Man Born in 1846 Talks About the 1860s and Fighting in the Civil War

I said: “The Southern states’ economy was agriculturally based, with its major crops being cotton, tobacco, sugar, and rice. Its biggest trading partner was Europe. The Southern states exported their crops to Europe, and in return imported manufactured goods (especially from England).”

You said: “Totally false — first of all, there was lots of manufacturing in Southern states...”

Agriculture was the economic engine of the South. And the economic engine — regardless what it is (oil; tourism; fish; it doesn’t matter) — is the base of all other industries in that region. Yet, are you saying that is false?

I said: “The federal treasury got 90% of its revenues from tariffs. Since the Northern states imported very little, the tariffs fell almost exclusively on the Southern states.”

You said: “You have it backwards — ~93% of Federal tariff revenues were collected in Northern, not Southern, ports.”

Again, you employ misdirection. I said the federal treasury got 90% of its revenue from tariffs, and that those tariffs fell on the Southern states. You do a sleight-of-hand and say 93% of the tariff revenues were COLLECTED in Northern ports, not Southern ports. So what? WHERE the duties were collected is immaterial. What IS material is who PAYS them. And Southern interests paid most of them.

You said: “And ~90% of Southern ‘imports’ came from ‘the North’.”

No, they didn’t come FROM the North, they came THROUGH the North. The North didn’t import anything to the Southern states, because one does not import something within one’s own country.

But, you inadvertently admitted I was right: If ~90% of Southern imports came through the North (and it really makes no difference where they came through, as the duties or tariffs would have to be paid anyway), then necessarily those taxes were paid by...the Southern purchasers! So what if the tax was paid at the Port of New York or the Port of New Orleans: It all ended up in the federal coffers. And raising the tariff rate would significantly affect the purchasers. Because most tariffs are protectionist in nature (and the Morrill Tariff certainly was), the goal is to force the prospective buyers to purchase goods from a domestic source. The problem with that, as far as the South in 1860, was that the European exporters would either raise the tariffs on what THEY imported (cotton, rice, tobacco, etc.), or they would simply go elsewhere for their imported goods (which they did: Egypt for cotton). Either way, the South would get screwed.

Your assertion that “originalist” just refers to those physically present at the Constitutional Convention is laughable.

That wasn't my assertion. My point was that Hamilton clearly had some insight into what the Founders' original intention was, perhaps more than Jefferson, who relied as much on his own beliefs and desires as on anything else.

Did you miss the qualifier, “In a modern context?” That means in modern times, NOT in the 18th century (and why did you limit it to just the 18th century, when I put no such restriction on the term? Hamiltonian federalists didn’t die out in 1799).

I said 18th century, because the Federalists didn't last very long into the 19th. I saw that "in a modern context." It's meaningless mumbo jumbo. In a modern context what would George III or Napoleon think or do? Apparently whatever you want to believe they would do. Roe v. Wade would have been incomprehensible to Hamilton. To say that he would have approved is to speak nonsense.

Actually, Madison OPPOSED a national bank, and only signed onto one in 1816 in order to pay off the debt of the War of 1812.

That means that in practice he did support and favor a National Bank when the circumstances demanded it for the country or for his party. Interesting perspective here.

“I said 18th century, because the Federalists didn’t last very long into the 19th.”

Again, you and some other guy keep referring to the Federalist PARTY, when I have on several occasions specifically said the federalist PHILOSOPHY, not the Federalist PARTY.

The federalist philosophy is pro-big government, rule by an elite, and “malleable” or “living” constitution open to new and creative interpretations to meet the issues of the day. Exactly what today’s Democrat Party subscribes to.

“But it was all pure nonsense because when Jeffersonians came to power they did all they’d accused Federalists of, and much more, including the Louisiana Purchase and an undeclared Barbary War.”

Yeah, let’s talk about the Louisiana Purchase. I am assuming you are of the school that holds that Jefferson had no authority under the Constitution do make that deal. If I am mistaken, then disregard the following.

Jefferson himself struggled with that but came to accept that he DID have the constitutional authority to make the purchase...via a Land Treaty. In those days it was common to acquire territory through what is known as a Land Treaty. Initially, Jefferson only wanted New Orleans. But, when Talleyrand proposed selling the enormous piece of land that matched in size the entirety of the existing United States, and all for the bargain price of $15 million (or about 3 cents an acre), Jefferson jumped at it. Hell, he probably would have been impeached if he had not grabbed that deal! And, as was the norm with treaties, consent of the Senate was required. Well, Jefferson had that, and the Senate approved the treaty by a vote of 24-7. And the rest, as they say, is history.

“So Federalist and anti-Federalist in 1788 had nothing to do with North vs. South.”

Yeah, it did. But not as much as it later became. A good example is John Calhoun of South Carolina, who, in 1811, was a nationalist, a federalist. Ironically, at that same time New England was more in the anti-federalist camp! But Calhoun in less than twenty years had made a complete one-eighty and became a staunch anti-federalist; whereas, New England flipped the other way, from anti-federalist to federalist. And, in 1820 with the Missouri Compromise the division of the country into sectionalism was codified at 36 degrees 30 minutes north, with federalists primarily north of that line and anti-federalists south of it. Again, as I have specified numerous times in the past, I am talking about political PHILOSOPHIES, not political PARTIES.

“Also, you seem to forget that the alternative to ratifying the new Constitution was the old Articles of Confederation. That was the other option, had ratification failed in 1788. To vote ‘no’ on the Constitution was to vote ‘yes’ for the old Articles of Confederation, period.”

I didn’t forget that at all. In fact, I specifically addressed that in an earlier post (i.e., that for a brief period of time there were TWO new nations: One under the Articles, and one under the Constitution).

Remember, under the Articles of Confederation the state governments were given powers above the national government, not “expressly delegated to the United States.”

The Articles created a decentralized and limited national government, with the states retaining superior power.

The congressional delegates reached a consensus on the Articles of Confederation wording when state sovereignty was guaranteed, and the Articles of Confederation were approved in late 1777. They were then sent to the states for ratification. There were some holdouts – such as Maryland – which would not ratify the Articles unless certain land claims were resolved. Finally, with Maryland’s ratification of the Articles in early 1781 Congress officially adopted the Articles as the formal charter of the new country.

Pay close attention to the above: A consensus on the Articles was only reached when state sovereignty was guaranteed.

It soon developed that the national government created by the Articles was unable to function as anticipated, as – see above — the Articles had established a largely decentralized government, with the states retaining most of the power. In effect, the national government created under the Articles was a eunuch.

Thus, in May, 1787 a Constitutional Convention was called to either amend the Articles to remedy that deficiency, and make the national government functional, or draw up a new charter. The Convention chose the latter. The intent of the new charter (or, constitution) was to delegate to the national government enough powers to function efficiently, but no more. In other words, the new Constitution would afford the national government more power than the Articles had provided, but that power would be limited. Of prime importance was that the new Constitution would protect the rights of the people and the states.

The new Constitution was presented to the thirteen states for ratification. For the new Constitution to be formally adopted, nine of the thirteen would have to ratify it (unlike the Articles of Confederation, which had required ratification by all thirteen). The first to ratify was Delaware, in December 1787; the ninth was New Hampshire, in June, 1788.

And, on March 4, 1789 the Constitution officially replaced the Articles of Confederation as the charter for the United States.

However, during the ratification process (1787 – 1788) the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution was debated, as there was suspicion among many – specifically those referred to as anti-federalists – that the new Constitution provided the national government with two much wiggle room to wreak mischief on the rights of the people and of the states. Remember, prior to the US Constitution there were individual state constitutions, which specifically addressed the respective rights of the states and the people. Virginia and North Carolina, for example — both heavily anti-federalist – insisted, along with others — that a Bill or Rights or some other protection for the rights of the people and the states be included. However, when the states that had reservations were assured that a Bill of Rights would be included as amendments to the Constitution, they agreed to ratification. Virginia then ratified a week after New Hampshire, and New York (also an anti-federalist state, in contrast with its “native son” Alexander Hamilton) ratified a few weeks later. North Carolina ratified in November, 1789 and Rhode Island in May, 1790.

The Bill of Rights was made part of the Constitution in December, 1791.

Only if they fired first.

The orders did not say that. They said "if resisted."

What constitutes resistance? Could all those chains across the harbor approach and all the ship traps constitute "resistance"?

