Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evidence Builds for DeLorenzo's Lincoln
October 16, 2002 | Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Posted on 11/11/2002 1:23:27 PM PST by l8pilot

Evidence Builds for DiLorenzo’s Lincoln by Paul Craig Roberts

In an excellent piece of historical research and economic exposition, two economics professors, Robert A. McGuire of the University of Akron and T. Norman Van Cott of Ball State University, have provided independent evidence for Thomas J. Dilorenzo’s thesis that tariffs played a bigger role in causing the Civil War than slavery.

In The Real Lincoln, DiLorenzo argues that President Lincoln invaded the secessionist South in order to hold on to the tariff revenues with which to subsidize Northern industry and build an American Empire. In "The Confederate Constitution, Tariffs, and the Laffer Relationship" (Economic Inquiry, Vol. 40, No. 3, July 2002), McGuire and Van Cott show that the Confederate Constitution explicitly prohibits tariff revenues from being used "to promote or foster any branch of industry." By prohibiting subsidies to industries and tariffs high enough to be protective, the Confederates located their tax on the lower end of the "Laffer curve."

The Confederate Constitution reflected the argument of John C. Calhoun against the 1828 Tariff of Abominations. Calhoun argued that the U.S. Constitution granted the tariff "as a tax power for the sole purpose of revenue – a power in its nature essentially different from that of imposing protective or prohibitory duties."

McGuire and Van Cott conclude that the tariff issue was a major factor in North-South tensions. Higher tariffs were "a key plank in the August 1860 Republican party platform. . . . northern politicians overall wanted dramatically higher tariff rates; Southern politicians did not."

"The handwriting was on the wall for the South," which clearly understood that remaining in the union meant certain tax exploitation for the benefit of the north.

October 16, 2002

Dr. Roberts [send him mail] is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions Evidence Builds for DiLorenzo’s Lincoln by Paul Craig Roberts

In an excellent piece of historical research and economic exposition, two economics professors, Robert A. McGuire of the University of Akron and T. Norman Van Cott of Ball State University, have provided independent evidence for Thomas J. Dilorenzo’s thesis that tariffs played a bigger role in causing the Civil War than slavery.

In The Real Lincoln, DiLorenzo argues that President Lincoln invaded the secessionist South in order to hold on to the tariff revenues with which to subsidize Northern industry and build an American Empire. In "The Confederate Constitution, Tariffs, and the Laffer Relationship" (Economic Inquiry, Vol. 40, No. 3, July 2002), McGuire and Van Cott show that the Confederate Constitution explicitly prohibits tariff revenues from being used "to promote or foster any branch of industry." By prohibiting subsidies to industries and tariffs high enough to be protective, the Confederates located their tax on the lower end of the "Laffer curve."

The Confederate Constitution reflected the argument of John C. Calhoun against the 1828 Tariff of Abominations. Calhoun argued that the U.S. Constitution granted the tariff "as a tax power for the sole purpose of revenue – a power in its nature essentially different from that of imposing protective or prohibitory duties."

McGuire and Van Cott conclude that the tariff issue was a major factor in North-South tensions. Higher tariffs were "a key plank in the August 1860 Republican party platform. . . . northern politicians overall wanted dramatically higher tariff rates; Southern politicians did not."

"The handwriting was on the wall for the South," which clearly understood that remaining in the union meant certain tax exploitation for the benefit of the north.

October 16, 2002

Dr. Roberts [send him mail] is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: dixielist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,551-1,572 next last

1 posted on 11/11/2002 1:23:27 PM PST by l8pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: l8pilot
DiLorenzo argues that President Lincoln invaded the secessionist South in order to hold on to the tariff revenues with which to subsidize Northern industry and build an American Empire.

I always thought that war with the secessionist South started because the South seceded.

2 posted on 11/11/2002 1:26:13 PM PST by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner; Constitution Day; 4ConservativeJustices
Dixie ping!!
3 posted on 11/11/2002 1:27:12 PM PST by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
McGuire and Van Cott conclude that the tariff issue was a major factor in North-South tensions. Higher tariffs were "a key plank in the August 1860 Republican party platform. . . . northern politicians overall wanted dramatically higher tariff rates; Southern politicians did not
4 posted on 11/11/2002 1:28:19 PM PST by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: l8pilot
AY TOLD YA SO .......(:^)
5 posted on 11/11/2002 1:29:22 PM PST by Robe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: l8pilot
DiLorenzo's book is the biggest load of Hogwash this side of the Clintons. Talk about using quotes out of context! The guy can never stoop low enough to trash Lincoln. DiLorenzo must have been an editor at Pravda, circa 1932, in a past incarnation.
6 posted on 11/11/2002 1:31:18 PM PST by Seydlitz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
Let me check again. Yep. I was right. The year is 2002.

I knew it was the 21st century. I think it would be nice once everybody finally got the hell out of the 19th!

No mercy.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

7 posted on 11/11/2002 1:31:54 PM PST by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Seydlitz
One question: Have you read it?
8 posted on 11/11/2002 1:32:10 PM PST by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: l8pilot; WhiskyPapa
Incoming! :^)
9 posted on 11/11/2002 1:34:57 PM PST by dasboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
>>>>>I always thought that war with the secessionist South started because the South seceded.

And shot at people, who shot back, and then came a callin' whereupon there was more shootin.

10 posted on 11/11/2002 1:36:34 PM PST by patent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: l8pilot
Evidence Builds for DeLorenzo's Lincoln.

Only if you ignore the writings and speeches of the leaders of the time.

BTW, I don't suppose that McGuire's and Van Cott's research uncovered the fact that one of the first acts of the confederate congress was to impose...are you ready for this... a protectionist tariff? One of the reasons why the lack of a confederate supreme court was so handy. Nobody around to tell you it was unconstitutional.

11 posted on 11/11/2002 1:38:54 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: l8pilot
DiLorenzo merely pulled together the information that was already in print from a variety of primary historical sources. Unlike McPherson, who uses quotes and information from openly biased sources that further his personal agenda, DiLorenzo formed a hypothesis and put forward primary data that bolstered the thesis; much to the chagrin of the Lincoln cannonizers. Now that the Rubicon has been crossed writing the true history of Lincoln we shall see much more truth and find Lincoln in a not so positive light.
12 posted on 11/11/2002 1:40:02 PM PST by vetvetdoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Yes, I've heard it all before from southern supporters of today, but damned little from the southern leaders of the time. You don't suppose it's because tariffs were a very minor issue when compared with slavery, do you?
13 posted on 11/11/2002 1:46:37 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Well considering tariffs had been on the forefront of national discord for over 40 years and the fact that slavery wasn't even broached by the Whig/Republicans seriously until the mid 1850s (got to pick something the people 'care' about to get elected right?), what do you think?

BTW, since this was such a 'serious' concern, exactly how many members did the Abolition Party (percentage wise of entire population) have circa 1860 in the north?

14 posted on 11/11/2002 1:51:13 PM PST by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: vetvetdoug
Now that the Rubicon has been crossed writing the true history of Lincoln we shall see much more truth and find Lincoln in a not so positive light.
Enjoy your circle jerk. You Lincoln haters have been pushing your bile for a long time now, and yet I don't see much of a movement to take him off Mt. Rushmore.
15 posted on 11/11/2002 1:52:00 PM PST by drjimmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: l8pilot
More neo-Confederate goofiness, from a once-great economist. Note that the authors cannot get their "research" in a reputable journal such as Journal of Economic History or American Economic Review, which, believe me, will take ANYTHING that passes muster with the #s.

Yah, tariff revenues were real important. Oh, that slavery stuff, who cared about that? These guys are in denial worse than the Democratic National Committee.

16 posted on 11/11/2002 1:52:53 PM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: l8pilot
I have always been a big fan of Roberts.

I am not sure if he isn't overstating the case here for DiLorenzo.

Certainly economic issues - tariffs especially - played a larger role than is usually credited. North and South were not only defined by greatly different societies, but economies as well. And the impact of tariffs on each was certainly dichotomous.

But did they have a greater impact than slavery in causing the war?

Perhaps the the way to approach the question is this: Ask ourselves if it is possible to imagine the war erupting without either issue. Can we conceived of the election of 1860 - and the consequent secession of eleven states - unfolding as it did without slavery? Or without the tariff issue?

