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 ...
Perhaps. But at least I got some education on the subject. Unlike yourself.
Maybe you’ve been flagged already but you’ve got a site problem again...............
Like i said, I didn’t want to drift too far off topic but i was curious about Sam’s various “understandings”. Turns out they’re only slightly less tissue-thin than cva’s, LOL.
I really don’t GAD about FDR or have any special desire to defend him but the ADL - the protector of all things Jewish examined the various allegations against him and found them to be largely without serious merit. For every article I found that was critical of FDR as a racist or anti_Semite I found four that refuted it - with better sourced footnotes.
Fact was that in the mid-30’s over half the American population identified Jews with some sort of negative association (according to the ADL). At a time when congress was seeking to limit immigration of Asians - especially Japanese because it was felt that they would not assimilate (sound familiar?) FDR appointed an unprecedented number of Jews to administration positions. Not the sort of thing one would do if they had an unnatural fear or loathing of a group.
Enough of the snipe-hunts for this boy ;-)
"I'm glad FDR was reelected, otherwise we might have had concentration camps in the US."
I had to think about that one a little.
Like i said, I didn’t want to drift too far off topic
I dunno. This is actually more interesting. Some guy writes an article saying that the Civil War wasn't all about tariffs. Can anybody seriously disagree with that?
No, they had several ways that were tried to bring the southern states back normal. The most generous and conciliatory were tried first. That was when the KKK was started. In response to the KKK, more stringent measures were attempted.
I think there are many embarrassing moments for the US, such as the frequent murder of US soldiers of African heritage by the insurrection, the murder of US soldiers from southern states if captured by the insurrection, and the murder of US citizens loyal to the US by the insurrection.
The correct action in that case would have been to line up twice as many southern soldiers and execute them, and to assert that any southern response to that would lead to continues similar responses. US prisoners of war should have been better treated than they were. Southern soldiers were not treated as well as they should have been, but in contrast with the southern treatment of US soldiers, southern soldiers were given liberal parole at Vickburg, Appomattox Court House and North Carolina.
It did get significant attention in Britain. Prince Albert on his deathbed wanted the prime minister to promise him that they would not support slavery.
Rifles work for all parties. No doubt some of the laws that forbade slavery from operating in free states were intended to keep southeron slavers from visiting the yankees.
Bit the Northern states didn’t start a war over it.
Keep in mind that the tariff was so inoffensive and fair a tax that the neo-confederates have to lie and complain about the imaginary tax on cotton.
Oddly, the insurrection resorted to the drafted long before the US.
And noone really wanted to fight for slavery either, as you tell us.
“A rich man’s war, but a poor man’s fight.” was the way they put it.
Slave owners got deferments. Non-slave owners were conscripted into the militia, and the militia was forced to patrol for runaway slaves long before the war started.
Isn't that what we're talking about here? Violations of the compact by other states so severe that one side can decide the compact is broken? Webster is saying that states cannot decide for themselves that some action is unconstitutional and that as a result the compact is broken. He is quite rightly pointing out that it is a matter for the judiciary to determine.
LOL! It was a letter. Trying to insinuate it was a ‘provision’ as if it had some force in Constitutional law is, well, pretty lame….IMHO.
Poor choice of words on my part. Would it be better to say that Madison's position that states could not by themselves decide to leave the Union still stands?
The fortification occurred long before the war started. Back when the fortification occurred the southern representatives wanted it, liked it, and slave owners were paid for having their ‘property’ employed in making the fortification.
Rather like Lee paid slave owners to fortify Richmond in the early days of the insurrection. Oh, and he paid himself too.
After all, you are smarter than those stupid Jews that don’t know what they are doing, right?
Bueller? anyone?
So now we find you being deceptive.
No, we're talking about whether or not the federal authority has any say-so in the matter. Webster was speaking of a State that was in the compact picking and choosing which provisions it would observe, NOT leaving the Compact altogether.
-------
Poor choice of words on my part.
No biggie. Communicating solely with the written word without the subtle clues of voice inflection and body language seems to present it's own set of problems. Maybe that's why some of the Founders' writings just seem to go on, and on, and....on :-)
-----
Would it be better to say that Madison's position that states could not by themselves decide to leave the Union still stands?
Under those particular circumstances, yes, but not under all circumstances.
These letters were written during the threat of secession by the southern states due to federal tarriffs. In that respect, Madison was correct. As long as a State remained within the Compact, it was obligated to pay whatever taxes were imposed....BUT
He noted in the follow postscript that the discussion had concerned the abuse of the singular federal authority, NOT whether or not the majority of the other States were using the federal government as a tool to control/punish the minority.
P.S. No notice has been taken in the inclosed paper of the fact, that the present charge of usurpations & abuses of power, is not that they are measures of the Govt. violating the will of its Constituents, as was the case with the Alien & Sedition Acts, but that they are measures of a Majority of the Constituents themselves, oppressing the Minority thro’ the forms of the Govt. This distinction would lead to very different views of the topics under discussion. It is connected with the fundamental principles of Rep: Govt: and with the question of comparative danger of oppressive Majorities from the Sphere and Structure of the General Govt. and from those of the particular Govts.
James Madison to E Everett, April 1830
Whoops! There's that 'republican form of government' thing again!
:-)
'Deceptive' people don't admit to mistakes, just like you refuse to concerning Art 4, Sec 4.
And Article 4 section 4
1. only discusses domestic violence, not insurrection.
2. uses the term “Executive” the same as Article 2 section 1.
Other parts of Article 4 use the term “Congress” so your point that the heading means that all terms under Article 4 refer to states is incorrect.
That is not deceptive, those are facts.
Your pretense that Article 4 section 4 limits the ability of the federal executive to suppress insurrections is false. Your pretense that it has anything to do with the ability to supress insurrections is deceptive.
Glad I could help you on that.
And there was no attempt by a majority of states to use the constitution to punish a minority, in 1860.
Therefore it was the duty of the southern states to (1) not begin an insurrection and (2) Pay their taxes.
Yet the Founders never defined insurrection. In fact, it wasn't defined until 1861
MAYBE they figured it would make it rather difficult to exercise their RIGHT to 'alter or abolish' the federal government if IT had the ability to determine whether or not they could.
-----
uses the term “Executive” the same as Article 2 section 1.
I've given multiple sources that say otherwise.
YOUR deception is that you continue to make an assertion based on nothing more than the results of your own intellectual masturbations.
How is it any more definitive there than it was in the Insurrection Act of 1807?
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.