Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
you are a SHAME & a source of HUMILIATION to every DECENT FReeper.
free dixie,sw
the war in the east started at Ft Sumter.
free dixie,sw
You tried to make the point that tariffs were always paid at the point of arrival.
My question is, how could deep draft ocean transports land dutiable goods first at places like Augusta and Knoxville?
The answer must be that they were transshipped, wouldn't you agree?
And why would tariffs not be charged before transshipment?
Doesn't that seem inconsistent with your scheme of payment at the point of arrival, which, in your mind, means that the final consumer is standing there on the wharf in New York, waiting for his clock and stemware from England?
btw, did you enjoy the DAMNyankee/fascist kool-aide that you've obviously been drinking??? ====> i'll bet that it tastes just like RADICAL, LEFTIST, REVISIONISM & STATIST REPRESSION.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
did you read the BOOK or just a few pages (really condensation of ONE chapter), that were published in MB&S??? =====> otherwise ADMIT again that you LIED, as you have NOT read the BOOK & thus are UNknowing & DISHONEST, about the book's content.
also, remind everyone WHEN that you were a "staff-member of" the New Orleans Confederate Museum, again PLEASE - everyone needs a LAUGH at your expense.(NEITHER little children, playing with their toys in the floor OR southern TURNCOATS have EVER been "staff-members of" ANY CSA museum.)
laughing AT you, LIAR/FOOL/TURNCOAT.
free dixie,sw
when he "catches his tail in a crack", he is THEN free to say that what he earlier said was fact was wrong & the NEW post is the REAL truth.
in other words, he is a PROPAGANDIST for the LEFTIST/REVISIONIST lunatics of northeastern academia & nothing more than that.
otoh, N-S is smarter than the rest of the members of "The DAMNyankee Coven" on FR, COMBINED.
free dixie,sw
Unsubstantiated...not hardly. Very well known, in fact.
Maybe your little buddies are taking a vacation this week, and can't help you.
Will give you a hint. Can be found here: March 19, 1861 (Congressional Globe 36-2 p. 1476-77)
Kettell’s data is derived from the US Census and the US Commerce Dept. Are you calling these sources unreliable?
TRUTH makes them whine, moan, weep & "run to tattle" to the mods.
laughing AT all of the BIGOTS,LOUTS, FOOLS & other LUNATICS of "the DY coven".
free dixie,sw
And was this "overwhelming majority of imports" staying where they landed...you know, where the consumers were?
So your statement that the over whelming amount of imports landed in northern ports where the consumers were, and the tariffs were paid on point of entry is not really true after all, is it?
That was probably just as true for Knoxville as well as every other tariff house outside of New York.
Look up Augusta, and see what you can find.
Are you arguing in favor of slavery and against abolition?
If so, then you deserve more than insults.
If not, then why all the nonsense?
In 1833, Mr. Madison spoke much more directly...
Probably because he was offering a private, rather than a public opinion. He had no need to consider whether said opinion was consistent with the written, public opinions that he had offered when 'selling' the Constitution to the justifiably cautious people of the several States (please see The Federalist Papers), and he did not even have to conform to the written, public opinions he offered in the Virginia Resolutions, and his Report on the Virginia Resolutions (links at my FR home page).
You know what? When it comes to public policy, private disclaimers bear no weight, whatsoever, in my opinion...
Madison's statement always leads to the forever unanswered question of what the intolerable abuses were in 1860 which lead to secession.
As Mr. Madison & Mr. Jefferson suggested in their public writings before the turn of the century, it was up to the individual States, as parties to the constitutional compact, to determine if and when intolerable abuses had occurred:
...to this [constitutional] compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the [federal] government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each [State as a] party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
- Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798
The illogical suggestion that the federal government (via the federal judiciary) was the only proper judge regarding the existence and 'tolerability'of federal abuses was disposed of by Mr. Madison as well, in his Report on the Virginia Resolutions...
Then, by all means, please cite the constitutional clause that prohibits State secession. Please be specific.
;>)
James Madison wrote that a rightful secession requires the consent of the other states as well as those leaving. As he noted, "The characteristic distinction between free Governments and Governments not free is, that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but between the parties creating the Government. Each of those being equal, neither can have more rights to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargains. An inference from the doctrine that a single state has a right to secede at will from the rest, is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them. Such a doctrine would not, till of late, have been palatable anywhere, on nowhere less so than where it is not most contended for."
Citation, please?
(And thank you... ;>)
To accept the idea that a state can unilaterally secede from the Union is to believe that it has more rights under the Constitution than the other states.
Mr. Madison addressed the issue of State secession (specifically, the secession of States from a self-proclaimed "perpetual" union) in Federalist No. 43:
Two questions of a very delicate nature present themselves on this occasion:
1. On what principle the Confederation [formed under the Articles of Confederation, which declared, in writing, the establishment of a "perpetual" union"], which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it?
2. What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it?
The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed.
PERHAPS, also, an answer may be found without searching beyond the principles of the compact itself. It has been heretofore noted among the defects of the Confederation, that in many of the States it had received no higher sanction than a mere legislative ratification. The principle of reciprocality seems to require that its obligation on the other States should be reduced to the same standard. A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void. Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it a difficult task to answer the MULTIPLIED and IMPORTANT infractions with which they may be confronted? The time has been when it was incumbent on us all to veil the ideas which this paragraph exhibits. The scene is now changed, and with it the part which the same motives dictate.
The second question is not less delicate; and the flattering prospect of its being merely hypothetical forbids an overcurious discussion of it. It is one of those cases which must be left to provide for itself. In general, it may be observed, that although no political relation can subsist between the assenting and dissenting States, yet the moral relations will remain uncancelled. The claims of justice, both on one side and on the other, will be in force, and must be fulfilled; the rights of humanity must in all cases be duly and mutually respected; whilst considerations of a common interest, and, above all, the remembrance of the endearing scenes which are past, and the anticipation of a speedy triumph over the obstacles to reunion, will, it is hoped, not urge in vain MODERATION on one side, and PRUDENCE on the other.
When the terms of a compact (the Articles of Confederation), establishing a self-described "perpetual" union between the ratifying parties, and requiring unanimous consent for modification of said compact, are not sufficient to deny the right of State secession, then the specific written terms of the Constitution (as it existed in 1860) can hardly be said to do so...
Georgia was not the only State to secede:
It is not at all surprising, such being the character of the Government of the United States, that it should assume to possess power over all the institutions of the country... To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union – in other words, on any constitutional subject – for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must first be abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North, to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.
The Constitution of the United States was an experiment. The experiment consisted in uniting under one Government, peoples living in different climates, and having different pursuits and institutions. It matters not how carefully the limitations of such a Government be laid down in the Constitution – its success must, at least, depend upon the good faith of the parties to the constitutional compact, in enforcing them. It is not in the power of human language to exclude false inferences, constructions and perversions, in any Constitution; and when vast sectional interests are to be subserved, involving the appropriation of countless millions of money, it has not been the usual experience of mankind, that words on parchments can arrest power. The Constitution of the United States, irrespective of the interposition of the States, rested on the assumption that power would yield to faith – that integrity would be stronger than interest; and that thus, the limitations of the Constitution would be observed. The experiment has been fairly made. The Southern States, from the commencement of the Government, have striven to keep it within the orbit prescribed by the Constitution. The experiment has failed. The whole Constitution, by the constructions of the Northern people, has been absorbed by its preamble. In their reckless lust for power, they seem unable to comprehend that seeming paradox – that the more power is given to the General Government, the weaker it becomes. Its strength consists in the limitation of its agency to objects of common interests to all sections. To extend the scope of its power over sectional or local interests, is to raise up against it opposition and resistance. In all such matters, the General Government must necessarily be a despotism, because all sectional or local interests must ever be represented by a minority in the councils of the General Government – having no power to protect itself against the rule of the majority. The majority, constituted from those who do not represent these sectional or local interests, will control and govern them. A free people cannot submit to such a Government. And the more it enlarges the sphere of its power, the greater must be the dissatisfaction it must produce, and the weaker it must become. On the contrary, the more it abstains from usurped powers, and the more faithfully it adheres to the limitations of the Constitution, the stronger it is made. The Northern people have had neither the wisdom nor the faith to perceive, that to observe the limitations of the Constitution was the only way to its perpetuity.
Under such a Government, there must, of course, be many and endless "irrepressible conflicts," between the two great sections of the Union. The same faithlessness which has abolished the Constitution of the United States, will not fail to carry out the sectional purposes for which it has been abolished. There must be conflict; and the weaker section of the Union can only find peace and liberty in an independence of the North. The repeated efforts made by South Carolina, in a wise conservatism, to arrest the progress of the General Government in its fatal progress to consolidation, have been unsupported, and she has been denounced as faithless to the obligations of the Constitution, by the very men and States, who were destroying it by their usurpations. It is now too late to reform or restore the Government of the United States. All confidence in the North is lost by the South. The faithlessness of the North for half a century, has opened a gulf of separation between the North and the South which no promises nor engagements can fill.
It cannot be believed, that our ancestors would have assented to any union whatever with the people of the North, if the feelings and opinions now existing amongst them, had existed when the Constitution was framed. There was then no tariff – no fanaticism concerning negroes...
- THE ADDRESS OF THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, ASSEMBLED IN CONVENTION, TO THE PEOPLE OF THE SLAVEHOLDING STATES OF THE UNITED STATES, 1860
(Reminds me, in some ways, of our present state of affairs.)
Tariffs had been an issue for decades, and that simple fact was recognized, in public, in writing, in the 1860s...
Didn’t I tell you not to bother me with your insane accusations and foul rhetoric?
I’m done with you Stand, you are quite honestly terminally insane and living in your own dream world that has nothing to do with reality.
Any responses aimed at me by you from here on out I will consider as Internet stalking.
But then again you heard that before a number of times from other people.
Wrong...
States joined the “Union” with the understanding that they could withdraw or “take back” DELEGATED powers.. When you delegate authority—You are passing it down to a lesser!
We, the delegates of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America . . . . declare and make known. . . .
That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness. That the rights of the states respectively to nominate and appoint all state officers, and every other power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the Constitution which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution. . . . The United States shall guaranty to each state its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution expressly delegated to the United States . ( Rhode Island ratification ordinance, May 29, 1790)
Massachusetts:
. . . all powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several states, to be by them exercised. ( Massachusetts ratification ordinance, February 6, 1788)
The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State, and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled. (Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts , 1780, Article IV)
New York:
We, the delegates of the people of the state of New York , duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America . . . declare and make known. . . .
That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution. ( New York ratification ordinance, July 26, 1788)
South Carolina:
In Convention of the people of the state of South Carolina , by their representatives, held in the city of Charleston . . . . The Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution, or form of government, reported to Congress by the Convention of Delegates from the United States of America . . . . Do, in the name and behalf of the people of this state, hereby assent to and ratify the said Constitution. . . .
This Convention doth also declare, that no section or paragraph of the said Constitution warrants a construction that the states do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them, and vested in the general government of the Union . ( South Carolina ratification ordinance, May 23, 1788)
Virginia:
We the Delegates of the people of Virginia . . . declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes. . . .
That each state in the union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the Foederal Government. ( Virginia ratification ordinance, June 26, 1788)
Read Federalist 43 “absolute necessity of the case”
“In April 1830, Madison wrote to Robert Hayne that in “extreme cases of oppression” a state would be “absolved . . . from the Constitutional Compact to which it is a party” (in Gaillard Hunt, The Writings of James Madison, Volume 9, New York : Knickerbocker Press, 1910, p. 383
In regards to this whole debate...Many legal minds surrounding George Washington would agree with a States Right to leave..
George Washington's first U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania William Rawle
“It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union . To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.
This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, though not expressed, was mutually understood. . . . (A View of the Constitution of the United States, 2nd Edition, 1829, Vol. 4, p. 571)
George Tucker—A federal district court judge appointed by President James Madison
The federal government, then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations and with each other. Their submission to its operation is voluntary: its councils, its engagements, its authority are theirs, modified, and united. Its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the situation require, to resume the exercise of its functions as such in the most unlimited extent. (Tucker, editor, Blackstone’s Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States, Volume 1, Philadelphia: William Birch and Abraham Small, 1803, Appendix: Note D, Section 3:IV)
Timothy Pickering -—— George Washington's Secretary of State——
The Federalists are dissatisfied, because they see the public morals debased by the corrupt and corrupting system of our rulers. Men are tempted to become apostates, not to Federalism merely, but to virtue and to religion and to good government. . . . the principles of our revolution point to the remedy—a separation. That this can be accomplished, and without spilling one drop of blood, I have little doubt. . . . The people of the East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West. The latter are beginning to rule with a rod of iron. . . .
A Northern confederacy would unite congenial characters, and present a fairer prospect of public happiness; while the Southern States, having a similarity of habits, might be left “to manage their own affairs in their own way.” If a separation were to take place, our mutual wants would render a friendly and commercial intercourse inevitable. . . . (Letter from Timothy Pickering to George Cabot, January 29, 1804
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.