Ron Paul is wrong on the Civil War and slavery, and he should be ashamed

Grand Old Partisan ^ | August 5, 2010 | Chuck Devore

[Michael Zak]

[by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine, CA), re-published with his permission]

For years I have admired Congressman Ron Paul’s principled stance on spending and the Constitution. That said, he really damaged himself when he blamed President Lincoln for the Civil War, saying, “Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war… [President Abraham Lincoln] did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic.”

This is historical revisionism of the worst order, and it must be addressed.

For Congressman Paul’s benefit – and for his supporters who may not know – seven states illegally declared their “independence” from the United States before Lincoln was sworn in as President. After South Carolina fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, four additional states declared independence...

[central_va]

Not only was the South underdeveloped wrt industry but also wrt railroads and both crippled its war-making ability. After the blockade prevented importation of most arms the South had very little chance of winning the war. When one side can produce arms at will and the other has to scrounge for them guess who is going to lose?

Another distortion; If you read Davis speeches in 1864 he revealed that the South was totally self sufficient in small arms, as a matter of fact they had more small arms than conscripts/volunteers. No, it's true and I don't have time to do your research.

[conimbricenses]

Transatlantic crossing in the 1780's took about 40 days. A letter written in June would have arrived with plenty of time to spare at a convention that was only barely underway at the time it was mailed, and lasted till late September. Furthermore, that letter is but one of many between Jefferson and Madison about the topic of the convention going back to shortly after the Annapolis Conference in 1786.

You plainly have a biased view against Jefferson and an equally biased one in favor of Hamilton. That is fine as a matter of personal opinion, but you are also allowing it to distort your interpretation of history and effectively make Jefferson the "villain" to Hamilton's "hero." Both men had plenty of warts to go around, but to cast Hamilton's monarchy speech as anything other than disastrous for him is just plain silly. It discredited him as a hothead for most of the remainder of the convention, and continued to haunt him for the rest of his political career especially after Yates, Martin, and others let word of it slip out to the public.

[rustbucket]

He was talking about future descendants in the Purchase area. He didn't say "keep them in the territory" He said "keep them in union."

In your interpretation, Jefferson was saying territories purchased or obtained by war by the US could go their own way and leave the Union, but not states. That's a pretty strange interpretation. According to that interpretation, Jefferson would say the 1861 secession of the Arizona Territory was legitimate. So, Arizona won't need to secede again. They can just refer back to their original secession.

[conimbricenses]

Exports from the South were not going to be the subject of retaliation since England needed the cotton and the mills were not going to allow Parliament to cut their throats.

You're missing a key point. In international trade it matters not so much what is retaliated against, but rather that retaliation occurs. Traded goods are essentially the currency for other traded goods. If you tax one of them, it will disrupt all the rest in some form or another. You can't "tweak" the tariff schedule to simply isolate out one single item because by taxing that item you shift imports away. Eventually the price of the tariff passed through to the exports that were originally the currency for those deflected imports.

You also seem to be missing the point of luxury tariffs, which were indeed paid on a revenue basis but are an entirely different system of rates than the protective elements of the schedule. Luxury tariffs are imposed on goods that are presumed to have inelastic demand curves, or in other words "dependency goods" like cigarettes and alcohol. They essentially function as a sales tax on those goods because it is assumed their buyers will purchase them even with the tax. Since they do not generally deter trade in that good, they do not exhibit the same distorting effects that a protective tariff usually does.

As to Hamilton's economics, go read Milton Friedman's critique of the Report on Manufactures. It is devastating. Even if one accepts the assertion that England's colonialism distorted US manufacturing, the policy prescription Hamilton offered is economically unsound because it incentivizes lazy monopolies and disincentivizes the very same competitively-induced innovative processes that are necessary for an industry to develop. Why do you think America lagged technologically behind Britain in iron smelting well into the 1830's despite being nearly on par in technology (just not equipment) at the time of the revolution? Tariffs took away some of the incentive to develop better smelting processes. Hamilton in this regard is very similar to the Keynesians who claim that stimulus spending will rectify economic recessions - they identify part of the problem, and their prescription often sounds intuitive the way that they present it, but the solution they offer is completely wrongheaded in a way that distorts resources away from the very same economic recovery they purport to be helping

[rustbucket]

New York EXPLICITLY rejected the “conditional ratification” in its convention that was the occasion of Madison’s letter to Hamilton on the subject. So stop using that lie.

