Posted on 10/11/2017 4:58:13 AM PDT by Kaslin
The United States was born when the Founding Fathers seceded from England.
So why do so many people now see secession as a terrible thing?
Recently, people in Catalonia voted to break away from Spain -- not to declare war on Spain or refuse to trade with Spain, just to control their own affairs.
The Spanish government said they must not even vote. They sent police to shut down polling places and beat protestors into staying off the streets.
Governments never want to give up power.
The European Union was offended and American politicians shocked when the United Kingdom voted to exit the EU (Brexit). Pundits declared Britain's move a terrible mistake.
But local governments can be more responsive to the needs of constituents. No government is perfect. But keeping government close to home, keeping it local, makes it easier to keep an eye on it.
The powerful prefer one big central government. Some want the whole world to answer to one government.
President Ulysses S. Grant fantasized about countries becoming "one nation, so that armies and navies are no longer necessary."
President Harry Truman wanted a World Court. Just as American disputes are settled by our Supreme Court, he said, "There is not a difficulty in the whole world that cannot be settled in exactly the same way in a world court."
But central authorities aren't the best way to solve our problems. Competition is.
In the U.S., state governments behave not because their politicians are noble, but because people can "vote with their feet" -- move to other states.
If taxes get too high in New York, you can move Florida.
As California tortures businesses, Californians move to Arizona and Texas.
The more governments from which you can choose, the easier it is to benefit from competition between them.
All Americans, however, must obey rules set by Washington, D.C.
But what if most people in a state reject those rules and demand the right to govern themselves?
There have been several secession movements in California -- a plan to break California up into smaller states, a push to make Northern California a breakaway state called Jefferson, and now the "Yes California" movement that wants to make California a separate country.
Calexit's proponents say Californians shouldn't have to answer to that evil President Trump.
If Calexit ever happened, I suppose conservative parts of the state would vote to separate from the leftists who dominate Sacramento. Maybe we'd end up with three countries where there used to be one.
When I look at how badly Washington, D.C., governs, the idea of secession doesn't scare me.
After the Cold War, Czechoslovakia split into Slovakia and the Czech Republic. "Tensions between Czechs and Slovaks have disappeared," writes Marian Tupy, a Cato Institute analyst born in Czechoslovakia. "Czechs no longer subsidize their poorer cousins in the east, while Slovaks no longer blame their problems on their 'big brother' in the west. Everyone has won."
Secession frightens some Americans because they associate it with slavery. Preserving that despicable practice was one reason southern states wanted to break away.
But obviously, one can favor secession without supporting slavery. Even some abolitionists, anti-slavery activists in the 19th century, supported the right to secede.
More recently, some black neighborhoods on the outskirts of Boston argued for turning the Greater Roxbury area into a new city called Mandela. They say it would be more responsive to locals' needs.
In New York City, Republicans on Staten Island sometimes argue for breaking away from the Democrats who mismanage the rest of New York. During the Obama administration, some Texans wanted a vote on "Texit."
None of those things are likely to happen, but I'm wary of any government that hates the idea of people escaping its influence.
President Trump weighed in on Catalonian independence. He's against it. "I would like to see Spain continue to be united," said the president.
It's easy to love a big central government when you're in charge of one. Also, national governments can inspire proud nationalist sentiments.
But Catalans smarting from police batons probably feel differently.
I say, let people go their own way.
What we should do is sell California back to Mexico! We bought them, so we can sell them. That’ll show the liboturds.
Economics are a wonderful thing, but Gen Beauregard and the others there were excited as they could be to fire that shot.
And the South did not want to stay in because they had the upper hand in Congress and were losing it as more Free states came in.
That is why Lee and others did not want to start shooting, but the fire breathers did. They thought the South could easily beat the North, and that the money would flow to them, to keep up their “peculiar” way of life.
And the ships sailing to Fort Sumter were to resupply Sumter, not start a war. Lincoln did not give them orders to fire.
It started as a trade war. The fed was financed by tariffs of which a very significant percentage, 75%, was collected in southern ports. The fed used the ports to enforce the laws. If the south had any hope of secession they had to control their ports and the collection of tariffs. The north obviously could not afford to permanently lose that revenue.
The north via tariffs engaged in economic oppression of the south. Slavery was just one narrative that both sides manipulated to sway support their way.
You assume.
Mebbe they just didn't like being told how to live in the "land of the free", yankee. d:^|
Read any of the books about the South back then, and every single Reb knew they could whip a dozen Yanks. Every single time there was a parade or an article in the paper, or anything else, Johnny Reb was going to show those Yankees.
