Posted on 04/01/2018 9:05:49 AM PDT by Simon Green
Over the decades, this quiet coastal hamlet has earned a reputation as one of the most liberal places in the nation. Arcata was the first U.S. city to ban the sale of genetically modified foods, the first to elect a majority Green Party city council and one of the first to tacitly allow marijuana farming before pot was legal.
Now it's on the verge of another first.
No other city has taken down a monument to a president for his misdeeds. But Arcata is poised to do just that. The target is an 8½-foot bronze likeness of William McKinley, who was president at the turn of the last century and stands accused of directing the slaughter of Native peoples in the U.S. and abroad.
"Put a rope around its neck and pull it down," Chris Peters shouted at a recent rally held at the statue, which has adorned the central square for more than a century.
Peters, who heads the Arcata-based Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous People, called McKinley a proponent of "settler colonialism" that "savaged, raped and killed."
A presidential statue would be the most significant casualty in an emerging movement to remove monuments honoring people who helped lead what Native groups describe as a centuries-long war against their very existence.
The push follows the rapid fall of Confederate memorials across the South in a victory for activists who view them as celebrating slavery. In the nearly eight months since white supremacists marched in central Virginia to protest the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue, cities across the country have yanked dozens of Confederate monuments. Black politicians and activists have been among the strongest supporters of the removals.
This time, it's tribal activists taking charge, and it's the West and California in particular leading the way.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
FLT-bird: "Not at all.
Had anyone said those were the conditions a state agreed to when it joined, then not a single state would have joined."
Rockrr has this exactly right and FLT-bird, as usual, is... well, confused.
Our Founders fully understood that necessity is what they experienced in 1776 and mutual consent what they did in 1788.
No Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure.
For a detailed discussion on this see James Madison.
But just as important, Civil War was not directly caused by secession.
The fact is, as Lincoln said in his First Inaugural (March 4, 1861), Confederates after secession could have lived in peace, had they so chosen:
Note Lincoln's key word here, "assail".
It is also the word Jefferson Davis used in his February 1861 inaugural:
In April, Lincoln's believed his resupply mission to Fort Sumter did not "assail" Confederates, while Davis saw things differently.
So it was not some theoretical "right of secession" which started Civil War, but rather Jefferson Davis' belief that he was being "assailed" by Lincoln's resupply mission.
'Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, ‘to fire the Southern Heart’ and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....
Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation' North American Review (Boston October 1862)"
A number of pro-Confederate posters have made this point, and quoted sources from the time, but we must note first those are not Confederate sources.
Rather they're Northerners who stand to lose money from absence of trade with the South.
Indeed, specifically, they're Northern Democrats -- normally very sympathetic with their Southern Democrat political allies -- on whom the new situation is finally beginning to dawn.
Regardless, the fact remains that nothing in the original "Reasons for Secession" documents produced in early 1861 suggests any serious motives other than protecting slavery.
FLT-bird: "I doubt it will prove perpetual.
All empires rise and fall - this one included."
And doubtless people like FLT-bird will do their level best to hasten that day, right?
But there was nothing remotely resembling the necessity of 1776 in late 1860 and early 1861, nothing.
Nor did any "Reasons for Secession" document claim actual necessity except in the sense of what "Ape" Lincoln and his Black Republicans might do sometime in the future.
And that is the very definition of at pleasure secession.
No Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure.
FLT-bird: "The letter from Madison you are referring to was not anything he said publicly prior to or at the time of ratification of the Constitution.
That is therefore not what the state’s were agreeing to when they ratified the Constitution."
No, it's entirely consistent with what Madison said in 1788 in response to New York's signing issues:
More important: no Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure.
And yet, that is just what Confederates did in late 1860 and early 1861.
FLT-bird (#660): "Then the state’s ratification of the constitution has no force of law.
After all, it was in each case the exact same legislature that did both and at the same time."
Clearly the signing statements from Virginia and New York were deemed consistent with all Founders' understandings regarding "necessity" for disunion, as they experienced it in 1776.
But no Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure, nor did those states' signing statements.
The problem for 1861 Confederates was they had declared secession "at pleasure" and that put them on the wrong side of our Founders Original Intent.
It doesn’t work that way - no matter how badly you feeeeeel it should. The states ratified - with no secret provisos or crossed fingers.
Your ancestors won a war and forced their will upon an entire region. Big deal. Ride that wave as long as you want if it makes you feel proud. Don't ask me to. Demonizing those who fought to defend themselves against the tyranny brought forth by YOUR ancestors which has only grown worse with each passing decade is your way of trying to FORCE us once again into submission. Your ancestors did not own mine, yet acted as though they did. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because they, in their time, won a war, that somehow YOU still have ownership of anyone but yourself.
