Posted on 05/29/2011 2:46:36 PM PDT by BigReb555
I see you don't understand tariffs. See Our very own rustbucket's post #261 here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2710184/posts?q=1&;page=251
“That is the system that the southern plutocrats wanted to extend to the territories, and to enforce on the unwilling northern states. Not states rights, but slavery for all to further the demands of the rich”
I’ve read that analysis before in a copy I have of the ‘American Civil War’ by Marx and Engels.
Wasn’t impressed by it the first time coming from the two original marxists.
What does any of this have to do with the federal government?
Of course the old Presbyterian divine Robert Lewis Dabney appears to disagree with you.
http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Virginia-South-R-Dabney/dp/0873779290
The actions that Southern slave holders did; splitting families, breeding for eugenic effects on their slaves, sexual slavery, etc., put them beyond the pale. Any defense of that would be whistling past the graveyard and changing the facts to suit the situation. I will get a copy of the book and see what he has to say, but I have already heard or read most of the major theological arguments for Southern Slavery and they all skip right past the sins that I mentioned.
Slavery was protected under the United States Constitution.
A more honest statement would be - " Southern States chose secession because Lincoln and his war party violated the terms of the Constitution."
"Fellow citizens, I presume you all know who I am-I am humble Abraham Lincoln. I have been solicited by many friends to become a candidate for the legislature. My policies are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a National Bank, I am in favor of the Internal improvement system, and a high protective tariff. These are my sentiments and political principles. If elected I shall be thankful; and if not, it will be all the same." Abe Lincoln
The only obamanomic policy Lincoln didn't publicly endorse was card check. I'll look harder.. I know it's there. :)
Here is this tidbit on Lincoln economics:
"Lincoln promoted the National Bank Acts of 1863 and 1864. Here is a description of this system. It is provided by a specialist organization, Tax Analysts.
Federal taxes were also instrumental in instituting a system of national banking during the war. The National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864 imposed a system of "free banking" -- banks established by general incorporation as opposed to specific charters -- on a national level. State banks were granted national charters and allowed to issue national bank notes (these notes were separate from Greenbacks). One third of a national bank's capital had to consist of federal bonds, since the new national notes were to be backed by federal bonds. The National Banking Acts thus served as another means to induce bankers to purchase bonds. In an attempt to avoid increased regulation, however, many state banks declined to seek national charters. To remedy this problem, the 1864 act imposed a 10 percent tax on state bank notes to drive them out of existence. As a result of this tax, the number of national banks tripled by the war's end, while their purchase of U.S. bonds nearly quadrupled."
http://www.garynorth.com/public/6875print.cfm
Ah, you like crony capitalism when it supports slavery, your favorite institution.
The south wanted to have that institution in every state, with individual states having no power to refuse it, and to use the federal government to enforce and support their favorite institution using federal marshals.
No, that isn’t a recipe for corruption. No way at all that could go wrong...
So if I replace the word 'slavery' with 'gummy bears' you and your idiot buddies will claim that the war was about gummy bears, right?
Simpleton.......
I figure having children place flowers in the train tracks for Jeff Davis was a form of child abuse. All the rest of the child’s life they would have to live with that shame.
by “local custom” you mean raping the servants?
Do you really wish to debate "local custom"..?
We could start with the murder of 'suspected' witches - and end with today's "local custom" of same sex marriages. But then, I'd be talking about your "local custom" .....
Your last post would be the cyber equivalent of double canister at 50 yards...
Dem tactics don't work with me.
The south wanted to have that institution in every state, with individual states having no power to refuse it, and to use the federal government to enforce and support their favorite institution using federal marshals.
Which institution supported by the federal government are your referencing? Banks? Shipping? Manufacturing?
So, why did they talk extensively about slavery if it wasn't about slavery?
When Obama was appointed president, many, including myself, called for State secession. If "I" was the one writing the article of secession for my State, it would center around clear violations of the Constitution. This article of secession would center around firearms; however, firearms would only be the symptom, not the disease. The overriding concern that would cause our secession would be an overreaching federal government, and a clear understanding that some populations are better kept apart rather than residing in the union together.
Getting back to your, "it's all about slavery" propaganda. Southern States were very vocal about being mistreated by their co-States. You must remember that the Constitution is an agreement between sovereign entities. It was meant to be mutually beneficial.
Furthermore, the vast majority of Confederate forces didn't join the fray until they were forced into defending the concept that many Americans died for. You should be aware of this because it derives from the Declaration of Independence . . . "consent of the governed."
Governor John Willis Ellis to Abraham Lincoln:
Your dispatch is received, and if genuine, which it's extraordinary character leads me to doubt, I have to say in reply, that I regard the levy of troops made by the administration for the purpose of subjugating the states of the South, as a violation of the Constitution, and as a gross usurpation of power. I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country and to this war upon liberties of a free people. You can get No troops from North Carolina."
