On this date in 1864 President Lincoln receives a Christmas gift.

[Bull Snipe]

"I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the City of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty heavy guns and plenty of ammunition and about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton." General William T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" was over. During the campaign General Sherman had made good on his promise d “to make Georgia howl”. Atlanta was a smoldering ruin, Savannah was in Union hands, closing one of the last large ports to Confederate blockade runners. Sherman’s Army wrecked 300 miles of railroad and numerous bridges and miles of telegraph lines. It seized 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules, and 13,000 head of cattle. It confiscated 9.5 million pounds of corn and 10.5 million pounds of fodder, and destroyed uncounted cotton gins and mills. In all, about 100 million dollars of damage was done to Georgia and the Confederate war effort.

[jeffersondem]

“There is no natural right of independence!”

Elsewhere I have expressed a couple of concerns over this way of thinking.

It is worth looking at again because this statement, it seems, captures and explains the vast difference between the sides on this board, and importantly, the gulf between North and South - then and now.

Since Lincoln's election, and more so after the disaster at Appomattox, the North has contended fiercely that the South did not have the right to independence.

To the extent that Brother OIFVeteran speaks for Lincoln's side - no one says he doesn't - we see unambiguously their belief the Declaration of Independence could not provide the South with justification for independence in 1860, because the DOI could not provide the colonies justification for independence in 1776.

Read the Lincolnian view again, for the first time: “There is no natural right of independence!"

Not from Washington, or London.

[x]

He made the Declaration of Independence into a statement on the issue of slavery instead of what it actually was, which was an assertion that states had a right to be free and independent of a larger government which they saw as oppressing them.

He flipped the meaning almost 180 degrees, and used it to justify the very opposite thing which the Declaration said.

Opposition to slavery is not "the very opposite" of opposition to tyranny. Arguably, it is complementary. Argue a case based on general principles, as Jefferson did, and you have to consider where those principles will lead you.

And strictly speaking, the Declaration isn't a state's rights document. The same principle that would allow a state government to break with an oppressive federal union would also allow groups within states (alienated Tennessee and Alabama highlanders, slaves) to break with a government that oppressed them. That is one reason why secession couldn't simply be an automatic right to be exercised whenever one wanted to.

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn pointed out that the term "revolution" was a misnomer when applied to the American separation from Britain. He said the more accurate term was "American war of independence."

Scholars more familiar with the revolution have pointed out the ways in which it was a revolution. It certainly felt like one to those who were alive at the time, and it was more of a revolution than Britain's "Glorious Revolution."

So too, did South Carolinians in 1860 believe that what they were doing was making a revolution. "The tea has been thrown overboard - the revolution of 1860 has been initiated." -- Charleston Mercury, November 8, 1860. Bands even played La Marseillaise when the state seceded.

And you still haven't explained why, if Sumter became South Carolina property when the secession ordinance was passed, US bases in California wouldn't automatically become California property if that state seceded. That's not something you can just duck or skate away from. If the federal government has a legal right to its property in California even after secession, then it had a legal right to its property in South Carolina even after secession. If the federal government has no right to them but you would keep them and defend against attacks by the state anyway, then you are a hypocrite, and we can all pack up and go home.

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: "The year of 1859 was in what could be considered a "grace period," between the Polk and Morrill tariffs -- a period of rather free trade, and less government surplus." >>Bubba Ho-Tep wrote: Okay, if you say so. The Annual Treasury Reports are available for every year in US history. Pick one and show the vast expenditures going exclusively to benefit the north."

I don't recall using such words as "vast expenditures." Did I use those or similar words, or are you embellishing?

I have posted reports and editorials (northern and southern,) the economic portion of the Georgia Secession Declaration, and even a link to the 1860 Kettle book on economics, all pointing to this conclusion from the GA declaration:

"The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all.

So perhaps you will pick one of the treasury reports, say from the 1850 to 1860, and demonstrate to us how my sources are wrong. Please itemize.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Bull Snipe wrote: “So what you are saying is that there was no legally mandated direct tax against Southern states.”

The only “taxes” I am familiar with in those days are luxury taxes, tariffs, inflation via fiat currency, and government subsidies/regulations that favor business competitors (e.g., the “cost of crony capitalism”,) which includes protective tariffs.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>DiogenesLamp wrote: “Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn pointed out that the term “revolution” was a misnomer when applied to the American separation from Britain. He said the more accurate term was “American war of independence.”
>>>x wrote: “Scholars more familiar with the revolution have pointed out the ways in which it was a revolution.”

