COLLEGE STUDENT REACTS | Facts About Slavery Never Mentioned In School | Thomas Sowell

YouTube ^ | May 20, 2023 | LFR Jojo

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: responding to "is there actual data to support your claims?" : "I'm sure there are.
I haven't noted them.
What I have noted are the comments of everybody at the time saying exactly what I've said which is that the Southern states were responsible for about 75% of the exports and imports and thus were paying about 75% of the tariff.
You of course, claim miraculously to have never seen them even though I've posted them multiple times every time this subject has come up."

It is a fact, not a "claim", that in our exchanges you have never posted even one shred of evidence to support even one of your ridiculous claims.
Of course, I see where you claim to have posted your proof-texts elsewhere, which means they must be readily available to you.

I also see where you admit that you don't actually have data to support this particular claim (75% of tariffs paid by Southerners), only supposedly newspaper accounts which you say repeat the claim.
If they actually do, then they're wrong, but I doubt if your proof-texts actually say what you're claiming.
And that is possibly why you are so reluctant to post them.

FLT-bird: "This is what shrinks call "projection".
You accuse me of exactly that which you yourself are guilty of.
Northern politicians elected by Northern voters were controlled by....wait for it....Northerners. Duh.
I guess the dishonest claims otherwise are part of your Democrat mindset. LOL!"

And yet again you are literally babbling nonsense, ignoring the facts in order to protect your precious narrative -- for you Democrats, it's narrative uber alles.

But the fact is, before 1861, it was Northern Democratic "Doughfaces" who helped Southerners protect slavery and kept Democrats in control over Washington, DC.
Again, I'll list the specifics:

1. "1820 -- 17 Northern doughfaces made the Missouri Compromise possible.

2. 1836 -- 60 Northern doughfaces voted with the South in the passage of a gag rule to prevent anti-slavery petitions from being formally received in the House of Representatives.

3. 1847 -- 27 Northern doughfaces joined with the South in opposing the Wilmot Proviso, and in

4. 1850 -- 35 Northern doughfaces supported a stronger fugitive slave law.

5. 1854 -- 58 Northern doughfaces joined Southerners to support repeal of the Missouri Compromise in the Kansas–Nebraska Act.[4]

6. Richards has classified 320 congressmen in the period from 1820 to 1860 as doughfaces.

7. The two U.S. Presidents preceding Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Pierce[6] and James Buchanan, were both commonly referred to as doughfaces."

The fact is that, with the help of Doughfaced Northern Democrats, Southerners ruled over Washington DC almost continuously from the election of 1800 until secession in 1861.

FLT-bird: "What is a fact is that these were Northerners elected by Northern voters in Northern states."

Sure, but they were political allies of Southern Democrats who voted with Southerners on their most important issues, including those listed above.
Why is it such a problem for you to admit the simple truth?

FLT-bird on Calhoun's support for tariffs, infrastructure & national bank: "He did at the time until he saw how destructive high tariffs were to the Southern economy.
He also noted that Northern states got the lion's share of the federal budget.

"The north has adopted a system of revenue and disbursements, in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed on the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the north ...
The South as the great exporting portion of the Union has, in reality, paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue,"
John C Calhoun March 4, 1850"

So, first, it took some doing because your quote here is not exactly right, but it's close enough and I found it in Calhoun's last speech to the US Senate, March 4, 1850, shortly before his death on March 31.

In his lengthy speech, Calhoun promised to explain his accusation of "undue portions" in Federal taxing and spending.
But when the place in his speech comes to explain and provide evidence of his claims, here's what he said:

"The next is the system of revenue and disbursements which has been adopted by the Government.
It is well known that the Government has derived its revenue mainly from duties on imports.
I shall not undertake to show that such duties must necessarily fall mainly on the exporting States, and that the South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality paid vastly more than her due portion of the revenue; because I deem it unnecessary, as the subject has on so many occasions been fully discussed.
Nor shall I, for the same reason, undertake to show that a far greater portion of the revenue has been disbursed at the North, than its due share; and that the joint effect of these causes has been, to transfer a vast amount from South to North, which, under an equal system of revenue and disbursements, would not have been lost to her."

This is the argument our lost causers have been making, and like Calhoun, they all skip right over the place where they should be providing evidence to prove their claims.
Like Calhoun, they just assume to be true what has never been established.

In fact, the data we do have tells a very different story from what Calhoun and Lost Causers claim.

FLT-bird "You will doubtless squeal that this can't possibly be true and gosh, that Calhoun guy is an evil, wicked, nasty, horrible guy and must be lying and slavery slavery slavery, blah blah blah.
I will note that what Calhoun said here is no different from what numerous other political leaders and newspapers were saying."

I think we can stipulate that Calhoun's words in his March 4, 1850 speech to the US Senate, became, if they were not already, standard Southern propaganda claims, still argued by our Lost Causers even today.

But I have never seen actual facts to support such claims.

FLT-bird responding to -- were all Southerners Neanderthal anti-American Democrats: "Strawman alert. I never suggested any such thing."

I know, you never said "Neanderthal", but you have implied Southerners were far more united in their anti-Americanism than, in fact, they ever were.

FLT-bird "As I said, Southerners became far more anti Tariff once they saw how destructive the Tariff of Abominations was to their states economically.
Note the use of the word "became"...as in they weren't as opposed initially."

