Ask a Democrat: Are we back in 1861?

American Thinker ^ | 19 Mar, 2017 | Rusty Sturgis

[MtnClimber]

By 1860, there had been at least a decade of unrest among the silent majority – mostly farmers, Christians, and family people living outside the major urban areas. They were angry with the political establishment and wanted serious changes in the federal government. But they mostly sat silent because they had no political leader who accurately expressed their frustration with the system.

Then an outsider emerged who captured all of the common folks' attention, who promised to change Washington and how it worked and make America a more just country. Nobody gave this outsider a chance to win the presidency! He didn't know anything, they said. All of the established media predicted he would lose big against his well known, established, and well financed opponent.

Well, a funny thing happened. That outsider in 1860 won! And in 1861, all of the established politicians, the power brokers, and their followers decided to secede from the Union and start a civil war.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "The old 'slavery was a Southern problem' argument."

In both 1787 and 1861 slavery was a national problem, but only Northerners were willing, ready and able to abolish it.
By 1860 all Northern states had abolished slavery, while no Southern states did.
In 1860 all Northern Republicans wanted national restrictions on slavery, while no Southern Democrats would accept such restrictions, or the "Black Republicans" party -- hence secession.

jeffersondem: "Of the original nine northern states, nine of them were slave states."

You probably don't remember, but the original 13 states were six Southern (Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware), six Northern (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey) and one "keystone" state in the middle: Pennsylvania, home of the Declaration and Constitution.
In early 1776, when all were colonies of Great Britain, all by British law accepted slavery.

Then, as reviewed in post #61 above, by the 1787 Constitutional Convention, four of the six Northern states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire) plus Pennsylvania, Vermont (#14 state), and the Northwest Territories of Ohio (#17), Indiana (#19), Illinois (#21), Michigan (#26) & Wisconsin (#30) had all begun to abolish slavery -- peacefully, lawfully, with no threats of secession.

By the Convention in 1787, many Northerners wanted to abolish slavery nationally, but most Southerners would not accept that and instead insisted the Constitution must recognize "rights" of slave holders.
Northerners accepted Southern conditions as a price of Union, a Union they considered most important.

jeffersondem: "When the King of England messed with slavery, all nine northern states voted to cite the King's interference as a cause of the revolution."

In July 1776 there were six Northern, six Southern and one "keystone" state.
Slavery was one reason among many listed in Jefferson's original Declaration draft.
That demonstrates not only Northern but also some Southern Founders in 1776 understood slavery was morally wrong.

jeffersondem: "All nine of the northern states voted to adopt a U.S. constitution that recognized and protected slavery."

1. In 1787 one Southern (Delaware), one Northern (New Jersey) and the Keystone state ratified the US Constitution.
   
2. In 1788 four Southern and four Northern states ratified.
   
3. In 1789 one Southern state ratified (North Carolina).
   
4. In 1790 one Northern state ratified (Rhode Island).
   
5. In 1791 -'92 one each new Southern (Kentucky) & Northern (Vermont) states ratified.

Among Northern states in 1788, only New York and New Jersey had not yet begun to abolish slavery.
Both did so by 1804.

jeffersondem: "Northern states made a ton of money off of slavery: capturing and buying slaves, transporting slaves, selling slaves, working slaves, trafficking in cotton produced with slave labor, and taxing profits made from slave produced cotton."

All of that began to be abolished in the 1794 Slave Trade Act and the 1807 Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves.
Northern profits from Southern products (i.e., cotton) are not disputed, though these were far less important in 1788 than they were to become by 1860.
But regardless of how much they opposed slavery, all Northerners before 1860 understood that only Constitutional Amendments could abolish slavery nationwide, and Southerners were not going to support that, period.
So slavery began in 1787 and remained in 1860 a price of Union.

jeffersondem: "But - and this is the hope spot in the storyline - the north had a plan to gradually free the slaves over a period of 230 years.
Yeah, I'd say that was kind of gradual."

