Confederate Government? (US Civil War)

From all that I have heard and read about the Civil War, I have seen perhaps one or two sentences dealing with the Confederate Government. If you take away statements about Jefferson Davis or his Cabinet, that comes down to perhaps three or four words.

I'm exagerating, but not by much. I remember only a 10th grade history book stating that the Confederates "drew up a government virtually identical to the US Constitution, with the exception of slavery" and a poster on another webboard claiming during a debate that "For all the hoopla about State's Rights, Davis enjoyed more executive power during the war than Lincoln."

That's it. That's all I have to work with. I find it rather pathetic.

How exactly did the Confederates organize their federal government? I assume they wrote up some kind of constitution. If so, where can I find a copy? I presume they had elections: if so, how many, when, and who ran against whom? Was there enough time for any major political factions to develop? Was there a sitting federal legislature? If so, to what extent did it have power over the war?

Hopefully somebody out there has had more exposure to the subject than I have.

I claim no expertise, although I've been hoping to spend some time next year doing some writing on the subject, and so have accumulated a few good books on the subject. I recommend, for instandce, "The Confederate Nation, 1861-1865" by Emory Thomas.

Some observations (one or two of which I've made in threads debating slavery)...

1. Yes, the constitutions are eerily similar.

See

Both constitutions in one site online

I normally like to post links to the separate texts, since this site is a bit "leading" insofar as it starts by emphasizing the similarities, but the similarities are sure there.

2. The only real differences are as follows:

- CSA president elected for six years, not four
- CSA president gets line item veto
- CSA Congress has higher threshold for passage of appropriations
- Specific statement (Sec. 9, clause 5) in bill of rights making it clear "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed" by the new Congress.

Otherwise, virtually identical. And in various speeches, including, IIRC, the inaugural, Davis makes it clear that the intent is not to change the system of government, but rather to simply have a new American government for the south so that states rights e.g. the right to decide to keep slaves - would not be attacked by a federal state.

3. In practice, Davis sort of had it both ways; states did provide a great deal of hassle for the war effort, as in the north, but on the other hand, he and his executive had a freer hand than Lincoln on other fronts. In some ways, though, to be fair, David had it "easier" in part because he didn't have the same political problems as Lincoln did; implicit in the structure of the CSA was that it wasn't liable to be full of doves, where Lincoln was stuck with the government in place that included no end of diverse opinions on who could end the war and how. So Davis's freer hand was just as much a function of the greater unity behind the war as it was a function of the two pro-presidential CSA constitutional changes.

In my mind, this is all proof that while the US was fighting to preserve the Union, the CSA's reason for creating a new one was slavery, not complaints about the structure of American federalism. But I'm happy to see someone interested in the subject on its own merits, and happy to end my discussion of that debate right here.

Were congressional elections in the CSA actually held? If so, are there lists of candidates/winners anywhere?

A provisional Congress was in place throughout 1861. General elections were held in November, 1861, and November, 1863.

The results apparently created a much more strongly anti-administration Congress in the second general election, owing to economic dissatisfaction with Davis's administration. While no party system exists, a fellow named Wilfred Buck Yearns apparently has a study called "The Confederate Congress, and Alexander and Beringer also do a more detailed analysis in "The Anatomy of the Confederate Congress." Both books are 1960s-70s vintage, so your best bet is a university research library.

If you check this link, you'll even find a bill to provide for elections in "territories held by the enemy" in 1863.

Election law link

I don't see anything to suggest whether this particular bill passed or not, but Thomas makes it clear that exiles and refugees from those states were permitted to vote, and members from those states elected to the Congress.

R.III

I'm curious if the KKK would still carry the Confederate flag if they realized that the Confederate cabinet contained a Jew. I guess ignorance is... well stupid ;-)

I have one question for you - because I'm sure that you know better USA ( & CSA ) history.

Is true that one major issue for seccesion was the "separate industrialisation plans" of Davis's administration, planned with ( by ) german advisors ?

Regards,

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan
I have one question for you - because I'm sure that you know better USA ( & CSA ) history.

Is true that one major issue for seccesion was the "separate industrialisation plans" of Davis's administration, planned with ( by ) german advisors ?

Regards,

Click to expand...

???

Well, based on what I THINK you're saying, no.

Keep in mind that Davis didn't "plan" to secede; there was no conspiracy as such; each state made the decision on its own, influenced by links with other southern states, but not in coordination with them. Davis' administration didn't exist until after the Confederacy was created, so it's a chicken-and-egg problem to say that Davis' administration seceded to implement its plans.

AFTER seceding, did the CSA frantically try to industrialize to improve its ability to fight a longer war? Yes, quite. And it was very conscious of its weaknesses in that respect, and sought outside help and advice wherever it could.

But as for it being a reason for secession? Please elaborate.

Damn !! My english is too bad many times ...

Originally posted by Richard III
Keep in mind that Davis didn't "plan" to secede; there was no conspiracy as such;

Click to expand...

I know this. If there was a "conspiracy" there was a "normal" one - at low-level as I know.

AFTER seceding, did the CSA frantically try to industrialize to improve its ability to fight a longer war? Yes, quite.

But as for it being a reason for secession? Please elaborate.

Click to expand...

Not a reason - but something that "escaladate" anti-unionist feelings. I'm not sure about this, but I read that only in mid 1930's many of the ex-southern states became "truly developed".

Is this true or false ? Or ... half-true, half a "myth" ?

Regards