Tax Revolts and Secession

LFET ^ | George F. Smith

[Sir Gawain]

Tax Revolts and Secession

by George F. Smith

Congress to citizens: Only two things are certain, death and taxes.

Citizens to Congress: Agreed — death to the state that imposes high taxes.

As a country, the people have expressed this sentiment only once, when they declared that government had become destructive of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

After winning independence, our founders tried to translate the doctrine of man's rights into legal form. The Constitution they created included some compromises, one of which gives Congress the power to provide for the "general Welfare of the United States."

The compromise postponed settling an ongoing debate: How exactly does Congress provide for the general welfare? Two lines formed: one behind Jefferson, who wanted government to serve as "a guardian of fair play," the other behind Hamilton, who wanted government to direct our play.

Up until 1860, Jefferson's philosophy largely prevailed. Then the Republican Party got Abraham Lincoln elected president.

Lincoln's Protective Tariff

Throughout his political career, Lincoln had supported the Hamiltonian philosophy of Henry Clay and the Whigs called the "American System," which included a national bank, internal improvements, and especially protective tariffs. In naming it as he did, Clay wrapped the flag around the much-discredited mercantilism of previous centuries — the very system of abuses our founders revolted against.

The fact that mercantilism was bad economics made no difference to Lincoln. He was determined to push his plans for expansion of the country, with government playing a significant role and the South footing most of the bill.

The centerpiece of the Republican Party platform in 1860 was a high protective tariff. In some cases it raised the existing tariff rate 250 percent. In his first inaugural, using political jargon, Lincoln said he would wage war against any state that didn't collect all the money imposed by the tariff. [1]

He was speaking, of course, to the South. Because of their dependency on foreign manufactured goods, southerners had been paying 87% of all federal taxes collected, mostly in the form of import duties, even though their population was only half that of the North. When Lincoln's election looked inevitable, the South prepared to defend itself. Once again, Americans were willing to secede in resistance to an abusive authority.

We've heard that Lincoln saved the Union and freed the slaves. What we don't usually hear is that the Union he saved was a repudiation of our founding principle of consensual government. Nor do we hear much about his offer to the South, in his first inaugural, of passing an amendment that would legalize slavery in southern states forever. [2] Furthermore, though abolitionist sympathies in the North spread after the publication of Uncle Tom¹s Cabin in 1852, most northern newspapers and citizens were in favor of letting the South leave the Union in peace.

Then on March 11, 1861 — seven days into Lincoln's presidency — delegates in Montgomery, Alabama adopted a new Confederate Constitution, which "affirmed that the states were 'sovereign and independent' and omitted a general welfare clause. The Confederate government could not impose protective tariffs, grant subsidies, or finance internal improvements." [3]

The War-Mongering New York Times<

Almost overnight, many northern editorial writers did an about-face. The South was actually supporting free trade. It would open its ports to the world and ruin the uncompetitive northern manufacturing interests. The New York Times economic editor, who had favored peaceful secession, now demanded that the federal government ". . . shut up every Southern port, destroy its commerce, and bring utter ruin on the Confederate states."

Though his top military commander, Winfield Scott, and most of his cabinet advised against it, Lincoln sent an unarmed vessel to provision Fort Sumter, knowing the South would likely fire upon it. One northern newspaper reported that for "three weeks the administration newspapers have been assuring us that Fort Sumter would be abandoned, [but] Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of aggressor." [4]

Lincoln ordered his troops to arrest anyone critical of his war and to shut down newspapers editorializing against it. He even imprisoned most of the 10 newly-elected delegates in Maryland because he suspected them of harboring secessionist sympathies. "[Secretary of State] Seward famously boasted . . . that he could 'ring a bell' and have a man arrested in Ohio, New York, or any other state." [5]

We're told that the South suffered under their philosophy of states' rights, that the centrally-organized North proved superior during the war. But as soon as war broke out, the South abandoned its constitutional principles and turned to forced industrialization — socialism. The Confederate government set up its own arsenals, foundries, powder mills, textile mills and many other operations. When it did deal with private firms, it dictated prices and profits. [6]

Victory went to the North for several reasons, including the fact that it retained a higher degree of private initiative than the South. The central planners of the Confederacy squandered resources and brought their people to the brink of extinction.