Rates in the 1828 Tariff of Abominations were gradually reduced, beginning in 1835, and especially in the 1846 Walker Tariff.
Still, as late as the election of 1848, a majority of voters in many Southern states elected the high-tariff Whig, a Southern slaveholder, Zachary Taylor, president.

Even as late as 1852, the high-tariff Whig candidate carried Kentucky and Tennessee, and came very close in Louisiana, North Carolina and Delaware.

Again, my point here is only that "The South" was not as solidly opposed to protective tariffs as you like to pretend.
There were many Southerners who understood that protective tariffs would also protect their businesses and jobs.

FLT-bird: "What South Carolina wanted was the tariffs to be lowered.
That's what they got.
Note they nullified the tariff.
They did not secede.
Had they wanted to secede, presumably, they would have seceded.
They were still willing to compromise because they believed compromise possible."

So you claim, but in fact, there were enough threats of secession coming from South Carolina, they forced Democratic President Andrew Jackson to send a naval "war fleet" with US troops onboard to Charleston harbor and issue his famous threat:

"...please give my compliments to my friends in your State and say to them, that if a single drop of blood shall be shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.[67]"

Clearly, Pres. Jackson took South Carolina's threats seriously, even if you don't.

FLT-bird: "that was Andrew Jackson's view but it is debatable.
Had they wanted to secede they would presumably have done so.
After all, Massachusetts and Connecticut had threatened to secede over the Embargo Act about 15 years earlier during the Hartford Convention so the idea that each state could unilaterally secede was not limited to Southern states."

And those 1814 Hartford Convention threats of secession helped destroy the old Federalist party, making the United States briefly a single party state -- Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans.
So, doubtless, South Carolinians in the 1830s realized that one state threatening secession was not the route to political success.

FLT-bird: "by the way, notice how secession is often what states threaten or resort to when their economy is crushed by blocking or impinging on foreign trade?"

And yet... and yet... that's not what happened in 1860.
No Southerner, not one, threatened secession if the new Morrill tariff passed.
Many did threaten secession if an anti-slavery "Black Republican" was elected president.

Those are facts, deny them as much as you want.

FLT-bird: "No they didn't stop it in 1860.
It passed the House.
The process of log rolling to pick up one or two more votes in the Senate was underway.
It was a certainty that some Senator could be induced to flip for the right payoff for his constituents.
Everybody knew this.

Well, then, certainly... if "everybody knew" then you should have no trouble providing many different quotes from different sources saying exactly that, right?

FLT-bird after quoting some ridiculous nonsense regarding the Morrill Tariff: "Go ahead and emote about the source.
We all know that's your go to response whenever you see information you don't like. LOL!"

Well, it's true that your source is insane and biased, anti-American to the max.
Less biased sources say this:

"In its first year of operation, the Morrill Tariff increased the effective rate collected on dutiable imports by approximately 70%.
In 1860, American tariff rates were among the lowest in the world and also at historical lows by 19th-century standards, the average rate for 1857 to 1860 being around 17% overall (ad valorem), 21% on dutiable items only.
The Morrill Tariff immediately raised those averages to about 26% overall, or 36% on dutiable items."

The Morrill increase was 70% on dutiable items (from 21% to 36%), but only 50% overall (from 17% to 26%).
The overall was less because some items were removed from tariffs altogether.
The original Morrill average rate of 26% restored the old 1846 Walker Tariff average rate of 25%.

Of course, after Southern Democrats left Congress and declared war on the United States, then the Union had to scramble to raise money however it could, and so the Morrill tariff was increase and increased again.
But you can't claim that Democrats began leaving Congress in 1860 because they didn't want to pay even higher tariffs that would result from Democrats' declarations of war on the United States.

FLT-bird on Corwin's Amendment: "Lincoln orchestrated it." -- followed by lengthy quotes which prove nothing except, perhaps, that Lincoln did talk directly to Seward and Weed at some points.

FLT-bird: "Go ahead and attack this source too. LOL!"

There's no need because your source simply insinuates everything without providing evidence of anything.
And it's all irrelevant anyway, because the key fact about Corwin is that 100% of Democrats supported it and the Democrat President signed it, while a majority of Republicans opposed it, and Lincoln expressly said it did not change the Constitution as he understood it.

So you can claim "orchestrated" all you wish, it's a meaningless term.
The fact is that all of the heavy lifting in Congress was done by NY Senator Seward, not Lincoln.

FLT-bird on Corwin: "Sure, but a supermajority of Northerners supported it."

Northern Democrats were eager to keep as many Democrat seats in Congress as possible and some Republicans went along with them because they believed Corwin made no real changes in the US Constitution.

FLT-bird: "That is the truth and Lincoln's fingerprints were all over the Corwin Amendment right from the start - see above."

Your quotes prove nothing except that many pro-Confederates like to believe that Lincoln "orchestrated" Corwin, as opposed to the real evidence which only shows Lincoln did not block Corwin.

FLT-bird "Here again is me telling you that the protections of slavery in the Confederate Constitution were no more than existed in the US Constitution plus the Corwin Amendment."

Meaning, you didn't read, or you refuse to comprehend what those words meant.
Bottom line: the Confederate constitution explicitly prohibited any interference with slavery, period.

Deny that all you wish, it remains a fact.

FLT-bird: "Given slavery had no significant increases in protection in the Confederate Constitution, accepting the Corwin Amendment would have offered the exact same protections in the US Constitution as existed in the Confederate Constitution.
Yet the original 7 seceding states refused to return.
They must have been motivated by something other than slavery."

