>>Joey from post #439: "based on Confederate "Reasons for Secession" documents, the later revisionist claim is that secession was over something other than the threat to slavery represented by Lincoln's "Black Republicans"."
>>Kalamata wrote: "Lincoln promised in his First Inaugural to protect slavery in the slave states, Joey. Are you insinuating Lincoln was a liar?"
>>Joey wrote: "First, notice Kalamata's denial tactic here. Rather than address the point he is clearly wrong about, he instead goes on the attack against Lincoln."
I have addressed spurious claims of the left-wing, big-government revisionists, many times, Joey.
****************
>>Joey wrote: "Second, Lincoln kept his promises regarding slavery in states loyal to the Union, even if as in Missouri & Kentucky, the Confederacy also claimed them."
You make a good point, Joey. Lincoln was unconcerned about slavery in the slave states, except later as an avenue of revenge against those who were disloyal – disloyal according to Lincoln's definition of disloyalty, which was refusal to submit to crony-capitalistic plunder.
****************
>>Joey wrote: "Third, it's indisputable that the major focus of those first "Reasons for Secession" documents, documents written before Lincoln's inauguration, their focus was slavery, for the simple reason that no other grievance was powerful enough to convince a majority of Southern voters to support disunion."
Possibly. But the reasons for the first secession, in a nutshell, were the tentacles of crony capitalism, only one of which threatened slavery; the most dangerous of which was the Morrill Tariff. The reason for the second secession was Lincoln's declaration of war to protect HIS tariff.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "The most serious threats to secession in pre-Lincoln America, if I recall correctly, were the 1824 tariff by Henry "Slave-Master" Clay, and the 1814-1815 Hartford Convention of New England states that was precipitated by the War of 1812."
>>Joey wrote: "Well... there were many more threats of rebellion, insurrection, secession & treason, including"
I was pointing to the most serious pre-Lincoln threats, Joey.
****************
>>Joey listed a serious of historical events.
Rebellion, Joey, which is localized, and which is not recognized by the state government, is not nullification nor secession. The threats of nullification and secession were powers retained by the states to serve as checks against tyrannical government, such as the tyranny of Lincoln, and that of his hero, Henry Clay.
The 1828 Tariff was merely an "enhancement" of Clay's 1824 British-mercantilistic-style tariff disguised as part of "The American System." The tyranny that created the 1824 tariff was the precipitator that raised alarm bells, as explained by Jefferson in 1825:
"I see, as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power. Take together the decisions of the federal court, the doctrines of the President, and the misconstructions of the constitutional compact acted on by the legislature of the federal branch, and it is but too evident, that the three ruling branches of that department are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic. Under the power to regulate commerce, they assume indefinitely that also over agriculture and manufactures, and call it regulation to take the earnings of one of these branches of industry, and that, too, the most depressed, and put them into the pockets of the other, the most flourishing of all. Under the authority to establish post roads, they claim that of cutting down mountains for the construction of roads, of digging canals, and aided by a little sophistry on the words ''general welfare," a right to do, not only the acts to effect that, which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think, or pretend will be for the general welfare. And what is our resource for the preservation of the Constitution? Reason and argument? You might as well reason and argue with the marble columns encircling them. The representatives chosen by ourselves? They are joined in the combination, some from incorrect views of government, some from corrupt ones, sufficient voting together to outnumber the sound parts; and with majorities only of one, two, or three, bold enough to go forward in defiance." [To William B. Giles, Monticello, December 26, 1825, in Thomas Jefferson, "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson Vol 16." Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903, p.146]
****************
>>Joey wrote: "1828 "Tariff of Abominations" provoked Nullification Crisis and South Carolina to threaten secession. President Andrew Jackson responded by ordering a war-fleet to Charleston Harbor and threatening:"
>>Joey quoting: "...please give my compliments to my friends in your State and say to them, that if a single drop of blood shall be shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.[65]" >>Joey wrote: "South Carolinians backed down and Congress reduced the tariff a little."
According to this scholar, the Jackson administration backed down (that is, it compromised):
"Meanwhile, the House had been struggling with these issues too. The central figure was [John Quincy] Adams, elected to that body after leaving the presidency. It was his misfortune to be selected chairman of the Committee on Manufactures and to be the center of hopes for some amicable compromise. Such a role, of course, seemed out of character for Adams, better known for his rigidity; but his experience and influence were resources that he recruited in an interesting fashion. Soon after the session began in December, he and Clay attended a joint caucus of protectionist legislators to discuss what to do. As the former president sourly noted in his diary, Clay dominated the talk and assumed a "super-presidential" air, unwilling to accommodate other views. To save the American System, according to Adams, Clay vowed he would "defy the South, the President [Jackson,] and the devil.''
"Worried that contention over the tariff posed great danger to the Union and convinced that any alteration of the schedule had to have Democratic support, Adams decided to collaborate with the administration. So in conferences with Secretary of Treasury Louis McLane, he promised concessions by his committee to reduce rates, but to do it gradually so that there would be enough revenue for the president to achieve his goal of retiring the national debt within the year. National Republican candidate Clay naturally had no interest in that kind of pledge to benefit Jackson in the fall elections. Nevertheless, Adams tried to honor the agreement with McLane while maintaining as much protection in a new tariff as possible. He received a massive report from the secretary on the status of manufactures in late April, as well as a plan to cut the average rate from 45 to 27 percent. The House committee then adjusted some provisions upward, as Adams wished, and secured passage of a bill in that chamber."
[Maurice Baxter, "Henry Clay and the American System." University of Kentucky Press, 1995, pp.75-76]
Until recently gaining access to this book, I considered Henry Clay as somewhat of a statesman who helped worked out a compromise (with Calhoun) on the Tariff. But now I am leaning toward Clay being a bastard-child of the British mercantilists, with no fealty to the United States, or to its Constitution; with Lincoln being Clay's bastard-child.
