Confederate plaque in Texas Capitol to come down after vote

WFAA ^ | January 11, 2019 | Jason Whitely

[TexasGunLover]

AUSTIN, Texas — A historically inaccurate brass plaque honoring confederate veterans will come down after a vote this morning, WFAA has learned.

The State Preservation Board, which is in charge of the capitol building and grounds, meets this morning at 10:30 a.m. to officially decide the fate of the metal plate.

[x]

I don't think the North and South were so far apart in the early years of the republic. New Englanders had poor soil and a poor climate. They couldn't produce much agriculturally so they wanted support for fisheries and shipping and then industry. Pennsylvanians were much more productive agriculturally, but they had mineral resources they wanted to develop.

Virginians had exhausted the soil and were facing increasing agricultural and financial problems. Virginia was the largest state in the beginning, and Virginians weren't opposed to maintaining that advantage by developing manufactures. Even George Washington wanted that canal to the interior built. North Carolinians were middling folk stuck between the aristocrats of Virginia and South Carolina and looking for a role to play. Kentuckians wanted to build roads and support their hemp-growing.

There was much room for cooperation between the regions. Then Cotton became King and every compromise or accommodation that happened earlier came to look like a betrayal of the cotton states and a theft from the wildly profitable plantation economy. Measures that were generally accepted in the early days as strengthening the national economy came to be seen as assaults on the cotton states' cash cow.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "More from those Southerners who were only concerned about slavery and weren’t at all motivated by the economics."

Well... just so we're clear about this: nobody denies that economics played a role, of course it did, always does.
But economics alone do not usually start or sustain shooting wars, certainly not amongst prosperous countries, there's simply not enough passion in just economics to sustain orgies of bloodletting and treasure exhaustion.

Remember, the term "trade war" is just a metaphor, even when hundreds of billions of dollars per year are involved -- as, for example with China & several other trading "partners" today -- we might expect, in effect, boycotts or even worker strikes, which will cause economic pain, but that's a far cry from international shootouts at the OK coral.

War requires something much more existential, something closer to home, something more threatening to average citizens.
In 1860 that "something" was slavery and Fire Eaters rode it for all it was worth.

FLT-bird quoting Patrick Henry to Virginia's 1788 Constitution ratifying convention: "This government subjects every thing to the Northern majority.
Is there not, then, a settled purpose to check the Southern interest?...
How can the Southern members prevent the adoption of the most oppressive mode of taxation in the Southern States, as there is a majority in favor of the Northern States?” "

Henry opposed the new Constitution, voted against ratification.
Others didn't buy Henry's arguments and voted to ratify.
And Henry was suspicious of Northerners, but this particular "quote" seems dubious because:

1. After serving in the Continental Congress from 1774 to 1775 Henry was never again elected to a national Congress, and yet here is quoted as if familiar with its factions.

2. Factions in the 1st US Congress were roughly 2/3 Pro & 1/3 Anti-administration, with 2/3 of Anti-Administration legislators being Southern.
   However, then as always there were political cross-dressers and trans-party "moderates".

3. This particular Patrick Henry "quote" might well refer the 1st Congress' first tax, the Tariff of 1789.
   That was acknowledged at the time as favoring Northerners at Southern expense, but Anti-administration Virginia Congressman James Madison lead the bill's supporters and it passed with just under 2/3 of the vote.

My point here is, the basic North-South division in US politics was already seen in the 1st Congress, but it was not then, or ever, hard and fixed.
Anti-Administration Virginia Congressman Madison lead the effort for higher tariffs in 1789, just as in 1828 Southerners Calhoun & Jackson originally supported the "Tariff of Abominations" and in 1860 some Southerners supported the Morrill Tariff, while some Northerners opposed all of those.

Indeed, the great success of Jefferson's Anti-administration party after 1800, now renamed "Democratic Republicans", came from the fact they received far more Northern support in states like Massachusetts, New York & Pennsylvania than Federalists got in the South.
And in 1801 as in most of the next 60 years, Southerners were the majority of their majority Democrat party.

Bottom line: basic North-South differences were there already in 1789, but were never as hard & fast as this alleged quote from Patrick Henry wants us to believe.