Now you are simply arguing from your own ignorance, and you can prove that to yourself by simply searching for quotes from Confederates in early 1861 which say something remotely similar to your words here.

I've never seen such quotes and I doubt they exist.

FLT-bird: "See above.
I provided ample evidence.
His own hagiographer Doris Kearns-Goodwin also admitted Lincoln orchestrated its passage."

So, you are going to provide a quote from DK-G where she used the term "orchestrated"?

FLT-bird: "here again is me telling you only 4 states issued declarations of causes and only one of those states listed slavery as the exclusive cause. 3 of the 4 states went on at length about the economic grievances"

The fact is that every state which gave reasons included slavery and no state discussed the Morrill tariff.
Most did not mention tariffs at all.

FLT-bird "No.
That was not typical.
Look at Grant's wife.
Look at Lee's wife.
THEY owned the slaves - not Grant or Lee personally.
This happened all the time.
Ever heard of wills?
Kids of large slaveholding families would also often be gifted slaves during the parents' lifetimes."

Lee's and Grant's wives were both very high-status women, certainly part of the top 10%, if not 1% of society.
So I think it's fair to say that 10% of slaveholders lived in households with more than one legal slaveholder, meaning documented for census purposes.

As for parents gifting slaves to their children, you would not expect this while the child was young enough to be living at home, but more when he was ready to set up a household of his own.
That's why I'm willing to stipulate that 10% of slaveholders lived in households with more than one legal slaveholder.
But to go beyond 10%, I'd want to see actual evidence of such statistics.

But even if, just for sake of argument, we concede that 20% of slaveholders lived in households with more than one legal slaveholder, we are still looking at roughly 320,000 slaveholder households, or nearly 2 million individuals in households (at 6 per household) which is still around 23% of all Southern families owning slaves.

And that still corresponds to observations from the time that roughly 1/4 of Confederate soldiers were slaveholders.

FLT-bird: "Just because one household owned slaves, that does not mean the rest of the extended family did.
That's another bad assumption on your part."

What's 100% fair to assume is that, where 1/4 to 1/3 or more of households held slaves, then pretty much every non-slaveholding household was related by blood, or marriage, or close friendship, to others families that were slaveholders.
That's why their "peculiar institution" was also their "way of life".
It explains the overall Southern commitment to their "peculiar institution".

Of course, some large regions within the South had very few, to no slaves, and those voters were very much opposed in 1861 to secession and Confederacy.
Examples are western Virginia, eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina, northern Alabama and northern Arkansas.

Slavery is what made some men loyal, and others opposed to secession and Confederacy.

FLT-bird: "here are the results of the 1860 US census by state:
Alabama Total Free Population 529121 Total # of Slaveowners 33730 % of Free population owning slaves 6.37%"

Your 6% only works if you assume that every slaveholder lived alone with no families, or that in every slaveholding household, every member legally held slaves, meaning documented.
I've seen no evidence to support either of those.
Rather, what was more normal is that "head of households" legally owned everything, and in Alabama, the average well-off household had at least 6 white people.
Allowing for 10% multiple slaveholders, your 33,730 slaveholders represent around 30,350 households, which is around 35% of all Alabama households.

Here's the bottom line: in regions of the Confederacy where there truly were few to no slaves, those regions were hotbeds of Union loyalty.

FLT-bird: "...was gifted some slaves of her own as for example, a wedding gift, and the kids were gifted slaves could easily account for 4-5 slaveowners in just that one family.
For the big plantations that had hundreds of slaves, this kind of pattern was not unusual."

Granted, but there were very few of those very large plantations, far less than 10%.
The vast majority of slaveholding families were closer to "middle-class" with fewer slaves and fewer slaveholders.

So, in the absense of actual evidence, I think is fair to say 10% of slaveholder householders had more than one slaveholder and that does not change much the overall statistics on percentages of Southern slaveholding families in the 1/4 to 1/3 or more range.

FLT-bird: "LOL! No.
You seriously want to try to convince us that 23% of White Southerners came from rich families?
Get out of here with that laughable BS. "

All depends on your definition of "rich".
In 1860, statistically, the average Southern white family was better off than their Northern cousins, so they were "rich".
Overall, had the South been a separate country, it was the 4th richest country in the world.
"Rich" and "poor" are states of mind.

Here's the thing -- your argument only works if you can demonstrate that in the average 1860 slaveholding household, each member of the household legally owned at least one slave.
Then we could say that all who were not slaveholders lived in families of non-slaveholders and therefore your 6% slaveholder families could, theoretically, be right.

But even then, every slaveholding family had close relatives , friends and neighbors who loved them, wished them well and wanted to protect their "peculiar institution".

So, however you calculate it, you still come back to the majority of voters in high-slave regions wanting to do what was necessary to protect slavery.

FLT-bird: "Except that this is a complete lie.
Sorry to do something I normally hate which is to toot my own horn, but I have 2 grad degrees, speak 3 languages, have lived in 8 states and 4 foreign countries.
I am neither ignorant nor innocent.
Quite the opposite. "

All you're telling me here is that somewhere, somehow (similar to DiogenesLamp), you drank a whole barrel-full of Lost Cause Kool-Aid and now you're so addicted to it that you literally cannot see facts which contradict your preferred narrative.