I know about that. The ratification documents state what the Constitution meant to the people who actually ratified them. You ignore them; I don't.

The statements of other states do not say what you claim either.

The New York ratification document said exactly what I said it did. Here's the link again to that document : Link to New York's ratification of the Constitution. If the words are not correct, I suggest you take it up with Yale Law School. They run the web site.

In their ratification document, the New York ratifiers said what the Constitution meant about their right to resume their own governance and a number of other things. If Hamilton thought the Constitution meant that states couldn't reassume their own governance, he either got outvoted at the convention or went along with the majority, Madison's letter notwithstanding.

Cite for me, if you would, any rejections of New York's ratification document by other states. I'm not aware of any. We would have had an ineffective, discontinuous country without New York and Virginia.

Now let's look the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. From Yale Law School again: Link to Rhode Island ratification document:

We the Delegates of the People of the State of Rhode-Island, and Providence Plantations, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of this State, do declare and make known ...

... That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness [my bold] ...

Under these impressions, and declaring, that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid, are consistent with the said constitution, and in confidence that the amendments hereafter mentioned, will receive an early and mature consideration, and conformably to the fifth article of said constitution, speedily become a part thereof; We the said delegates, in the name, and in the behalf of the People, of the State of Rhode-Island and Providence-Plantations, do by these Presents, assent to, and ratify the said Constitution.

If the Rhode Island document I linked to is not the correct one, I'm sure you will let me know and supply the correct one.

Now Virginia. From Yale Law School again: Link to Virginia ratification document

We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will [my bold] ...

The Tenth Amendment basically says the same thing. As "one of the greatest legal minds ever created" (to use your own description of him) said, "does not a power remain till it is given away?"

Other states proposed various versions of the Tenth Amendment in their ratification documents:

South Carolina: "This Convention doth also declare, that no section or paragraph of the said Constitution warrants a construction that the states do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them, and vested in the general government of the Union.

North Carolina proposed amendment: "1. That each state in the Union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the federal government."

Massachusetts proposed amendment: "First, That it be explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States to be by them exercised."

New Hampshire proposed amendment: "I. That it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution, are reserved to the several States, to be by them exercised."

That makes a total of seven states in their ratification documents, a majority of the original 13. The Tenth Amendment became part of the Constitution, being ratified by even more of the original 13. It took 10 states of the 13 to ratify the Amendment.

The only minds the 10th amendment provides a legal basis for secession for are weak ones.

LOL. I will match wits with you anytime.

States NEVER had “their own governance” to resume. They went from being colonies to being part of the USA. Most did not even have constitutions until Independence was declared.

Actually the Declaration of Independence called them states (actually "the thirteen united States of America," lower case letter "u"), the 1777 version of the Articles of Confederation called them states, some states minted their own coins, states regulated their own commerce, raised and funded their own armies, Virginia declared its independence before the Continental Congress did, King George called them states, France made a treaty with the 13 United States of America, etc.

A constitution is the basis of the Union and like the foundation of a house cannot have part of it removed without endangering the whole structure. It weaves the states into a nation AND WAS INTENDED TO. It is a fundamental law.

And nowhere did this "fundamental law" prohibit states from withdrawing from it. If secession was not permitted by the Constitution, why didn't it say so? Seems pretty important. Why isn't it there? You know as well as I that it wouldn't have been ratified if it contained such a restriction.

As Madison himself said:

The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. [my bold]

[ought-six]

“Oh so now it isn’t just machinery, it’s forge goods and furniture as well.”

Why, you imbecile, what do you think machinery was in those days? They were forged (i.e., metal). And, yes, the South imported furniture from the continent. And, show me, asshole, just where I ever stated that those imports accounted for 85% of all tariff income.

Were you beat up by other kids, and you’ve carried a chip on your shoulder into adulthood? Or, have you reached adulthood yet?

Let me give you a word of advice, for your own good. You obviously champion a huge and pretty much unfettered federal government (as you have indicated by countless posts re: your hagiographic adoration of Lincoln and his idea that the federal goverment is supreme, and not to be challenged). There are areas of the country where the concept of individual freedom is still sacrosanct, so do yourself a favor: Don’t go to a Southern state — or a Western state, for that matter — and spew in public the kind of crap you drop here on FR about the South (because, believe me, the West — aside from coastal California and Washington west of the Cascades — has far, far more in common with the South than it does with the big-government socialism embraced by the North and Northeast). You see, those areas of the country still get a thrill about the thought of liberty, and self-determination. You would be uncomfortable being around such beliefs.

[ought-six]

“As one born and raised in the South (and still loving it and southerners) I must say that I believe Southerners are more polite and well mannered than Northerners.”

I know it for a fact, brother.

[usmcobra]

“True” Southerner means a Southerner swallowing the bilge and lies justifying the RAT Rebellion.

This is what I love about neo confederates, had I said that tariffs were the cause of the Civil war, I would have been applauded for being right, however the second I said that the tariffs were a punishment for slavery then magically tariffs had nothing to do with the south's secession.

Amazing how that works isn't it?

[ought-six]

“Early tariff rates averaged about 15%.”

To go up to 47% under Morrill.

[rockrr]

And I know for a fact that “people are people, wherever you go”.

[rustbucket]

New York EXPLICITLY rejected the “conditional ratification” in its convention that was the occasion of Madison’s letter to Hamilton on the subject. So stop using that lie.

Here are some more comments in response to your comment above. The New York ratification convention did remove the words "on condition" from the approval of its proposed amendments. They replaced "on condition" with "in full confidence." The "in full confidence" part of the text comes right after the part of the NY ratification document I quoted to you in the post above. The sentence containing it says [my bold below]:

In full Confidence nevertheless that until a Convention shall be called and convened for proposing Amendments to the said Constitution, the Militia of this State will not be continued in Service out of this State for a longer term than six weeks without the Consent of the Legislature thereof;-that the Congress will not make or alter any Regulation in this State respecting the times places and manner of holding Elections for Senators or Representatives unless the Legislature of this State shall neglect or refuse to make Laws or regulations for the purpose, or from any circumstance be incapable of making the same, and that in those cases such power will only be exercised until the Legislature of this State shall make provision in the Premises;-that no Excise will be imposed on any Article of the Growth production or Manufacture of the United States, or any of them within this State, Ardent Spirits excepted; And that the Congress will not lay direct Taxes within this State, but when the Monies arising from the Impost and Excise shall be insufficient for the public Exigencies, nor then, until Congress shall first have made a Requisition upon this State to assess levy and pay the Amount of such Requisition made agreably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way and manner as the Legislature of this State shall judge best, but that in such case, if the State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such Requisition, then the Congress may assess and levy this States proportion together with Interest at the Rate of six per Centum per Annum from the time at which the same was required to be paid.

Then the document attached a list of the many amendments they proposed. The ratification was no longer on condition of passing those amendments. The removal of "on condition" only affects the proposed amendments, not the convention's clarifying statements about what the Constitution meant.

It also turns out that Hamilton ("one of the greatest legal minds ever created" to use your description) voted to issue the ratification document that I've linked to on the Yale Law Department site. Thus, he voted for issuing the statement that "the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness."

I never realized before tonight that Hamilton had actually voted for that ratification document. Thank you for helping me find that. I knew Hamilton had later flirted with joining those in New York and the New England states who wanted to secede in the early 1800s, but he finally decided not come out in favor of actually doing it.

[Non-Sequitur]

And, show me, asshole, just where I ever stated that those imports accounted for 85% of all tariff income.

Let me direct you back to this quote in your reply 419:

"I quote from Professor Scruggs’ essay: “U. S. tariff revenues already fell disproportionately on the South, accounting for 87% of the total."