Tariffs were always "politics as usual", never a casus belli:

[rockrr]

I applaud your stamina to keep up with flt’s foolishness!

[rustbucket]

Could you offer a tutorial to, ahem, FLT-bird on how to use html formatting?

Sure. I had been thinking about doing just that.

FLT-bird, you make good points in your posts, but your posts are a bit hard to read. People could well decide to skip over them and miss the points you are making.

Some simple HTML commands would make your posts much easier to read. The commands become second nature after you use them for a while.

Each time you start a paragraph, type < followed by the letter p then follow the p with >. No spaces between those three characters. Then type your paragraph.

If you want to italicize something another person said (the best or clearest way IMO to distinguish what the other person said as opposed to what you are saying), start with the three-character paragraph starter above, then type < followed by the letter i then followed by the character >. No spaces between those three characters. That makes everything that you type following it italicized.

To end the italics, so that you can return to the normal, non-italicized letters and numbers of your reply, type < followed by /i then followed by >. No spaces between those four characters.

Using those simple paragraph and italics commands would make your posts much more readable.

There are other commands described in a 2015 HTML sandbox that explains their use (HTML Sandbox 2015). Using the simple commands in the sandbox, you can make parts of your posts bold, or underlined, or colored, or centered, or indented, etc.

It is best, of course, to preview your posts, to make sure you used the HTML commands correctly. By previewing what you have typed, you can experiment with using the HTML commands, before using them in a post.

If you have any questions about this, feel free to contact me by Freep Mail, and perhaps I can help.

[rustbucket]

[BroJoeK]: FLT-bird quoting Patrick Henry to Virginia's 1788 Constitution ratifying convention:
"This government subjects every thing to the Northern majority.
Is there not, then, a settled purpose to check the Southern interest?...
How can the Southern members prevent the adoption of the most oppressive mode of taxation in the Southern States, as there is a majority in favor of the Northern States?” "

BroJoeK, don't you remember Madison's reply in the 1788 Virginia Ratification Convention to Patrick Henry's arguments just quoted by FLT-bird? Here it is:

An observation fell from a gentleman, on the same side with myself (rustbucket: i.e., the ones who, like Madison, wanted to ratify the Constitution) which deserves to be attended to. If we be dissatisfied with the national government, if we should choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our defence.

The documentation for that quote and others from important Founders can be found in Link to my old post 108.

I just realized that I may not have ever posted or linked that old post 108 to you, BroJoeK, so you might not be aware of it. I have things I need to reply to from your recent post to me, but family is just now arriving to spend the weekend with us. I will respond to that earlier post from you as time and activities permit.

[FLT-bird]

And thank you for another great post.
Could you offer a tutorial to, ahem, FLT-bird on how to use html formatting?
Nobody on our side can get through to him... ;-)*****

And you could use a tutorial on doing something other than making “me too” posts.

---

Does everyone here appreciate that the Constitutional issues in March, 1861, were:

Was secession as practiced then constitutionally legitimate?

Of the six living former or future president, including Buchanan & Lincoln, none supported secession originally, but Virginia Whig John Tyler and Connecticut Democrat Franklin Pierce flipped, after secession was declared.*****

Adams sure seemed to considering he was censured for proposing that for the mid Atlantic states.....and before you ask I have already provided that quote above. Go back and read.

---

Tyler & Pierce said “yes”, the others — Van Buren, Fillmore, Buchanan & Lincoln — said “no”.****

Lincoln thought secession a great idea in 1848.....

---

The problem with this quote is: that’s not at all what Lincoln said.
Lincoln made no direct threat of force, indeed promised no war except if Confederates started it.
Of course anti-Republicans chose to see Lincoln’s Inaugural in the worst light, but they could have chosen otherwise.****

No. Lincoln said “you’re gonna hand over your money to us in taxes....if you don’t I’ll use violence to take it from you”. That was the real declaration of war.

---

Lincoln’s intentions: “...to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion — no using of force...”

Lincoln’s promise: “The government will not assail you.
You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors.”*****

Which was plainly a lie. He was saying the South could only have peace if they handed over their money to a foreign power aka the US government.