Of course, I'm sorry for you, but I'm not here to support your irrational addictions.

FLT-bird: "I learned through lots and lots of reading that what we are taught about this subject in the government schools, what is shown on PBS and the so-called history channel, etc are lies and BS.
Of course, once you see how corrupted the media and a lot of government institutions are...how ready and willing they are to lie to suit their agenda, their lies about history become a whole lot less shocking.
Its a pattern with them."

And so you simply swapped-out what you deemed to be one set of lies for a whole set of different lies, without ever thinking critically about either one!
Seriously, I'm not impressed with either your abilities or accomplishments.
More than anything, I'm sorry for you.

FLT-bird on Lincoln the "outsider": "early on in his career maybe.
That was certainly not the case by the time he started his career in politics.
He was a consummate insider by then."

Lincoln was not insider enough to serve a second term in Congress, after 1849.
Nor was he insider enough to win election as Senator in 1858.
From 1849 to 1861 Lincoln was never permanently employed, he worked odd jobs, defending clients innocent or guilty, rich or poor.
No doubt, Lincoln made lots of friends, but these were not all necessarily the high & mighty.
Nor did he have any close friends in Washington, DC.

So, when it comes to insider / outsider, Lincoln in 1859 was closer to someone like Ulysses Grant than he was to, say, George McClellan, or Jefferson Davis, the consummate insider, or even Rbt. Lee, the creme of Southern aristocracy.

[DiogenesLamp]

Madison's statements concerning secession were taken out of context. Please see post #239.

Thanks for that information. I did not know that.

(BTW - Mornin', DL! 🌞)

And you too! I'm glad to see you back posting again.

[BroJoeK]

MamaTexan: after quoting from "James Madison to Alexander Rivas, Jan, 1833.
Actually, what Madison was referring to in his letters to Rivas (or Rives) as well as among several others wasn't the Constitution itself, but a theoretical essay concerning the Constitution written by Rivas and sent to Madison."

You guys are working yourselves up over the wrong Madison letter.
The one you want to focus on is from February 13, 1830 to Nicholas B. Trist.

In the Trist letter, Madison lays out his argument against secession at great length.
Several short clips from that letter have been posted on Free Republic CW threads before, but assuming you won't mind, I'd like to lay out Madison's ideas more fully, remembering that Madison lived to be 85 and this letter was written when he was 79, after a lifetime of both contemplation and history altering actions:

by way of introduction: "...The Constitution of the U. S. divides the sovereignty; the portions surrendered by the States, composing the Federal sovereignty over specified subjects; the portions retained forming the sovereignty of each over the residuary subjects within its sphere.
If sovereignty cannot be thus divided, the Political System of the United States is a chimaera, mocking the vain pretensions of human wisdom.
If it can be so divided, the system ought to have a fair opportunity of fulfilling the wishes & expectations which cling to the experiment..."

Notice his language here suggest the modern notion of an "American experiment".

"Nothing can be more clear than that the Constitution of the U. S. has created a Government, in as strict a sense of the term, as the Governments of the States created by their respective Constitutions.
The Federal Govt. has like the State govts. its Legislative, its Executive & its Judiciary Departments.
It has, like them, acknowledged cases in which the powers of these departments are to operate.
And the operation is to be directly on persons & things in the one Govt. as in the others.
If in some cases, the jurisdiction is concurrent as it is in others exclusive, this is one of the features constituting the peculiarity of the system."

Each level of government has its own authorities, which can sometimes overlap.

"In forming this compound scheme of Government it was impossible to lose sight of the question, what was to be done in the event of controversies which could not fail to occur, concerning the partition line, between the powers belonging to the Federal and to the State Govts.
That some provision ought to be made, was as obvious and as essential, as the task itself was difficult and delicate."

What will we do about inevitable controversies?

"That the final decision of such controversies, if left to each of the 13 now 24 members of the Union, must produce a different Constitution & different laws in the States was certain; and that such differences must be destructive of the common Govt. & of the Union itself, was equally certain.
The decision of questions between the common agents of the whole & of the parts, could only proceed from the whole, that is from a collective not a separate authority of the parts."

Where there are controversies, it's the Federal government which must decide on them, not the states.

"The question then presenting itself could only relate to the least objectionable mode of providing for such occurrences, under the collective authority."

The Federal government must decide, but how can we make that "the least objectinable"?

"The provision immediately and ordinarily relied on, is manifestly the Supreme Court of the U. S., clothed as it is, with a Jurisdiction 'in controversies to which the U. S. shall be a party;' the Court itself being so constituted as to render it independent & impartial in its decisions; [see Federalist, no. 39] whilst other and ulterior resorts would remain in the elective process, in the hands of the people themselves the joint constituents of the parties; and in the provision made by the Constitution for amending itself.
All other resorts are extra & ultra constitutional, corresponding to the Ultima Ratio of nations renouncing the ordinary relations of peace."

To resolve such controversies the Constitution provides for the Supreme Court, for Congress and for amending the Constitution.
All other resorts are unconstitutional and amount to "Ultima Ratio", meaning the use of force, a last resort after renouncing "ordinary relations".
We might call that a "right of rebellion", to be reserved as a last resort, when all else has failed, as happened in 1776 and our Declaration of Independence.

