Uncle Tom's Cabin

Rely on a single vote taken at a time of duress to radically change people's citizenship and status in the world and you invite war, since a referendum a few weeks before or a few months after would give a different result.

Not necessarily. Among the more heavily secessionist states it is entirely plausible that a referendum held a few weeks earlier would have passed. Texas, for example, held its referendum before Lincoln's inauguration and saw it pass in a landslide. While this probably would not have been the case in more moderate states such as Virginia, it is probably reasonable to conclude that any referendum of secession after November 1860 would have passed in South Carolina.

Second, it is not at all certain or even likely that a referendum taken a few months after the Tennessee and Virginia ones would have failed. If anything, they probably would have passed by even wider margins as a result of further outrage against the reckless course being pursued by Lincoln. The simple reality of the situation is that those votes and those shifts in opinion were precipitated by earlier events - events of such significance as to shift a previously moderate populace into taking a radical action, in a large part out of self preservation. At the time of Virginia's referendum the entire population of that state knew that Lincoln had essentially declared war upon them with the blockade. When viewed in that light it is of little surprise that they voted the way they did and probably would have continued to vote that way so long as Lincoln was making war upon them.

Further, if one is to hold that the sudden shift of popular opinion makes acts of secession untenable or illegitimate this must similarly be true to any form of revolutionary split from a former government. The conditions and policies of existing governments change and at times do so in rapid succession. In the most extreme scenario, a tyrant could seize power by way of a coup and begin brutalizing certain regions of his country. If this were to happen it is not unreasonable for even the most loyal residents of that region to revolt, secede, or otherwise seek to end their political ties with the tyrant's regime and country. Doing so would be an act of self preservation and, as such, an act of necessity. If one is to judge this action as illegitimate simply by the sudden rate of events that prompted the opinion shift, no resistance to the tyrant would be justified and that is an unacceptable position for us to take.

But the basic idea was sound. The high tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were revised downward in 1833. An upward revision in 1842 was corrected downwards in 1846. The downward movement in 1857 would inevitably be revised upwards.

You are speaking of (a) incremental tariff changes and (b) tariff changes brought about by crisis reactions. You are neglecting a third possibility of (c) drastic unilateral tariff changes, as in those carried out entirely on the part of one region or faction in power over another that lacks the power to stop it. The Morrill Act was one such tariff.

And that upwards movement would eventually have been revised downwards had everyone kept their heads about slavery and secession.

History testifies against that event from happening except over the course of several decades later. Between 1816 and 1830 there were four major successive tariff hikes (1816, 1819, 1824, 1828) plus several dozen minor ones. Only at the threat of secession did tariff advocates even attempt compromise in 1832-33, and then in ways that still retained heavily protectionist elements. As a result America operated under a policy of constant heavy protectionism for over 30 years after the conclusion of the War of 1812. The Walker Tariff in 1846 was the first tariff schedule even remotely favorable to free trade that the country used since the Jefferson administration. Even then the Walker Tariff's free trade elements (including the 1857 extension of them) lasted barely 14 years before the restoration of levels comparable to 1828's Tariff of Abominations. The Morrill Tariff and subsequent hikes to it would be in place for most of the remainder of the century.

All of that in other words, 19th century tariff politics were not the simple game of ping pong you portray. Rather, they consisted of the protectionists holding the ball and holding for about 3/4ths of the quarter while only occassionally allowing the free traders to take possession for the remaining 1/4th. There was no correcting mechanism for out-of-control protectionism as the country had that for 30 years straight. Nor were the upward changes to tariffs percieved as too low incremental ones. Tariffs had this perception at two points in the 19th century: 1815 and 1860. Both times the upward "correction" was to install heavy protectionism, which in 1860 essentially meant tripling the rates in one broad sweep.

There was nothing apocalyptic about tariff legislation.

Economically there was. An export economy's entire livelihood depends upon being able to trade. Unless one is in the business of intentionally sending regions of a country into recession, heavy protectionism is indeed an apocalyptic event to those economies. The problem in 1860 was exacerbated by trading trends that had been emerging over the previous half-century. The south provided increasingly greater percentages of exports while the north's share declined (this was in part due to the fact that protectionism between 1816 and 1846 severely impaired technological modernization in the northern economy by encouraging a lazy domestic monopoly). By 1860 the south literally supported the entire nation in the world economy. It provided in excess of 75% of the country's exports with most of the remainder coming from midwestern and western agriculture.

The same could not be said for the slavery issue.