---

Lincoln’s word “assail” here is important because it refers back to Jefferson Davis’ February 1861 Inaugural:

“If a just perception of mutual interest shall permit us peaceably to pursue our separate political career, my most earnest desire will have been fulfilled.
But, if this be denied to us, and the integrity of our territory and jurisdiction be assailed, it will but remain for us, with firm resolve, to appeal to arms and invoke the blessings of Providence on a just cause.”

Notice, Davis promised to start war if Confederate “integrity” was “assailed”.****

Uhhhh yeah. EVERY sovereign power will resort to war if their territory is attacked. The aggressor is of course their attacker, not them for defending themselves.

---

Lincoln promised he would not “assail” Confederates and they could only have war if they were aggressors.****

He promised to use violence against them to take their money if they did not willingly hand it over. He was clearly the aggressor here.

---

At Fort Sumter, Davis felt “assailed” and started war, as he promised.****

As any other sovereign country would have if a foreign power invaded their territory.

---

Lincoln did not consider his resupply mission “assailing” and did see Confederate firing on Fort Sumter as “aggression”.
It seems that most Northerners at the time agreed with Lincoln, most Southerners with Davis.*****

The mission accomplished exactly what Lincoln intended - it started a war.

---

Our Lost Causers tell us that Lincoln did “assail”, or at least would have “assailed” with his “war fleet” to Fort Sumter, but the fact remains that from his own words Jefferson Davis intended to take both Forts Sumter & Pickens, by force if necessary, regardless of what Lincoln did, or didn’t do.***

” , May 1st, 1861. Washington
Capt. G.V. Fox:
My Dear Sir, I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to provision Fort Sumter should be the source of any annoyance to you. The practicability of your plan was not, in fact, brought to a test. By reason of a gale, well known in advance to be possible, and not improbable, the tugs, an essential part of the plan, never reached the ground ; while, by an accident, for which you were in nowise responsible, and possibly I, to some extent, was, you were deprived of a war-vessel, with her men, which you deemed of great importance to the enterprise.

I most cheerfully and truthfully declare that the failure of the undertaking has not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you developed in the effort have greatly heightened you in my estimation. For a daring and dangerous enterprise of a similar character, you would, to-day, be the man of all my acquaintances whom I would select. You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.
Very truly your friend, A. LINCOLN.”

Those “ provisions” as Abe called them and as some Americans continue to try to call them even when they have been presented irrefutable evidence to the contrary, as originally planned included the following:

The steam sloop-of-war USS Pawnee, 181 officers and enlisted Armament: • 8 × 9 in guns, • 2 × 12-pounder guns

USS Powhatan, 289 officers and enlisted Armament: • 1 × 11 in (280 mm) Dahlgren smoothbore gun, 10 × 9 in (230 mm) Dahlgren smoothbore guns • 5 × 12-pounder guns, also transporting steam launches and about 300 sailors (besides the crew, these to be used to augment Army troops)

Armed screw steamer USS Pocahontas, 150 officers and men (approx.) 4 × 32-pounder guns, 1 × 10-pounder gun, 1 × 20-pounder Parrot rifle

The Revenue Cutter USS Harriet Lane, 95 officers and men Armament: 1 x 4in gun, 1 x 9in gun, 2 x 8in guns, 2 x 24 lb brass howitzers

The steamer Baltic transporting about 200 troops, composed of companies C and D of the 2nd U.S. Artillery, and three hired tug boats with added protection against small arms fire to be used to tow troop and supply barges directly to Fort Sumter (or some other point since it is inconceivable that they would be taking small arms fire from a union held fortification )

Totals

4 war ships
4 transports
38 heavy guns
1200 military personnel (at least 500 of whom were to be used as a landing party)

Does this sound like “provisions” to you????

No the Fox expedition was no attempt to “provision” a “starving” garrison. It was exactly what abe said it was, a flagrant and deliberate attempt to provoke war and it worked very well. If for what ever reason it hadn’t worked abe and gang would have certainly provoked war at Pensacola very soon afterward.

