Posted on 06/14/2004 5:16:34 AM PDT by Theodore R.
They Aren’t What They Used to Be
May 27, 2004
If I had to sum up American history in one sentence, I’d put it this way: The United States aren’t what they used to be.
That’s not nostalgia. That’s literal fact. Before the Civil War, the United States was a plural noun. The U.S. Constitution uses the plural form when, for example, it refers to enemies of the United States as “their” enemies. And this was the usage of everyone who understood that the union was a voluntary federation of sovereign states, delegating only a few specified powers, and not the monolithic, “consolidated,” all-powerful government it has since become.
Maybe Americans prefer the present megastate to the one the Constitution describes. But they ought to know the difference. They shouldn’t assume that the plural United States were essentially the same thing as today’s United State, or that the one naturally “evolved” into the other.
The change was violent, not natural. Lincoln waged war on states that tried to withdraw from the Union, denying their right to do so. This was a denial of the Declaration of Independence, which called the 13 former colonies “Free and Independent States.”
Washington and Jefferson at times expressed their fear that some states might secede, but they took for granted that this was the right of any free and independent state. They advised against exercising that right except under serious provocation, but they assumed it was a legitimate option against the threat of a centralized government that exceeded its constitutional powers.
Before the Civil War, several states considered leaving the Union, and abolitionists urged Northern states to do so in order to end their association with slave states. Congressman John Quincy Adams, a former president, wanted Massachusetts to secede if Texas was admitted to the Union. Nobody suggested that Adams didn’t understand the Constitution he was sworn to uphold.
But the danger to the states’ independence was already growing. Andrew Jackson had threatened to invade South Carolina if it seceded, shocking even so ardent a Unionist as Daniel Webster. Jackson didn’t explain where he got the power to prevent secession, a power not assigned to the president in the Constitution. Why not? For the simple reason that the Constitution doesn’t forbid secession; it presupposes that the United States are, each of them, free and independent.
Still, Lincoln used Jackson’s threat as a precedent for equating secession with “rebellion” and using force to crush it. This required him to do violence to the Constitution in several ways. He destroyed the freedoms of speech and press in the North; he arbitrarily arrested thousands, including elected officials who opposed him; he not only invaded the seceding states, but deposed their governments and imposed military dictatorships in their place.
In essence, Lincoln made it a crime — “treason,” in fact — to agree with Jefferson. Northerners who held that free and independent states had the right to leave the Union — and who therefore thought Lincoln’s war was wrong — became, in Lincoln’s mind, the enemy within. In order to win the war, and reelection, he had to shut them up. But his reign of terror in the North has received little attention.
He may have “saved the Union,” after a fashion, but the Union he saved was radically different from the one described in the Constitution. Even his defenders admit that when they praise him for creating “a new Constitution” and forging “a second American Revolution.” Lincoln would have been embarrassed by these compliments: He always insisted he was only enforcing and conserving the Constitution as it was written, though the U.S. Supreme Court, including his own appointees, later ruled many of his acts unconstitutional.
The Civil War completely changed the basic relation between the states, including the Northern states, and the Federal Government. For all practical purposes, the states ceased to be free and independent.
Sentimental myths about Lincoln and the war still obscure the nature of the fundamental rupture they brought to American history. The old federal Union was transformed into the kind of “consolidated” system the Constitution was meant to avoid. The former plurality of states became a single unit. Even our grammar reflects the change.
So the United States were no longer a “they”; they’d become an “it.” Few Americans realize the immense cost in blood, liberty, and even logic that lies behind this simple change of pronouns.
Joseph Sobran
Get rid of all the regional governments, nongovernmental organizations taking money from the government, and the internationalists who've been elected to office and you will get your rights back without seceeding, I guarantee it.
Repeal a few really foul Executive Orders, like the EO on Environmental justice, and suddenly the sweet freedom of owning property without threat of lawsuit will be returned to Americans.
Deport the illegals, close the borders and assimilate the immigrants here so that they are educated in the history of the United States and are taught to value individual rights and freedoms. Unify our people, don't "diversify" them.
There is a list of things that can be done, its just that America has to stand up and do it.
ROTFLM*O! Chase would be impartial?????????????????? The best and brightest attorneys money could buy attempted to craft the case against President Davis (elected TWICE btw) and failed.
The IRS would have a cow if any state left the union now. All the tax money for social programs would suffer. Wonder how the Mexicans intend to put it past the government when they take over California, New Mexico and Arizona?
Nonsense, on several levels. First, the case could have been made, would have been made, and a conviction would have been obtained. Second, Davis was appointed once and then won an 'election' unopposed. I understand the election was a real nail-biter.
Nonsense, on several levels. First, some of the brightest minds attempting to craft a case against Davis knew that this would bring the constitutionality of secession before a jury, and a not-guilty verdict would condemn Lincoln and Chase. They all abandoned their efforts. Amazing that Chase would support ex post facto punishment for Davis et al, him being the Chief Justice.