Beginning with Southerner Thomas Jefferson in the late 1700s, many people over the decades made proposals for gradual, national abolition.
Most included both Federally funded compensation and repatriation of freed-slaves to Africa or the Caribbean.
None of these various proposals -- not one -- was ever even considered by Southern slave holders who rejected them out of hand.

So nothing was done.

jeffersondem: "You are proud of all this?"

I am, of course, very proud of real American history, but of jeffersondem's ignorant misrepresentations of it, well, not so much.

[BroJoeK]

Pelham: "...resurrect Union Bloody Shirt Triumphalism..."

Naw, the only Bloody Shirt waving here comes from our Lost Causer FRiends, who just can't get over their ancestors' utter military defeat and Unconditional Surrender.
For you people, real history is never enough, only extravagant mythology can salve your wounds and still your anguish, so you come on these threads to claim & complain about alleged offenses by "Ape" Lincoln and his Black Republicans against Southerners who never cared about slavery, but did in 1861 wish to prevent the Progressive (1912), New Deal (1932), Great Society (1964) and Obamalamadingdong (2008) eras.

Now that was a real war worth fighting, right?
If Confederates in 1861 could have prevented President Wilson in 1912 and FDR in 1932, that's a worthy Lost Cause, isn't it?

Oh, wait... Southerners voted in block for Southern Democrat Wilson in 1912 and New York Democrat Franklin Roosevelt in 1932... oh, well, never mind.

[Pelham]

I’m curious- do you ever reflect on what you write? There is enough projection to make Freud smile from ear to ear.

[BroJoeK]

Pelham: "There is enough projection to make Freud smile from ear to ear."

{sigh} Now we have two of you here pretending to be psych majors just to avoid presenting actual historical facts to support your claims.

No "projections" here, just reflecting back to you words posted for many years by our Lost Causer FRiends.

[jeffersondem]

“In both 1787 and 1861 slavery was a national problem, but only Northerners were willing, ready and able to abolish it.”

It wasn't until the first sentence of your lengthy response that you said something false.

Northerners could have refused to establish a constitution that provided for slavery in the union. But in 1787 Northerners were not willing. They were not ready. They were not able. Northerners actually did something quite different that what you suggested. They voted to embrace slavery into the U.S. constitution.

In 1861 Northerners could have introduced, and voted on, a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery - if they were willing, ready and able. History records they were not.

And all the time slavery was legal in the U.S., Northerners cheerfully made lots of money off of the practice. Perhaps every time a Northerner cashed a large slavery dividend, they said, "I accept this money under protest."

[jeffersondem]

“In July 1776 there were six Northern, six Southern and one “keystone” state.”

You are going pretty far afield to claim that Pennsylvania was not a Northern state.

I would even contest your statement that Delaware was a Southern state if I didn't happen to know about the famous 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Delaware State Confederate cavalry regiments; and the 14th, 18th, and 23rd Delaware State Confederate infantry regiments; and so forth and so on.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "It wasn't until the first sentence of your lengthy response that you said something false."

Sadly FRiend, of charm you have none, but happily your wit exceeds your charm, by half.

jeffersondem: "Northerners could have refused to establish a constitution that provided for slavery in the union.
But in 1787 Northerners were not willing."

The rare Southern slave-holder like George Washington said that he would sacrifice slavery for Union, but most other Southerners would not.
They made clear that without slavery there would be no Union, period.
Abolitionist Northerners accepted that condition, believing in 1787 that slavery was a dying institution to be accepted or abolished by states, not by Federal government.

"In 1861 Northerners could have introduced, and voted on, a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery - if they were willing, ready and able.
History records they were not."

Actually, Union enforced emancipation did begin in 1861, soon after the Confederacy started & declared war on the United States.
Beginning in August 1861 various acts of congress and Presidential orders emancipated different groups of slaves such that by the time of the 13th Amendment in 1865, only a small percentage of the South's four million slaves had not already been freed.

"And all the time slavery was legal in the U.S., Northerners cheerfully made lots of money off of the practice.
Perhaps every time a Northerner cashed a large slavery dividend, they said, 'I accept this money under protest'. "

What you don't "get" is: the Southern Democrat Slave-Power was closely allied politically with their Northern Democrat business partners, who fully understood and sympathized with Southern ideals.
So, when the Deep South first declared secession, many New Yorkers not only cheered them on, they wanted to join and secede too!