What constitutes "resistance" is subject to interpretation, but i'm pretty sure that the confederates would have fired at them had they tried to land anything on Sumter.

The point is, those orders boil down to an order to initiate an armed conflict with the confederates.

x to ought-six: "I said 18th century, because the Federalists didn’t last very long into the 19th.”

ougt-six: Again, you and some other guy keep referring to the Federalist PARTY, when I have on several occasions specifically said the federalist PHILOSOPHY, not the Federalist PARTY.
The federalist philosophy is pro-big government, rule by an elite, and “malleable” or “living” constitution open to new and creative interpretations to meet the issues of the day.
Exactly what today’s Democrat Party subscribes to."

Your so-called "Federalists philosophy" is strictly a concoction of Jeffersonian propaganda extended into future centuries.
In fact, no Federalist ever conceived of or advocated for the kind of bloated monstrosity of government we have today.
Today, every 18th century Federalist would be considered an "extreme MAGA paleo-proto-throwback-Neanderthal Conservative".
The fact is that the key Federalist proposals which Jeffersonians so railed against -- 1) Infrastructure spending, 2) National Bank and 3) Protective tariffs -- all were eventually supported by Jeffersonian "Democratics" once they themselves were in political power, after the 1800 elections.
Plus, Jeffersonians added new Federal powers not contemplated by our Founders, including the Louisiana Purchase and an undeclared Barbary War.

As for alleged Federalist "ruling elites", Jeffersonians did expand the franchise to eventually all white men, "free white and 21".
But in the process, they eliminated the franchise for property owning women and freed-blacks.
So, all they really did was replace one group of "elites" with their own elites.
The fact that Jeffersonian elites were elected by masses of poor whites makes them no less elite than others elected by a more diverse electorate of property owners.

So, as with everything else from the mouths of Democrats, a "monarchial Federalist philosophy" is 99+44/100s percent propaganda.

ought-six: "Yeah, let’s talk about the Louisiana Purchase.
I am assuming you are of the school that holds that Jefferson had no authority under the Constitution do make that deal.
If I am mistaken, then disregard the following."

No, I am of the school that holds that "strict constructionist" Jefferson would have opposed the Louisiana Purchase, on Constitutional grounds, if President Adams proposed it.
And we know that for certain because Jefferson's erstwhile ally in strict construction, Tertium Quid Virginian John Randolp, the Old Republican, he did just that, in alliance with many Federalists, on Constitutional grounds.
Randolph's constitutional objections were only defeated by two votes -- 59-57,

Further, the excuse that you made for Jefferson -- the Federal treaty-making authority -- is not the one Jefferson himself made.
Jefferson himself only made the argument that Louisiana Purchase was one h*ll of a good idea and good deal.
Jefferson said nothing about its constitutionality.

Jefferson's Secretary of Treasury, Albert Gallatin, is the one who used the Federal government's treaty making authority to justify the Louisiana Purchase.
And doubtless, today such arguments would be accepted immediately, but it worthy of note that at the time no true Strict Constructionist, such as Old Republican John Randolph, were buying it.

My point in all this is: like all Democrats since, Jefferson was a total fraud and hypocrite regarding "strict construction" against Federalists.
"Strict Construction" for Jefferson was simply a weapon to be used against Federalists, just as today Democrats still weaponize "strict construction" whenever they can, against Republicans -- not because Democrats believe a word of it, but because they know Republicans do believe and care about Founders' original intent.

ought-six: "A good example is John Calhoun of South Carolina, who, in 1811, was a nationalist, a federalist.
Ironically, at that same time New England was more in the anti-federalist camp!
But Calhoun in less than twenty years had made a complete one-eighty and became a staunch anti-federalist; whereas, New England flipped the other way, from anti-federalist to federalist."

Nooooo... Calhoun was never a Federalist.
Calhoun was first elected to Congress in 1810 as a Jeffersonian Democratic-Repulbican, as had been his fellow Southerners, Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay.
All three were then strong nationalists, war hawks and favored protective tariffs.
But in time, Clay carried his views with him to the new Whig party, while Jackson maintained some of his previous beliefs (i.e., nationalism, protective tariffs) in his new Democrat party, and Calhoun flipped sides to support lower tariffs and "states rights".

ought-six: "And, in 1820 with the Missouri Compromise the division of the country into sectionalism was codified at 36 degrees 30 minutes north, with federalists primarily north of that line and anti-federalists south of it.
Again, as I have specified numerous times in the past, I am talking about political PHILOSOPHIES, not political PARTIES."