I have difficulty conceiving of the former. I think that the conflict between the two could have been resolved peacefully if the issues involved were merely economic.

Tariffs did not stir the blood like slavery did. John Brown did not massacre Kansas settlers or raid Harpers Ferry over tariffs. Lincoln did not demolish the Little Giant's presidential aspirations - or largely cement his own - over the issue of tariffs in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Sumner did not get his head beat in on the Senate floor over tariffs. The Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraksa Acts were primarily addressed to slavery, not tariffs. Lincoln failed to draw a single vote in five southern states, and while many of them may have been lost over the issue of tariffs, I think one would be hard pressed to argue that most men down there didn't have the slavery issue foremost on their minds when they entered their polling stations.

But perhaps the larger point missed is that the two issues are ultimately intertwined. Slavery was part and parcel of the South's economic system - which by its nature was overwhelmingly agrarian and oriented to large-scale exports of cheaply produced and therefore competitively priced agricultural goods (i.e., cotton) and therefore vulnerable to the consequences of industrial tariffs. Trying to separate the two issues is not so easy as DiLorenzo seems to suggest.

In the end, however, what separation we can achieve point more to slavery. Contemporary accounts point to the passions engendered by chattel slavery; to cite even a tithe is to belabor the point. Without that passion it is very difficult indeed to conceive of the Civil War as we know it.

In the end, however, one suspects larger agendas being advanced in this endless debate over the Civil War's causes. I fail to see why it is necessary to cleanse the Confederacy's moral stature to advance a true understanding of the need to return to a federalism approximating that envisioned by the Founding Fathers - a goal that all of us here share.

17 posted on 11/11/2002 1:53:45 PM PST by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drjimmy
Attending Lincoln Memorial University allowed me to read a lot of information that is not in available print and see many of Lincoln's primary documents. I am not a Lincoln hater, I am just more educated than you.
18 posted on 11/11/2002 2:03:45 PM PST by vetvetdoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: LS
I was always under the impression that Economic Inquiry was a reputable journal. It is certainly not JPE, however.
19 posted on 11/11/2002 2:08:49 PM PST by Lee_Atwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: vetvetdoug
I am just more educated than you.
Yes, you are obviously more educated than we "Lincoln cannonizers" are.
20 posted on 11/11/2002 2:15:48 PM PST by drjimmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: billbears
BTW, since this was such a 'serious' concern, exactly how many members did the Abolition Party (percentage wise of entire population) have circa 1860 in the north?

Beats me, but the North didn't launch a rebellion to end slavery. You should be asking how many southerners saw the election of Lincoln as a threat to their institution of slavery. The answer to that would be just about all of them. That's why they rebelled.

21 posted on 11/11/2002 2:21:57 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: l8pilot

22 posted on 11/11/2002 2:40:10 PM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
Shhhhhh......

You're not supposed to point out that out. Don't mention that the first rounds fired at Ft. Sumter were Confederate either, or that several states seceded even before Lincoln was inaugurated (so how was he able to do all those evil things justifying it if he wasn't even in office, eh?).

23 posted on 11/11/2002 2:47:46 PM PST by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: l8pilot
Slavery may or may not be the main reason the South seceded

But once the South seceded ending slavery was no where near the reason Lincoln invaded the South
It was to preserve the Union

You could argue about violating the Constitution all night long but the pragmatic fact is there probably would have been a war eventually fought over the western lands even if the South was allowed to go its way and we wouldn't have ended up with the nation we have today

At least that is MHO
24 posted on 11/11/2002 2:57:25 PM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: l8pilot
I don't have a large trust of college professors... for all we know, they could be rewriting history like the idiot that tried to change our history of guns.
25 posted on 11/11/2002 2:59:46 PM PST by ruoflaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
I should add that it is ironic that the Souther States in 2002 are the most conservative and patriotic and it is the Northeast that is the most liberal and un patriotic
26 posted on 11/11/2002 3:00:10 PM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
I always thought that war with the secessionist South started because the South seceded.

Hmmmmmmm. Interesting detour.

Actually the war of Northern aggression started because someone in Dixie picked up the phone and called Washington and said “We quit!”

Wait. If someone had not ordered the phone the week before then no one would have been able to call Washington and trigger hostilities.