“Lincoln and the First Shot” (in Reassessing the Presidency, edited by John Denson), John Denson painstakingly shows how Lincoln maneuvered the Confederates into firing the first shot at Fort Sumter. As the Providence Daily Post wrote on April 13, 1861, “Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor” by reprovisioning Fort Sumter. On the day before that the Jersey City American Statesman wrote that “This unarmed vessel, it is well understood, is a mere decoy to draw the first fire from the people of the South.” Lincoln’s personal secretaries, John Nicolay and John Hay, clearly stated after the war that Lincoln successfully duped the Confederates into firing on Fort Sumter. And as Shelby Foote wrote in The Civil War, “Lincoln had maneuvered [the Confederates] into the position of having either to back down on their threats or else to fire the first shot of the war.”

In his first inaugural address, Lincoln threatened to invade the Confederate states if they didn’t pay federal tariffs or if they refused to allow the federal government to occupy and maintain federal forts in Confederate territory
“. . . the President’s inaugural address. . . . he left the South no alternative but to return to the Union, or else fight to stay out. He declared it his intention to execute the federal laws in all states, to ‘hold, occupy, and possess the property and places’ belonging to the United States, and to collect as usual the duties and imposts.” (Hicks, The Federal Union, p. 557)

The Philadelphia Press in their 1861 edition proposed one of the most interesting ideas that made its way to Lincoln, January 15. This also seems to be the basis for Lincoln’s Inaugural Address. The paper said that: If South Carolina were to take the forts by force, this would be levying war against the United States and high treason against the Constitution” In other words, if South Carolina could be “tricked” into firing on the Forts in Charleston Harbor, that would be enough to go to War to stop the State from Seceding and thus reeking havoc on Northern and government revenues. The paper went on to say:

“In the enforcement of the revenue laws, the forts are of primary importance. Their guns cover just so much ground as is necessary to enable the United States to enforce their laws. Those forts the United States must maintain. It is not a question of coercing South Carolina, but of enforcing the revenue laws. The practical point, either way, is whether the revenue laws of the United States shall or shall not be enforced at those three ports.”

“That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the “rebel states”, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things de done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasure will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order o things must come to a dead stop.” New York Evening Post “What Shall be done for a revenue?”

It went on with an amazing disclosure of the real reasons why the North and why Lincoln did not want, nor could allow the South to secede from the Union:

“What, then is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding states repeal the revenue laws for the whole union in this manner? Or will the government choose to consider all foreign commerce destined for those ports where we have no custom-houses and no collections as contraband, and stop it, when offering to enter the collection districts from which our authorities have been expelled?”

but but but....it was all about slavery! LOL!

---

Davis to Bragg, April 3, 1861:

“There would be to us an advantage in so placing them that an attack by them would be a necessity, but when we are ready to relieve our territory and jurisdiction of the presence of a foreign garrison that advantage is overbalanced by other considerations

Davis needed war to flip Virginia & the Uppoer South, that’s the bottom line.****

No he didn’t. Had Lincoln simply let the original 7 seceding states go in peace, they would have been perfectly content to do so. They didn’t “need” the Upper South. They were happy to go their own way without them if they didn’t want to come along.

[FLT-bird]

Well... just so we’re clear about this: nobody denies that economics played a role, of course it did, always does.
But economics alone do not usually start or sustain shooting wars, certainly not amongst prosperous countries, there’s simply not enough passion in just economics to sustain orgies of bloodletting and treasure exhaustion.****

Oh I disagree with that. Most wars are ultimately about money. Money is simply what people fight over be it individuals or nations.

---

Remember, the term “trade war” is just a metaphor, even when hundreds of billions of dollars per year are involved — as, for example with China & several other trading “partners” today — we might expect, in effect, boycotts or even worker strikes, which will cause economic pain, but that’s a far cry from international shootouts at the OK coral.

War requires something much more existential, something closer to home, something more threatening to average citizens.

In 1860 that “something” was slavery and Fire Eaters rode it for all it was worth.*****

I could cite a litany of history’s wars that boiled down in the end, to money - that includes WWII. East Asia Co Prosperity Sphere anyone? Lebensraum?

---

Henry opposed the new Constitution, voted against ratification. Others didn’t buy Henry’s arguments and voted to ratify. And Henry was suspicious of Northerners, but this particular “quote” seems dubious because:

After serving in the Continental Congress from 1774 to 1775 Henry was never again elected to a national Congress, and yet here is quoted as if familiar with its factions.