Second, Davis was appointed once and then won an 'election' unopposed. I understand the election was a real nail-biter.
Secondly, despite your tagline, Jefferson Davis was elected by ballot in both cases. On Saturday 9 Feb 1861 the provisional Confederate Congress elected Jefferson Davis President, following a vote by states (same method used to elect Washington et al - 4 states had voted for Davis the 1st ballot):
"The vote being taken by States for President, the Hon. Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi, received all the votes cast, being 6, and was duly declared unanimously elected President of the Provisional Government."
Regarding the popular election, Davis didn't resort to putting the military at the polling booths to guarantee his election like Lincoln.
Bump 4 bookmark
Hi, Pea. Cross dressing alter-ego again?
You have been given that exact information by GOPCapitalist, nolu chan, Pearidge, stainlessbanner, and 4conservativejustices on several threads as long ago as three years.
Bullshit. I've been given opinions. But hey, prove me wrong. Show that the south paid 3/4ths of all tariffs. For the benefit of the lurkers.
The New Orleans Daily Crescent expressed the view that the main reason the North didn't want the South to secede was economic in nature:
They [the Northern states] know that the South is the main prop and support of the Federal system. They know that it is Southern productions that constitute the surplus wealth of the nation, and enables us to import so largely from foreign countries. They know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. . . . They know that the BULK OF THE DUTIES is paid by the Southern people . . . and that, by the iniquitous operation of the Federal Government, these duties are mainly expended among the Northern people. They know that they can plunder and pillage the South, as long as they are in the same Union with us, by other means, such as fishing bounties, navigation laws, robberies of the public lands, and every other possible mode of injustice and peculation. . . .
These are the reasons these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto [i.e., by the Morrill Tariff]. (New Orleans Daily Crescent, January 21, 1861, from Stampp, The Causes of the Civil War, p. 75)
Yeah, but I don't know that so how about some facts and figures? What was the dollar amount paid by the south? What exactly did they import so much of that caused them to pay all those tariffs? Come on, surely you can do better than a newspaper editorial?
At the moment, I have no access to primary materials to answer your question. I recall having read over the years that the South paid 2/3 to 3/4 of tariff receipts. This editorial, copied in Kenneth Stampp's history, said simply BULK of the DUTIES, which would seem like a supermajority of some kind. Obviously, I don't have statistics at my fingertips, and I welcome anyone who can refute the 2/3 to 3/4 figure that I cited.
Like who?
Amazing that Chase would support ex post facto punishment for Davis et al, him being the Chief Justice.
All puishment is ex post fact if you stop and think about it. And what was the Chief Justice to do? Declare a Constitutional amendment unconstitutional?
Secondly, despite your tagline, Jefferson Davis was elected by ballot in both cases.
Unopposed in both instances. In fact, if memory serves, Davis never once won an election where he had an opponent so I guess it was a good thing for him that he had nobody to run against.
Regarding the popular election, Davis didn't resort to putting the military at the polling booths to guarantee his election like Lincoln.
No, just ran against nobody. Had Lincoln done that he could have freed up all those troops </Sarcasm>
Yeah, over the years I've seen all you southron types parrot those percentages as if they came from a burning bush. But when pressed for details, all of a sudden you don't have access to primary materials. So how about a guess? What do you suppose the south imported so much of that they paid 75% of all tariff revenue? Hmm? What demand did they have that consumed such a disproportionate amount of all imports? Surely you can hazard a guess on that, can't you?
"The New Orleans Daily Crescent expressed..."
That's like the NYTimes and WashPost expressing an opinion on tax cuts and defense spending.
I find it amusing that the editorial staff talked of the North getting fatted off of the South when the South was fattening off the labor of black slaves.
Oh, but the Southern cause was so noble and about fighting the "tyranny' of the North. The irony is heavy.
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1168
This article argues that tariffs were the primary reason for the breakup of the states. The South was subsidizing the North economically though it had less than half the population of the North.
"The issue had been going on for decades, with the South taking concillatory positions on tariffs, yankee protectionism and other issues."
No what was going on for years was the threatening of secession if a duely elected Republican was elected. The South whined and threatend, election after election...and when The United States elected Lincoln the Southerners didn't like representative government. They made plan to secede right after the election.
In affect, it was the Southerners who brought a tyranny to the Union...and you should be thanking your lucky Johny Reb stars that the South lost. Otherwise, the Europeans would have come in and tore a Balkanized North America apart.
It should be no surprise that you source you use is an organization dedicated to libertarian political thought and economics...
Makes sense to me that they would have an article stating that the reason for the CW was economic.
The truth be told that is partly true but there were many reasons for the Civil War...it's just not quite as simple as one reason.
Professor DiLorenzo did not say that there was one reason for the Civil War. He said that the economic divisions have not been given the attention properly due.
Ok, well holy yikes, we can agree on something.
I'll see if I can read the article later tonight or Friday when I get back from Gettysburg. I live in Maryland and my brothers and I go there every spring/summer.
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.