So there you have it, the definitive conclusion: The telephone installer caused the Civil War.

27 posted on 11/11/2002 3:06:47 PM PST by Publius6961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
new it was the 21st century. I think it would be nice once everybody finally got the hell out of the 19th!

Not as long as there's a buck to be made. Shoot, for one thing, long after your grandkids have grown up there'll still be books in the fiction section with swastikas on them.

28 posted on 11/11/2002 3:53:50 PM PST by yankeedame
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lee_Atwater
Well, EI is not a "puff" journal, but it is not as convincing as if appearing in a more mainstream journal. Had it appeared in such a journal, you would certainly see rebuttal articles quickly---which I don't think you'll get in EI.
29 posted on 11/11/2002 3:56:38 PM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: l8pilot
"The handwriting was on the wall for the South," which clearly understood that remaining in the union meant certain tax exploitation for the benefit of the north."

Good grief, these Lost Cause Myths are like the Energize Bunny --- they just keep going and going.

The slave states made out like bandits on the tariff, which was the primary source of federal revenues in the days before the income tax.

Over 75% of tariff revenue was collected in the North while the south accounted for 50% of federal spending. Northern taxpayers subsidized the south, not the other way around.

Roberts should take some time to look at original sources and not just rely on the propaganda turned out by kooks like DiLorenzo and the LouRockwell fanatics. He could start with Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens.


The Civil War had one and only one cause --- S-L-A-V-E-R-Y

30 posted on 11/11/2002 4:27:33 PM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
All eleven Confederate states published declarations of secession, every word of which was a defense of SLAVERY -- not a word about tariffs or states rights or anything else. See www.republicanbasics.com for a history of the GOP from the Republican point of view.
31 posted on 11/11/2002 5:04:02 PM PST by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: l8pilot
BS bump
32 posted on 11/12/2002 3:35:16 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
Over 75% of tariff revenue was collected in the North while the south accounted for 50% of federal spending. Northern taxpayers subsidized the south, not the other way around.

More Little Aleck:

"The next evil that my friend complained of, was the Tariff. Well, let us look at that for a moment. About the time I commenced noticing public matters, this question was agitating the country almost as fearfully as the Slave question now is. In 1832, when I was in college, South Carolina was ready to nullify or secede from the Union on this account. And what have we seen? The tariff no longer distracts the public councils. Reason has triumphed. The present tariff was voted for by Massachusetts and South Carolina. The lion and the lamb lay down together-- every man in the Senate and House from Massachusetts and South Carolina, I think, voted for it, as did my honorable friend himself. And if it be true, to use the figure of speech of my honorable friend, that every man in the North, that works in iron and brass and wood, has his muscle strengthened by the protection of the government, that stimulant was given by his vote, and I believe every other Southern man. So we ought not to complain of that... Massachusetts, with unanimity, voted with the South to lessen them, and they were made just as low as Southern men asked them to be, and those are the rates they are now at. If reason and argument, with experience, produced such changes in the sentiments of Massachusetts from 1832 to 1857, on the subject of the tariff, may not like changes be effected there by the same means, reason and argument, and appeals to patriotism on the present vexed question?"

The Georgia secession document even mentions "the free trade environment now prevailing" or words to that effect.

The slave power tried to duck out to protect their property in slaves.

But thanks 18Pilot for starting another thread that blasts everything you ever thought you knew about history.

Walt

33 posted on 11/12/2002 3:46:48 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: l8pilot
Don't know much, do you, boy?

"In point of fact, the long-standing Federal sugar import tariff imposed to protect Louisiana sugar growers was extensively debated at the Montgomery Convention and, in spite the highly-touted Confederate devotion to free trade principles, was retained in the Confederacy through out the ACW. Additionally,the Confederacy placed tariffs on exports, including a duty on exported cotton. I repeat here for emphasis --- tariffs on Southern cotton exports were prohibited by the US Constitution. So much for high secessionist principles concerning tariffs! They talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk, as goes the modern formula for hypocrisy.It is humorous to note that the prewar Federal iron import tariff, so despised by Secessionist firebrands, was continued by the Confederacy after some of the realities of fiscal and industrial policy set in. On 16 February 1861 the Provisional Confederate Congress blithely passed a bill providing for free import of railway iron. A month later, however, fiscal realities set in and an ad valorem import tax was imposed on such goods at the rate of 15%--- a rate confirmed in the Confederate Tariff Act of 21 May 1861. For furtherdetails, see Robert C. Black's THE RAILROADS OF THE CONFEDERACY (Chapel Hill,NC: U. of NC Press, 1998)."

