe meticulously lays out his arguments using historical documents, legal theory, and logical reasoning to support his position.
Impact and Reception:
- Southern Viewpoint: Bledsoe’s work became one of the most influential pro-secession arguments in the post-Civil War South. It was part of the larger “Lost Cause” narrative, which sought to justify the Confederacy’s actions and paint the South as the defender of constitutional principles and states’ rights.
- Northern Response: In the North, the book was generally dismissed or critiqued as an attempt to rewrite history and legitimize rebellion. Northern scholars and politicians maintained that the Union was perpetual and that secession was an illegal act of treason.
- Legacy: Bledsoe’s arguments continued to resonate in Southern political thought and were used by later generations of Southern intellectuals and politicians to justify states’ rights and resistance to federal authority.
Conclusion:
Albert T. Bledsoe’s “The War Between the States” is a detailed defense of the legality of secession and an important work in the intellectual history of the American Civil War. By asserting that secession was a constitutional right, Bledsoe challenges the dominant Northern narrative and provides a legal and philosophical justification for the South’s actions during the war. His work remains a key text for understanding the Southern perspective on the Civil War and the broader constitutional debates over states’ rights and federal authority.
