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

To: SunkenCiv
"The civil war fought from 1861 to 1865 to determine the survival of the Union or independence for the Confederacy."

"The reductions were too little for South Carolina. In November 1832 the state called for a convention. By a vote of 136 to 26, the convention overwhelmingly adopted an ordinance of nullification drawn by Chancellor William Harper. It declared that the tariffs of both 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and unenforceable in South Carolina. While the Nullification Crisis would be resolved in early 1833, tariff policy would continue to be a national political issue between the Democratic Party and the newly emerged Whig Party for the next twenty years."

There is much revisionist history as in historical analysis that has confounded and confused many authors causing an ongoing debate. Lincoln would save the UNION at all costs...for about 3-4 years, the Southern States complained about unfair and unconstitutional tariffs levied on them by the Northern states causing South Carolina to withdraw from said UNION...what followed has been written and rewritten so that the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY has been lost and the more glamorous anti-slavery movement was used as the whip to stop a war weary UNION from quitting....emancipation was put into place, Secession by the South would not, could not be allowed....in this I agree but not by the bullheadedness of people in power to honor that CONSTITUTION. Here is history which come's closest to the truth if not the truth...I highly recommend both:
For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization - When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession
... by the way the author, Charles Adams is a Northerner.

172 posted on 05/21/2015 9:15:21 AM PDT by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies ]


To: yoe
At the South Carolina secession convention, as they were debating over the wording of the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union." Maxcy Gregg said that he thought they should mention the tariff. Lawrence Keitt responded:
I agree with the gentleman from Richland, that the power of taxation is the central power of all governments. Put that power into my hands, and I care very little what the form of government it is; I will control your people through it. That is the question in this address. We have instructed the Committee to present a summary of the reasons which influenced us in the action we have now taken. My friend from Richland said that the violation of the Fugitive Slave Laws are not sufficient, and he calls up the Tariff. Is that one of the causes at this time? What is that cause? Your late Senators, and every one of your members of the House of Representatives, voted for the present tariff. [Mr. Miles. I did not.] Well, those who were there at the time voted for it, and I have no doubt you would, if you were in it. The question of the tariff did agitate us in 1832, and it did array this State against the Federal Government.

I maintain, and do always maintain, that this State triumphed then. Mr. Clay said, before nullification, that the protective tariff system had been established for all time. After the Nullification Ordinance, Mr. Clay did say that the State had accomplished the destruction of that system, and that the State had triumphed. The history of that time has never been written. It is true, we were cheated in the compromise; and really, sir, in what single compromise have we not been cheated? My opinion is, that the State of South Carolina and every other Southern State have been dealing with faithless confederates.

But the Tariff is not the question which brought the people up to their present attitude. We are to give a summary of our causes to the world, but mainly to the other Southern States, whose co-action we wish, and we must not make a fight on the Tariff question.

The Whig party, thoughout all the States, have been protective Tariff men, and they cling to that old issue with all the passion incident to the pride of human opinions. Are we to go off now, when other Southern States are bringing their people up to the true mark? Are we to go off on debateable and doctrinal points? Are we to go back to the consideration of this question, of this great controversy; go back to that party's politics, around which so many passions cluster? Names are much -- associations and passions cluster around names.

I can give no better illustration than to relate an anecdote given me by a member from Louisiana. He said, after the election of Lincoln, he went to an old Whig party friend and said to him: We have been beaten -- our honor requires a dissolution of the Union. Let us see if we cannot agree together, and offered him a resolution to this effect --Resolved, That the honor of Louisiana requires her to disrupt every tie that binds her to the Federal Government. [Laughter.]

It is name, and when we come to more practicability we must consult names. Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it.

The final declaration contains no mention of tariffs.
175 posted on 05/21/2015 9:54:56 AM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("The rat always knows when he's in with weasels." --Tom Waits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies ]

To: yoe

The revisionism about the Civil War is entirely from the pro-Confederate revisionists. THE issue was slavery, not something that had happened 30 years earlier. We know this because the secessionists SAID so.


187 posted on 05/21/2015 4:24:30 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (What do we want? REGIME CHANGE! When do we want it? NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | 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