-- From the AOL ACW area.

"...these problems , indeed, were so grave and pointed so surely towards final defeat that one is faced to wonder how the founding fathers of the Confederacy could possibly have overlooked them. The answer perhaps is that the problems were not so much unseen as uncomprehended. At bottom they were Yankee problems; concerns of the broker, the money changer, the trader, the mechanic, the grasping man of business; they were matters that such people would think of, not matters that would command the attention of aristocrats who who were familiar with valor, the classics and heroric atttitudes. Secession itself had involved a flight from reality rather than an approach to it....Essentially, this was the reliance of a group that knew little of the modern world but which did not know nearly enough and could never understand that it did not know enough. It ran exactly parallel to Mr. Davis's magnificent statement that the duration of the war could be left up to the enemy--the war would go on until the enemy gave up, and it did not matter how far off that day might be.

The trouble was it did matter. It mattered enormously."

the Coming Fury, p. 438-439

In other words, as Rhett Butler said: "it's going to make a great deal of difference toa great many gentlemen."

Ignorance, as usual, is bliss for the neo-rebs.

Walt

34 posted on 11/12/2002 3:53:32 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: l8pilot

35 posted on 11/12/2002 4:54:24 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *dixie_list; PAR35; condi2008; archy; BurkeCalhounDabney; bluecollarman; RebelDawg; ...
ping to you.
36 posted on 11/12/2002 5:34:09 AM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Hot DAMN! Thanks for this, Stainless!! Dixie Bump!!!
37 posted on 11/12/2002 5:48:19 AM PST by TomServo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: vetvetdoug
DiLorenzo formed a hypothesis and put forward primary data that bolstered the thesis;

LOL. Make that 'manufactured the data' and I'll agree with you. He basically did the same kind of 'research' that the anti-gun nut down at Emory got canned for. Mis-quotes, out-of-context snip of words, leaps of logic, and totally ignoring primary sources that prove his "thesis" to be silly.

38 posted on 11/12/2002 6:00:50 AM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: l8pilot
In The Real Lincoln, DiLorenzo argues that President Lincoln invaded the secessionist South in order to hold on to the tariff revenues with which to subsidize Northern industry and build an American Empire.

There were few people in the mid-18th century America who didn't favor an American empire. But the distorted, fragile slave based economy of the south was not going to be a big help in securing it.

The great bulk of the tariff money was collected in the north.

Here is the inaugural speech of Governor Pickens of South Carolina of 12/18/60. See anything about tariffs?

"Gentlemen of the House of Representatives: --

You have called me to preside as Chief Magistrate of South Carolina at a critical juncture in our public affairs. I deeply feel the responsibilities of the position I am about to assume. For seventy-three years this State has been connected by a Federal compact with co-states under a bond of Union, for great national objects common to all. In recent years there has been a powerful party organized upon principles of ambition and fanaticism, whose undisguised purpose is to divest the Federal Government from external, and turn its power upon the internal interests and domestic institutions of these States. They have thus combined a party exclusively in the Northern States, whose avowed objects, not only endanger the peace, but the very existence of near one-half the States of this Confederacy. And in the recent election for President and Vice-President of these States, they have carried the election upon principles that make it no longer safe for us to rely upon the powers of the Federal Government or the guarantees of the Federal compact. This is the great overt act of the people of in the Northern States at the ballot box, in the exercise of their sovereign power at the polls, from which there is no higher appeal recognized under our system of government in its ordinary and habitual operations. They thus propose to inaugurate a Chief Magistrate at the head of the Army and Navy with vast powers, not to preside over the common interests and destinies of all the States alike, but upon issues of malignant hostility and uncompromising war to be urged upon the rights, the interests and the peace of half the States of this Union.