Which scholars?

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>OIFVeteran wrote: “Read the definition. Or social system in favor of a new one. The US Constitution was the social order in the southern states, they wished to replace it with the confederate constitution. It’s not a hard concept.”

Social orders and constitutions are not Hotel California.

Mr. Kalamata

[jeffersondem]

“Jeffersondem, have you ever read this?”

I have not read anything by Mr. Ostrowski that I can remember but I did read the excerpt you posted.

Very good and helpful. I plan to read more of his work. Thank you for the references.

I continue to be amazed that President Lincoln sought to use the Declaration of Independence to argue that it was wrong for 13 states to seek independence.

In hindsight, we can only conclude Mr. Lincoln was not misreading the Declaration of Independence - he was rejecting the premises of the DOI. And today - on this site - students of Lincoln will tell you right quick: “There is no natural right of independence!”

By this they mean no right for the colonies and no right for the southern states. And perhaps no right for anyone, anywhere in the world to seek independence.

Of course, Lincoln and Lincolnites reject the plain meaning of the original United States Constitution as well.

That is where we stand today but thankfully we have the one million page Federal Registry to regulate our conduct.

Or is it two million pages now that the size of scaffold toe board gaps is a federal matter?

[Kalamata]

>>jeffersondem wrote: "I continue to be amazed that President Lincoln sought to use the Declaration of Independence to argue that it was wrong for 13 states to seek independence. In hindsight, we can only conclude Mr. Lincoln was not misreading the Declaration of Independence - he was rejecting the premises of the DOI."

He knew exactly what he was doing. He was a Hamiltonian, at heart; and they are quick to avenge, and even shed blood, if they don't get their patronage. This is Calhoun on an attempt by the protectionists to repeal the 1833 tariff compromise of the 1828 tariff of abominations:

"The Senator from New-York must excuse me. I feel it my duty to speak plainly, where the interest of my constituents and the whole country is so deeply concerned. I must tell him I lack confidence in him. I see in his bill a design, under the show of reduction, to revive the tariff controversy, by which he and his party have so much profited at the expense of the country. It is an artful and bold stroke of party policy, calculated to distract and divide the opposition, and place almost unlimited control over the capital and labor of the country in the hands of those in power. It affords the means of appealing to the hopes and fears of every section and interest, while the distraction and division which must follow, would prevent the possibility of united efforts to arrest the abuses and encroachments of power. Experience has taught us to understand the game, and to be on our guard against those who are playing it. We cannot close our eyes to the fact, that the party which is now so intent to disturb the compromise, is the very party that was the author of the tariff of 1828, and which, after using every effort to render it permanent, was ready to shed our blood rather than surrender the act. Their devotion to a measure, of which they are the authors, and to which they owe their present elevation, prepared us to expect that deep hostility to that act which gave their favorite a mortal blow, and opened the way for an united, and we trust, ere long, a successful resistance to power acquired by deception, and retained by delusion and corruption. The entire South may well apply to the Senator, as the author of the tariff of 1828, the reply which a distinguished Senator (Mr. Tazewell of Virginia) gave, after its passage, to one who now occupies a higher station than he then did, and who undertook to explain to him his vote on the occasion; "Sir, you have deceived me once that was your fault; but if you deceive me again, the fault will be mine." Alas for Virginia! that once proud and patriotic State! She has dismissed her honest and enlightened son, who served her with so much fidelity, and has elevated to the highest office him who betrayed her and trampled her interest in the dust."

[On the Bill introduced by Mr. Wright, Chairman of the Committee on Finance, to repeal and reduce certain Duties therein mentioned, delivered in the Senate, February 23d, 1837, in Richard K. Cralle, "The Works of John C. Calhoun Vol III: Speeches." D. Appleton & Company, 1867, pp.58-59]

********************

>>jeffersondem wrote: "And today - on this site - students of Lincoln will tell you right quick: "There is no natural right of independence!" By this they mean no right for the colonies and no right for the southern states. And perhaps no right for anyone, anywhere in the world to seek independence. Of course, Lincoln and Lincolnites reject the plain meaning of the original United States Constitution as well."