Exactly how was slavery an apocalyptic event? Yes, it is certain that it would have to be abolished and it is certain that the trend in the western world was toward its abolition, but exactly what apocalyptic event was it certain to bring? In other words, why did there have to be a violent and bloody war to end it in the United States when no other country on earth had that problem on a similar scale?

As for Calhoun, he did see slavery as a "solution" to the South's racial problems, but he went much farther than that. Confronted with the European revolutions of his day, he came to see slavery as a safeguard against the evils of revolution, socialism, and democracy.

You misrepresent a significant portion of Calhoun's understanding of slavery. As I previously quoted from one of his most famous speeches on the issue, he made no effort to abstain from calling slavery an evil in the abstract. The "positive good" theory was strictly, in his mind, an exercise within the present condition of the two races in the American south that considered slavery to be the best of the alternatives, or, in a way, the least evil of the many evils. This may have been a mistaken theory but Calhoun was a far cry from the hegelian slavocracy of George Fitzhugh and, unlike Fitzhugh, he readily stated the abstract evil of slavery in itself. For all his reputation as a rigorous logician, he expressed quite different views on different occasions.

That he did, but the simple fact that he changed his views is not in itself a contradiction of logic. People change, modify, develop, and refine their beliefs over time. As a result the Calhoun of 1820 and the Calhoun of 1825 may say different things, as may the Calhoun of 1830 and the Calhoun of 1850. IIRC, I recently posted some lengthy passages of Calhoun explaning his view of slavery both to you and other posters on FR. In each case I opted for what are generally considered his most refined versions of this view, which come from a couple speeches he made in 1848 and 1849. I believe I posted the 1849 excerpt for you and IIRC it essentially states the belief I have just described of Calhoun: that slavery is an evil in the abstract but the best of the alternative situations that could exist in the world of his time.

It's highly unlikely that Calhoun wanted to enslave free Northern White workers, but it's clear that he was dubious about their value to the polity.

Doubt about the value of northern laborers to the polity dates back to the earliest days of the republic. No less a source than Jefferson called them a canker upon the body of a nation. The basis for this belief is not any objection to the persons of laborers themselves but rather to the manufacturing and industrial trades in which they engage. For an ideological agrarian northern laborers are indeed a threat to the polity in the sense that they are the masses of rabble for an inferior cultural enterprise in comparison to tilling the soil. This belief has virtually nothing to do with whether slavery is present as it extends from the type of enterprise being pursued, not the type of labor it uses.

These are only excerpts, but they indicate that he had more on his mind than tariffs.

No suggestion has ever been made that Toombs did not have more on his mind than tariffs. It is of note though that tariffs consume a substantial portion of his energy during the secession debate. Some have suggested that the tariff's role was significantly less than what Toombs' actions indicate and for that reason it is valid to identify him as a champion of the southern tariff position. That he also spoke of slavery in speeches on the tariff neither changes nor negates this fact as it is also true that he and other southerners gave speeches entirely on tariffs, entirely on slavery, entirely on states rights, and on anyone knows what combination of these and other issues. Needless to say, the hour is late so I will continue from here in the morning.

Of course that is nonsense.

Then name one other issue for me that Lincoln consistently adhered to from the moment he entered politics circa 1832 to the day he died in 1865.

You cannot legitimately say slavery because, aside from his vaguely stated opposition to its expansion in the territories, Lincoln was all over the radar on that issue. He literally supported a constitutional amendment permanently banning slavery, a constitutional amendment permanently protecting slavery and everything in between.

Nor can you say any of the other issues he championed during his political career as they were almost all individual events, such as invading the south or defending Mexican dictator Santa Anna.

The simple fact is that there is ONE issue that Lincoln consistently believed in from the day he entered politics to the day he left it with Mr. Booth's assistance: higher taxes.

[nc to Nonseq at 234] Cite one legal scholar (other than Walt) who supports your position that your interpretation of the Militia Act trumps the Constitution.

[Walt at 314] No one says it -trumps- the Constitution. But the laws passed are also the supreme law of the land. This fact actually moots the 10th amendment. The Framers knew that.

[Nonseq to nc at 223] section 2 of the Militia Acts provided that the President could call out the militia to supress insurrection and that he didn't need for the state to call for assistance

[nc to Nonseq at 234] As always, to support your unconstitutional argument, you must depart from the Constitution and cite something else as being superior to the Constitution.

[Walt to nc at 311] You have to ignore the fact that the laws made in pursuance of the Constitution are -also- the supreme law of the land.

You exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding of the Supremacy Clause. The Constitution is the fundamental and paramount law of the nation and reigns supreme over all Acts of Congress, all Treaties, and all other government laws, regulations, and agreements.

The Supremacy Clause holds that Federal laws are supreme over State and Local laws. State and Local laws which conflict with Federal laws must yield.

The Supremacy Clause does NOT hold that the Constitution, Federal laws, and Treaties are equal.

It has been well established that Federal laws and Treaties must yield to the Constitution. To be Constitutional, Federal laws must be made pursuant to the Constitution. Treaties must be made "under the authority of the United States." All such authority was delegated by the people via enactment of the Constitution.

Federal laws and Treaties are held to be equal and the one adopted last in time takes precedence over the other.

ALL laws and treaties must yield to the Constitution. For any law or treaty which conflicts with the Constitution, the Federal courts may strike it down as unconstitutional.

Your claim that a Federal law could moot the 10th Amendment or any other element of the Constitution is a legal absurdity.

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
U.S. Const. Art. 6, Sec. 2

One other provision that expressly relates to federalism is the Supremacy Clause found in Article VI of the Constitution. It declares that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." This provision sets up a clearly hierarchical relationship between the federal government and the states. Practically, the effect is that state and local laws are deemed preempted if they conflict with federal law."
Constitutional Law, Principles and Policies, 2 Ed., Erwin Chemerinsky, 2002

As the Supreme Court declared: "[U]nder the Supremacy Clause, from which our pre-emption doctrine is derived, 'any state law, however clearly within a State's acknowledged power, which interferes with or is contrary to federal law, must yield.'"
Ibid. 376

The Constitution gives the president the authority, "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make treaties provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." These treaties are the law of the land and prevail over all conflicting state laws. If there is a conflict between a treaty and a federal statute, the one adopted last in time controls. The Court has explained that when a statute and a treaty "relate to the same subject, the courts will always endeavor to construe them so as to give effect to both, if that can be done without violating the language of either; but if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will control the other."
Ibid at 275-6.
[Underline added]

A related issue is the extent to which Congress, by statute, may increase presidential powers beyond what are found in the Constitution. In Clinton v. City of New York, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a federal statute which created authority for a presidential line-item veto. The statute empowered the president to veto (or more precisely to "cancel") particular parts of appropriation bills while allowing the rest to go into effect. Congress could overturn such a veto by a majority vote of both houses.
The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Stevens, declared this statutory increase in presidential power unconstitutional. Justice Stevens explained that the president, by exercising the line-item veto, was changing a law adopted by Congress; the final version of the law is diffferent after the veto than what Congress passed. The Court concluded that the Constitution does not allow such presidential authority. Justice Stevens wrote: "In both legal and practical effect, the President has amended two Acts of Congress by repealing a portion of each. '[R]epeal of statutes, no less than enactment, must conform with Art. I.' There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the President to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes." The Court emphasized that the procedures for enacting and vetoing laws contained in the Constitution must be strictly adhered to and that any changes must come from a constitutional amendment, not legislative action.
Ibid at 336-7

Treaties, agreements between the United States and a foreign country that are negotiated by the president and ratified by the Senate, are permitted unless they violate the Constitution. It is firmly established that if there is a conflict between a treaty and a federal statute, the one adopted last in time controls.
* * *
Treaties, however, cannot violate the Constitution. In Reid v. Covert, the Court held that American civilian dependents of military personnel in a foreign country must be accorded a trial that meets the dictates of the Constitution. Justice Black explained that "no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution."
Ibid at 361

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court held § 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. The Act was read by Justice Marshall, perhaps erroneously, to enlarge the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction beyond the limits defined in Art. III of the Constitution. Since the constitution prescribes the powers delegated by the people to the national govenrment, a congressional act contrary to the Constitution is invalid. The Constitution is supreme over ordinary federal or state law under the Supremacy Clause of Art. VI.
Constitutional Law, 6 Ed., Jerome A. Barron and C. Thomas Dienes, Black Letter Series, West Group, 2003, 68

Art. VI provides that all treaties which are made "under the authority of the United States" are the supreme law of the land. They prevail, as do Executive Agreements, over inconsistent state law. Treaties and Executive Agreements are subject to constitutional limitations. Reid v. Covert (1957). Treaties and Acts of Congress are on a par, i.e., the last in time controls. The Chinese Exclusion Case (1889).