In the Southern States there are two entirely distinct and separate races, and one has been held in subjection to the other by peaceful inheritance from worthy and patriotic ancestors, and all who know the races, well know that it is the only form of government that can preserve both and administer the blessings of civilization with order and in harmony. Any thing tending to change or weaken this government and the subordination between the races not only endangers the peace, but the very existence of our society itself. We have for years warned the Northern people of the dangers they were producing by their wanton and lawless course. We have often appealed to our sister States of the South to act with us in concert upon some firm and moderate system by which we might be able to save the Federal Constitution, and yet feel safe under the general compact of union; but we could obtain no fair hearing from the North, nor could we see any concerted plan, proposed by any of our co-States of the South, calculated to make us feel safe and secure. Under all these circumstances, we now have no alternative left but to interpose our sovereign power as an independent State, to protect the rights and ancient privileges of the people of South Carolina. This State was one of the original parties to the Federal compact of union. We agreed to it, as a State, under peculiar circumstances; when we were surrounded with great external pressure, for purposes of national protection and to advance the interests and general welfare of all the States equally and Alike; and when it ceased to do this, it is no longer a perpetual union. It would be an absurdity to suppose it was a perpetual union for our ruin. The Constitution is a compact between co-States and not with the Federal Government. On questions vital, and involving the peace and safety of the parties to the compact, from the very nature of the instrument each State must judge of the mode and measure of protection necessary for her peace and the preservation of her local and domestic institutions, South Carolina will therefore decide for herself, and will, as she has a right to do, assume her original powers of government as an Independent State, and as such, will negotiate with other powers, such treaties, leagues or covenants, as she may deem proper.

I think I am not assuming too much when I say that our interests will lead her to open her ports free to the tonnage and trade of all nations, reserving to herself the right to discriminate only against those who may be our public enemies. She has fine harbors, accessible to foreign commerce, and she is in the centre of those extensive agricultural productions, that enter so largely into the foreign trade and commerce of the world; and from the basis of those comforts in food and clothing so essential to the artizans and mechanic laborers in higher latitudes, and which are so essential to the prosperity and success of manufacturing capital in the North and in Europe. I therefore may safely say it is for the benefit of all who may be interested in commerce, in manufactories, and in the comforts of artizans and mechanic labor everywhere, to make such speedy and peaceful arrangements with us as may advance the interests and happiness of all concerned.

There is one thing certain, and I think it due to the country to say so in advance, that South Carolina is resolved to assert her separate independence; and, as she acceded separately to the compact of union, so she will, most assuredly, secede separately and alone, be the consequences what they may. And I think it right to say, with no unkind feelings whatever, that, on this point, there can be no compromise, let it be offered from where it may. The issues are too grave and too momentous to admit of any counsel that looks to anything but direct and straightforward independence. In the present emergency, the firmest and most decided measures are the safest and wisest.

To our sister States, who are identified with us in interest and in feeling, we will cordially and kindly look for co-operation and for a future union, but it must be after we have asserted and resumed our original and inalienable rights and powers of sovereignty and independence. We can then form a government with them, having a common interest with peoples of homogeneous feelings, united together by all the ties that can bind States in one common destiny. From the position we may occupy towards the Northern States, as well as from our own internal structure of society, the government may, from necessity, become strongly military in its organization.

When we look back upon the inheritance that we, as a State, have had in the common glories and triumphant power of this wonderful confederacy, no language can express the feelings of the human heart, as we turn from the contemplation and sternly look to the great future that opens before us. It is our sincere desire to separate from the States of the North in peace, and leave them to develop their own civilization to their own sense of duty and of interest. But if, under the guide of ambition and fanaticism, they decide otherwise, then be it so. We are prepared for any event, and, in humble reliance upon that Providence who presides over the destinies of men and nations, we will endeavor to do our duty faithfully, bravely, and honestly. I am now ready to take the oath of office and swear undivided allegiance to South Carolina."

There's not a word about tariffs there. Tariffs were just not an irritant in the pre-ACW era.

Walt

39 posted on 11/12/2002 6:05:44 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
You don't suppose it's because tariffs were a very minor issue when compared with slavery, do you?