Perhaps they are still blinded by the "Great Rhetorician." This is Mencken on the clever deception in the Gettysburg Address:

"The Gettysburg speech is at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history. Put beside it, all the whoopings of the Websters, Sumners and Everetts seem gaudy and silly. It is eloquence brought to a pellucid and almost child-like perfection—the highest emotion reduced to one graceful and irresistible gesture. Nothing else precisely like it is to be found in the whole range of oratory. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous.

"But let us not forget that it is oratory, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination—"that government of the people, by the people, for the people," should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i. e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle an absolutely free people; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and vote of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that vote was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely any freedom at all. Am I the first American to note the fundamental nonsensicality of the Gettysburg address? If so, I plead my aesthetic joy in it in amelioration of the sacrilege."

[Abraham Lincoln as one of Five Men at Random, in H. L. Mencken, "Prejudices - Third Series." Alfred A. Knopf, 1922, pp.174-175]

********************

>>jeffersondem wrote: "That is where we stand today but thankfully we have the one million page Federal Registry to regulate our conduct. Or is it two million pages now that the size of scaffold toe board gaps is a federal matter?"

Don't forget the Hallowed Halls of the "legal" system that are bursting at the seams with Case Law. . . 🙂

Mr. Kalamata

[DiogenesLamp]

In hindsight, we can only conclude Mr. Lincoln was not misreading the Declaration of Independence - he was rejecting the premises of the DOI. And today - on this site - students of Lincoln will tell you right quick: “There is no natural right of independence!”

Nothing so complicated. He was a clever con man who knew how to manipulate people, and he did not care if he was lying or not.

Read how he stole the nomination from Seward with the help of his corporate railroad buddies and you begin to realize that this guy is a grifter, not unlike that other racially obsessed Liberal Lawyer from Illinois which we recently got rid of.

The state of Illinois has a massive stink of corruption about it, and I think Lincoln is part of the group that caused it to be that way.

[DiogenesLamp]

"The Gettysburg speech is at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history. Put beside it, all the whoopings of the Websters, Sumners and Everetts seem gaudy and silly. It is eloquence brought to a pellucid and almost child-like perfection—the highest emotion reduced to one graceful and irresistible gesture. Nothing else precisely like it is to be found in the whole range of oratory. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous.

"But let us not forget that it is oratory, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination—"that government of the people, by the people, for the people," should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i. e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle an absolutely free people; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and vote of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that vote was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely any freedom at all. Am I the first American to note the fundamental nonsensicality of the Gettysburg address? If so, I plead my aesthetic joy in it in amelioration of the sacrilege."

Excellent. I was not previously familiar with this quote, but I had long ago noted the dichotomy of Lincoln talking about "government of the people" and invoking the Declaration of Independence while commemorating a battle to stop people from having Independence and a government of the people.

Thanks for making me aware of it. H.L. Mencken had a talent for writing things in a way that clarifies.

[DiogenesLamp]

Opposition to slavery is not "the very opposite" of opposition to tyranny.

Don't substitute my meaning. The core, the Soul of the Declaration of Independence is the right to leave.

Lincoln in his commemoration presented it as a right for slaves to be free, which created an implied right for his armies to stop actual states from being free.

This absolutely reverses the purpose and intent of the Declaration of independence.

And strictly speaking, the Declaration isn't a state's rights document. The same principle that would allow a state government to break with an oppressive federal union would also allow groups within states (alienated Tennessee and Alabama highlanders, slaves) to break with a government that oppressed them.

In context, the Document applied to actual states. Whether or not it can be applied to smaller populations within states is another matter, because that is not what was happening in 1860. It was actual states, some of which were among the original 13 states, that were demanding their independence.

So we don't need to be invoking any theoretical Oranges when we are dealing with actual Apples.

And you still haven't explained why, if Sumter became South Carolina property when the secession ordinance was passed, US bases in California wouldn't automatically become California property if that state seceded.

Those who can reason don't need it to be explained to them. Those who can't, wouldn't understand the explanation anyways.

[DiogenesLamp]

Okay, if you say so. The Annual Treasury Reports are available for every year in US history. Pick one and show the vast expenditures going exclusively to benefit the north.

Among my reading I stumbled across the assertion that the mail carrying ships were subsidies to the North, since the North practically owned the packet shipping trade to all the country.

I've also read of fishing subsidies, which again benefited the fishing fleets of the North.

I also believe i've read that most Northern railroads were built with government subsidies, while those in the South were built by private hands.

It's probably a difficult tangle to sort out, but Robert Rhett refers to it in his speech at the South Carolina secession convention.