Robert Toombs's speech made it clear that there was something much bigger than slavery at issue:
They demanded a monopoly of the coasting trade, in order to get higher freights than they could get in open competition with the carriers of the world. Congress gave it to them, and they yet hold this monopoly. And now, to-day, if a foreign vessel in Savannah offer[sl to take your rice, cotton, grain or lumber to New-York, or any other American port, for nothing, your laws prohibit it, in order that Northern ship-owners may get enhanced prices for doing your carrying. This same shipping interest, with cormorant rapacity, have steadily burrowed their way through your legislative halls, until they have saddled the agricultural classes with a large portion of the legitimate expenses of their own business. We pay a million of dollars per annum for the lights which guide them into and out of your ports. We built and kept up, at the cost of at least another million a year, hospitals for their sick and disabled seamen when they wear them out and cast them ashore. We pay half a million per annum to support and bring home those they cast away in foreign lands. They demand, and have received, millions of the public money to increase the safety of harbors, and lessen the danger of navigating our rivers. All of which expenses legitimately fall upon their business, and should come out of their own pockets, instead of a common treasury.
Even the fishermen of Massachusetts and New England demand and receive from the public treasury about half a million of dollars per annum as a pure bounty on their business of catching codfish. The North, at the very first Congress, demanded and received bounties under the name of protection, for every trade, craft, and calling which they pursue, and there is not an artisan in brass, or iron, or wood, or weaver, or spinner in wool or cotton, or a calicomaker, or iron-master, or a coal-owner, in all of the Northern or Middle States, who has not received what he calls the protection of his government on his industry to the extent of from fifteen to two hundred per cent from the year 1791 to this day. They will not strike a blow, or stretch a muscle, without bounties from the government. No wonder they cry aloud for the glorious Union; they have the same reason for praising it, that craftsmen of Ephesus had for shouting, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians," whom all Asia and the world worshipped. By it they got their wealth; by it they levy tribute on honest labor. It is true that this policy has been largely sustained by the South; it is true that the present tariff was sustained by an almost unanimous vote of the South; but it was a reduction - a reduction necessary from the plethora of the revenue; but the policy of the North soon made it inadequate to meet the public expenditure, by an enormous and profligate increase of the public expenditure; and at the last session of Congress they brought in and passed through the House the most atrocious tariff bill that ever was enacted, raising the present duties from twenty to two hundred and fifty per cent above the existing rates of duty. That bill now lies on the table of the Senate. It was a master stroke of abolition policy; it united cupidity to fanaticism, and thereby made a combination which has swept the country. There were thousands of protectionists in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New-York, and in New-England, who were not abolitionists. There were thousands of abolitionists who were free traders. The mongers brought them together upon a mutual surrender of their principles. The free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists. The result of this coalition was the infamous Morrill bill - the robber and the incendiary struck hands, and united in joint raid against the South.
Thus stands the account between the North and the South. Under its ordinary and most favorable action, bounties and protection to every interest and every pursuit in the North, to the extent of at least fifty millions per annum, besides the expenditure of at least sixty millions out of every seventy of the public expenditure among them, thus making the treasury a perpetual fertilizing stream to them and their industry, and a suction-pump to drain away our substance and parch up our lands.
It's not "propaganda" if it was the central theme of the declarations of secession, which it was.
You must remember that the Constitution is an agreement between sovereign entities. It was meant to be mutually beneficial.
Unfortunately, and I completely agree that states should be allowed to secede for constitutional reasons, the wording in the Preamble to the Constitution and the wording of the Preamble to the Articles of Confederation make that a tricky argument.
The Articles formed as a "perpetual union" and the Constitution spoke of a "better and more perfect union." From a constitutional viewpoint, it seems that it is necessary to make an argument that temporary is "better and more perfect" than perpetual, this is something that none of the southern states addressed.
I believe that there are certainly arguments that can be made and they very well may need to be made in the future, but until they are made I think the validity of secession is problematic.
Do you really think the Constitution would have been ratified by the 13 states if it had contained an article forbidding secession? Conversely, what impact on ratification would there have been if it contained an article allowing unilateral secession? My answer to the second question would be this; the USC would have been ratified even with a unilateral secession article.
Probably not, but the Articles of Confederation WERE. (Granted there was nothing in the Articles to actually compel participation by any state, but the Confederation was formed as a perpetual union.)
Conversely, what impact on ratification would there have been if it contained an article allowing unilateral secession? My answer to the second question would be this; the USC would have been ratified even with a unilateral secession article.
I agree, but it WASN'T.
As I've stated already, I believe that the right to secession DOES EXIST, but it needs to be addressed properly and I don't believe that any of the declarations of secession did.
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.