Mr. Kalamata
Kalamata:
"I have addressed spurious claims of the left-wing, big-government revisionists, many times, Joey." Nonsense, you only lied & denied your way through every issue.
That's just your nature, it seems like what you were born & raised to do -- typical Democrat.
Kalamata: "You make a good point, Joey.
Lincoln was unconcerned about slavery in the slave states, except later as an avenue of revenge against those who were disloyal – disloyal according to Lincoln's definition of disloyalty, which was refusal to submit to crony-capitalistic plunder."
Now there's a line of argument which would make your political daddy, Adam Shiff, proud of his boy Danny.
And your mommy, Jerry Nadler, is beaming with joy to see such malarkey from a fellow Democrat.
You learned well from them how to argue.
The truth is that Lincoln opposed slavery from his boyhood on, and like all Unionists from our Founders' time on, Lincoln put preserving the Union before abolition as his highest priorities.
Kalamata: "But the reasons for the first secession, in a nutshell, were the tentacles of crony capitalism, only one of which threatened slavery; the most dangerous of which was the Morrill Tariff. "
In fact, no secessionist ever said anything about "crony capitalism", period -- that is pure Lost Causer fantasy.
Nor did any mention the proposed Morrill Tariff.
Nor did any official "Reasons for Secession" document even mention tariffs in general.
Two secessionists who did mention tariffs, in passing, were Rhett & Stevens, but neither dwelled on the subject with anything remotely resembling their attention to their major focus, which was Black Republican threats to slavery.
Kalamata: "The reason for the second secession was Lincoln's declaration of war to protect HIS tariff."
And still more of your lying father Schiff's logic.
The truth is Jefferson Davis started war at Fort Sumter precisely because that's what he needed to force those Upper South states to declare secession & war against the United States.
The truth about Union tariffs is they produced about $50 million in 1860, only a small percent of which was jeopardized by secession, and all of which paled in comparison to the roughly $5 billion total cost of Civil War.
Kalamata: "I was pointing to the most serious pre-Lincoln threats, Joey."
Danny-child, you always point at only those things you wish to see, never the larger picture.
The larger picture is: there were many threats of rebellion, insurrection, secession, domestic violence & treason, all of which were firmly opposed by presidents of the time.
Kalamata: "Rebellion, Joey, which is localized, and which is not recognized by the state government, is not nullification nor secession.
The threats of nullification and secession were powers retained by the states to serve as checks against tyrannical government, such as the tyranny of Lincoln, and that of his hero, Henry Clay."
Danny-child, you are confused as always because you refuse to look at the whole picture.
In post #526, I listed eight different threats of rebellion, insurrection, secession, nullification & treason.
All were opposed by our Founders and early presidents, none were tolerated as, in Gen. Scott's words, "depart in peace, wayward sisters."
Kalamata: "The 1828 Tariff was merely an "enhancement" of Clay's 1824 British-mercantilistic-style tariff disguised as part of "The American System."
The tyranny that created the 1824 tariff was the precipitator that raised alarm bells, as explained by Jefferson in 1825:"
Complete nonsense, since the original 1792 tariff averaged 15% and was intended to protect American producers, North and South.
By 1810 revenues doubled and the average rate was reduced to 10%, but the War of 1812 -- aka "Mr. Madison's War" -- exposed America's vulnerabilities resulting in protective tariffs averaging 20% in 1820, under President Monroe.
Indeed, after the War of 1812, federal spending and national debt both tripled as a percent of GDP.
During that time President Madison imposed embargoes on New England exports, driving some New Englanders to threaten secession.
All of that was under Southern Democrat presidents Jefferson, Madison & Monroe, and none of which do we have letters from Jefferson complaining about.
Indeed, Jefferson himself signed the first act to build the National Road (today's US 40) through western Maryland.
So what suddenly happened in 1825 to bring out 82-year-old Tom's wrath against Federal government?
Only one thing -- the controversial election of one of those nasty New Englanders, the son of Jefferson's nemesis, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and suddenly Old Tom is afraid, afraid that young John Quincy will do to the Virginians what Jefferson & Madison had done to New England!!
So what actually happened?
Federal tariffs went from 20% under President Monroe to 22% under Adams, Federal spending fell by 1/3 and national debt by 1/2 as a percent of GDP.
None of Old Tom's fears came to pass in his lifetime.
Years later, in 1828 a new political alliance rose up with the idea that if 22% protective tariffs were good, then 30%+ tariffs would be even better.
The original alliance included Southern Whigs like Henry Clay, but also Southern Democrats like Andrew Jackson and even at first, South Carolina's John C. Calhoun, then the Vice President.
They were supported by some mid-Atlantic Northerners, but significantly opposed by New Englanders.
That Tariff of Abominations passed in Adams' last year, went into effect in President Jackson's first year, triggering the Nullification crisis to which Jackson famously replied, threatening war.
Kalamata: "According to this scholar, the Jackson administration backed down (that is, it compromised):"
Sure, but not immediately, and by 1835 overall tariffs were back down to the original levels of 1792.
Kalamata: "Until recently gaining access to this book, I considered Henry Clay as somewhat of a statesman who helped worked out a compromise (with Calhoun) on the Tariff.
But now I am leaning toward Clay being a bastard-child of the British mercantilists, with no fealty to the United States"
Soooooo…. now you've read John Quincy's version of events making Adams the hero and Clay (aka "the Great Compromiser") the goat?
Well, isn't that... ah... "special", Danny-child.
Btw, least we forget: Clay (KY), Jackson (TN) and Calhoun (SC) were all slaveholding Southerners. ![]()