And again, what you're calling "philosophies" I'm saying is nothing more than Democrat propaganda against their opponents, be they Federalists, Whigs or Republicans.
What you call "Federalist philosophies" mischaracterizes the beliefs & actions of actual Federalists and understates the partisan political nature of such Democrat criticisms.

As for "North vs. South", I've already posted the presidential election map, by county, for 1840.
So here's the presidential election map, by county, for 1848.
Notice there's still no North vs South division:

That's all I have time for for now... more later.

Sorry, I intended to ping you on post #167 above. :-(

“Your so-called ‘Federalists philosophy’ is strictly a concoction of Jeffersonian propaganda extended into future centuries.”

Yeah? How so?

Federalists subscribed to a strong national government, and believed that the Constitution was flexible and malleable, and subject to wide and creative interpretation; and that there were unmentioned rights and powers belonging to the government, and that the government thus had the right to adopt additional powers as it saw fit. Federalists believed that the states were subordinate to the national government.

Anti-federalists believed that the national government had only those rights and powers that were specifically delegated to it under the constitution. Anti-federalists believed that the states were NOT subordinate to the national government, but equal to it, with each having their own respective rights and powers. Thus, there exists under the Constitution what is recognized as dual sovereignty: BOTH the national government AND the states are sovereign, each in its own right, and each subject to the limits placed on each by the Constitution.

Anti-federalists held that the only superiority the national government has is identified in Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution (the “Supremacy Clause”), which states that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and takes priority over any conflicting state laws. State laws and courts are subordinate to the Constitution, but ONLY pursuant to the national government’s enumerated powers, and those powers delegated to the national government by the states. The national government — and the states, as well — must stay within the parameters and boundaries of the Constitution.

That is why the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights is so important.

And you have the chutzpah to call that a “concoction of Jeffersonian propaganda extended into future centuries.” Do you have any idea how totalitarian you sound?

“Plus, Jeffersonians added new Federal powers not contemplated by our Founders, including the Louisiana Purchase and an undeclared Barbary War.”

I already responded to this in a previous post. Jefferson created no new federal powers with the Louisiana Purchase, as the purchase was made via a Land Treaty that was ratified by the Senate.

As for the Barbary Wars – there were actually two, one under Jefferson and one under his successor, Madison — they were in response to aggression and hostilities initiated by Barbary Coast pashas against international shipping interests in the Mediterranean and Atlantic, including those of the United States. The Barbary pashas had captured and enslaved many citizens of Europe and the United States. The Barbary threat led directly to the United States founding the United States Navy in March, 1794, during George Washington’s second term.

Although loosely within the Ottoman Empire as protectorates, at the beginning of the 19th century the Barbary pashas and their holdings were for all practical purposes autonomous and independent, and they acted and operated as such. Indeed, even the sultan kept the Barbary shenanigans at arm’s length, as he sought better international relations; and, while he didn’t condemn the pashas and their actions, he didn’t support them, either. He practiced what today is known as plausible deniability.

Basically, what the pashas were engaging in was extortion: The pashas told the international community that the attacks would cease if tributes (ransoms and bribes) were paid. Adams – who succeeded Washington — favored that approach to resolving the crisis. Jefferson – who succeeded Adams — didn’t.

Those countries most affected by the piracy set about to put an end to the problem and rescue their citizens. And they did so.

How is any of that “…adding new Federal powers not contemplated by our Founders?”

“My point in all this is: like all Democrats since, Jefferson was a total fraud and hypocrite regarding “strict construction” against Federalists.”

Your opinion, but it is not borne out by the facts.

“Strict Construction” for Jefferson was simply a weapon to be used against Federalists...”

Sorry, but his writings and history disagree with you. Jefferson was very suspicious of the type of government the federalists sought. He supported the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as written. He was firm in his position that the Constitution limited the national government to delegated identified power and authority; no other power and authority existed. Federalists took the position that the Constitution did NOT limit the government to just those powers delegated to it by the states and enumerated in the Constitution. Jefferson very much opposed anything even remotely close to a “living constitution,” as he knew such an open-end interpretation of the Constitution would lead to abuse by the government.

Louisiana sugar planters liked the tariffs on imported sugar. Hemp growers from Kentucky and Tennessee liked the hemp tariffs. There was also much admiration of Henry Clay in Kentucky. Some Southerners liked federal dredging of rivers and the idea of national roads to the west, and some Southerners did have factories that benefited from the tariff. Also, in all the talk of tariffs, we forget that if tariffs were too low, it meant excise taxes, the price of government land, or government borrowing would likely go higher. All reasons why the Whigs had supporters in the South.

The rich cotton and slave counties of Mississippi and Alabama gave much support to secession, but earlier, the Whigs had much strength there. Planters were rich enough and doing well enough that they weren’t taken in by the idea that the Yankees were taking all the money that was supposedly rightfully theirs. They wanted a secure financial system, a growing economy, and opportunities to invest their money, so the Whigs got votes in the big slave counties. That would change when the Whigs broke up and were eventually replaced by the Republicans and slavery moved to the forefront as an issue.

Calhoun never ran as a Federalist. He did go to Yale and to law school in Connecticut. The very young Calhoun was a protégée of prominent Federalist Timothy Dwight, but ...

Dwight repeatedly denounced Jeffersonian democracy, and Calhoun challenged him in class. Dwight could not shake Calhoun's commitment to republicanism. "Young man," retorted Dwight, "your talents are of a high order and might justify you for any station, but I deeply regret that you do not love sound principles better than sophistry—you seem to possess a most unfortunate bias for error."

Southern historians liked to say that Calhoun's ideas about secession came from Dwight, but it doesn't look like he was ever a Federalist.

“Nooooo... Calhoun was never a Federalist.”

You keep doing this, identifying the Federalist PARTY (hence, the capitalization of the word). I never said Calhoun was a member of the Federalist PARTY. I said he was a nationalist, a federalist. Both lowercase words, meaning subscribing to the PHILOSOPHIES of nationalism and federalism. How come you didn’t say Calhoun was a Nationalist (note the capitalization)? Or are you selective in your identifications? I mean, communism is a philosophy; and those who subscribe to that philosophy are communists, REGARDLESS the NAME of their respective political parties, or how they applied the philosophy to fit their own goals. There are Marxist communists; Stalinist communists; Workers’ Party communists; People’s Revolutionary Party communists; Socialist Revolutionary Party communists; you get the picture.

Federalists (those who embraced the philosophy, not necessarily the political party, as the latter died as a political party early in the 1800s) subscribed to a strong national government, and believed that the Constitution was flexible and malleable, and subject to wide and creative interpretation; and that there were unmentioned rights and powers belonging to the government, and that the government thus had the right to adopt additional powers as it saw fit. The federalist philosophy appealed to businesses and professionals who favored banks, national over state government, manufacturing, an army and navy, and in world affairs preferred Great Britain and strongly opposed the French Revolution. They favored centralization, federalism, modernization, industrialization and protectionism.

Yet, — again, inadvertently — you proved my point. You said that Calhoun was a “... strong nationalist… and favored protective tariffs.” Those were key federalist philosophies. And you admit that later he switched and became a strong advocate against a dominant central government and for states’ rights and low tariffs (an anti-federalist philosophy).

And, you mention Clay. Clay was from a border state (Kentucky), and he tried to play middle-of-the road. That is why he was known as the Great Compromiser. He favored national expansion on the one hand but opposed the national bank as it interfered with local, state banks and states’ rights. He is responsible for the Missouri Compromise in 1820. He started his political career as a Democratic-Republican, which was Jefferson’s party. The Democratic-Republican Party was the main rival of the Federalist Party, the latter of which suffered an ignominious death in 1816, but was too stupid to know it. Some of its survivors resurfaced in the 1820s and, along with a strange amalgam of anti-Jackson Democrats, moralists, abolitionists, pacifists, bigots, and assorted misfits created the Whig Party, primarily as an opposition to Andrew Jackson and the Jacksonian Democrats. Interestingly enough, it became a political force for 20 years before it, too, died. It splintered into the Republican Party and the Know Nothing Party, the latter appealing to the bigotry of anti-Catholicism and anti-immigrant that was prevalent in its platform. No matter what the name of the party, from 1789 up through the Civil War federalist philosophy was their guiding principle: Strong central government; high tariffs; a liberal construction and the widest interpretation of the Constitution; a national bank; etc.