The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected three-fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others connected with the operation of the General Government, has provincialized the cities of the South. Their growth is paralyzed, while they are the mere suburbs of Northern cities.

[BroJoeK]

jdsteel to DiogenesLamp post #556: "Your opinion that the founding fathers did not care about slavery is discredited by the writings and arguments of that time period."

DiogenesLamp to jdsteel #559: "Let us be clear on this point.
Your claim is only valid if you have evidence of it prior to the Declaration of Independence.
What they did subsequent to 1776, (The year they actually established the new government) is irrelevant to what was their intent when they established the new government.
You can't justify past actions by claiming future actions made your past actions right.
So do you have any example of the founders great concern over slavery prior to 1776?"

Here DiogenesLamp is arguing that, just as in 1860, our Founders in 1776 did not oppose slavery, and also just as in 1860, Independence in 1776 was not "all about slavery".
To bolster this claim he notices that slavery was never mentioned, even indirectly, in the 1776 Declaration of Independence, and indeed that many Founders remained slaveholders both before and after 1776.
Instead, DiogenesLamp notes that Jefferson's only direct mention of slavery in 1776 was deleted from his Declaration's final version by other Founders.

DiogenesLamp's logic seems to be: since 1776 Founders didn't mention slavery, that's evidence both that 1) Founders supported slavery, and 2) that 1776 Independence was not "all about slavery" -- both just as in 1860, DiogenesLamp tells us.

In opposing this, jdsteel notes that most Founders in 1776 considered slavery morally wrong, and many had already begun to abolish slavery in both their personal and public lives, Ben Franklin & John Adams included.
Other anti-slavery 1776 Founders included Samuel Adams, Roger Sherman, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Paine & Oliver Ellsworth.

We are not told which 1776 delegates, exactly, deleted Jefferson's grievance against slavery -- it could even have included Franklin himself, on grounds of "keeping peace in the family" as more important than crusading for abolition.
But the fact is that many Founders later expressed and acted in opposition to slavery, including such Southerners as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison & Patrick Henry.

Now DiogenesLamp wishes us to believe that unless Founders expressed opposition to slavery before 1776 they were somehow not truly opposed and indeed favored slavery making them equivalent to 1860 secessionists.

DiogenesLamp: "As I said before in my previous message, you cannot use later actions to justify previous actions.
What they did 11 years later has no bearing on what they were doing in 1776. "

Actually, Founders' actions were totally consistent from 1776 onwards -- they opposed slavery, but, just as Lincoln in 1861, they put abolition second to the more important need for national unity.

By stark contrast, 1860 secessionists put protecting slavery as their number one reason for disunion, and they made slavery effectively guaranteed in their new Confederate constitution.

[x]

In context, the Document applied to actual states.

When you assert a general principle, people will apply it as a general principle. The Declaration speaks of "one people" dissolving "political bands which have connected them with another." It does not restrict that right to states, or provinces or politically organized colonies.

Whether or not it can be applied to smaller populations within states is another matter, because that is not what was happening in 1860.

It was what happened in West Virginia and in the Free State of Jones. And it was a relevant question in many other parts of the country where residents of the same state fought on different sides.

Those who can reason don't need it to be explained to them. Those who can't, wouldn't understand the explanation anyways.

Once again, you duck the question. Either you really believe that US bases in California legally belong to the US and are a hypocrite for denying the same thing about Fort Sumter, or you are claiming some right of necessity in this case that overrides your expressed principles, which also makes you a hypocrite.

Answer the question already or go away. Would the US be justified in retaining military bases in California if the state seceded?

[BroJoeK]

jdsteel to DiogenesLamp: "My point is the UK didn’t exist."

DiogenesLamp: "Your point is wrong.
This makes it a non point.
"Union of the Crowns." 1603.
"Acts of Union." 1707. "

jdsteel is correct, the term "United Kingdom" was created in 1801.
Before 1801 other terms were used, especially from 1707 on:

"United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain".[2] "

According to the Encyclopedia Britanica:

"The term "British Empire" was frequently used after 1685; for example, in John Oldmixon's book The British Empire in America, Containing the History of the Discovery, Settlement, Progress and Present State of All the British Colonies, on the Continent and Islands of America (London, 1708).[1]"

So, the British Empire was known as Great Britain at least 100 years before it became the United Kingdom in 1801.

Further, there was nothing ever voluntary about "British union" -- kingdoms were forced into it and left only by rebellion.
It was, in short, a typical empire as that term is understood from time immemorial.