Factions in the 1st US Congress were roughly 2/3 Pro & 1/3 Anti-administration, with 2/3 of Anti-Administration legislators being Southern.

However, then as always there were political cross-dressers and trans-party “moderates”.

This particular Patrick Henry “quote” might well refer the 1st Congress’ first tax, the Tariff of 1789.

That was acknowledged at the time as favoring Northerners at Southern expense, but Anti-administration Virginia Congressman James Madison lead the bill’s supporters and it passed with just under 2/3 of the vote.

My point here is, the basic North-South division in US politics was already seen in the 1st Congress, but it was not then, or ever, hard and fixed.

Anti-Administration Virginia Congressman Madison lead the effort for higher tariffs in 1789, just as in 1828 Southerners Calhoun & Jackson originally supported the “Tariff of Abominations” and in 1860 some Southerners supported the Morrill Tariff, while some Northerners opposed all of those.

Indeed, the great success of Jefferson’s Anti-administration party after 1800, now renamed “Democratic Republicans”, came from the fact they received far more Northern support in states like Massachusetts, New York & Pennsylvania than Federalists got in the South.*****

Patrick Henry was an anti federalist. I would say pretty much every single one of his dire predictions about how the federal government would usurp ever more power for itself and eventually become a leviathan were true. I would say his predictions about massive debts (since there was no provision limiting the federal government’s ability to borrow money) were true. I would say his dire predictions about how special interests would abuse the hell out of the “General Welfare” clause in order to seek subsidies, protection and all sorts of special favors for themselves came true exactly as he predicted.

---

And in 1801 as in most of the next 60 years, Southerners were the majority of their majority Democrat party.

Bottom line: basic North-South differences were there already in 1789, but were never as hard & fast as this alleged quote from Patrick Henry wants us to believe.*****

It is a quote from Patrick Henry and it is accurate. He correctly foresaw the danger - particularly for the Southern states - in entering a union with much more centralized power with those greedy grasping New Englanders. Its unfortunate more of his fellow Southerners did not listen to him. He was proven all too correct over time.

---

Tariffs were always “politics as usual”, never a casus belli:****

The Colonists’ secession from the British Empire started over taxation. The English Civil War started over taxation. Tax revolts have a very long history in Anglo-Saxon culture.

[FLT-bird]

thx. I’ll work on getting better with the formatting.

[robowombat]

Yes. The border zone, however, is far from NE Missouri. Monahan while old spends about 100 pages setting the context. Inside War is fascinating effort to examine the anatomy and taxonomy of a guerrilla/counter-guerilla war. For Quantrill the best is The Devil Knows How To Ride: The True Story Of William Clarke Quantrill And His Confederate Raiders by Edward E. Leslie. I would guess if your read all four of these it would be a good start to understand this wretched chapter in WBTS history. Plenty of cheap copies on the net.

[Bull Snipe]

thanks, will have to check it out

[BroJoeK]

x: "Even George Washington wanted that canal to the interior built."

Well... actually two Virginia canals, both supported by George Washington.
The better known is the C & O -- Chesapeake & Ohio -- up the Potomac to Clarke's Ferry, was intended to extend all the way to Pittsburg and the Ohio River.
The second, preferred by Washington, was the James & Kanawha Canal which would run entirely through Virginia to the Ohio River.

Neither canal was supported by Federal government, even though President Adams recommended it.
Jefferson thought the Constitution needed to be amended first, but he did approve Federal support for the National Road, today's US 40.

So there's no doubt in my mind that our Founders wanted national infrastructure projects, though some Founders were a bit, ah, queasy about how, exactly, they should be paid for.

x: "Measures that were generally accepted in the early days as strengthening the national economy came to be seen as assaults on the cotton states' cash cow."

It seems that all of our posters here take for granted & legitimate Fire Eater complaints about "Federal disbursements" going disproportionately to the North:

"The north has adopted a system of revenue and disbursements, in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed on the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the north"-- alleged from John C. Calhoun, March 4, 1850, quoted by FLT-bird in post #507

That expression is exceptionally succinct, which makes it suspect, but others said much the same, so the sentiment was likely genuine.