And for most of the years from 1788 through 1860 that political alliance of Southern Slave-Power Democrats to Northern Big City Democrats ruled in Washington, DC, to the satisfaction of both.
But no abolitionists were Democrats, they were all, if anything, Republicans and thus not part of the North-South Democrat alliance.
Republican abolitionists did not benefit directly from slavery, and thus were at odds with their Northern Democrat neighbors who did benefit.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "You are going pretty far afield to claim that Pennsylvania was not a Northern state."

In fact, Pennsylvania normally voted with Southern Democrats, then as now only rarely switching sides to support the Whig or Republican candidate for president.
One of those rare years when Pennsylvania voted Republican was 1860, another 2016.

jeffersondem: "I would even contest your statement that Delaware was a Southern state if I didn't happen to know about the famous 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Delaware State Confederate cavalry regiments..."

Indeed, while Delaware had very few slaves in 1860 (90+% were already freed), it was one of the few states where slavery was still lawful when the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865.
Delaware-ians did free all their slaves after the war, but refused to ratify the 13th, 14th & 15th amendments until 1901.

As for those alleged Confederate regiments from Delaware:

"While most Delaware citizens who fought in the war served in the regiments of the state, some served in companies on the Confederate side in Maryland and Virginia Regiments.
Delaware is notable for being the only slave state from which no Confederate regiments or militia groups were assembled."

[BroJoeK]

Sorry, I meant to respond earlier...

LS: "The point was, NO president since TJ until Harding significantly cut spending."

Well... no.
As I look down my spreadsheet at the column headed "average annual Federal spending per president" I see pretty much what you'd expect after major wars: spending exploded during the war and went down afterwards.
But just to pick out a few interesting periods:

1. President Washington averaged $6 million per year.
2. President John Adams averaged $8.7 million per year.
3. President Jefferson averaged $9.4 million
4. President Madison averaged $23 million (War of 1812)
5. President Monroe averaged $20 million (note reduction)
6. President John Quincy Adams averaged $18 million (another reduction)
7. President Jackson averaged $22 million (and PAID OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT!)
8. President Van Buren averaged $35 million (political spoils?)
9. Presidents Harrison & Tyler averaged $26 million (frugal Whigs!)
10. President Polk averaged $43 million (Mexican War)
11. Presidents Taylor & Fillmore averaged $50 million (not so frugal Whigs)
12. President Pierce averaged $68 million
13. President Buchanan averaged $82 million
14. President Lincoln & Johnson averaged $599 million (Civil War)
15. President Grant averaged $320 million (post-war reduction)
16. President Hayes averaged $287 million (end of reconstruction)
17. Skipping ahead to President Wilson averaged $5,637 million (First World War)
18. Presidents Harding & Coolidge averaged $4,164 million (note post-war reduction)
19. President Hoover averaged $4,037 million (last administration to reduce federal spending in actual dollar terms).

The above list includes every administration which actually reduced federal spending, but only a sample of those which increased it.

Of course, other methods can be used to measure spending, such as inflation adjusted, or as a percent of GDP, and those do show more reductions than this particular list.

So here is the bottom line: only four administrations ever reduced federal spending outside of a natural post-war reduction:

1. D-R President John Quincy Adams (1825-1828)
2. Whig Presidents Harrison/Tyler (1841-1844)
3. Republican President Hayes (1877-1880)
4. Republican President Hoover (1929-1932)

Interesting to note that all served only four years and are generally ranked "unsuccessful".

[LS]

Run some numbers of personnel per capita. Also, note that we had land sales as a MAJOR source of revenue and Jackson benefited from the sale of the entire Louisiana purchase. I don’t recall each statehood date, but from Monroe to AJ you had MO and ME come into the Union, but really you were just beginning to see the sale of federal land in MS, IL, and other border areas.

So, it’s pretty easy to pay off the debt if you a) don’t have a major war and b) can sell off millions of unused acres.