I directly quoted from the VA Ratification doc.
Your reply was: “Here you are wrong. Read the Federalist papers”
Point of order here. The Federalist Papers were opinion, editorials sent to the ratification conventions to move them to ratify.
Are you asking us all to rely on fluff pieces over legal docs?
“Yes the citizens of Virginia are citizens of Virginia” Huh? Show me a VA passport..... VA Social Security card...... Green card.... Do the residents of VA call themselves Virginian-Americans?
I copy and pasted: “powers granted the Constitution are derived from all the Peoples of the United States.” You responded: “No it very specifically does not.”
OK, here’s the link,read it yourself:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratva.asp
Good grief, do you think the Yale Law School is offering up fake docs?
I directly quoted from the VA Ratification doc.
Your reply was: “Here you are wrong. Read the Federalist papers”
Correct. When Virginia was considering ratification, they were using the language expressed in the Federalist papers. “the people” means the people of each state which is in itself a “sovereign community”. Not a “whole people” in Madison’s words. Ergo when Virginia said “the people” they were referring to their own citizens. They could hardly speak for citizens of other states. When they reserved an express right to secede, it was on behalf of their own people....ie unilateral secession.
Are you asking us all to rely on fluff pieces over legal docs?
The Federalist Papers are evidence of what the parties (ie the states) agreed to at the time.
OK, here’s the link,read it yourself:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratva.asp
Good grief, do you think the Yale Law School is offering up fake docs?
The peoples of each sovereign state. You are trying to convert the ratification of each sovereign state into some notion of a broader American people who were sovereign. There was no such thing. There were 13 separate states. Madison makes that quite clear. It informs the ratifications and the whole debate/discussion about ratification, what the states were agreeing to - and what they were not agreeing to.
It doesn’t work that way - no matter how badly you feeeeeel it should. The states ratified - with no secret provisos or crossed fingers.
Yes it does work that way. There were no secret provisos. Several states were very open about their provisos reserving the right of unilateral secession. There was no secret clause in the constitution delegating to the federal government the power to prevent secession.
Clearly the signing statements from Virginia and New York were deemed consistent with all Founders’ understandings regarding “necessity” for disunion, as they experienced it in 1776.
But no Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure, nor did those states’ signing statements.
The problem for 1861 Confederates was they had declared secession “at pleasure” and that put them on the wrong side of our Founders Original Intent.
It was for each state to determine necessity as it had been the right of each colony to determine necessity for itself. The states that seceded determined that it was necessary to prevent further abuses of their rights and interests.
But there was nothing remotely resembling the necessity of 1776 in late 1860 and early 1861, nothing.
Nor did any “Reasons for Secession” document claim actual necessity except in the sense of what “Ape” Lincoln and his Black Republicans might do sometime in the future.
And that is the very definition of at pleasure secession.
No Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure.
So you say. The states themselves obviously believed otherwise. As sovereign entities it was for them to make that determination.
You obviously haven’t read Georgia’s or Texas’s declarations very carefully. They lay out a train of abuses. Attached to South Carolina’s declaration was the address of Robert Barnwell Rhett which goes on at great length about the abuses the Southern states had suffered at the hands of the federal govt/northern states. The distinction you are trying to draw between necessity and “at pleasure” is an entirely artificial one.
“The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever.
It has been so adopted by the other States.
An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only.
In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification.”
And yet when New York and Rhode Island and Virginia ratified the constitution with express provisos that they reserved the right of unilateral secession, neither Madison nor anybody else claimed that this was inconsistent with the constitution or that it was not a ratification of the constitution in toto. Ergo unilateral secession is not and never was inconsistent with the constitution.
An artificial distinction. It was entirely for each state to determine necessity just as it had been for each colony.
A number of pro-Confederate posters have made this point, and quoted sources from the time, but we must note first those are not Confederate sources.
Rather they’re Northerners who stand to lose money from absence of trade with the South.
Indeed, specifically, they’re Northern Democrats — normally very sympathetic with their Southern Democrat political allies — on whom the new situation is finally beginning to dawn.
Regardless, the fact remains that nothing in the original “Reasons for Secession” documents produced in early 1861 suggests any serious motives other than protecting slavery.
That is quite simply false. I can produce numerous statements from Southern politicians saying essentially the same thing as well as many more Northern newspapers as well as many foreign commentators and newspapers saying the same thing.