"If the Supreme Court of the U. S. be found or deemed not sufficiently independent and impartial for the trust committed to it, a better Tribunal is a desideratum:
But whatever this may be, it must necessarily derive its authority from the whole not from the parts, from the States in some collective not individual capacity.
And as some such Tribunal is a vital element, a sine qua non, in an efficient & permanent Govt. the Tribunal existing must be acquiesced in, until a better or more satisfactory one can be substituted."

If the Supreme Court is deemed corrupt, then it should be replaced, but in the meantime, we must obey its rulings.

"Altho' the old idea of a compact between the Govt. & the people be justly exploded, the idea of a compact among those who are parties to a Govt. is a fundamental principle of free Govt."

I think by this he means the government is fundamentally a compact among the voters who elect it.

"The original compact is the one implied or presumed, but nowhere reduced to writing, by which a people agree to form one society.
The next is a compact, here for the first time reduced to writing, by which the people in their social state agree to a Govt. over them.
These two compacts may be considered as blended in the Constitution of the U. S., which recognizes a union or society of States, and makes it the basis of the Govt. formed by the parties to it."

The US Constitution combines an informal, unwritten, compact among citizens & states to form a society, with their written legal agreements to form a government.

"It is the nature & essence of a compact that it is equally obligatory on the parties to it, and of course that no one of them can be liberated therefrom without the consent of the others, or such a violation or abuse of it by the others, as will amount to a dissolution of the compact."

And now we arrive at the heart of the matter.
The Constitution applies equally to all, meaning none can liberate themselves from it without 1) "the consent of the others" or 2) "violation or abuse" by the others that effectively dissolve the Union.

"Applying this view of the subject to a single community, it results, that the compact being between the individuals composing it, no individual or set of individuals can at pleasure, break off and set up for themselves, without such a violation of the compact as absolves them from its obligations.
It follows at the same time that, in the event of such a violation, the suffering party rather than longer yield a passive obedience may justly shake off the yoke, and can only be restrained from the attempt by a want of physical strength for the purpose. "

While there is no unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure, if a government goes crazy in its lust for power, "the suffering party rather than longer yield a passive obedience may justly shake off the yoke."
So there is a "right of rebellion" or secession when the government illegitimates itself.

"The case of individuals expatriating themselves, that is leaving their country in its territorial as well as its social & political sense, may well be deemed a reasonable privilege, or rather as a right impliedly reserved.
And even in this case equitable conditions have been annexed to the right which qualify the exercise of it."

Of course, individuals can always pick up and move when things become unbearable.

"Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself.
The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.
It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."

This is the key paragraph which is often quoted on Free Republic CW threads.
It represents James Madison's considered opinion as the "Father of the Constitution", and, in my opinion, at least, is the final word on this subject.

And I will go further to say that these words by Madison were never directly contradicted by any other Founder, nor did any Founder ever act in contradiction to them.
Whenever a Founder was presented with rebellion, insurrection, invasion, "domestic violence" or treason, that Founder always acted with as much military force was was necessary to defeat such opponents.

"It is indeed inseparable from the nature of a compact, that there is as much right on one side to expound it & to insist on its fulfilment according to that exposition, as there is on the other so to expound it as to furnish a release from it; and that an attempt to annul it by one of the parties, may present to the other, an option of acquiescing in the annulment, or of preventing it as the one or the other course may be deemed the lesser evil.
This is a consideration which ought deeply to impress itself on every patriotic mind, as the strongest dissuasion from unnecessary approaches to such a crisis."

According to Madison, a "right of rebellion" is opposed by an equal "right of enforcement" of the Constitution's provisions.
The decision to acquiesce or oppose is to be based on which is "deemed the lesser evil."

In 1860, Democrat Pres. Buchanan deemed it "the lesser evil" to acquiesce in secession, while in 1861, Republican Pres. Lincoln deemed it "the lesser evil" to oppose Confederate military actions against Fort Sumter.

"What would be the condition of the States attached to the Union & its Govt. and regarding both as essential to their well-being, if a State placed in the midst of them were to renounce its Federal obligations, and erect itself into an independent and alien nation?
Could the States N. & S. of Virginia, Pennsyla. or N. York, or of some other States however small, remain associated and enjoy their present happiness, if geographically politically and practically thrown apart by such a breach in the chain which unites their interests and binds them together as neighbors & fellow citizens.
It could not be.
The innovation would be fatal to the Federal Governt. fatal to the Union, and fatal to the hopes of liberty and humanity; and presents a catastrophe at which all ought to shudder."

Madison shudders at the thought of the catastrophe resulting if some states renounced the Constitution and declared secession.

"What would be the condition of the State of N. Y. of Massts. or of Pena. for example, if portions containing their great commercial cities, invoking original rights as paramount to social & constitutional compacts, should erect themselves into distinct & absolute sovereignties?
In so doing they would do no more, unless justified by an intolerable oppression, than would be done by an individual State as a portion of the Union, in separating itself, without a like cause, from the other portions.
Nor would greater evils be inflicted by such a mutilation of a State of some of its parts, than might be felt by some of the States from a separation of its neighbors into absolute and alien sovereignties."

Here Madison compares potential secessions of states secessions of regions within states.
They are equally evil to the other states or regions, unless "unless justified by an intolerable oppression".

"Even in the case of a mere League between nations absolutely independent of each other, neither party has a right to dissolve it at pleasure; each having an equal right to expound its obligations, and neither, consequently a greater right to pronounce the compact void than the other has to insist on the mutual execution of it.
[See, in Mr. Jefferson's volumes, his letters to J. M. Mr. Monroe & Col. Carrington]"

Here Madison notes that even Thomas Jefferson agrees with him on this.