It would be interesting therefore to go back over this list and look at the admission of western states and then the subsequent presidents budgets.

[BroJoeK]

LS: "So, it’s pretty easy to pay off the debt if you a) don’t have a major war and b) can sell off millions of unused acres."

Agreed.
I now notice here where tariff receipts back in those days typically ran around 90% of total federal revenues.
But in 1835, at the time Jackson was paying off the national debt, tariff receipts fell to just 54% of total revenues which, at $35 million, were higher than ever before and than they would be again for another 15 years.
That must be those land sales you mention.

I also see where in his first year (1829) Jackson's government spent $17 million and in his final year (1836) $34 million, which however did not drive up the debt, it was still zero in 1836.
The national debt did not begin to rise again until your favorite villain, Ol' Kinderhook, spent $42 million in 1837.

LS: "Run some numbers of personnel per capita."

I don't have those, but throughout our first century-plus both population and GDP rose at astonishing rates, by today's lethargic standards.
That's how Federal spending as a percent of GDP was virtually the same in 1916 pre-war under President Wilson (2.1%) as it was in 1792 under President Washington (2.3%).
In Washington's time national debt fell from 35% to 20% of GDP, in Wilson's it rose from 8% pre-war to 30% in 1920.
Today's spending runs 20+% and national debt over 100% of GDP.

[jeffersondem]

” . . . Delaware is notable for being the only slave state from which no Confederate regiments or militia groups were assembled.”

You probably intended to say Delaware is notable for being the only Southern state from which no Confederate regiments or militia groups were assembled. If memory serves, you contend Delaware is a Southern state.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "You probably intended to say Delaware is notable for being the only Southern state from which no Confederate regiments or militia groups were assembled.

Here's what I intended to quote from this source:

"While most Delaware citizens who fought in the war served in the regiments of the state, some served in companies on the Confederate side in Maryland and Virginia Regiments.
Delaware is notable for being the only slave state from which no Confederate regiments or militia groups were assembled."

jeffersondem: "If memory serves, you contend Delaware is a Southern state."

Delaware was one of four Border South states (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri) -- slave states which never voted to secede.
Those Border States did also provide troops for the Confederacy, on the order of three Union to one Confederate. But of the four, Delaware had the fewest slaves in 1860 and provided fewer troops for the Confederacy, both in numbers and percent compared to Union troops.

[jeffersondem]

“Here's what I intended to quote from this source: . . .”

It's fine that you use Wikipedia. But you should read the article before you use it to support your argument.

The first sentences of the article says: “Delaware is a state located in the Mid-Atlantic and/or Northeastern regions of the United States. It is bordered to the south and west by Maryland, to the northeast by New Jersey, and to the north by Pennsylvania.

This repudiates your contention that Delaware is a Southern state. Just because it had slaves did not make it a Southern state. All of the original Northern states were slave states at one time. And after they moved to a different labor system they were still Northern states.

And your contention that Delaware was a “border state” is wrong too. Delaware borders Maryland, which was an actual border state to the Southern Confederacy. Maryland never seceded; fought for the Union cause. Like all the original states north and south, Maryland was a slave state.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "This repudiates your contention that Delaware is a Southern state.
Just because it had slaves did not make it a Southern state...
And your contention that Delaware was a “border state” is wrong too."

Apparently there is some disagreement on that subject:

The final three states to ratify the 13th amendment were:

1. Delaware (1901)
2. Kentucky (1976)
3. Mississippi (1995)

So, clearly, Delaware was at least "Border State" if not "Southern".
Finally, I appeal to that ultimate of final authorities, Joe Biden: </sarc>

"They're going to put y'all back in chains"

[BroJoeK]

"youse guys" or as many say, "yous'n"

[jeffersondem]

“Finally, I appeal to that ultimate of final authorities, Joe Biden: </sarc>”

When Joe Biden is cited, even in jest, it's time to get out and leave the dog with the bone.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "When Joe Biden is cited, even in jest, it's time to get out and leave the dog with the bone."

Delaware-ian Biden speaking in Danville, Virginia, in Southern drawl.
In 1787 and 1860 Delaware was considered a Southern Border state.