United States vs. Confederate States Constitutions

  

The Framers debated every detail of the Constitution extensively. Did they ultimately get the presidential term and election right? The Civil War suggests that they may have, and nothing puts more stress on the government than a civil war.

Superficially, the Confederate Constitution appeared very similar to the United States Constitution. However, there were differences. The Confederate Constitution openly used the word slavery, where the Framers adopted the euphemism, “other persons.” Many of the Framers abhorred slavery and refused to see it referred to outright in the language of the Constitution. The Confederacy made more than semantic changes. In their minds, they corrected errors they felt were decided improperly seventy-three years prior. Some of these, arguably, contributed to the South's loss in the War for Southern Independence.

In Philadelphia, the Framers argued numerous times over the proper length of term for the president. Some wanted a short-term option with re-electability, while others wanted a long-term option with no re-electability. The Constitutional Convention settled on a four-year term with unrestricted re-electability, which the Twenty-Second Amendment limited to two terms. The Confederate Constitution adopted a six-year term with no re-electability.

In 1787, most southern delegates to the Constitutional Convention believed the executive should be nonpartisan, so when they had the opportunity to write their own constitution, they granted the president the authority to abstain from partisan politics. With an above-the-fray executive, they then felt comfortable giving the president more power. Under the Confederate Constitution, the president had a line-item veto, and Congress could not appropriate money without a two-thirds majority unless requested by the president; then, a simple majority would do. In essence, this shifted the power of the purse from Congress to the president.

Jefferson Davis was selected for a six-year term and later confirmed in an election without opposition. For the most part, this allowed Davis to ignore politics. Davis was an iconic figure for the Confederate cause, while the public held Congress in low regard. Davis used the disparity in their respective reputations to neglect Congress. He seldom hosted meals with congressional leaders, did not provide Congress with a voice in patronage, infrequently helped legislative candidates, never spoke highly of Congress to the press, or supported bills sponsored by influential legislators.

As an indicator of Davis’s disdain for Congress, he wrote, “Now when we require the brains and the heart of the country in the legislative halls of the Confederacy and of the States, all must have realized how much it is otherwise.” A Charleston Mercury reporter wrote, “He regards any question put to him by Congress as a presumptuous interference in matters which do not concern them.”

Lincoln did not have that luxury. The U.S. Congress constantly challenged his war decisions. The Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, commonly referred to as the War Committee, used oversight powers to wield a potent check on the executive branch. The committee investigated battle defeats, war profiteering, Confederate atrocities, and generally stuck its nose wherever it wanted. Members often leaked testimony and criticisms to the press. While the Confederate Congress met in secret, the Union Congress broadcast its proceedings at the top of its lungs.

Presidential politicking of Congress was one of the significant differences between the Union and Confederate governments, but did this affect the outcome of the war? Perhaps, and perhaps significantly.

Lincoln smooched Congress to get legislation passed, appropriations approved, and to garner support for reelection. It may not have felt good to Lincoln at the time, but this constant politicking brought many more minds to the task, built camaraderie, provided a vent for mistakes, and may have tamped down some ill-conceived moves. The War Committee harangued Lincoln and his cabinet throughout the conflict, but by acting as the catalyst for aggressive debate, the committee may have helped win the war. It certainly caused Lincoln to think long and hard about what needed to be done and how he would garner support from various factions for his proposed actions.

Toward the end of the war, Lincoln won reelection and enjoyed substantial popularity in government and the states that remained in the Union. At the same time, the Confederate Congress tried to force President Davis to replace his entire cabinet, stripped him of his commander-in-chief authority, and threatened a vote of no confidence. (By this time, a Union victory had become obvious, affecting the respective reputations of the presidents.)

Davis has gone down in history as cantankerous, aloof, and averse to taking advice. Perhaps if he had been required to build relationships with the other people in government, the South could have leveraged its early victories to achieve a different outcome.

Did the hyper-political Abraham Lincoln have an advantage over the standoffish Jefferson Davis? Probably. An engaged president knows the thinking of other players and can more easily leverage strengths and mitigate weaknesses. If this is the case, then the Founding Fathers were correct when they established a short presidential term with re-election.