We live today with Lincoln's legacy. We were the only country in the west that needed a war to end slavery. States rights, and their check against an encroaching central power, died at Appomattox. The idea of keeping government completely out of our business all but vanished. With the Constitution brushed aside, economic life has become politics or perish, as most major organizations have set up lobbying headquarters in D.C., diverting still more resources into unproductive activity. Lincoln created an absolute central government that has spread like cancer, with an insatiable appetite for our money.

But we have reason to hope. When it comes to taxes, people are far from apathetic, as we saw in the Tennessee Tea Party of November, 1999. [7] Carla Howell's campaign for governor of Massachusetts this year is riding on her pledge to repeal the state's income tax. No one's giving her a chance, even though she rounded up over 75,000 signatures to place the initiative to kill the tax on the November ballot. At some point taxes will reach critical mass for enough people, and calls for secession or repeal might once again begin.

---

References

1. Hummel, Jeffrey, 1996, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War, Chicago: Open Court, p. 237.

2. Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address, http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html. "I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution — which amendment, however, I have not seen — has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. . . . I have no objection to [this amendment] being made express and irrevocable."

3. Hummel, p. 134.

4. DiLorenzo, Thomas J., 2002, The Real Lincoln, Roseville, CA: Prima Publishing, p. 120.

5. DiLorenzo, pp. 138-139

6. Hummel, pp. 235-238

7. "Tackling Taxes in Tennessee," Glenn Reynolds, http://www.devvy.com/tntax_20000222.html. "Thousands of cars circled Capitol Hill, bearing down on their horns and tying up traffic throughout downtown. Hundreds of protesters occupied the Legislative Plaza, with many barging into the capitol building itself carrying signs and — in one case — a can of tar and a feather pillow."

---

George F. Smith is a freelance writer. His other articles may be found in the Writer Index.

[Sir Gawain]

-

[11B3]

There are many who say that Lincoln taught Stalin well. In the 50 or so years after the Civil War, the central Federal Government moved at an ever rapid pace to control us all - and finally in 1913, Philander Knox personally ratified the Income Tax. No wonder that they used to store all of America's gold there.

[Looking4Truth]

It is time for a NATIONWIDE tax revolt now!

Are you tired of working your ass off so that our government can squander up to half of your compensation on 'social programs', grants to egghead professors who study the mating habits of some insignifigant fish, 'foreign aid', and so on.

Are you brave enough to risk what it takes or would you just rather turn on the TV and catch the big game or the race this weekend.

I'm not holding my breath.

BTW, this post isn't directed to you, Sir Gawain, it is directed to anyone and everyone.

I'm sick and tired of being a cog in the wheel of the system that keeps the entire world propped up at the American peoples' expense.

Do I have an answer? Yes, but it isn't pretty and most fat, lazy and stupid Americans would just as soon blow me off than listen because it invades their 'comfort zones'. Pretty soon none of you will have a 'comfort zone'.

[billybudd]

When you say tax revolt, what do you mean?

[Looking4Truth]

When you say tax revolt, what do you mean?

Some sort of concerted effort on the taxpayer's part to say 'no more' until the gov't gets its act together and be a real representative govt instead of the arrogant and tyrannical non-elected bureaucratic agencies we have to deal with on a daily basis.

I haven't read Ayn Rand, but I believe it is the 'Atlas Shrugged' syndrome. The ones that the media calls 'consumers' are really the producers of society and carry the weight of all the rest.

The rough part is how to go about this. Does everyone go to their HR depts and say 'no more withholding', or does everyone just quit their jobs and watch everyone scramble or should there be some kind of nationwide strike?

Those are the answers that I have, but how many people have the guts to go through with it? Not many.

[billybudd]

People go on strike when they feel it is in their economic interest to do so. Some people do go on strike when taxes take so much from them that they do not see the marginal benefit of working harder. But none of this happens in any organized or visible way, which makes it seem as if there is no problem.
As for organizing a tax revolt, you're right, very few will be willing to sacrifice their short-term interest for some abstract idea of liberty. And since the effectiveness of any strike depends on the number engaged in it, the revolt is sure to fail.
But look, why bother with a tax revolt? America is all played out anyway. It was hot a hundred years ago, but now it's a civilized softie full of rich slaves. If you want to experience true liberty, your best chance is to go to some developing country and help in building it up from scratch. You can use your knowledge of mistakes that were made here in America to avoid them over there. Think about it.