That is not true at all. I've read the messages exchanged between Beauregard and Anderson. You may not be aware of this, but Anderson was Beauregard's artillery instructor at West Point, and they both had great respect for each other.
Beauregard had cordial exchanges with Anderson since the crises first began in December of 1860, and Beauregard repeatedly asked Anderson to withdraw from the fort, and offered all consideration to help him do so.
It was when the first two ships of the war fleet was sighted that Beauregard was ordered:
MONTGOMERY, April 10, 1861.General BEAUREGARD, Charleston:
If you have no doubt of the authorized character of the agent who communicated to you the intention of the Washington Government to supply Fort Sumter by force you will at once demand its evacuation, and if this is refused proceed, in such manner as you may determine, to reduce it. Answer.
L. P. WALKER.
Beauregard even went so far as to inform Anderson that if he could but set a date for future withdraw from the Fort, Beauregard would give him whatever time he required.
Anderson had in fact penned a note in which he was going to inform Beauregard that he would soon evacuate the fort. Had Lincoln not sent those ships, the matter would have been resolved peaceably.
It was the arrival of those warships that forced Beauregard's hand.
And the South did not want to stay in because they had the upper hand in Congress and were losing it as more Free states came in.
They did *NOT* have the upper hand in Congress. They were continuously outvoted by the North Eastern Coalition. They could do nothing to protect their interests in congress, and that's why they wanted out.
That is why Lee and others did not want to start shooting, but the fire breathers did.
No one was in a hurry to start shooting, but the South anticipated that it was eventually going to be required.
They thought the South could easily beat the North, and that the money would flow to them, to keep up their “peculiar” way of life.
They didn't think they could "easily" beat the North, they thought the North would never go to the lengths that it did to stop them. They regarded their right to leave as being an accepted premise based on the Declaration of Independence and therefore it would be contrary to the founding principle to stop them.
Also their "peculiar institution" had existed for "four score and seven years" in the Union, and would have continued to exist in the Union had they remained in the Union. It was protected by the US Constitution in Article IV Section 2, and it would have been impossible for the United States to Abolish slavery.
Also Lincoln offered his support in passing the "Corwin Amendment" that would have protected Slavery in the Union even further. My point here is that the "peculiar institution" existed under the Union and would have continued to exist under the Union, so it is intellectually dishonest to paint it as the exclusive property of the Confederacy.
And the ships sailing to Fort Sumter were to resupply Sumter, not start a war. Lincoln did not give them orders to fire.
I've read the orders. The orders say to use force to supply the Fort if their efforts to resupply it were resisted. It was a foregone conclusion that they would be resisted, and this is why Lincoln sent all those warships and support vessels instead of one ship like the "Star of the West" as had been sent previously.
The orders to "fire" were implicit in the words "Use Force."
This is partially incorrect. The South did supply 75% of all the revenue for the Federal Government, but the vast bulk of this money was collected in New York, because the laws of the time had jiggered the import trade to make it flow through New York.
The fed used the ports to enforce the laws.
Yes they did. One of the reasons why the Trade went through New York was because of the Feds enforcing the trade laws at Southern ports meant there was no economic advantage to going to these ports. Charleston was an additional 800 miles further South, and the costs of doing business there were the same as that of New York. No ships were going to trade there because with the tariff's being exactly the same, there was no economic incentive for them to do so. There was a packet shipping industry (also ran from New York) that carried import goods from New York to the other ports in the South.
If the south had any hope of secession they had to control their ports and the collection of tariffs. The north obviously could not afford to permanently lose that revenue.
The loss of revenue to the Fed was one thing, but the loss of all that Southern export trade and the vast bulk of that European import trade would have utterly wrecked the financial interests of the North Eastern power corridor that backed Lincoln for the Presidency. (The same F***ing power corridor that controls Washington DC today. The media is their pet enforcer.)
New York would have lost an immediate 100 million dollars a year in Trade, and the Southern ports would have immediately gained that 100 million dollars in trade. This capitalization would have financed Southern industry that would have directly competed with that in the North.
The north via tariffs engaged in economic oppression of the south. Slavery was just one narrative that both sides manipulated to sway support their way.
This is exactly right. It was an ad hoc justification for the North Eastern robber Barons smashing their economic competition in the South. It was propaganda to cover up the fact that the war was a war over money.
So, if the Federal Government has surrendered the Fort nicely, then there would have been no problem? I guess that is always the solution, give up to the ones threatening so there will be peace.
