Posted on 05/24/2007 6:03:30 AM PDT by Rebeleye
Do you have a real answer for him?
“What Does It Mean “The South Shall Rise Again”:
You’re at the flea market. XD
Salmon P. Chase disagreed, asserting in 1854 'we have rights which the federal government must not invade - rights superior to its power, on which our sovereignty depends; and we do mean to assert these rights against all tyrannical assumptions of authority.'
How many times do I have to tell you-I do NOT condone what Brown did in Kansas?
But I DO like how he took blacks up to his farm in New York,taught them skills and let them live like one of his family.
Brown was an anomaly for his time.Not a saint by any means but a righteous sinner,if I may use that term.
No way to compare him with Jim Jones and Alqueida!
[4CJ] I guess that explains why the South protested over the amount of the tariffs almost since our founding? </sarcasm>
Two answers suggest themselves to me:
A) Are the economic historians working with good data and without an agenda? Remember that the Marxist historians at Columbia have been beavering away for years, trying to recenter the Civil War as a moral issue and as a didactic political drama of vanguard liberation, one of Marxist-Leninism's favorite (distorting) prisms. It would help their case if the tariff issue could be made to go away, and if slavery could be isolated as the solitary issue on the national bill of disagreements. Their politically-loaded mantra for years has been "it was all about slavery."
B) The data may or may not support a subtle argument that the tariff did not redound to the disadvantage of the South. However, the majority of Southerners thought that it did, and they thought so very firmly. As evidence, I would bring in (and cite if asked) the speeches of Robert Toombs and Alexander Stephens, the former a Democrat and the latter a Whig and a defender of the Whig program (Henry Clay's "American System"), debating secession and the iniquities of the tariff before the governor, legislature, and leading citizens of Georgia, as Georgia ruminated on the secession question after South Carolina, Toombs's home State, had already left the Union.
Stephens labored to make the argument LS does, but Toombs carried the day. Georgia, convinced she had nothing to look forward to but maltreatment and financial ruin from a Union run by Lincoln's sectionally-based political machine, seceded.
I'm not adverse to that point. I think the ethnic malice of the CSA is overrated. I don’t even think there was that great of a malice towards the slaves while they were still slaves. The lust for power and wealth and the disregard for all others is the rebs’ great fault in my eyes. The reb power structure exhibited a loathsome hypocrisy that cried to the heavens about small injuries received while inflicting large injuries to others as part of their normal practice.
The malice of the CSA mindset was not ethnic but rather the malice shown by a spoiled brat toward anybody getting in the way of the instant and complete satisfaction of all his whims.
The issue before the court in this case was not secession. The court did not address the constitutionality of secession. The issue at bar was the recompense to White (a popular litigant in this period for some reason </sarcasm>) for the bonds. To determine whether or not the court had jurisdiction to hear the case the court maintained that the acts of the people of the state were invalid. I find it extremely amusing that Justice Grier (of all people) held that Texas had seceded despite his holding in the Prize Cases.
Nolu chan wrote a wonderful expose on the actions of White and the dubious quality of the several cases, especially considering the amount of compensation was less than the costs of the litigation.
I've waded in it. Not very deep, though! The balefully-cold water begins at six inches, the water that will stop your heart starts at 18 inches. And that's in August, when it's all warmed up!
Lived in/near Duluth for a year and a half in 1959-60. The old airbase I lived on is now a state penal institution.
They did. Can you cite the section/clause of the federal Constitution that proscribes the 'legally' accepted method, or is this simply yet another instance of you pulling something out of your thin air? ;o)
The Morrill Tariff of 1862 was already in the works, everyone knew what the Republicans wanted to do on tariffs -- and Morrill was the Son of the Abomination, so to speak. The Republicans were high-tariff guys, and the Southerners knew it.
One cannot pull up real estate and ride off into the sunset. Just how greedy are you? Is it not enough that Southerners wanted to disassociate from your ilk, without having to abandon their homeland as well? Is that really what got Lincoln's panties in a wad? that Southerners thought more of living in their own country with blacks, Mexicans and native Americans absent yankees?
Ironically, what Chase was referring to was the right of states to hobble federal fugitive slave laws via habeas corpus, and specifically the case of a runaway slave named Anderson. Oh, and the speech was from Chase's reelection campaign of 1857, not 1854.
How does a tariff hurt a subsistence farmer?
How does a tariff hurt a subsistence farmer in the South more than it does one in the North?
When the topic is the socioeconomic makeup of the South, we hear that the vast majority of the population was dirt farmers with no stake in slavery.
When the Confederate army is discussed we hear that almost all reb soldiers were not slave owners.
Yet when the tariff is discussed, "the South" becomes a land that was 100% populated with plantation owners growing cash crops who would be hurt by a tariff.
According to the very first proposed declaration discussed by the Georgia secession convention, tariffs weren't the issue that caused alarm:
"The State of Georgia is attached to the Union, and desires to preserve it, if it can be done consistent with her rights and safety; but existing circumstances admonish her of danger: that danger arises from the assaults that are made upon the institution of domestic slavery, and is common to all the Southern States."
That's danger from assaults on slavery, not from Republican tariffs.
I found a link to the proceedings of that Georgia meeting and didn't see any concern with tariffs. But I admit that I wasn't looking too hard or expecting to find it. Maybe somebody can find a preoccupation with tariffs that matches the worry about slavery expressed in the above quote.
Awwww. Am I annoying all you WalMartians?
I might have a better answer. If he could give us some kind of an idea of what comprised those hundreds of millions of dollars in annual imports he claims were consumed by the South.
I don't think that any one is saying that states did not have rights. But I also don't think Salmon Chase is saying that there are no limits on a state's sovereignty. It's hard to say with the partial quote you've provided.
Nolu chan got canned a long time ago. You need to check out the WSR threads more often.
Texas first filed their suit against White, Chiles, and the other defendants in February 1867 - almost two years after Lincoln was murdered. Was he psychic?
...never got HIS official, scholarly, detailed and dispositive biography written?
John Niven has documented Chief Justice Chase's life in a detailed, scholarly, and dare I say it, dispositive manner. His "Salmon P. Chase: A Biography" was published in 2002 and he has edited several volumes of his personal papers. There have been other biographies of the man published as well.
One almost wishes there had been a biography written of his opposite number, the confederate chief justice, Chief Justice...oh, wait a minute. Scratch that.
Well why not try it and let's see? What was there to say about him? He was Jewish, something that seems important to you. He was born in St. Croix, raised in the Carolinas, lived in Louisiana, owned slaves and a suger plantation, may have been gay, and filled three cabinet posts in the Davis administration without any particular distinction. Oh, and in 1853 he challenged the senator from Mississippi, one Jefferson Davis, to a duel. One wonders what might have happened to history had Davis taken him up on it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.