By stark contrast, the American Union -- which George Washington himself called "our empire" -- was of a very different nature, more analogous to the original ancient Greek Delian League:

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem to jdsteel: "If you don't want to accept that from me, take it from Brother Joe who has become something of an expert on this matter.
Said he: “So, yes, Burton was a slaveholder himself . . .” Burton was a Republican.
Brother Joe has thrown cold water on you."

Sadly, jeffersondem can only accept whatever "expertise" I might have if it can be made to sound like I agree with him -- this case in point.
Here jdsteel made a perfectly valid observation -- there were no Republican slaveholders, certainly not in the Confederacy.
Indeed, there were very few Republicans in the South, period -- none voting in the Deep or Upper South.
In Border States & regions (i.e., western VA) Republicans averaged about 1% of the vote, except Missouri with 10% and Delaware with 24%.

And Delaware, with the fewest numbers of slaves and slaveholders is where history finds our famous Republican slaveholder -- an abolitionist named Benjamin Burton.

Burton hoped to achieve emancipation in Delaware by the same method as already used in Washington, DC -- gradual & compensated.
Lincoln hoped that same method could be applied nationally.

Their plan called for higher compensation in Delaware than in Washington, but perhaps not high enough, because Delaware's legislature defeated the proposal, twice.
So Delawareans were forced to accept abolition without compensation in December 1865, upon ratification of the 13th Amendment.

After the Civil War, Congress compensated thousands of Southern Unionists millions of dollars for damages they suffered.
Had abolitionist Burton's plan proved successful in Delaware, it may have become the pattern for also compensating slaveholders in Union states, though it's impossible to say now if that was enough to change history.

Benjamin Burton = Delaware abolitionist Republican slaveholder, supported compensated emancipation.

[jeffersondem]

“Here jdsteel made a perfectly valid observation — there were no Republican slaveholders, certainly not in the Confederacy.”

But Brother jdsteel’s observation (post 502) was not valid.

Said he: “I have heard many times that there was not one Whig or Republican slave owner owned slaves at the time of the Civil War. Since I know how to use a search engine I found many sources to confirm that.” (sic)

I'm not sure why you want to make an even bigger deal of his error. In the excitement, he probably made a simple mistake.

[DiogenesLamp]

To bolster this claim he notices that slavery was never mentioned, even indirectly, in the 1776 Declaration of Independence,

You're slipping BroJoeK. I have pointed out many times that slavery is indeed mentioned indirectly in the Declaration of Independence.

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us"

Referring to Lord Dunmore's proclamation.

So yes, one of their "causes" was that the British were arousing their slaves to revolt against them.

[DiogenesLamp]

When you assert a general principle, people will apply it as a general principle. The Declaration speaks of "one people" dissolving "political bands which have connected them with another." It does not restrict that right to states, or provinces or politically organized colonies.

It restricts it to a minimum size to which a reasonable person can recognize as "one people." The boundaries are fuzzy around the edges, but in the case of the Southern states, we are way past the area of fuzzy boundaries on this general principle. As they themselves pointed out, they represented four times the population of the original thirteen colonies.

And I am not going to discuss the bases in California in comparison to a pile of rocks in the middle of an estuary upon which someone put some cannons.

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "I have addressed spurious claims of the left-wing, big-government revisionists, many times, Joey."

Nonsense, you only lied & denied your way through every issue.
That's just your nature, it seems like what you were born & raised to do -- typical Democrat.

Kalamata: "You make a good point, Joey.
Lincoln was unconcerned about slavery in the slave states, except later as an avenue of revenge against those who were disloyal – disloyal according to Lincoln's definition of disloyalty, which was refusal to submit to crony-capitalistic plunder."

Now there's a line of argument which would make your political daddy, Adam Shiff, proud of his boy Danny.
And your mommy, Jerry Nadler, is beaming with joy to see such malarkey from a fellow Democrat.
You learned well from them how to argue.

The truth is that Lincoln opposed slavery from his boyhood on, and like all Unionists from our Founders' time on, Lincoln put preserving the Union before abolition as his highest priorities.