Moreover, Georgia’s and Texas’ declarations go on at length about causes other than slavery and the address of Robert Barnwell Rhett attached to South Carolina’s declaration and sent out with it goes on at great length about the unfair sectional legislation (to wit tariffs and federal government expenditures). You are simply wrong about this.
It will depend on what the people want. As always, government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed.
The Ratification doc plainly reads:
“the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them”
“them” can only refer to the immediately previous “People of the United States” no one else. These were lawyers that wrote the doc, they wouldn’t have made such a mistake.
The purpose is obvious, the Constitution was created by all the “People of the United States” and can only be undone by amending the Constitution.
How could the Federalist papers be evidence of any agreement, as they were written before ratification agreements happened? They certainly influenced the ratification writings, nothing more.
Can there be a better source than Jefferson Davis himself, regarding the reason for secession?
Jefferson Davis’ Farewell Address
Senate Chamber, U.S. Capitol, January 21, 1861
Transcribed from the Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2d Session, p. 487.:
https://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/archives/documents/jefferson-davis-farewell-address
“It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi into her present decision.”
“She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions”
“just what the North has been endeavoring of late to do—to stir up insurrection among our slaves”
“for there (the Constitution) we find provision made for that very class of persons as property; they were not put upon the footing of equality with white men”
“when you deny to us the right to withdraw from a Government which thus perverted threatens to be destructive of our rights....we proclaim our independence, and take the hazard.”
Thou art pinged.
I really can’t think of anything else that would complete any further discussion.
Blacks-vote-95%-for-your-hated-Civil- War-democrats. How-do-you-reconcile-this? I don’ care, I have other aggravstions to deal with. See ya.
The Ratification doc plainly reads:
“the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them”
“them” can only refer to the immediately previous “People of the United States” no one else. These were lawyers that wrote the doc, they wouldn’t have made such a mistake.
The purpose is obvious, the Constitution was created by all the “People of the United States” and can only be undone by amending the Constitution.
How could the Federalist papers be evidence of any agreement, as they were written before ratification agreements happened? They certainly influenced the ratification writings, nothing more.
Re-read Federalist #39. The People refers to the people of each state which was a single sovereign community. There was no “whole people” of the United States. The reference to the people in the provisos IS the people of each state or in the case of each of the provisos the people of their own state.
You've offered up some great arguments. There comes a point at which one must yield to the law of diminishing return AKA flogging a dead mule.
Oh, and one more axiom for the road: You can lead a jackass to water but you can't make him drink.
Can there be a better source than Jefferson Davis himself, regarding the reason for secession?
Jefferson Davis’ Farewell Address
Senate Chamber, U.S. Capitol, January 21, 1861
Transcribed from the Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2d Session, p. 487.:
https://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/archives/documents/jefferson-davis-farewell-address
“It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi into her present decision.”
“She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions”
“just what the North has been endeavoring of late to do—to stir up insurrection among our slaves”
“for there (the Constitution) we find provision made for that very class of persons as property; they were not put upon the footing of equality with white men”
“when you deny to us the right to withdraw from a Government which thus perverted threatens to be destructive of our rights....we proclaim our independence, and take the hazard.”
Yes. The refusal to enforce the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution provided the needed pretext for saying the Northern States had broken the compact. Which in truth, they had. The legal basis for taking an action however does not mean that that is what was really motivating the parties. Had the original 7 seceding states really been concerned with protection of slavery, they would have accepted the North’s slavery forever constitutional amendment. As we all know they did not. Gosh.....why? Well here’s why:
“I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination.” - President Jefferson Davis The Atlantic Monthly Volume 14, Number 83
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis
Davis rejects peace with reunion
https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
Address of Robert Barnwell Rhett attached to South Carolina’s declaration of causes
The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle, self government, and self taxation, the criterion of self government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government, are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the Colonies, were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their Colonies, of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American Colonies, was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations; and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the Empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American Colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required, that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under Charters, which gave them self government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated Empire, the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.
The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. “The General Welfare,” is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this “General Welfare” requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States. 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 made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated…… To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union in other words, on any constitutional subject for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.
“The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism.” Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election
“They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people’s pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union.” The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
Beginning in late 1862, James Phelan, Joseph Bradford, and Reuben Davis wrote to Jefferson Davis to express concern that some opponents were claiming the war “was for the defense of the institution of slavery” (Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, pp. 479-480, 765). They called those who were making this claim “demagogues.” Cooper notes that when two Northerners visited Jefferson Davis during the war, Davis insisted “the Confederates were not battling for slavery” and that “slavery had never been the key issue” (Jefferson Davis, American, p. 524).
