Posted on 08/05/2010 6:01:30 AM PDT by Michael Zak
[by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine, CA), re-published with his permission]
For years I have admired Congressman Ron Paul’s principled stance on spending and the Constitution. That said, he really damaged himself when he blamed President Lincoln for the Civil War, saying, “Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war… [President Abraham Lincoln] did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic.”
This is historical revisionism of the worst order, and it must be addressed.
For Congressman Paul’s benefit – and for his supporters who may not know – seven states illegally declared their “independence” from the United States before Lincoln was sworn in as President. After South Carolina fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, four additional states declared independence...
(Excerpt) Read more at grandoldpartisan.typepad.com ...
Considering that Jefferson did not feel the New England states' beef concerning excise taxes during his Presidency qualifies as a reason to secede I doubt he would have thought either of these issues to rise to that level.
And on that you would be incorrect. Jefferson's letter to William Branch Giles, from which that quote came, was in reference to a resolution he was seeking to present to the Virginia legislature that would nullify John Quincy Adams' proposed tariff and navigation subsidy bills. He did so in language that was almost identical to the Kentucky Resolution of 1798 against the Alien and Sedition Acts, and went so far as to use the terms "null and void." Madison (who by that point of his life had come to support protectionism) convinced Jefferson to hold off until Congress passed the bills into law, but that didn't happen until after he died. The next year Governor Giles resurrected Jefferson's resolutions against the tariff and the Virginia legislature passed them, much to Madison's chagrin.
Unfortunately his work on black history is not much better. The majority of the state constitutions Barton lists in your excerpt did not specifically "protect voting rights for blacks" but rather were simply silent on the subject of race. In practice, five states that permitted some degree of suffrage for free property owning black males at the time of independence: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and North Carolina. Two explicitly prohibited it as of 1776 - Georgia and South Carolina.
Over the first three decades of independence, the trend was markedly toward a restriction of black voting rights though. Maryland, which pseudo-historian Barton includes on his list, passed a "clarification" statute barring blacks from voting in 1783 and incorporated this into a new state constitution in 1802. New York reversed itself and restricted black voting rights in 1811. Most of the newly admitted states also explicitly prohibited blacks from voting, the only exceptions being Vermont and Maine. Several of the midwestern states - e.g. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa - even had statutes and constitutional clauses that effectively made it difficult or outright illegal for blacks to even live within their borders.
The cumulative result at the time of the Civil War was that almost all states, North and South, prohibited blacks from voting. Those that did allow it had virtually negligible black populations. Massachusetts, the most consistent practitioner of black suffrage before the Civil War, had only 9,000 blacks total in a population of 1.2 million as of 1860. Maine had only 1,000 blacks out of 600,000 residents. In short, out of America's 609,508 free blacks at the outbreak of the civil war, it is doubtful that even 5% of them had the right to vote.
In the opinion of this General Assembly, the principles here asserted, and the reasoning contained in the said report, apply with full force against the powers assumed by Congress, in the act imposing additional duties on foreign articles, for the promotion of American manufactures, and the acts directing surveys of routes for roads and canals, preparatory to a general system of internal improvement:1. Be it therefore Resolved, That the imposition of taxes and duties, by the Congress of the United States, for the purpose of protecting and encouraging domestic manufactures, is an unconstitutional exercise of power, and is highly oppressive and partial in its operation.
2. Resolved, That the Congress of the United States does not possess the power, under the Constitution, to adopt a general system of internal improvement in the States, as a national measure.
3. Resolved, That the appropriation of money by the Congress of the United States, to construct roads and canals in the States is a violation of the Constitution.
Resolution of the Virginia General Assembly, adopted March 6, 1827 at the behest of Giles, who wrote them in accordance with what he had been told by Jefferson before his death.
The General Assembly of Virginia, actuated, as it always has been, by the most sincere disposition for the preservation of the Union of these States — believing that the Union can only be preserved, by keeping the General and State Governments within their respective spheres of action, as marked out by the Constitution of the United States — being also sincerely desirous that the General Government should be protected in the full and free exercise of all the specified powers granted to it by the Constitution of the United States — and being, at the same time, deeply impressed with a sense of its own duty, to preserve, unimpaired, all the rights of the People and Government of this State, conferred upon it by the Constitution of the State, and of the United States — find itself reluctlantly constrained to enter its most solemn protest against the usurpations of the General Government as described in the report of its committee — Therefore,1. Resolved, That this General Assembly, in behalf of the People and Government of this State, does, hereby, most solemnly protest against the claim or exercise of any power whatever, on the part of the General Government, to make internal improvements within the limits and jurisdiction of the several States, and particularly within the limits of the State of Virginia; — and also, against the claim or exercise of any power whatever, asserting or involving a jurisdiction over any part of the territory within the limits of this State, except over the objects and in the mode specified in the Constitution of the United States.