"I have made no secret of my surprize and sorrow at the proceedings in S. Carolina, which are understood to assert a right to annul the Acts of Congress within the State, & even to secede from the Union itself.
But I am unwilling to enter the political field with the "telum imbelle" which alone I could wield.
The task of combating such unhappy aberrations belongs to other hands.
A man whose years have but reached the canonical three-score-&-ten (and mine are much beyond the number) should distrust himself, whether distrusted by his friends or not, and should never forget that his arguments, whatever they may be will be answered by allusions to the date of his birth."

Here Madison specifically denounces South Carolina's threats of secession and the Nullification Crisis brought on by their reaction to the 1828 Tariff of Abominations.

Finally, Madison notes that at age 79, he is too old to continue the fight and that defense of his Constitution must now be left to younger men.

We might note here that some people age better than others.
For example, Madison then was almost the same age as our current senile president, and only two years older than his biggest challenger (whose birthday is tomorrow, the 14th, btw).
He was three years older than I am now, and, yes, you might well consider me senile, but I assure you that I was never really smarter than I am today.

So, I'd say that James Madison in 1830 falls into the category of men for whom the long years have not yet attacked his mind to the point of rendering him incapable of reasonable thought.
Indeed, we often encounter quite young people whose minds are far less capable of reasoned thought than Madison was in 1830.

[Political Junkie Too]

Thank you for this.

-PJ

[BroJoeK]

Our FRiends FLT-bird and DiogenesLamp, among others, have put a lot of effort into magnifying the importance of the 1861 proposed Corwin amendment, saying that it proves:

1. Slavery was not so important to Southerners since, when they were offered the Corwin "guarantee" for slavery, they "turned it down."

2. Anti-slavery was not so important to Republicans since a "supermajority" of Northerners voted for Corwin's guarantee of perpetual slavery.

So Corwin, they say, proves the Civil War was not "all about" freeing the slaves.

In response, there are long lists of arguments showing that, yes indeed, slavery and anti-slavery were very important on both sides.

The point I want to bring out here concerns the alleged "supermajority of Northerners" who voted for Corwin.

FLT-bird on Corwin (post #232): "Sure, but a supermajority of Northerners supported it."

So let's look at these numbers.

The House of Representatives vote for Corwin (February 28, 1861) was 133 yes, 65 no, a 2/3 "supermajority".
The breakdown of "yes" votes is:

1. 57 Southern Democrats voted "yes" and that is:
   43% of all "yes" votes came from Southerners.

2. 26 Northern Democrats voted "yes", that makes:
   100% of all Democrats voted "yes".

3. 50 Republicans voted "yes" and that is:
   41% of all Republicans (122) voted "yes".

   133 total House votes for Corwin, of which 43% came from Southern Democrats, 20% from Northern Democrats and 37% from Republicans.

65 Republicans voted "no", plus 7 abstentions made 59% in opposition to Corwin.

In summary:

51% of all Northerners & Westerners voted for Corwin, not a supermajority.
100% of all Southerners in Congress voted for Corwin, unanimous.
100% of all Democrats voted for Corwin, unanimous.
41% of all Republicans voted for Corwin, a minority.

Doughface Democrat President Buchanan signed Corwin.
Republican President Lincoln said he did not try to block Corwin because it made no change to the Constitution as he understood it.

[FLT-bird]

Thanks for this informative post. Of course, I’ve never held that the opinion of one man...even the guy who wrote most of the constitution...decades after ratification meant anything.

What matters is what the states agreed to at the time that they ratified the constitution. It is clear from what Madison and Hamilton were arguing in the federalist papers and from the express provisos passed by 3 states specifically reserving the right to unilateral secession, that the states were not agreeing to bind themselves forever and surrender their ultimate sovereignty to the newly created federal government.

[Political Junkie Too]

I’ve never held that the opinion of one man...even the guy who wrote most of the constitution...decades after ratification meant anything.

As a general principle, I would agree with that sentiment. SCOTUS does look at the writings of the Framers and state ratifying debates when trying to determine original intent.

That said, it's ironic that people, over time, have come to accept the writings of "one man" when the opinion satisfies them, and reject the opinions that don't. I'm speaking of the letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. This is the letter where Jefferson first coined the phrase "building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Jefferson was president at the time, but it was a private letter expressing his personal opinion about the 1st amendment. Jefferson wasn't even a member of the Constitutional Convention, as he was in France with Benjamin Franklin at the time. However, "separation of church and state" has become so ingrained in peoples' minds that they believe it actually is in the Constitution.

I contrast that with the writings of Thomas Paine in The Rights of Man where Paine writes about natural born citizens being the children of citizens (what Paine calls "full natural or political connection with the country." Paine defines NBC in contrast to England, where people are "ften a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner." He goes on to say "The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded." He's clearly defining NBC by contrasting it to the European approach of marriages between foreign monarchies.

Paine's writing is also one man's opinion even though it's a contemporaneous discussion of NBC (1791), and yet it is rejected, too.

So, the historical score is Jefferson yes, Madison no, Paine no, when it comes to taking their opinions as definitive.

-PJ

[MamaTexan]

BroJoeK, take me off your ping list

[MamaTexan]

that the states were not agreeing to bind themselves forever and surrender their ultimate sovereignty to the newly created federal government.

