The Dynamics of Democratic Breakdown: A Case Study of the American Civil War

Anthony J. Gaughan
{"title":"The Dynamics of Democratic Breakdown: A Case Study of the American Civil War","authors":"Anthony J. Gaughan","doi":"10.2478/bjals-2022-0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The 2020 election raised fundamental questions about the future of American democracy. Although the Democratic presidential nominee Joseph Biden won a decisive victory in the Electoral College and the popular vote, President Donald Trump refused to accept defeat. For weeks after the election, Trump falsely claimed that Democrats had stolen the election. In an unprecedented step for a defeated incumbent president, he pressured Republican election officials and legislators to help him overturn the election results. Trump’s attacks on American democracy culminated on January 6, 2021, when a pro-Trump mob invaded the United States Capitol Building to disrupt the Electoral Vote Count. In the aftermath of the 2020 election controversy, national polls found that over 90% of Americans believe that American democracy is in danger. Since the election, experts on both ends of the political spectrum have warned of the possibility of a full-fledged democratic breakdown in the United States. This article places America’s political crisis in historical context by examining the only democratic breakdown in the nation’s history: the Civil War. Following Abraham Lincoln’s victory in the 1860 election, eleven southern states seceded from the Union. The conflict that ensued cost over half a million lives and left one-half of the United States in physical and economic ruin. This article makes three main points. First, a dispute over election rules did not cause the Civil War. Instead, the war resulted when the dominant political class in the South—slaveholders—rejected the principle of majority rule. American history thus demonstrates that even in the case of an election of unquestionable integrity, a disgruntled extremist minority might still break the country apart. Second, the slaveholders feared that if they put the issue of secession to a popular referendum, the non-slaveholding majorities in southern states might vote against it. To achieve their goal of destroying the Union, therefore, slaveholders dictated special rules for the secession votes in their states. After Lincoln’s election, southern state legislatures delegated the issue of secession to state conventions. Across the South, slaveholders manipulated the convention election rules to ensure the result they wanted: break-up of the federal union. Third, and finally, northerners viewed the war as a battle for the survival of democracy itself. They recognized that no democratically held election would ever be binding if losers could simply break free and form their own government. Northerners thus rallied around the Lincoln administration and supported the Union war effort through four bloody years of battle. The Union’s victory vindicated democracy as a form of government. The Confederacy’s crushing defeat in 1865 demonstrated that democracies could successfully navigate even the most extreme forms of civil disorder. Most important of all, the Civil War era gave rise to a dramatic expansion in the inclusiveness of American democracy. Ironically, therefore, the United States government emerged stronger in 1865 than it had been when the war began in 1861.","PeriodicalId":40555,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of American Legal Studies","volume":"11 1","pages":"113 - 151"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of American Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjals-2022-0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The 2020 election raised fundamental questions about the future of American democracy. Although the Democratic presidential nominee Joseph Biden won a decisive victory in the Electoral College and the popular vote, President Donald Trump refused to accept defeat. For weeks after the election, Trump falsely claimed that Democrats had stolen the election. In an unprecedented step for a defeated incumbent president, he pressured Republican election officials and legislators to help him overturn the election results. Trump’s attacks on American democracy culminated on January 6, 2021, when a pro-Trump mob invaded the United States Capitol Building to disrupt