I like how you seem to know the mind of the Southern leaders, but pamphlets and news articles from that period show a bunch of fire breathers. From caning people in Congress, to other acts of violence, like shooting at the “Star of the West”, which could also be seen as the first shot of the war. Again, from the hand of the South.
As far as Congress, you are either ignorant of the facts, or willfully prevaricating.
The 1860 Congress was the first one that the North controlled, under Republicans. All the rest, 34th, 35th, etc., were controlled by the Democrats, the South particularly. More states were entering the Union free, because that was the right thing to do, and the South would lose its monopoly on power.
Mebbe they just liked having someone to kick around, like the slaves?
It made even the poor whites feel like they were better than someone.
At 1/10 the US population their share would be $2.3T. They could float bonds that covered that on day one.
The Constitution is a pact between the states and the Federal not between the Federal and counties. So your question is moot.
War could have been avoided if Lincoln had met with the South’s peace delegation. He chose to avoid them
Gee 600,000 had to die to decide ownership of a pile of rock and brick in the Cooper River.
> The Constitution is a pact between the states and the Federal not between the Federal and counties. <
I see your point. But my post (#13) wasn’t really about the U.S. Constitution. It could apply to any country, anywhere. The gist of the original post was: If a people vote for independence, why not give it to them?
So my question became: If you accept that premise, where does it stop? For example, should a town be able to secede?
The Fort was constructed for the purpose of defending Charleston Harbor from attack by the British or other Foreign government. When the South became independent, it was no longer the problem of Washington DC to protect Charleston, and so therefore they had no further purpose in being there. The Land belonged to South Carolina before the Union, and it should have reverted back to South Carolina when South Carolina left the Union.
All of Lincoln's cabinet but one told him that the Fort should be evacuated, and all of them recognized that continued occupation of it would cause a war. They told him it would cause a war.
Lincoln's cabinet also informed him that the fort was effectively useless, and if the Confederates allowed him to resupply the fort, it would become an embarrassment in six months when they had men there doing nothing of any value and they had to resupply it again.
I like how you seem to know the mind of the Southern leaders, but pamphlets and news articles from that period show a bunch of fire breathers.
Were they the leaders? I told you about Beauregard because I read the exchanges between him and Anderson and between him and his government, and between Anderson and Washington DC. What loud mouths with no power were saying are of no relevance because they weren't giving anyone orders.
From caning people in Congress,
Charles Sumner deserved it, or did you not read what he said? I suspect you didn't. I would have beaten him bloody myself had he said such a thing to me.
to other acts of violence, like shooting at the “Star of the West”,
Warning shots initially, shots closer to the ship when they didn't seem to heed the warning shots. No serious damage to the ship or crew.
which could also be seen as the first shot of the war.
Incorrect. The First shots of the war were when Union troops fired on Florida Militia who were coming to investigate the noises and lights they were seeing at Fort Pickens in Pensacola. (the Fort had been abandoned for some time, and they noticed activity there) Nobody was hit, but the Union troops shot at them first.
The 1860 Congress was the first one that the North controlled, under Republicans.
That was the year the trouble began in earnest. That was the year they realized they could not protect themselves any longer.
More states were entering the Union free, because that was the right thing to do, and the South would lose its monopoly on power.
They were entering the Union as "free" because of the North Eastern coalition financing a propaganda effort to encourage it, and the North Eastern coalition was financing this effort because it would give them greater power in congress if they could bring more states into their coalition.
Plantation slavery was actually impossible in the western territories, so it was never any threat that there would be any significant amount of slavery in those new states, but if they entered as a "slave" state, they would vote with the Southern coalition, and the North Eastern power block could not allow that to happen.
The debate about expansion of slavery was really a debate about who would control congress. Who controlled congress controlled the power and money of the United States.
It was always about power and control.
And maybe the Corporate Interests of New York like having that 200 million dollars per year filtering through their hands.
Hold up. I want them to pay the costs of Federal policy that were the result of California voting Liberal for all those years. Also, you are only covering the acknowledged debt.
The United States has over 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities as a result of Liberal policies implemented by the Federal Government.
The benefits of CA leaving would far outweigh any financial consideration. Without the 55 EV’s the Dems would have a hard time winning Presidential elections.
The latest and most comprehensive analysis of the casualties put the number at 750,000. This does not include the 2 million people in the South who died as a consequence of the war through starvation, exposure and disease.
Lincoln's war killed nearly 3 million people.
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.