2. Resolved, in like manner, that this General Assembly does hereby, most solemnly protest against any claim or exercise of power, whatever, on the part of the General Government, which serves to draw money from the inhabitants of this State, into the Treasury of the United States, and to disburse it for any object whatever, except for carrying into effect the grants of power to the General Government, contained in the Constitution of the United States.
3. Resolved, in like manner, that this General Assembly does most solemnly protest against the claim or exercise of any power, whatever, on the part of the General Government, to protect domestic manufactures, the protection of manufactures not being amongst the grants of power to that Government, specified in the Constitution of the United States; — and also, against the operations of the act of Congress, passed May 22d, 1824, entitled, "An act to amend the several acts imposing duties on imports," generally called the tariff law, which vary the distribution of the proceeds of the labor of the community, in such a manner, as to transfer property from one portion of the United States to another and to take private property from the owner for the benefit of another person, not rendering public service; — as unconstitutional, unwise, unjust, unequal and oppressive.
[os]: What, the Ohio River was closed down? Moreover, the North dominated rail transport, so moving goods to “the interior” was no real problem.
From the Chicago Tribune of February 25, 1861:
The Two Outlets to the Ocean.
Since the Secession of the State of Louisiana fears have been freely expressed by both Eastern and Western journals that the commerce of the great valley of the Mississippi would be nearly destroyed should the mouth of that river remain in the possession of a foreign power. Without the least subtracting from the importance, in a commercial point of view, of that noble river to the great North-west, we cannot but observe that within the past ten years, a mighty change has taken place in the current of Western trade, and that the value of the Mississippi as an outlet to the ocean for the produce raised in the west has been unnecessarily magnified. Up to the year 1852, the Mississippi was the only outlet to the ocean for the greater portion of the grain, pork, and beef of Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio; but since then the river has been tapped at nearly a dozen points by railroads, and the trade drawn into the great [sic] Lakes and thence to the ocean by the Erie Canal and the St. Lawrence River. The following table, however, will illustrate our position most conclusively:
FLOUR AND GRAIN RECEIVED AT LAKE PORTS IN 1860
[rb: my numbers are rounded to the nearest million bushels as best I can read them]
Chicago ... 36.5
Milwaukee ... 11.0
St. Joseph ... 0.0
Waukegan ... 0.2
Kenosha ...0.3
Racine ... 0.9
Port Washington ... 0.1
Sheboygan ... 0.2
Maniowoe(?) ... 0.1
Green Bay ... 0.3
Toledo ... 14.5
Detroit ... 6.8
Cleveland, Sandusky, and other ports ... 12.0
Total ... 82.9
GRAIN AND FLOUR EXPORTED AT NEW ORLEANS IN 1859-60
Flour, 364,811(?) bbls, equal to 1.9 million bushels
Corn ... 1.3
Wheat ... 0.0
Total ... 3.3
Here's a link that gives a figure of 30 million bushels of grain exported by Chicago and some large number of bushels of grain for individual Great Lakes ships in earlier years: [Link].
And, of course, as I've pointed out to you before, well before the firing on Fort Sumter the Confederate government passed a law providing for free navigation to and from the North via the Mississippi except for wharf fees and other minor navigation charges.
The Ohio River didn't allow access to foreign markets.
The situs of the collections had nothing to do with who paid the taxes. The purchaser of the goods paid the taxes, not the citizens of the collection point.
If the overwhelming majority of the purchasers of the goods were in the South as you claim then why didn't those goods go to Charleston or New Orleans instead of New York and Boston?
There is a good essay by historian Michael Scruggs about tariffs (”Understanding the Causes of the Uncivil War”), and especially the horrendous Morrill Tariff that lop-sidedly favored the interests of Northern manufacturers at the expense of Southern agricultural interests. The Morrill Tariff (named after of the New England industrialist who championed the tax) was proposed by, supported by, and passed in the House of Representatives by the North (which dominated the House of Representatives), as only one Southerner voted for it. The Southern members of the House recognized the Morrill Tariff for what it was: An economic death sentence on the Southern states.
If that was the reason for the Southern rebellion then why did they secede months before the tariff was passed?