Kalamata: "But the reasons for the first secession, in a nutshell, were the tentacles of crony capitalism, only one of which threatened slavery; the most dangerous of which was the Morrill Tariff. "

In fact, no secessionist ever said anything about "crony capitalism", period -- that is pure Lost Causer fantasy.
Nor did any mention the proposed Morrill Tariff.
Nor did any official "Reasons for Secession" document even mention tariffs in general.
Two secessionists who did mention tariffs, in passing, were Rhett & Stevens, but neither dwelled on the subject with anything remotely resembling their attention to their major focus, which was Black Republican threats to slavery.

Kalamata: "The reason for the second secession was Lincoln's declaration of war to protect HIS tariff."

And still more of your lying father Schiff's logic.
The truth is Jefferson Davis started war at Fort Sumter precisely because that's what he needed to force those Upper South states to declare secession & war against the United States.
The truth about Union tariffs is they produced about $50 million in 1860, only a small percent of which was jeopardized by secession, and all of which paled in comparison to the roughly $5 billion total cost of Civil War.

Kalamata: "I was pointing to the most serious pre-Lincoln threats, Joey."

Danny-child, you always point at only those things you wish to see, never the larger picture.
The larger picture is: there were many threats of rebellion, insurrection, secession, domestic violence & treason, all of which were firmly opposed by presidents of the time.

Kalamata: "Rebellion, Joey, which is localized, and which is not recognized by the state government, is not nullification nor secession.
The threats of nullification and secession were powers retained by the states to serve as checks against tyrannical government, such as the tyranny of Lincoln, and that of his hero, Henry Clay."

Danny-child, you are confused as always because you refuse to look at the whole picture.
In post #526, I listed eight different threats of rebellion, insurrection, secession, nullification & treason.
All were opposed by our Founders and early presidents, none were tolerated as, in Gen. Scott's words, "depart in peace, wayward sisters."

Kalamata: "The 1828 Tariff was merely an "enhancement" of Clay's 1824 British-mercantilistic-style tariff disguised as part of "The American System."
The tyranny that created the 1824 tariff was the precipitator that raised alarm bells, as explained by Jefferson in 1825:"

Complete nonsense, since the original 1792 tariff averaged 15% and was intended to protect American producers, North and South.
By 1810 revenues doubled and the average rate was reduced to 10%, but the War of 1812 -- aka "Mr. Madison's War" -- exposed America's vulnerabilities resulting in protective tariffs averaging 20% in 1820, under President Monroe.
Indeed, after the War of 1812, federal spending and national debt both tripled as a percent of GDP.
During that time President Madison imposed embargoes on New England exports, driving some New Englanders to threaten secession.

All of that was under Southern Democrat presidents Jefferson, Madison & Monroe, and none of which do we have letters from Jefferson complaining about.
Indeed, Jefferson himself signed the first act to build the National Road (today's US 40) through western Maryland.
So what suddenly happened in 1825 to bring out 82-year-old Tom's wrath against Federal government?
Only one thing -- the controversial election of one of those nasty New Englanders, the son of Jefferson's nemesis, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and suddenly Old Tom is afraid, afraid that young John Quincy will do to the Virginians what Jefferson & Madison had done to New England!!

So what actually happened?
Federal tariffs went from 20% under President Monroe to 22% under Adams, Federal spending fell by 1/3 and national debt by 1/2 as a percent of GDP.
None of Old Tom's fears came to pass in his lifetime.

Years later, in 1828 a new political alliance rose up with the idea that if 22% protective tariffs were good, then 30%+ tariffs would be even better.
The original alliance included Southern Whigs like Henry Clay, but also Southern Democrats like Andrew Jackson and even at first, South Carolina's John C. Calhoun, then the Vice President.
They were supported by some mid-Atlantic Northerners, but significantly opposed by New Englanders.

That Tariff of Abominations passed in Adams' last year, went into effect in President Jackson's first year, triggering the Nullification crisis to which Jackson famously replied, threatening war.

Kalamata: "According to this scholar, the Jackson administration backed down (that is, it compromised):"

Sure, but not immediately, and by 1835 overall tariffs were back down to the original levels of 1792.

Kalamata: "Until recently gaining access to this book, I considered Henry Clay as somewhat of a statesman who helped worked out a compromise (with Calhoun) on the Tariff.
But now I am leaning toward Clay being a bastard-child of the British mercantilists, with no fealty to the United States"

Soooooo…. now you've read John Quincy's version of events making Adams the hero and Clay (aka "the Great Compromiser") the goat?
Well, isn't that... ah... "special", Danny-child.
Btw, least we forget: Clay (KY), Jackson (TN) and Calhoun (SC) were all slaveholding Southerners.