Posted on 06/11/2013 4:48:08 AM PDT by iowamark
Civil War buffs have long speculated about how different the war might have been if only the Confederacy had won formal recognition from Britain. But few recognize how close that came to happening — and how much pro-Southern sympathy in Britain was built on a lie...
Early British support for the South was further buttressed by something as mundane as a protective tariff — the Morrill Tariff — approved by Congress on March 2, 1861. This new tariff, passed to protect American infant industries, also unwittingly gave rise to a troublesome myth of mounting trans-Atlantic proportions.
The tariff had been opposed by many Southern legislators, which is why it passed so easily once their states seceded. But this coincidence of timing fed a mistaken inversion of causation among the sympathetic British public – secession allowed the tariff to pass, but many in Britain thought that the tariff had come first, and so incensed the Southern states that they left the union.
Nor was this a simple misunderstanding. Pro-Southern business interests and journalists fed the myth that the war was over trade, not slavery – the better to win over people who might be appalled at siding with slave owners against the forces of abolition...
Why was England so susceptible to this fiction? For one thing, the Union did not immediately declare itself on a crusade for abolition at the war’s outset. Instead, Northern politicians cited vague notions of “union” – which could easily sound like an effort to put a noble gloss on a crass commercial dispute.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...
I recommend you read Daniel Webster’s quote more carefully. He does not, in what you quoted, assert that the northern states have violated the compact.
Further, various SCOTUS decisions ruled that state officials are not required to help southern kidnappers recover their slaves. That is a federal government responsibility only.
Why? Because with northern help would come northern state procedure, which would require giving the kidnapped and alleged slave due process, and the forged documents routinely used by the kidnappers would have been challenged per the personal liberty laws. To avoid that, Taney removed the state role in recovering the fugitive slaves.
That resolved the controversy, per Article 3 section 2 for honest people.
To be fair, the Maryland and Delaware militia were among the most well trained at Boston.
The southern soldiers were indeed critical before Boston, and in the sad defeats at New York they were used as a fire brigade to hold off the british to permit others to escape.
Whereas at Boston they had the tea party, in Charleson SC, the tea was unloaded, and no one would buy it. It sat in a corner of the warehouse and moldered. In Richmond, it wouldn’t even be unloaded.
The word comes from the Latin...
I think you're thinking of Wilson.
LOL! Well Bless your heart. It has nothing to do with my being 'mercurial', but everything to do with our conversation the other day where you said;
I know that you don’t hold me in much regard but believe me when I say that I am open to new/different ideas.
Obviously untrue, or you would not have so suddenly reverted to your previous behavior. I see no reason I'm obligated to 'play nice' since you've shown yourself to be so deceptive.
-----
The south had no legitimate complaint.
The US Supreme Court of Appeals said otherwise.
Frankly, I don't care what you 'recommend' since you can't read the plain launguage in Article 4 Section 4.
Where did you get that information about Lee and Whipping post from?
Well, what do we do now? Fight the thing all over again?
So what was the abuse of the 'compact' that justified secession?
Someone probably called her mercurial... ;-)
Well bless your little heart. ;-)
No, but it would be nice if folks would TRY to understand the concept of Original Intent and the Constitutionally mechanics behind it, but to do so, one has to be able to separate the morality of slavery from the legality of it.
Until we do, there is absolutely no hope of the States reasserting their sovereignty.
And to be totally blunt, trying to drag people from the ignorance instilled by our the public education system gets tiresome.
Their continued passage of laws concerning the return of escaped slaves, which were contrary to both what they agreed to when they signed the Constitution as well as the legal precedent set by the USSC Court of Appeals.
It was from the testimony of the slaves at Arlington.
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/r-e-lee-and-beaten-slaves.14363/
News paper articles posted before the rebellion.
http://joeryancivilwar.com/Civil-War-Subjects/General-Lee-Slaves/General-Lee-Family-Slaves.html
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/lees%20slave.htm
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/r-e-lee-and-beaten-slaves.14363/page-27
http://leepapers.blogspot.com/
An analysis of pro-Lee writing based on access to his slave legers.
The Fugitive Slave Act ended all of that and that was passed by congress 6 years before the Civil War. The US military could and did drag those poor people looking for freedom back to the Dixie Hell Hole you so admire.
What's your next lame excuse?
Well bless your heart again!
It's interesting how some folks think that they understand the concept of original intent (and the Constitutionally mechanics behind it).....and others who understand original intent and the limitations inherent therein.
You mean WWI right?
Bastards were spinning the war 150 years ago while it was going on
Check out the American Civil War Gazette
Except that judging from the citation, 14 Wend. 507 N.Y., it appears to be a state appeals case and not a federal one. Specifically New York.
And as for Webster, he was speaking in the abstract and not making accusations. Earlier in the speech he said, "For it would be absurd to suppose that, by the whole states and large portions of the country, either the North or the South has the power or the right to violate any part of that Constitution directly, and of purpose, and still claim from the other observance of its provisions. If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically persist in so doing year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose, to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? "
So did the South have the right to decide on their own that the compact was broken? Webster answered that, too. "No state can decide for itself what is constitutional and what is not. When any part of the Constitution is supposed to be violated by a state law, the true mode of proceeding is to bring the case before the judicial tribunals; and, if the constitutionality of the state law be made out, it is to be set aside."
Finally, what did Webster think of the South's remedy? The action you claim were constitutional? "...after all, secession, disruption of the Union, or successful nullification, are but other names for revolution." So violations that you claim justified the Southern rebellion are not supported by one of your sources, and are marginally supported by the other, which was not a federal court case. Madison's provisions still stand, and were not met by the South in 1860.
No, big collection of private papers. How many have you actually read?
Um...What part of "the only letter I've seen" did you not understand?
LOL. That's like me saying, "The only bird I saw today was a robin, therefore robins are the only birds around." You claim that the request for confidentiality is unique in Madion's writings yet you've read a tiny sampling of his whole works.
I can, just fine. Dealing with someone who acts as if only certain words in the letter have any viability while totally disregarding the rest is what I have trouble with.
Accusing others of cherry-picking quotes is a bit hypocritical on your part. IMHO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.