Ibid at 156

On February 24, 1803, Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison. In the opinion the court held that Marbury had a right to his judicial commission. In so doing the Court found that the executive was subject to certain legal and constitutional restraints that could be enforced by the judiciary.
Yet the Court found that it could not grant the remedy in an original action because it was not within the jurisdiction fixed for the Court by Article III. The opinion interpreted a section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 as placing this action within its jurisdiction but found that this law conflicted with the Constitution. Marshall concluded by holding that the Supreme Court had the power to declare such a law to be invalid as a violation of the Constitution.
Constitutional Law, 4 Ed., John E. Nowak and Ronald D. Rotunda, West Publishing Co., 1991, p. 2

This clause [The Supremacy Clause] at one time had been interpreted by legal authorities to suggest that treaties were equal to the Constitution. As a consequence the theory developed that said that treaties were not subject to any constitutional limitations.....
That the treaty power of the United States extends to all proper subjects of negotiation between our government and the governments of other nations, is clear.... The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments.... It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government or in that of one of the states, or a cession or any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent....
Ibid at 210
Quoting Mr. Justice Field of the Supreme Court in De Geofroy v. Riggs.

If there were any remaining doubt on the issue whether there is any outer limit to the treaty-making power, that question was closed resoundingly in Reid v. Covert, where a plurality of the Supreme Court, in holding American civilian dependents of overseas military personnel entitled to civilian trial, stated that neither a treaty nor an executive agreement "can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of government, which is free fom the restraints of the Constitution."
American Constitutional Law, 3 ed., Vol. I, West Publishing Co., Laurence H. Tribe, p. 647

Footnote 18
see also The Cherokee tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 616, 620-21 (1871)(dictum) ("a treaty cannot change the constitution or be held valid it it be in violation of that instrument").
Ibid at 647

"[A]ll those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legialature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."
Ibid at 210
Quoting from Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. at 177.

In 1695, New York City boasted 800 houses already. (Albany then boasted 200 houses.)
The name of the Big Apple changed for the last time from New Orange to New York in 1674.
It was New Amsterdam until 1664 when the Brits took over but then in 1673 the Dutch moved back in and renamed it New Orange.

When one speaks of New York City this far back in history, it really relates only to that small nub of land on Manhattan Island below Wall Street. Wall Street is all the way downtown in the Financial District, so it is a small area indeed. It was "not in length or breadth above two furlongs [a quarter mile], and in circumference a mile." Wall Street is named for the wall built by the Dutch to protect the (then) city proper from invaders.

Progress of New York may have been somewhat impeded by the Revolutionary War. The British occupied New York City from September 15, 1776 to November 25, 1783. At the start of the war, the city was virtually evacuated except for troops.

The first stock exchange in America was founded in Philadelphia in 1790. The New York Stock and Exchange Board was formally organized on March 8, 1817.

The NYC population boomed from 65,000 in 1800 to 96,000 in 1810 to 250,000 in 1820.

There are five borroughs of modern New York City, four of which are on islands. Only the Bronx is on the mainland. JFK airport is on Long Island. Coney Island is not an island at all.

This provision sets up a clearly hierarchical relationship between the federal government and the states. Practically, the effect is that state and local laws are deemed preempted if they conflict with federal law."

Funny you should mention that.

"The men at the [Constitutional] convention, it is clear enough, assumed that the national government must have the power to throw down state laws that contradicted federal ones: it was obvious to them that the states could not be permitted to pass laws contravening federal ones..."

--"Decision in Philadelphia" by Collier and Collier

Walt

New York City does seem to be the center of the Financial universe. Control of the Federal Reserve flows from NYC, and the big stock market is there. The crime rate was greatly reduced while Giuliani was mayor. At one time there were over 2,000 homicides per year. I'm not sure I can agree that it is a wasteland. Few people could even afford to buy an apartment in midtown Manhattan. It is about a million dollars a pop. Politically it is somewhat left of left. Hilary fits right in. NYC is not typical of the state which is a leading agricultural producer. NYC (and the burbs) is very heavily Democrat. Most of the rest of the state leans Republican. I would not describe NYC as dreary, but anyone just being dropped in there might think he had entered an alien universe.

Waving at (or saying hi) to strangers is somewhat unheard of. In the South it is common for a complete stranger driving by to wave from their car. The initial Yankee reaction is "Who the hell was that and where do they know me from?"

Appx sq milage of the five borroughs: Manhattan 23, Bronx 42, Staten Island 58, Brooklyn 71, and Queens 109.

Manhattan has appx 7% of the area of NYC. The entirety of modern NY, NY (Manhattan Island) is only 23 sq miles.

