DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "I see you still think there was no good reason for secession.
I'm not sure if you realized, but ever since our country was founded, the federal government had been slowly overreaching its bounds, and usurping more power to itself.
This goes way back."
In fact, there was not only "no good reason", there was no reason, period -- zero, zip, nada.
The truth is that, from the beginning of the Republic, it had been under the effective control of the Southern Slave-Power, through its domination of the national Democrat party.
To list just a few of the results:
Bottom line: every "overstep" you allege was instituted by, and for the benefit of the Southern Slave Power.
So what actually happened in 1860 was the Slave-Power's loss of absolute control over Federal Government, a loss which anticipated federal antipathy to Slave-Power interests, and that, that alone, was the "reason" for the Deep South's declarations of secession.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "And in the election of a candidate from a new party that was sectional (an unheard of thing before) and represented the interests of only one half of the country was the last straw."
First of all, in 1796 and again in 1824, both Adams became president without carrying a single Southern state.
Second, Presidents Jefferson (1800), Madison (1808), Jackson (1828) and Buchanan (1856) were all elected with Solid South support and virtually none in New England.
Third, the election of 1860 was totally engineered by Slave-Power & fire-eaters, when they first united Northerners in opposition to the Supreme Courts' Dred-Scott decision, then split their majority Democrat party in half, thus guaranteeing that victory must go to the minority Republicans.
In short, the Slave Power had only itself to blame for Republican victory in 1860, and indeed, it was exactly what the Southern Fire-Eaters had hoped for to unite Southerners for secession.
But there was certainly nothing unconstitutional about the 1860 election, nothing about the election itself to justify declarations of secession, "at pleasure".
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "He was a big government guy.
He had campaigned on many big government issues.
He campaigned on tariffs in Pennsylvania, promising to raise them, which made the North happy and the South upset.
After all, the tariffs simply benefitted one half of the country at the expense of the other.
The South was already paying more than half of all taxes despite her smaller population and more than half of that tax money was being spent on improvements up North."
Like most Republicans, and even some Democrats, Lincoln favored higher tariffs to protect Northern manufacturers from foreign competition.
But your claim that "the South" paid "more than half of all taxes" is totally bogus to the max.
It was impossible, because first, the Deep-South secession states made up only 10% of total US white population, and could not have paid significantly more than 10% of all taxes.
Second, Upper South and Border States were split in their support or opposition to higher tariffs.
For example, manufacturers in Tennessee were OK with higher tariffs, and should not be counted in your "over half" figure.
So the actual number must be in the 10% to 20% of all taxes paid by anti-tariff Southerners.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Lincoln also supported creating a National Bank, another big government move, an idea big-government-lover Hamilton had always loved.
He passed the National Banking act in 1863."
In fact, the First Banks of the US, chartered by our Founders, were used to control inflation and when abolished in in 1811 and again in 1836, inflation ran wild.
Republicans, like Whigs before them, favored reestablishing a central bank, and when they became the majority in Congress, did so.
That was certainly not a case of "growing big government", but of simply reestablishing our Founders' original intent.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "He was also a supporter of taxing individuals on their income and property and etc, and one of the first things he did as president was to pass the first income tax bill.
This law demanded that taxes be "levied, collected, and paid, upon the annual income of every person residing in the United States..."
In fact, our Founders first proposed a temporary war-time income tax during the War of 1812, but that war ended before Congress acted.
During the Civil War, a temporary war-time income tax was again proposed in Congress, and this time passed, repealed in 1872.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Based on what they knew of the things that he supported (and which he later made into law), don't you think that they had good reason to leave?
Here was this guy who supported enlarging the role of government beyond the delegated powers in the Constitution and he comes from this new party which represented only one section of the country."
In fact, nothing in the 1860 Republican platform was new, "unconstitutional" or justification for declarations of secession.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Also, in case you didn't know, Lincoln was the first to declare war.
He declared it on April 27 1861."
Total pure pro-Confederate bogus propaganda.
In fact, neither Lincoln, nor (more important) Congress ever "declared war" on the Southern Rebellion, for the simple reason that in those days, it was not considered appropriate to do so.
Indeed, in August 1775, when Britain's King George declared war on the American rebels, that was unusual -- countries typically did not formally declare war on rebellions, and neither did the US Federal Government in 1861.
Of course, when Lincoln got up in the morning, the Secessionist press proclaimed, "Lincoln declares war", and when Lincoln ate his breakfast, the Secessionist media decried, "Lincoln declared war", and when Lincoln took his morning dump, the Secessionist press again hollered: "Lincoln declares war".
But it was all rubbish and nonsense, in fact there was no such declaration, period.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "...war exists between the Confederate States and the government of the United States and the states and territories thereof..."
This language precisely corresponds to Franklin Roosevelt's "Day of Infamy" speech on December 8, 1941:
So the specific language of such declarations is immaterial.
Regardless, it was a formal declaration of war.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The Confederate government, seeing that the North didn't want peace and rather had declared war on them with the object being their subjugation, they were left with no choice but to fight back.
But notice they were not eager for the war.
They waited over two weeks after getting Lincoln's declaration of war before they put out their own."
First, it's a fantasy to claim a "declaration of war" from Lincoln, there was none.
Second, the Confederacy was already fully engaged in war against the United States, long before their formal declaration on May 6, 1851.
For one example: on April 23, Davis sent military aid to Confederates fighting in the Union state of Missouri.
Third, Lincoln believed (as do I) that those Confederate "negotiators" should have negotiated with Congress to secure votes authorizing their secession and property claims.
Absent some instruction from Congress, Lincoln had no peacetime powers to deal with such emissaries.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Virginia wasn't waiting for an excuse.
They and the other border states had not intention of seceding.
They wanted to remain neutral.
It was only when Lincoln demanded that they supply troops to fight their brothers that anyone even considered secession."
Yes, in early 1861 secessionists were not the majority in Virginia -- or North Carolina, Tennessee & Arkansas.
To become the majority, to convince weak Unionists to change sides, secessionists needed some excuse -- any dramatic excuse -- that could be used to claim "oppression" and flip votes.
Jefferson Davis gave them that excuse, when he assaulted Federal troops in Fort Sumter.
Lincoln's response -- calling for troops to retake the fort -- was certainly not a "declaration of war", but it certainly did provide secessionists with the excuse they wanted to declare & launch full-scale war against the United States.
And it doubled the Confederacy's size & white population.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "...the South adopted the Wilmot proviso outlawing slavery in the territories."
No, the Wilmot Proviso was never adopted, period, slavery was never outlawed in the territories.
Indeed, that was a Republican platform issue in 1860.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Also, the South was a minority in the congress.
They were a far cry from controlling it.
And your claim that all federal usurpation were relay the fault of the South is ludicrous.
Got any proof for that?"
The only serious Federal "usurpations" which ever happened were 1) the 1850 Compromise causing the Federal Government to enforce Fugitive Slave Laws in the North, regardless of their own state laws.
Combined with 2) the Supreme Court's 1857 Dred-Scott decision, effectively making slavery lawful in every state, those solidified Northern anti-slavery sentiments.
Yes, it's true that Southern Democrat power in Congress was slowly, slowly slipping away, but it was still considerable, especially given their decades-long alliance with Northern "Dough-Faced" Democrats.
In 1860 they were still strong enough to block, for example, the proposed Morrill Tariff.
But when Slave-Power Fire-Eaters split their majority party in half, in 1860, they became a very small minority, exercising little power or influence in Washington.
And whose fault was that?
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "It wasn't out of any love for the slaves, rather, for most free-soilers it was because they wanted the territories reserved for "free white labor"."
Of course, in the same way that most Americans today oppose illegal immigrants over-running our country, Northerners in 1860 did not want the South's slaves overrunning their states.
So what exactly is your problem with that?
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Have to laugh about the idea that the Fort Sumter attack was done with the aim of getting Virginia into the Confederacy.
If that was the real reason for it as you say, then it failed. Virginia didn't join after fort Sumter.
They didn't join until Lincoln demanded that they supply troops."
Following the April 14, 1861 surrender of Union troops at Fort Sumter, Lincoln's April 15 request for troops was the inevitable result.
Virginia then switched its vote from Union to secession on April 17.
So, in ordering that assault, Jefferson Davis instantly doubled the size of his Confederacy, but also started a war the Confederacy could not ultimately win.
Those are the facts.
Well, I hope you are aware that even in the North, the majority of people were NOT abolitionists. The majority in the North actually cared little about blacks. Abolitionists were always a minority. Even at the time of Lincoln it as so. When he passed his Emancipation proclamation (which I had outlined before didn’t actually free anybody), people in the North (both civilians and soldiers in the Union army) were upset, calling it “wicked”, “atrocious,” and “impudent.”
The 3/5 compromise was thought up by two Northerners at the time of the Constitution Convention. And it didn’t just give a little extra representation (the North was still the majority in Congress) it also counted towards taxation.
I don’t know where you get the idea that the South ever controlled the Congress. It was always ever equally balanced or with the North in a majority. The reason both sides like the idea of states coming in in pairs (one northern one southern) was both were eager that the other didn’t get the balance in favor too much of their side. However, the North eventually (in the compromise of 1850) had all the territories declared slave free, so there would be no more “southern” states to be added, only Northern ones, thus maintaining that in the future the balance of power would never be equal again.
About the Supreme Court. Yes, it did have a Southern majority in 1857. It had 5 southerners and 4 Northerners. But you said the Dred Scott decision went 7-2, so some of your Northerners voted for it as well. Also, if control of the Supreme court was some big plot by the South, then why were three of the Northerners on the Court at the time appointed by Southern Presidents, and two of the Southern Judges appointed by Northern Presidents?