Exactly! If their intention was to have a single, central government with ultimate authority, why painstakingly outline it's powers?

They would just have said 'We hereby create the United States' and gone home. 😏

[BroJoeK]

MamaTexan: "BroJoeK, take me off your ping list"

You can be certain that any time I answer your posts, you will be addressed.

[MamaTexan]

You can be certain that any time I answer your posts, you will be addressed.

I have made no posts to you, nor have I made any comment concerning the Corwin amendment. There was nothing there for you to 'answer'.

Your response to a simple, civil request doesn't surprise me, though..

You always did arrogantly believe that everyone is just dying to hear whatever it is you have to say. 🙄

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "Of course, I’ve never held that the opinion of one man...even the guy who wrote most of the constitution...decades after ratification meant anything."

MamaTexan: "Exactly! If their intention was to have a single, central government with ultimate authority, why painstakingly outline it's powers?"

Political Junkie Too: "So, the historical score is Jefferson yes, Madison no, Paine no, when it comes to taking their opinions as definitive."

You all have two problems when it comes to Madison's opinions on secession, as expressed in his 1830 letter to Trist.

The first is that you've never correctly stated his views, because you refuse to grasp the key point he made.
The second is that these were not only Madison's views, but the views of every Founder -- you will not find any to directly contradict him.

Madison's view is that there is, we would say, a "right of secession" under two, but only two conditions:

1. From necessity, as our Founders experienced in 1776, when they had no other choice, "...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..."

2. By mutual consent, as our Founders accomplished in 1788, in "seceding" from the old Articles of Confederation, in favor of their new Constitution.

These conditions for "secession" were agreed to by 100% of our Founders, and by nearly everyone since.

What no Founder ever agreed to was unilateral declaration of secession "at pleasure", meaning, without just cause.
This is the point Madison made to Trist, and every other Founder made in other words or actions.

These words are also found in the 1788 Constitution ratifying statements by Virginia and New York.
So let's look at them:

Virginia: "WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia... DO... declare... 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..."

New York: "We, the delegates of the people of the state of New York, duly elected and met in Convention...declare... That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness... "

Clearly, Virginia's words correspond exactly to those of Madison in his 1830 letter to Trist:

"It is the nature & essence of a compact that it is equally obligatory on the parties to it, and of course that no one of them can be liberated therefrom without the consent of the others, or such a violation or abuse of it by the others, as will amount to a dissolution of the compact."

Virginia in 1788 and Madison in 1830 said effectively the same thing.

In the case of New York, their 1788 language, while not as explicit as Virginia, still includes the key word "necessary", as was used in the Declaration of Independence:

1. "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands "

2. "Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. "

3. "We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."

Necessity drove the Declaration of Independence, which defined and spelled out what that word "necessary" meant to our Founders.
It means the same thing in the New York ratification statement.

Again, what no Founder ever suggested or agreed to was an unlimited, unilateral "right of secession", "at pleasure", meaning for any reason whatever, or for no reason at all.
Secession "at pleasure" could only be done by mutual consent as they did in their 1788 "secession" from the old Articles of Confederation to their new Constitution.

Any time our Founders were confronted with threats of rebellion or unilateral secession, they always acted with enough military force to stop it:

1. In 1794, Pres. Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion by raising a 13,000 man army (huge in those days) and putting Light Horse Harry Lee in charge of defeating the rebels.

2. In 1798, Pres. Adams addressed threats of alien sedition and insurrection during the Quazi-War with France by passing laws to suppress them.

3. In 1807 Pres. Jefferson sent the US Army to arrest his own former VP, Aaron Burr, and tried him for treason after Burr planned to declare the secession of Louisiana.

4. In 1814, Pres. Madison moved US Army troops off the frontier with Canada to Albany, NY, in case the Hartford Convention's threats of secession became actual rebellion.

Yes, the question of Thomas Jefferson's relationship to secession -- his word for it was "scission" -- is, ah... "complicated".
But the bottom line is that Jefferson could agree to "scission" under some dire circumstances, but never for no good reason, "at pleasure", and absolutely not when threatened by his own former VP, Aaron Burr.

And yet, in 1860, the Deep South declared secessions "at pleasure", and that is why even the most sympathetic of Northern Doughfaces -- such as Democrats, Pres. Buchanan and former Pres. Van Buren -- opposed secession on principle and supported civil war when push came to shove at Fort Sumter.

[FLT-bird]

You always did arrogantly believe that everyone is just dying to hear whatever it is you have to say.

you nailed it. Its the same arguments over and over. He just repeats himself endlessly if you don't agree. Then he bloviates for page after page even after you've told him you're not going to bother with him any more. The guy must not have much going on in his life to waste so much time on these threads.

[Political Junkie Too]

I'm not sure if I'm one of "you all," but I think I've been on your side of the argument, having posted the first discussion of Madison on secession. Where we may have differed is that I took Madison's words to be absolute, and you offered the additional context of "necessity," meaning only after a "long train of abuses and usurpations."

My facetious (to me) scorecard didn't mean to deny Madison's opinions, but to respond to the point that historically we accept "one man's opinion" when we agree with it and discard it when we don't.

I believe Madison's opinion should be given the same weight that history has given Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" opinion, and also Paine's contemporaneous "natural born citizen" writings.