“Before... the revolution [the South] was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality....Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in regions north of the Potomac: and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars; and the North has exported comparatively nothing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact? ... Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue.....Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction - it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North. Federal legislation does all this.” ——Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton
[To a Northern Congressman] “You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue laws, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange, which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of Northern Capitalist. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and our institutions.” Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas
“Northerners are the fount of most troubles in the new Union. Connecticut and Massachusetts EXHAUST OUR STRENGTH AND SUBSTANCE and its inhabitants are marked by such a perversity of character they have divided themselves from the rest of America - Thomas Jefferson in an 1820 letter
“Neither “love for the African” [witness the Northern laws against him], nor revulsion from “property in persons” [“No, you imported Africans and sold them as chattels in the slave markets”] motivated the present day agitators,”…... “No sir….the mask is off, the purpose is avowed…It is a struggle for political power.” Jefferson Davis 1848
“What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party? Do you propose to better the condition of the slave? Not at all. What then do you propose? You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery. Is the slave to be benefited by it? Not at all. What then do you propose? It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country. It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds. It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement. It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim. You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why? Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.” Jefferson Davis 1860 speech in the US Senate
Georgia’s declaration of causes does talk about slavery a lot. It also talks about economics. To wit:
“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded— the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”
“The people of the Southern States, whose almost exclusive occupation was agriculture, early perceived a tendency in the Northern States to render the common government subservient to their own purposes by imposing burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests. Long and angry controversies grew out of these attempts, often successful, to benefit one section of the country at the expense of the other. And the danger of disruption arising from this cause was enhanced by the fact that the Northern population was increasing, by immigration and other causes, in a greater ratio than the population of the South. By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress, self-interest taught their people to yield ready assent to any plausible advocacy of their right as a majority to govern the minority without control.” Jefferson Davis Address to the Confederate Congress April 29, 1861
There is more - much more. I trust however that this will dispel any false notions of it being “all about slavery” as the PC Revisionists would have it (nevermind that 4 states issued no declarations of causes and several more in the Upper South seceded only after Lincoln chose to start a war).
Thou art pinged.
I really can’t think of anything else that would complete any further discussion.
Here’s what several foreign observers had to say:
“Any reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro and until it was convenient to make a pretence that sympathy with him was the cause of the war, it hated the abolitionists and derided them up and down dale. As to secession being rebellion, it is distinctly possible by state papers that Washington considered it no such thing. Massachusetts now loudest against it, has itself asserted its right to secede again and again.” Charles Dickens.
“For the contest on the part of the North is now undisguisedly for empire. The question of slavery is thrown to the winds. There is hardly any concession in its favor that the South could ask which the North would refuse provided only that the seceding states re-enter the Union.....Away with the pretence on the North to dignify its cause with the name of freedom to the slave!” London Quarterly Review 1862
“The contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces. These opinions…are the general opinions of the English nation.” London Times, November 7, 1861
“If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union. So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils … the quarrel between North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.” – Charles Dickens, as editor of All the Year Round, a British periodical in 1862
“With what pretence of fairness, it is said, can you Americans object to the secession of the Southern States when your nation was founded on secession from the British Empire?” Cornhill Magazine, England 1861
“The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.” —Charles Dickens, 1862
“Fate has indeed taken a malignant pleasure in flouting the admirers of the United States. It is not merely that their hopes of its universal empire have been disappointed; the mortification has been much deeper than this. Every theory to which they paid special homage has been successively repudiated by their favorite statesmen. They were Apostles of Free Trade: America has established a tariff, compared to which our heaviest protection-tariff has been flimsy. She has become a land of passports, of conscriptions, of press censorship and post-office espionage; of bastilles and lettres de cachet [this was a letter that bore an official seal which authorized the imprisonment, without trial of any person named in the letter] There was little difference between the government of Mr. Lincoln and the government of Napoleon III. There was the form of a legislative assembly, where scarcely any dared to oppose for fear of the charge of treason.” the Quarterly Review in Britain
The last is rather poignant
“If the Northerners on ascertaining the resolution of the South, had peaceably allowed the seceders to depart, the result might fairly have been quoted as illustrating the advantages of Democracy; but when Republicans put empire above liberty, and resorted to political oppression and war rather than suffer any abatement of national power, it was clear that nature at Washington was precisely the same as nature at St. Petersburg. There was not, in fact, a single argument advanced in defense of the war against the South which might not have been advanced with exactly the same force for the subjugation of Hungary or Poland. Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms.” Times of London September 1862:
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.