Before and After
The Civil War changed America's definition of federalism.
Being from the Deep South and having had ancestors who fought for the Confederate States of America, I’ve always been fascinated with the period running up to the shots fired at Fort Sumpter – especially in light of the Democrat left’s recent flirtation with federalism and Gavin Newsom beginning to sound a lot like Jefferson Davis.
I’ve been spending more time reading and studying the times before the Civil War and in those studies I noticed a change in linguistics from before to after the war. Before the Civil War, the vernacular was "The United States are..." allegedly reflecting the states were separate and distinct from the national government and after, it became "the United States is..." allegedly to indicate the states were only subsidiary parts of a larger nation.
Language often mirrors the soul of a nation, and in the United States, a subtle grammatical shift—from "the United States are" to "the United States is"—reveals a profound transformation in national identity. Historical evidence supports this shift, and I believe it underscores how deeply the Civil War reshaped America’s sense of self – for better or worse.
I believe the creation of the monstrosity of federal government and its power can be traced back to the events during and after the Civil War that led to those linguistic changes. Lincoln’s steps to preserve the union may have removed an important safety valve that would have prevented many, if not most, of the issues we have with the federal government today.
Before the Civil War, the United States was often seen as a loose federation of sovereign states. The plural "are" in "the United States are" was common in official documents, speeches, and writings, emphasizing state autonomy. The 1787 Constitution, while not explicitly using "are," implies a collective of states through its language. During the Nullification Crisis of 1832–1833, state legislatures’ resolutions frequently used "are" to assert their sovereignty. Even Alexis de Tocqueville, in Democracy in America (1835–1840), employed the plural form, reflecting the perception of the U.S. as a coalition rather than a singular entity. This linguistic choice wasn’t mere grammar—it embodied a political reality where states held significant power, often rivaling the federal government.
The Civil War, however, was a crucible for change. The Union’s victory in 1865 cemented the idea of an indivisible nation, and language evolved to reflect this. Post-war, "the United States is" became prevalent in legal, political, and popular contexts, symbolizing a unified identity. The Supreme Court’s decision in Texas v. White (1869) reinforced this by declaring the Union indissoluble. Abraham Lincoln’s rhetoric, particularly in the Gettysburg Address (1863), subtly emphasized national unity, even if he didn’t directly address grammar. By the 1880s, style guides and grammarians favored "is," and newspapers and congressional records followed suit. Historian Allan Metcalf, in How We Talk: American Regional English Today (2000), notes this shift as a marker of national consolidation. Digitized text analyses, like those from Google Books Ngram Viewer, confirm the decline of "United States are" after 1865, with "is" dominating by the late 19th century.
Yet, the transition wasn’t instantaneous. Some Southern writers and politicians clung to "are" post-war, signaling resistance to federal dominance and lingering states’ rights sentiments. This persistence highlights the Civil War’s lingering divides, but over time, even these voices faded. The shift wasn’t driven by policy but by an organic evolution in how Americans saw their nation—no longer a collection of states, but a singular whole.
In my view, this linguistic change is more than a grammatical quirk; it’s a testament to the Civil War’s role in forging a national identity. The move from "are" to "is" reflects a hard-won, war enforced, unity, born from conflict and sacrifice.
One wonders what would have happened if the same approach to federalism that existed before the Civil War had survived.
time to change it back to "are" along with the maps reflecting the Gulf of America
The causes of the Civil War were multiple: states rights, and slavery, as noted, but also economics and selective national tariffs which served to benefit some states sectionally and disadvantaging the rest. This led to conflict in Congress that grew more and more heated.
We almost had a split over tariffs earlier in that century which was resolved thru compromise.
Lincoln was adamant that those tariffs be enforced specifically to fund his vision of funding growth in the more populous north. Preferential impoverishment of the south to enrich the industrialization of the north and due to distaste for the agrarian-based economy of the south. It also served to financially diminish slavery and its expansion.
Thus, the unanimous opposition to him by the southern states and secession.
Lincoln had the unitary view based on population while the southern states held the states rights view where their economies were their own concern, not a matter for D.C.
So, the federal Republic essentially died with the Civil War, and the friction continues today with the reparations movement, DEI, assaults on statues of historical figures, names of forts, etc.
Slavery would have largely died out with mechanization due to the comparative advantage over the immense economic burden to support the large population of slaves (slavery is ultimately socialist labor camps). So, the cultural convulsions would have still resulted upon their release, which is why the Liberian experiment was begun, but without the wanton death and destruction of the Civil War.