Your claim that the South had absolute control of the Federal government is a laugh. Neither side ever had absolute control. It was always a balance that more often than not tipped in the side of the North. That is why the South was always stuck paying a heavier share of the tax burden.
First of all, in 1796 and again in 1824, both Adams became president without carrying a single Southern state. Second, Presidents Jefferson (1800), Madison (1808), Jackson (1828) and Buchanan (1856) were all elected with Solid South support and virtually none in New England
In the election of Adams, the Northern state of Pennsylvania went to Jefferson and the Southern state of Maryland went to Adams. You also forget that the Federalist party, while having more supporters up north, was still a national party, which is why Adams did get some votes (though not near enough) from Virginia and North Carolina. Still, Adams turned out to be a dreadfully unpopular president because of his big government policies and served only one term. In the Jefferson Election, both Pennsylvania and New York went to Jefferson. In his next election his was so popular he carried the entire country with the exception of Delaware and Connecticut. Madison in his election carried New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Pennsylvania and Ohio. J. Q. Adams, you are right won very sectionally with the support of only New England. The rest of the North as wells as the South three their lot in with three different candidates. Adams only served one term. Jackson won the entire country including 5 northern states, but did not win New England. In his second term however he carried a couple new England states. Buchanan had the support of the entire country including four northern states and California (which always sided with the North) with the exception of new England. But just as the South expanded westward with the addition of states like Louisiana and Texas, so did the North. New England does not equal the whole North in these later elections. The fact that Buchanan, who was a Northerner btw, carried some of the Northern States shows that the Democrat party was a national party concerned with national interests, not sectional and concerned only with the interests of one section over the others.
You point out that the election of the republican party was not unconstitutional. Of course it wasn’t. But it doesn’t mean it wasn’t cause for alarm. If in today’s world you saw a member of a radical party (say a communist) elected president with the support of only a few liberal states, wouldn’t you be alarmed? Well I suppose you wouldn’t. We have too much of that nowadays that it seems almost passé. But believe me, in those days, it was a big deal. I have told you how liberal Lincoln was and it was commonly known at the time. That is why when he became president he raised tariffs, instituted income tax and property tax, put into law the National Banking act which allowed the Government too much control over the currency and inflation (we see the problems of that today). He also supported public school system with the purpose being not so much to promote the three R’s as to ensure that the Government could control what was taught in the schools. I think it is quite obvious that the South had good reason to secede, knowing that Lincoln supported all these things. If you still think that trying to preserve the idea of limited government against big government schemes such as those supported by Lincoln was “seceding at pleasure,” then you apparently will never understand the importance of defending the rights of the people and the states against federal encroachment. So you doubt the amount of taxes paid by the South? Read up:
In 1828, Senator Thomas Benton declared that:
“Before the Revolution [the South] was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality….Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in the regions north of the Potomac: and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred million dollars; and the North has exported comparatively northing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact?...Under Federal legislation, the exports of the south have been the basis of the Federal revenue….Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths, of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government: and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction—it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North. Federal legislation does all this.”
President Buchanan (a Northerner) agreed and noted in a message to Congress that “The South has not had her share of money from the treasury, and unjust discrimination has been made against her….”
When asked why the North should not let the South go, Lincoln’s reply was “Let the South go? Let the South go! Where then shall we get our revenues!”
Patrick Henry had anticipated some of this when he spoke out against the proposed Constitution: “But I am sure that the dangers of this system [he Federal Constitution] are real, when those who have no similar interests with the people of this country [the South] are to legislate for us—when our dearest rights are to be left, in the hands of those, whose advantage it will be to infringe them.”
When the South seceded, The New York Times complained about the loss of revenue because the seceded states could no longer be forced to collect the “national” tariff. The Manchester had this to say:
“The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing. The transportation of cotton and its fabrics employs more ships than all other trade. It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No—we MUST NOT ‘let the South go.’”
The New York Evening Post bemoaned the loss of tax dollars in an article titled “What shall be done for a Revenue?”
“That either revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad,…If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe….”
Actually, the only founders who supported the national bank were big government folks like Hamilton (who was an admitted monarchist). The problem with the National Bank is it gives the Federal government too much control over the printing of money and thus the economy.
The difference is that when Lincoln passed the income tax law, he had no intentions of it being temporary.
He did not issue a formal proclamation of war, but he called out the troops, with the purpose of waging war. Same result.
If the South was really looking for an excuse to wage full-scale war, then why did they delay so long in issuing a declaration of war?
As I pointed out before, the FSL were only an extension of the full faith and credit idea put forth in the constitution. And that was the ONLY thing the South gained in the 1850 compromise. The North gained everything else. You could also say it was unconstitutional for them to make all the territories slavery free rather than letting the population of those territories to decide for themselves.