Federalists subscribed to a strong national government, and believed that the Constitution was flexible and malleable, and subject to wide and creative interpretation; and that there were unmentioned rights and powers belonging to the government, and that the government thus had the right to adopt additional powers as it saw fit. Federalists believed that the states were subordinate to the national government.

Yes, they were the "liberals." Same sort of liberals currently running our corruption system in DC today.

“Yes, they were the ‘liberals.’ Same sort of liberals currently running our corruption system in DC today.”

I don’t think they would have qualified as “liberals” back in those days, as back then a “liberal” subscribed to classical liberal ideas (as Jefferson did: Populism; limited national government; local and state control, etc.). It’s actually a misnomer calling today’s liberals “liberal,” in the classic sense. I think a more apt term would be “leftist.”

But, I understand where you are coming from, and I fully agree with you.

Federalists (those who embraced the philosophy, not necessarily the political party, as the latter died as a political party early in the 1800s) subscribed to a strong national government, and believed that the Constitution was flexible and malleable, and subject to wide and creative interpretation; and that there were unmentioned rights and powers belonging to the government, and that the government thus had the right to adopt additional powers as it saw fit. The federalist philosophy appealed to businesses and professionals who favored banks, national over state government, manufacturing, an army and navy, and in world affairs preferred Great Britain and strongly opposed the French Revolution. They favored centralization, federalism, modernization, industrialization and protectionism.

No, the Federalists weren't all that "creative," but they did believe that the Federal government wasn't intended to be narrowly restricted to things explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers probably would have agreed with that.

But the Federalists are gone and you can make them believe whatever you want them to. You can ignore what they actually said and believed and make them part of some larger group or tradition if you want.

If you want to argue that there was Federalist tradition that " favored banks, national over state government, manufacturing, an army and navy" you have to deal with the fact that people today who do "creatively" interpret what government can now do aren't that keen on manufacturing or industrialization or protectionism and aren't always that keen on national defense either.

But now do people who believe the federal government was narrowly restricted to the things explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. How about simplistically caricaturing them?

“No, the Federalists weren’t all that ‘creative,’ but they did believe that the Federal government wasn’t intended to be narrowly restricted to things explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.”

Yeah, they were creative. By the very definition of the word, they were creative: New; not previously known or recognized under the present condition. So, new to the Constitution; not previously known or recognized under the Constitution.

That is why I mentioned in an earlier post that the federalists would have applauded Roe v. Wade, because that was the very essence of creativity.

“The Founding Fathers probably would have agreed with that.”

The federalists would have; the anti-federalists wouldn’t have.

“But the Federalists are gone...”

The PARTY is gone; but not the philosophy (and, by capitalizing “Federalist” you must be referring to the organization, or party; NOT the philosophy, which would be in lower case). You, just like BroJoeK, always redirect your comments to the organization, or party; and I can only assume it is intentional, and is employed as a straw man for the purpose of evasion. Read my posts; I have routinely referred to the philosophy, not the party.

“You can ignore what they actually said and believed and make them part of some larger group or tradition if you want.”

I’m not at all ignoring what they said or believed, because their own words exposed them.

“If you want to argue that there was Federalist tradition that ‘favored banks, national over state government, manufacturing, an army and navy’ you have to deal with the fact that people today who do ‘creatively’ interpret what government can now do aren’t that keen on manufacturing or industrialization or protectionism and aren’t always that keen on national defense either.”

Oh? They are very keen on manufacturing and industrialization and protectionism, but in those sectors of which they approve. On those sectors of which they disapprove...not so much. National defense? They approve of national defense, but only if it comports with their vision of what it should be. Their vision of national is not MY vision of national defense.

“But now do people who believe the federal government was narrowly restricted to the things explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.”

I have no idea what you are saying in that sentence, as it is grammatical gibberish.