The 2000 census gives Manhattan a population of 1,537,195 or 66,940 per square mile.

Rhode Island has appx 1045 sq miles. If it had the same population density as Manhattan, it would have a population of almost 70 million.

You exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding of the Supremacy Clause.

And yet the Supreme Court cites the Militia Act is saying that the president was authorized to put down the rebellion.

"The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But, by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, [The Militia Act] and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States."

--Majority Opinion, The Prize Cases

Walt

Of course that is nonsense.

Then name one other issue for me that Lincoln consistently adhered to from the moment he entered politics circa 1832 to the day he died in 1865.

Obedience to the laws.

Lincoln did support a high protective tariff early in his career. He also supported internal improvements.

But he left politics for four years between 1850 and 1854:

"1. While Lincoln was building political strength in local Illinois politics, he opposed the war with Mexico as inexpedient for several reasons, including that it was waged to increase the power of slave states in the institutions of Federal government.

2. During Lincoln's first term as U.S. congressman from Illinois in the late 1840's, he continued to criticize the Mexican war and worked out a bill (never introduced) calling for a referendum in the District of Columbia designed to free the slaves in that Federal enclave and compensate their owners.

3. His reentry into national politics in 1854 was clearly for the purpose of opposing the expansion of slavery into the territories under the provisions of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. He had his heart and soul involved with the idea of gradual emancipation to bring the fullest meaning to the words of Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal.

4. From 1854 to his nomination for the presidency in 1860, as James McPherson noted in his DRAWN WITH THE SWORD, "the dominant, unifying theme of Lincoln's career was opposition to the expansion of slavery as a vital first step toward placing it in the course of ultimate extinction." In those years he gave approximately 175 political speeches. McPherson notes that the "central message of these speeches showed Lincoln to be a "one-issue" man - the issue being slavery." Thus, Lincoln's nomination to the presidency was based on a principled opposition to slavery on moral grounds, and that position was clear to voters both in the South and the North.

5. In his early speeches and actions as president-elect and president, he was clear in his opinion that he had no legal authority to interfere with slavery in the slave states. However, he was persistent and consistent in his efforts to encourage and aid voluntary emancipation in the loyal Border States, territories and the District of Columbia. These efforts predated his publication of the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.

In summary, I think one can safely say that Lincoln was clearly a gradual abolitionist from the beginning of his political career."

-- not written by me; this originally appeared on AOL.

Walt

According to your irrational renderings, it is an inherently economical exercise to ship directly to the place where the goods are being bought, thus making the actions of Wal-Mart a poor business decision in your model.

Only by your inane interpretation. If the goods coming from Europe are destined for the people of South Carolina then of course it makes perfect sense to send them hundreds of miles away. And in your world it makes even more sense that if the overwhelming majority of goods are destined for the people at Point A then you first send them hundreds of miles away to Point B. The people in Point A are happy to accept the additional shipping costs, the folks sending the goods in the first place have no problem adding to their customer's expenses, and all is right with the world.

In the end all that really matters is that the economic benefits of warehousing then shipping outweigh the cost in opportunity of the next best option, meaning shipping direct to Charleston.

But if the overwhelming majority of the imports were destined for southern consumers, as you keep claiming, then would it not have made more sense to send them directly to the consumers? It seems a matter of simple economics, ignored by you in your attempt to explain things away. The goods went to the Northen ports because that was where the customers were. The goods did not go to the southern ports because the demand for them wasn't there.

Sit down...wipe the foam off your mouth...take your medication or continue your heavy drinking...and read section 2. It's the one between sections 1 and 3.

It is only fair to point out that even if secession was not ratified by VA voters till the date you mention, the Ordinance of Secession was passed on April 17, and VA troops had already attacked federal posts at Harper's Ferry and Hampton Roads with military force.

What you are actually saying is that till May 23, VA was still in the Union, and that military attacks on Union posts were therefore treasonous, by strict constitutional definition.

Thanks for making my point better than I could. :<)

It depends entirely upon the claims of ownership, seizing entity, and the nature of the acquisition. The other forts in Charleston Harbor were not seized by force. Anderson, in violation of standing orders from the War Department, moved the entire Charleston garrison into the mothballed Fort Sumter and turned his guns on the city - an act that was considered hostile in itself. Upon doing so he also abandoned Forts Moultrie, Johnson, and Pinckney at which point the SC troops simply moved in and occupied the vacant positions. Considering that all three of these forts dated to revolutionary days and had been built by and with funds from either the colony or state of South Carolina itself and only conditionally ceded for defensive uses to the US army in the first place, it is difficult to dispute the legitimacy of the SC troops' action.