I think people during this era where much more knowledgeable about economic matters than we are today. I read an article a few weeks back (sorry can't provide url) about how ordinary people used to debate the gold standard (when we had one) and I assume they knew about tariffs and their effects. Classical liberal political and economic theory was much much wipespread in those days. IMHO. I think we both suffer and benefit from the effects of a intellectual division of labor; i.e., why should I bother to think for myself, when I can just line up a few experts who confirm my prejudices. Course, one could argue that that has allways been the case. IMHO, real economic understanding among real folks is saddly lacking. Most folks have a dim idea that the markets should being rising and if not the Feds need to do something, etc.

40 posted on 11/12/2002 6:17:40 AM PST by ToryNotion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Governor Pickens sends:

"In recent years there has been a powerful party organized upon principles of ambition and fanaticism, whose undisguised purpose is to divest the Federal Government from external, and turn its power upon the internal interests and domestic institutions of these States."

This as opposed to a powerful party that got the Fugitive Slave Act passed. That was directed internally too. Presumably, Governor Pickens favored the FSA -- even though -it- was the most intrusive piece of federal legislation. In fact, it may still remain the most intrusive, as it required citizens to involuntarily submit to be put on posses to catch slaves. Imagine a federal law that required one to leave one's home and submit to authority with no notice. People would freak out. Now, a conscription law might be a parallel. But it should be noted that the first such law was passed at the behest of those brave proponents of "states' rights."

What a joke.

Walt

41 posted on 11/12/2002 6:21:23 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: l8pilot
Bump for the confederate constitution, a much superior framework.
42 posted on 11/12/2002 7:19:27 AM PST by Tauzero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: l8pilot
btt
43 posted on 11/12/2002 7:33:14 AM PST by Cacique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tauzero
Bump for the confederate constitution, a much superior framework.

What do you like especially about the CSA constitution vice the USA version?

Walt

44 posted on 11/12/2002 7:37:17 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
One will not know where they are going if they don't know where they have been. Face it. The South was right.
45 posted on 11/12/2002 7:40:57 AM PST by CWRWinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: billbears
...exactly how many members did the Abolition Party (percentage wise of entire population) have circa 1860 in the north?

Probably about the same as the Libertarian Party today (sarcasm).

46 posted on 11/12/2002 7:45:34 AM PST by CWRWinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CWRWinger
Face it. The South was right.

In what way?

Walt

47 posted on 11/12/2002 7:54:43 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: CWRWinger
One will not know where they are going if they don't know where they have been. Face it. The South was right.

You've lost your damned mind. Any nation that had slavery incorporated into its founding constitution was in no way correct. The CSA did exactly that. And it is the very definition of hypocrisy to say that a nation would be "free" while having laws that even set the price of slaves in its founding documents! That stain is indelible. That nation would not be free at all. It's like being "a little bit pregnant;" you either are or you are not.

So, please, you got what you wanted but you lost what you had. There's scant sympathy from me.

And, as I said, it's the 21st century. The days of the 19th are long gone. If as much time were spent discussing today's issues as there are being wasted on what happened well over 100 years ago, maybe there'd be some real solutions. The continuous fighting of a war that ended long ago is downright idiotic.

No mercy.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

48 posted on 11/12/2002 7:57:47 AM PST by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana
In the end, however, one suspects larger agendas being advanced in this endless debate over the Civil War's causes. I fail to see why it is necessary to cleanse the Confederacy's moral stature to advance a true understanding of the need to return to a federalism approximating that envisioned by the Founding Fathers - a goal that all of us here share.

Good point.

Walt

49 posted on 11/12/2002 7:59:35 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
The continuous fighting of a war that ended long ago is downright idiotic.

Your frustration is well founded. Someone yesterday said that these endless ACW threads were like the energizer bunny. They just keep going and going. And no matter how much the record of the day is posted, the same old people will try and skew the perception to cleanse the slave power.

"Face it. The South was right."

That is grotesque.

This is all important to the degree that perception of the past affects our actions in the future. I don't think we can afford to yield the ground to the racist neo-rebs.

Also, it betrays the memory of the brave Union soldiers, black and white, north and south, if we let the lies continue.

It always strikes me funny that the neo-rebs pine over the oh-so-honorable Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and the rest, but then will tell the most bold faced lies about what happened before and during the ACW.

Walt

50 posted on 11/12/2002 8:06:45 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,551-1,572 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson