Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Non-Sequitur

In my research I have refreshed my memory. The discussion we are having now was a hot topic from the very beginning and was only settled by the war. Then and only then was the question of a strong federal government versus states rights finally decided, decided by force not intellectual reasoning.

Much of the disagreement was about Article IV and what it really meant, what was its intention? The states rights folks understood it to govern the relationship of those within the union with no reference to secession. To them, if the union became hostile to the needs of the state the state could voluntarily leave as per the original agreement.

I also was reminded that there are still two versions of the causes of the war, a Northern version and a Southern version. Neither denies the facts but only differ where the emphasis is placed.

The Northern version is heavily weighted toward eliminating slavery as the main reason and the Southern version emphasizes the states rights version which was pushed to the wall by the tariff issue.

I know the Morrill Act, the Tariff of Abomination, was passed in 1928 but that was just part of the ongoing disagreement. It placed a 20% tariff on certain imported goods, goods mainly imported by the South, and caused quite a stir. Later Lincoln was talking about raising it to 40%.

The industrial North exported very little but the rural South exported a lot of agricultural products, especially cotton. The South was much richer than the North at that time. The sold goods to the Northern states and to the rest of the world. The North was able to sell very little to the rest of the world so was pretty much dependent on the South as its market. They wanted to protect that market and the federal government wanted the tax money.

Lincoln had no objection to the secession of the Southern states and said so in his first inaugural address. However, he did reserve the right to maintain the federally owned property in those states which was only Ft. Sumpter in Charleston Harbor and Ft. Hicks (?) off of Pensacola, Florida. He also maintained he still had the right to collect the tariffs imposed on imports and the forts were his tax collection points. Of course, the Confederate States disagreed.

From there we get the beginning of the war and the blockades.


97 posted on 04/11/2010 9:18:31 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]


To: Mind-numbed Robot
Much of the disagreement was about Article IV and what it really meant, what was its intention? The states rights folks understood it to govern the relationship of those within the union with no reference to secession. To them, if the union became hostile to the needs of the state the state could voluntarily leave as per the original agreement.

What original agreement? The original 13 states were bound together by the Articles of Confederation and later chose to replace it with the Constitution. They all ratified the Constitution and agreed to be bound by it. The 37 states that came later were all admitted with the permission of the existing states. There was no qualifications in that. The Constitution itself is silent on the question of secession, so the conclusion must be that it is allowed. The question is how. The obvious answer, and the one James Madison came to, is with the consent of the other states. Their permission is needed to join and once allowed in their permission is needed to combine, split, or change their border by a fraction of an inch. Leaving entirely should require the same.

The Northern version is heavily weighted toward eliminating slavery as the main reason and the Southern version emphasizes the states rights version which was pushed to the wall by the tariff issue.

No, the Northern version is that the main reason for opposing the Southern rebellion was the preservation of the Union. Slavery was not, at any time, a primary reason for why they were fighting. The Southern secession was based on what they saw as a threat to the expansion of their institution of slavery posed by the election of Abraham Lincoln. Their armed rebellion was the manner that they chose to further those aims.

I know the Morrill Act, the Tariff of Abomination, was passed in 1928 but that was just part of the ongoing disagreement. It placed a 20% tariff on certain imported goods, goods mainly imported by the South, and caused quite a stir. Later Lincoln was talking about raising it to 40%.

The Morrill Tariff was first passed out of the House of Representatives in the spring of 1860. It if was such a bone of contention then why didn't the South secede then? And when the original seven Southern states did secede, it was before the Morrill Tariff was finally passed. Again, if it was such a bone of contention then why didn't they wait for it to pass?

The industrial North exported very little but the rural South exported a lot of agricultural products, especially cotton. The South was much richer than the North at that time. The sold goods to the Northern states and to the rest of the world. The North was able to sell very little to the rest of the world so was pretty much dependent on the South as its market. They wanted to protect that market and the federal government wanted the tax money.

Very little in the way of tariffs was collected on goods destined for Southern consumers.

Lincoln had no objection to the secession of the Southern states and said so in his first inaugural address.

Say what?

"It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States."

However, he did reserve the right to maintain the federally owned property in those states which was only Ft. Sumpter in Charleston Harbor and Ft. Hicks (?) off of Pensacola, Florida.

Fort Pickens in Pensacola. And what of it? They were, after all, federal property.

He also maintained he still had the right to collect the tariffs imposed on imports and the forts were his tax collection points.

In the first place the Forts were not the tax collection points. They were forts. Tariffs in Charleston were collected at the Customs House on East Bay Street. In Pensacola it was at the Customs House and Post Office on Palafox Place.

100 posted on 04/11/2010 9:49:37 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson