And this is your idea of home rule, smaller government, less taxes, and individual liberty?
I don't know if I'd use the tax policies of the central Confederate government to prove my point - and that appears to be about 80% of your argument - since the states that comprised the Confederacy refused, in the main, to cooperate with the central government on the issue of taxation and, to a lesser extent, conscription (possibly because they believed in home rule, smaller government, less taxes, and individual liberty). It is precisely because of that refusal that the Confederate government had to resort to such drastic revenue measures as the massive issuance of bonds, and loans.
Martial law? You're correct. Jailing people without trial? Ditto. And I'll save you the trouble: does the "individual liberty" argument mentioned above represent blatant hypocrisy, given the institution of slavery? Of course it does.
Refusal to create a Supreme Court? Debatable, and a very interesting subject. "Failure" might be a more accurate word in any case. Please see Article 6, Section 1 of the permanent Constitution, which effectively cedes this issue to the provisional Constitution of February 8, 1861. The latter, in point of fact, defined and created the Confederate Supreme Court (see Article 3, Section 1.2 and 1.3) If one defines a quorum as a simple majority, and since at least 8 Confederate districts were created out of a possible 11, it appears that it is possible that a de jure Confederate Supreme Court did indeed exist, even if never met. Would be glad to hear your arguments to the contrary.
It was the representatives of the states that enacted the tariffs in the first place, and since it protected local products like tobacco and molasses at the 20 and 25 percent rates it could be considered protectionist in nature. Something the constitution expressly forbade. And the fact that the extremely high income tax rates promoted by the Davis government were not passed does negate the fact that such high rates were proposed to begin with.
Refusal to create a Supreme Court? Debatable, and a very interesting subject.
Not debatable at all. Article 3 mandates a supreme court, it is quite clear on the matter. No such court was established. Likewise the provisional constitution required a supreme court without such court being established. The district courts defined by the provisional constitution were not a replacement for the supreme court and had no similar provision in the permanent constitution, so their role ended when the provisional constitution did. The long and the short of it is that the third branch of government required by their constitution was ignored by the other two branches.
i once had a 14H, blood-bay w/4 black socks, "coon-hunting mule" who was the progeny of a racing QH mare & a Catalonian jack.
Molly (long gone to the great pasture in the sky) was SWIFT, surefooted on every terrain/surface, a easy jumper (6-wire fences were seemingly effortless for her) & a genuine pleasure to ride. i miss her, still, after these nearly 15 years.
free dixie,sw