So, asshole, I admit to rounding down. So let me rephrase my question again, asshole. You want us to believe that the South imported machinery and forge goods and furniture enough to account for 87% of all U.S. imports, and 87% of all tariff revenue. If you really believe that then you're not an asshole, asshole. You're nuts.

Let me give you a word of advice, for your own good.

Advice from an idiot. Just what the world needs.

[ought-six]

Bring it on, chum.

[Non-Sequitur]

Bring it on, chum.

Hey, you asked me to show where you ever stated that the South accounted for 85% of all tariff revenue and I showed you. I would have thought a 'thank you' might have been in order.

[Idabilly]

Well James Madison, one of the men most intimately involved in crafting the US Constitution, would say this argument that the Constitution allows for secession is total nonsense.

---------------------------------------------------

Montpellier, Decr 23, 1832. Isn't that special. Do you really want to hang your hat on 1832 ?

REPORT OF 1799.

It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts, that, where resort can be had to no tribunal, superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and, consequently, that, as the. parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.

[lentulusgracchus]

Well, that only works if you WIN. If you win it becomes legal. When you lose it was always illegal.

Force as an argument? That's Debate 101, force is never an argument for or against anything.

No, sorry, you're dead wrong. But thanks for playing.

[lentulusgracchus]

We all know Hannibal’s name, who the hell was his brother?

Hasdrubal. Killed at the Battle of the Metaurus. Tiberius Claudius Nero (ancestor of all three emperors of those names) performed an exploit by galloping up to Hannibal's camp on horseback and pitching Hasdrubal's head over the rampart, to demoralize the Carthaginians.

Failure of coordination on the Carthaginians' part. Hannibal knew his brother was coming but didn't cover the descent from the passes.

[lentulusgracchus]

[Thermalseeker] No state would have ever joined the union if they thought they could not secede if the Federal gubmint became too overbearing.

1/3 of the states joined the Union during or after the Civil War, when it was pretty clear secession wouldn't fly.

TS's original statement is correct as it stands.

New York was among the States adding "clarifications" of Original Intent to their ratification resolutions, which by the way are not swept up in the general Madisonian condemnation of "conditional ratification".

Several of the States, like New York, ratified only in the expectation, which they made clear in their "clarification" language, that a Bill of Rights would be added to the Constitution.

The Antifederalists were the fathers of the Bill of Rights; Madison and Hamilton insisted a Bill of Rights wasn't needed, and Hamilton freely dispensed the snake oil that ratifying the Constitution without a Bill of Rights would be more restrictive of federal accessions and claims of power, than having a Bill of Rights. Anyone think he was right today?

Without the Bill of Rights, the Antifederalists had the votes to defeat ratification in several key States, "without which not". The Antifederalists were the fathers of our liberty, for using their heads and not listening to the New York City hustle put on by Hamilton.

Eventually Madison agreed to write the Bill of Rights, not that he agreed with having one, simply on the grounds that the most competent person available should give the writing his best effort, to come up with the best language possible. Even so, he got worked over extensively (as in the case of the Second Amendment) before the language fell into its final form that we know today.

Thermalseeker earns the palm for being right.

[Conservative9]

and before these states “illegally” seceded would you say 13 colonies “illegally” seceded?

[lentulusgracchus]

and before these states “illegally” seceded would you say 13 colonies “illegally” seceded?

Actually, 13 States actually did secede from the "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation (Article XIII of same, already cited and quoted above) which was never supposed to be superseded or seceded from.

But they did -- they had to, to form the United States of our present Constitution. Madison discussed this quandary in the later numbers of The Federalist Papers.

The mechanism of secession was a sovereign act of the People of each State, to-wit, ratification of the Constitution.

But then, your interlocutor Michael Zak, the manifold revenant zombie of FR, has had this explained to him many, many times before, when he was posting here as Grand_Old_Partisan and two or three other screennames. But we are expected to accept his proposition in posting this thread, that "that was then, but this is now."