the Electoral Vote Count. In the aftermath of the 2020 election controversy, national polls found that over 90% of Americans believe that American democracy is in danger. Since the election, experts on both ends of the political spectrum have warned of the possibility of a full-fledged democratic breakdown in the United States. This article places America’s political crisis in historical context by examining the only democratic breakdown in the nation’s history: the Civil War. Following Abraham Lincoln’s victory in the 1860 election, eleven southern states seceded from the Union. The conflict that ensued cost over half a million lives and left one-half of the United States in physical and economic ruin. This article makes three main points. First, a dispute over election rules did not cause the Civil War. Instead, the war resulted when the dominant political class in the South—slaveholders—rejected the principle of majority rule. American history thus demonstrates that even in the case of an election of unquestionable integrity, a disgruntled extremist minority might still break the country apart. Second, the slaveholders feared that if they put the issue of secession to a popular referendum, the non-slaveholding majorities in southern states might vote against it. To achieve their goal of destroying the Union, therefore, slaveholders dictated special rules for the secession votes in their states. After Lincoln’s election, southern state legislatures delegated the issue of secession to state conventions. Across the South, slaveholders manipulated the convention election rules to ensure the result they wanted: break-up of the federal union. Third, and finally, northerners viewed the war as a battle for the survival of democracy itself. They recognized that no democratically held election would ever be binding if losers could simply break free and form their own government. Northerners thus rallied around the Lincoln administration and supported the Union war effort through four bloody years of battle. The Union’s victory vindicated democracy as a form of government. The Confederacy’s crushing defeat in 1865 demonstrated that democracies could successfully navigate even the most extreme forms of civil disorder. Most important of all, the Civil War era gave rise to a dramatic expansion in the inclusiveness of American democracy. Ironically, therefore, the United States government emerged stronger in 1865 than it had been when the war began in 1861.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
民主崩溃的动力——以美国内战为例
摘要2020年的选举对美国民主的未来提出了根本性的问题。尽管民主党总统候选人约瑟夫·拜登在选举人团和普选中取得决定性胜利,但唐纳德·特朗普总统拒绝接受失败。大选后数周,特朗普谎称民主党人窃取了大选。对于一位落败的现任总统来说,这是前所未有的一步,他向共和党选举官员和立法者施压,要求他们帮助他推翻选举结果。特朗普对美国民主的攻击在2021年1月6日达到顶峰,当时亲特朗普的暴徒入侵美国国会大厦,扰乱选举人计票。在2020年大选争议之后,全国民意调查发现,超过90%的美国人认为美国民主处于危险之中。自大选以来,政治光谱两端的专家都对美国民主全面崩溃的可能性发出了警告。本文通过考察美国历史上唯一的民主崩溃:内战,将美国的政治危机置于历史背景下。亚伯拉罕·林肯在1860年大选中获胜后,南方11个州脱离联邦。随后发生的冲突夺走了50多万人的生命,并使美国一半地区陷入物质和经济崩溃。本文主要提出三点。首先,关于选举规则的争论并没有引发内战。相反,战争的结果是南方占主导地位的政治阶层——奴隶主——拒绝了多数统治的原则。因此,美国历史表明,即使在选举毫无疑问是公正的情况下,心怀不满的极端主义少数派仍可能分裂国家。其次,奴隶主担心,如果他们将分离问题提交全民公投,南部各州的非奴隶主多数可能会投反对票。因此,为了实现他们摧毁联邦的目标,奴隶主为他们所在州的分离投票制定了特殊规则。林肯当选后,南部各州立法机构将分裂国家的问题授权给各州大会。在整个南方,奴隶主操纵大会选举规则,以确保他们想要的结果:联邦联盟的解体。第三,也是最后一点,北方人将这场战争视为民主本身的生存之战。他们认识到,如果失败者能够挣脱束缚,组建自己的政府,那么任何民主选举都不会具有约束力。因此,北方人团结在林肯政府周围,在四年的血腥战斗中支持联邦战争。联邦的胜利证明了民主是一种政府形式。1865年南部联盟的惨败表明,即使是最极端形式的内乱,民主国家也能成功应对。最重要的是,内战时期使美国民主的包容性急剧扩大。因此,具有讽刺意味的是,美国政府在1865年比1861年战争开始时更加强大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: The British Journal of American Legal Studies is a scholarly journal which publishes articles of interest to the Anglo-American legal community. Submissions are invited from academics and practitioners on both sides of the Atlantic on all aspects of constitutional law having relevance to the United States, including human rights, legal and political theory, socio-legal studies and legal history. International, comparative and interdisciplinary perspectives are particularly welcome. All submissions will be peer-refereed through anonymous referee processes.
期刊最新文献
The Constitution, Invasion, Immigration, and the War Powers of States Rise of Complete Substitutes and Fall of the Origination Clause in the Post-Ratification Era Insurrection, Disqualification, and the Presidency Transatlantic Justice: Slavery in the Judicial Imagination Magical Thinking and Appearance-based Recusal
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1