In my question about armed attacks on federal posts, I was not referring strictly to Charleston or SC. I was speaking about federal posts throughout the South, all of which were taken with the threat of force, as you rightly point out a hostile act in and of itself. You seem to think that for 5,000(?) men with heavy guns to surround a garrison with heavy guns is a perfectly friendly act, whereas if the garrison of 100 points its vastly outclassed firepower back, without firing, it is a hostile act.

With the partial exceptionsof VA, SC, NC and GA; all federal installations in southern states were built or acquired entirely with funds from the entire Union, not from those of the particular state involved.

To change the question somewhat, I never hear much discussion of the validity of secession by the later acquired states as opposed to those of the original four. Let us agree, for the purpose of discussion, that these four had a pre-Union existence as independent countries, the basic argument for legal secession. We could probably make an even better case for TX. On what basis can you possibly make a claim for the legality of secession by LA, FL,MS, AL, TN and AR? These states never had any existence except as provided for in the constitution, and therefore had no legal status other than that provided for in the constitution.

Since one of my Confederate ancestors was a cattleman, in an area of Texas that didn't have agriculture or slaves, I would like you to point out how he was supposed to benefit from that institution....?

And the clock ticks on......

Since one of my Confederate ancestors was a cattleman, in an area of Texas that didn't have agriculture or slaves, I would like you to point out how he was supposed to benefit from that institution....?

And the clock ticks on......

Poor whites embraced the slave power's cause largely based on what would now be called white supremacy.

"... a North Carolina mountaineer wrote to governor Zebulon Vance a letter that expressed the non-slave holder's view perfectly Believing that some able-bodied men ought to stay at home to preserve order, this man set forth his feelings: "We have but little interest in the value of slaves, but there is one matter in this connection about which we have a very deep interest. We are opposed to Negro equality. To prevent this we are willing to spare the last man, down to the point where women and children begin to suffer for food and clothing; when these begin to suffer and die, rather than see them equalized with an inferior race we will die with them. Everything, even life itself, stands pledged to to the cause; but that our greatest strength may be employed to the best advantage and the struggle prolonged let us not sacrifice at once the object for which we are fighting."

-- "The Coming Fury" p. 202-203 by Bruce Catton.

Walt

I was looking for something else, but I came across this on the moderated ACW newsgroup:

"At the Cooper Union, Lincoln noted that these threats were always accompanied by casting of blame on anti-slavery men.

But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"

What is just as 'cool' (in Lincoln's usage) is the argument used by Southern apologists today against him: Lincoln moderated his positions on slavery to avoid provoking Southern fanatics, therefore he should be condemned more than them!"

Walt

The Supremacy Clause does NOT hold that the Constitution, Federal laws, and Treaties are equal.

The Constitution states that the Constitution and the laws shall be the supreme law of the land.

Laws can held be declared unconstitutional. When that happens in the case of the Militia Act, get back to me.

I think you are trying to sway people with quotes that don't mean what you'd like them to mean.

In any case, the Supreme Court used the Militia Act to -support- President Lincoln's actions.

Walt

Since one of my Confederate ancestors was a cattleman, in an area of Texas that didn't have agriculture or slaves, I would like you to point out how he was supposed to benefit from that institution....?

Since 99.81% of all black people in Texas were slaves then the odds are that if your ancestor ever met a black person then that person was likely to be someone's chattel. Thus he no doubt saw slavery as the right and proper place for a black person to be in, and would possibly resent any attempts to change what he saw as the natural order of things. But your ancestor was not one of the 28.5% of all Texas families that owned slaves. Those families brought a great deal of wealth to Texas and it's not unlikely that your ancestor earned a part of his living selling goods to those slave-holding families. It would certainly have been in his best interest to help protect his customers. So those are some of the ways your non-slave-holding ancestor benefited from the institution.

... "the Civil War continues at Free Republic"...

And the North is still winning. Best holiday wishes to you as well.

You might add that a prewar Texas cattleman's customers would have been almost entirely southern, as the cattle drives north hadn't started yet. The primary market outside of Texas for cattle in this period was New Orleans.

New Orleans is in Louisiana (29.5% of families owned slaves) and the beef was no doubt transshipped to Mississippi (49.1% of families owned slaves) and Alabama (35% of families owned slaves) and Georgia (37.3% of families owned slaves) and perhaps on to South Carolina (45.5% of families owned slaves). So no, I don't see where they benefitted from slavery at all. </sarcasm>