I quote from Professor Scruggs’ essay: “U. S. tariff revenues already fell disproportionately on the South, accounting for 87% of the total.
Again, nonsense. Thomas F. Huertes did a study of Southern imports in the year prior to the rebellion in a paper he did for the "Journal of Economic History" analyzing how successful a confederate tariff would have been. For the year 1860 he identified $37 million in total foreign imports. That amount would represent a small fraction of total U.S. imports.
And which they could just as freely cut off at a whim, as the governor of Mississippi proved for a short period. What was to stop him from doing so again? Or Richmond, for that matter?
But if cutting off the Mississippi was no threat because of the low level of exports passing down it, why was Sumter a threat to the confederacy? After all it didn't cut off traffic into and out of Charleston. And if it did, a comparatively small percentage of confederate imports and exports passed through it. Why the justification for war?
Cut off? Your hyperbole is getting the better of you. For a few days Mississippi inspected boats passing one point on the Mississippi River to see whether they were carrying troops or armament, then let the boats go on their way. Probably a wise move given how the North tried to send 200 armed troops into Charleston harbor a couple of days earlier. Mississippi stopped doing inspections after a few days. You used to incorrectly characterize the brief boat inspections as a blockade that cut off river traffic for months.
No one "cut off" the Mississippi until Lincoln succeeded in instigating war by sending a battle fleet to Charleston. In March 1861 Lincoln had tried, but failed, to instigate a shooting war by sending secret instructions to the Federal commander in Pensacola harbor to break a negotiated truce at Fort Pickens without telling the Confederates. Fortunately, the Federal commander in Pensacola harbor recognized the instructions to reinforce Pickens meant war and refused to do it, so Lincoln's war had to wait until April at Charleston.
But if cutting off the Mississippi was no threat because of the low level of exports passing down it, why was Sumter a threat to the confederacy?
Why was Sumter a threat to South Carolina? Sumter was an armed fort occupied by foreign troops within Confederate territory. Newspapers had been saying, correctly I might add, that those within the Lincoln administration advocating a course that would lead to war had gained the upper hand, and, if so, the fort was definitely a threat. And newspapers had alerted the South that a battle fleet was coming. The Lincoln administration lied about their plans to evacuate Sumter. "Gross perfidy" the Confederate commissioners in D.C. called it. But, wait. Lincoln said his battle fleet, inadequate for the task as it was, would only force their way into Sumter if the South tried to stop them. Who could trust Lincoln after his personal messenger Lamon and Seward had said the fort would be evacuated. Lincoln was doing his best to provoke war.
In contrast, Mississippi simply inspected boats for a few days to be sure they weren't carrying troops or canon that might harm Mississippi. River traffic was not "cut off."
Yet another of those southern myths that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Here's The Annual report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the state of the finances for 1860. It shows all the expenditures of the federal government for the previous year. I defy you to identify the "vast majority" of expenditures going to benefit the north.
Not really. For a short period the governor of Mississippi took it upon himself to blockade the river to Northern traffic, going so far as to fire on steamers. What was to stop him from deciding to do it again?
No one "cut off" the Mississippi until Lincoln succeeded in instigating war by sending a battle fleet to Charleston.
You mean when Davis used Sumter as an excuse to start his war, don't you?
Sumter was an armed fort occupied by foreign troops within Confederate territory.
Sumter was no more a threat to the confederacy than Guantanamo Bay is to Cuba.
I'm a student of history, and I am not aware of any tariff inflicted on 'the South' punitive or otherwise. Please elaborate.
Not really. The West Virginia statehood process followed exactly the constitutional process outlined in Article IV, Section 3. They did not declare unilateral secession as the Confederate states had done.
What grade level does ya want it explained in?
grammar skool?
middel scool?
or HY sckool?
Y’all
If you just want to be a smart ass, go right ahead. But I asked a serious question. What tariffis were imposed on ‘the South’ that were not imposed on the rest of the nation?
Let’s start with the Tariff of 1828 designed to force the south to buy industrial goods from the North instead of from England or Europe.
Mind you it placed a burden directly on the south and because the south did not free the slaves so that they could be counted as whole citizens (3/5), the south could not stop in congress such a Tariff from being applied because they lacked the political power to stop it.
Every True Southerner has been taught this lesson in sckool, however neo confederates ignore this because it doesn’t fit into the template they are using these days.