-PJ

[MamaTexan]

even after you've told him you're not going to bother with him any more.

Poster child for a block feature.

----

I've always detested it when people cruise a thread for names just to PING them.

If you're well acquainted with the other poster, that's one thing, but to arbitrarily scoop someone up and PING them to your post just because they happened to have posted something themselves? That's condescending and rude in my book.

It's like you're saying they're just too stupid to keep up with the conversation all on their own.

[BroJoeK]

PJT: "I'm not sure if I'm one of "you all,"..."

Sorry about that, unfortunately, FR does not have a CC: feature.

PJT: "Where we may have differed is that I took Madison's words to be absolute, and you offered the additional context of "necessity," meaning only after a "long train of abuses and usurpations.""

I'm not sure what your word "absolute" refers to.
Clearly, Madison gives us two conditions where, we would say, a "right of secession" applies -- "necessity" and "mutual consent", with "necessity" referring to "violations", "abuse", "usurpations" and "intolerable oppression", such as our Founders experienced in the years up to 1776.

PJT: "My facetious (to me) scorecard didn't mean to deny Madison's opinions, but to respond to the point that historically we accept "one man's opinion" when we agree with it and discard it when we don't."

That's why I make the point, there were no Founders who directly contradicted Madison on this -- so, it's not just "one man's opinion".
Any quote you might cite, for example from Thomas Jefferson, can easily fit into one or the other of Madison's two categories.

No Founder ever proposed or supported a unilateral, unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure.

PJT: "I believe Madison's opinion should be given the same weight that history has given Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" opinion, and also Paine's contemporaneous "natural born citizen" writings."

Then you are ignoring all of our Founders' opinions, since Madison was not only the Father of the Constitution, relied on by Washington and others to express their views, and he is also expressing directly what the others implied in their own words and actions.

What I don't understand is how Madison's words can be in the least controversial or misunderstood.

[FLT-bird]

It's like you're saying they're just too stupid to keep up with the conversation all on their own.,/p>

I interpret it as a desperate cry for attention.

[Political Junkie Too]

I'm not sure what your word "absolute" refers to.

It means that I thought Madison was saying that secession was unconstitutional under all circumstances. You provided the context regarding unless "necessary," with "necessary" meaning after "suffering a long train of abuses and usurpations."

Then you are ignoring all of our Founders' opinions...

And I think you're misinterpreting mine.

I'm saying that I think Madison's opinion has been downgraded to just "one man's opinion" as well as Paine's NBC comments. Yet, Jefferson's "wall of separation" opinion has been elevated to constitutional status. I'm saying they should either all be elevated to constitutional status or none of them should.

We shouldn't historically only elevate the opinions we like and disregard those that we don't like, especially when the Founders and Framers expand on their ca. 1776-1789 opinions based on a lifetime of gained wisdom. The Founders and Framers have a special place in the historical narrative that should be listened to with more weight than people who came along 100+ years later because they knew what they were intending to build.

-PJ

[BroJoeK]

PJT: "I'm saying that I think Madison's opinion has been downgraded to just "one man's opinion" as well as Paine's NBC comments.
Yet, Jefferson's "wall of separation" opinion has been elevated to constitutional status.
I'm saying they should either all be elevated to constitutional status or none of them should."

I think Jefferson's "wall of separation" has been misunderstood and/or misused to justify court rulings which would otherwise make no sense.
Clearly, both Jefferson and the 1st Amendment refer to an official state religion, such as some states then had, and some countries today still have.
Neither Jefferson nor the 1st Amendment required the abolition of all references to religion in public discourse.
Nor, imho, would they necessarily prohibit public vouchers for children attending legitimate schools run by religious organizations.
Yes, we can discuss the meaning of "legitimate", but basically, it's intended to identify otherwise illegal or immoral activities masquerading as "religion".

Jefferson's "wall of separation" refers to his own 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which abolished Virginia's own state religion, so Jefferson's opinions on the matter are quite important.
However, they've been abused and misused and should be returned to a more balanced understanding.

Thomas Paine's opinions are a different matter because Paine was, after all, not a public official of any kind, he was always just a private citizen expressing his own opinions on important matters.
We might even call Paine a "propagandist", except that I don't think his opinions always comported well with those of the "powers that be".
So, his views on "natural born citizens" are quite interesting, but I'd not say they are necessarily definitive of our Founders' understandings.
Perhaps there are other places where such matters are explained more authoritatively?

Which brings us to Madison, often called the "Father of the Constitution", whose understandings were relied on by none other than George Washington to express what Washington himself believed.
Madison was not just some random guy on the street, spouting off about whatever irked him, rather he was at the core of what the Constitution says, and what it means by those words.
So Madison's ideas are important, in all respects, but in Constitutional matters especially.

And on the question of secession, I have never seen where any Founder ever directly contradicted Madison.
Rather, it seems to me that they all took Madison's views as given, as assumed, as not needing further explanation.

Well, some might claim that Jefferson said things opposed to Madison's views, but I would argue that all such opinions fit nicely within Madison's framework of secession authorized by 1) mutual consent or 2) "necessity" from abuses, usurpations, injury, oppression, etc.

There is even an anti-"scission" quote by Jefferson which decries a hypothetical situation exactly matching what happened in 1860.

And it seems to me these should be the final words on the subject, but of course, our pro-Confederates, Lost Causers and other Friends of Secession won't let it end, regardless of Founders' Original Intent.