It wasn't 'aimed' at the South. It was a protective tariff designed to allow fledgling American industry to survive. You can argue with the merits of high tariffs or even protective tariffs in general, but a majority thought back then it better to allow American industry to grow than to always be dependent on Europe, and especially Great Britain (still roundly feared and despised at the time) for manufactured goods.
It had zero to do with the 3/5 compromise or slavery and many in the South actually favored it.
It was a protective tariff designed to allow fledgling American industry to survive.
Dubious. That type of tariff was already in place, adopted in 1816. The Tariff of 1828 was the second successive tax hike, and a substantial one at that. The only other time in American history that a rate (other than the income tax) reached that level was the notorious Smoot-Hawley Act that more or less added the term "Great" to the Depression of 1929. I'd also add that the fact some people think its "a good idea" is no excuse for a very bad economic policy. On the same note, quite a few people thought the Obama stimulus bill was "a good idea." That doesn't make it so, and it doesn't do squat to ameliorate the trillion dollar debt anchor that law has placed on the American economy.
It had zero to do with the 3/5 compromise or slavery and many in the South actually favored it.
Again, dubious. That's about like claiming that "many in South Carolina actually favor income tax hikes" today and pointing to James Clyburn as your evidence. There is always somebody who dissents, even in the reddest of red states. But even as James Clyburn wins in his district, he's at odds with the vast majority of his state and would never stand a chance if he ran at that level.
The truth of the matter is the south was a hotbed of anti-tariff agitation for most of the 1820's and 30's. It didn't start in 1828 either. It started shortly after Congress attempted to hike the tariff rates in 1820. Between 1824 and 1827, South Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia all adopted resolutions denouncing the EXISTING tariff rates as unconstitutionally high. Virginia even did it twice - the first one in 1826 was crafted at the direct behest of Thomas Jefferson (and signed by future president John Tyler), and the second one in 1827 as a final instruction that the recently deceased Jefferson had given to Gov. William Branch Giles.
When Congress hiked the rates again in 1828, the proverbial sh*t hit the fan. South Carolina came out swinging with the most famous denunciation, but it was not the only one. In all the following states adopted resolutions of some form denouncing protective tariffs:
Virginia (1826, 1827, 1829), South Carolina (1824, 1825, 1828, 1832), Georgia (1827, 1828), North Carolina (1828), Alabama (1828), and Mississippi (1829). Almost all of the pro-tariff counter-resolutions came from the north with the exception of Kentucky, which was home of Henry Clay and had long been a protectionist hotbed.
You said: “The Ohio River didn’t allow access to foreign markets.”
Foreign goods were transported via the Ohio River, the Great Lakes, Northern railroads, etc.
You said: “If the overwhelming majority of the purchasers of the goods were in the South as you claim then why didn’t those goods go to Charleston or New Orleans instead of New York and Boston?”
New York and Boston were closer for ships coming from Europe, and allowed them a quicker turnaround time for bringing goods back to the continent. The quicker the turnaround, the more profits the shipping companies could make. Besides, most of the major importers were in the North, especially New York (hence, many deliveries were made to Northern ports), and they were just middlemen or agents in the transaction. The actual consumer or purchaser of the goods “paid the freight.”
You said: “If that was the reason for the Southern rebellion then why did they secede months before the tariff was passed?”
First, the Morrill Tariff was drafted in 1860, and the Southern members of Congress did not have the votes to stop it. Thus, it was a given that the tariff would become law. It actually became law on March 2, 1861. Seven of the thirteen states or territories seceded AFTER the Morrill Tariff became law (Texas, March 2, 1861; Arizona Territories, March 23, 1861; Arkansas, May 6, 1861; North Carolina, May 20, 1861; Virginia, May 23, 1861; Tennessee, June 8, 1861; Missouri, October 31, 1861 — though the secession was not applicable to the entire state). And, five of those states seceded AFTER Lincoln called for the muster of 75,000 troops for the specific purpose of invading the South.
Wrong. The power to create new states could be exercised only by Congress, with the consent of the affected state legislatures. Neither applied in the case of West Virginia’s “secession” from Virginia.
So you're saying it was cheaper to bring the goods to New York, unload them, pay the tariffs, load them again, and ship them to their customers in the south? All so they could rapidly load goods for export and high-tail it back to Europe? What export goods might those be?
First, the Morrill Tariff was drafted in 1860, and the Southern members of Congress did not have the votes to stop it.
But they did stop it in the Senate in 1860. And could have stopped it again in 1861. And if they knew that they couldn't continue to stop it then why didn't they rebel then? Why wait since the primary cause of the rebellion was there in front of them?
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.