However, the facts I've seen say something entirely different.
This link summarizes Federal spending from 1790 to 1860 and near as I can tell, spending was pretty well distributed, when it did not actually favor the South.

Of course, if you are Calhoun from South Carolina, "the North" might start at your state's northern border, in which case Calhoun is entirely correct.
If by "the South" he means cotton states and by "the North" he means all others, then he would have somewhat of a point.
Cotton states produced about 50% of US exports, but certainly did not received 50% of Federal spending.

Years ago, I took time to spreadsheet & tally these numbers and overall "the South", meaning slave-states got 52% of Federal spending on fortifications, internal improvements, lighthouses, hospitalization & pensions.
They were a little over on fortifications, a little under in internal improvements, especially during from 1838 to 1850, which could account for Calhoun's complaints.

Bottom line: Fire Eaters' complaints about "the North" getting most Federal disbursements is only factual if by "the North" you mean all non-cotton states.

[FLT-bird]

Well... actually two Virginia canals, both supported by George Washington. The better known is the C & O -- Chesapeake & Ohio -- up the Potomac to Clarke's Ferry, was intended to extend all the way to Pittsburg and the Ohio River. The second, preferred by Washington, was the James & Kanawha Canal which would run entirely through Virginia to the Ohio River. Neither canal was supported by Federal government, even though President Adams recommended it. Jefferson thought the Constitution needed to be amended first, but he did approve Federal support for the National Road, today's US 40. So there's no doubt in my mind that our Founders wanted national infrastructure projects, though some Founders were a bit, ah, queasy about how, exactly, they should be paid for.

Some infrastructure projects they thought warranted yes although I would point out that Jefferson said not restricting the federal government's ability to borrow money was the single biggest flaw in the constitution. Most infrastructure projects were done in the North be it roads or canals or railroads or waterworks or the dredging of harbors. The argument - with some truth - at first was that the South had more navigable rivers and that therefore more infrastructure was needed in the North. Just like with the infant industries argument though what at first was modest and made some sense over time became seen by Northerners as an entitlement....and one that would be expanded ever more (sound familiar)?x: "Measures that were generally accepted in the early days as strengthening the national economy came to be seen as assaults on the cotton states' cash cow."

EXACTLY! Notice how similar that is to modern times...what starts out as reasonable and a special favor or temporary measure becomes permanent, the recipients come to see it as their entitlement and they clamor for ever more.It seems that all of our posters here take for granted & legitimate Fire Eater complaints about "Federal disbursements" going disproportionately to the North: That expression is exceptionally succinct, which makes it suspect, but others said much the same, so the sentiment was likely genuine. However, the facts I've seen say something entirely different. This link summarizes Federal spending from 1790 to 1860 and near as I can tell, spending was pretty well distributed, when it did not actually favor the South. Of course, if you are Calhoun from South Carolina, "the North" might start at your state's northern border, in which case Calhoun is entirely correct. If by "the South" he means cotton states and by "the North" he means all others, then he would have somewhat of a point.

That is entire inaccurate Here's Sherman admitting the North relied on money from tariffs Southerners were paying in a letter to his brother US Senator John Sherman: [the North relied on money from tariffs] “so even if the Southern states be allowed to depart in peace, the first question will be revenue. Now if the South have free trade, how can you collect revenues in eastern cities? Freight from New Orleans, to St. Louis, Chicago, Louisville, Cincinnati and even Pittsburgh, would be about the same as by rail from New York and imported at New Orleans having no duties to pay, would undersell the East if they had to pay duties. Therefore if the South make good their confederation and their plan, The Northern Confederacy must do likewise or blockade. Then comes the question of foreign nations. So look on it in any view, I see no result but war and consequent change in the form of government. William Tecumseh Sherman in a letter to his brother Senator John Sherman 1861. South Carolina Congressman Robert Barnwell Rhett had estimated that of the $927,000,000 collected in duties between 1791 and 1845, the South had paid $711,200,000, and the North $216,000,000. South Carolina Senator James Hammond had declared that the South paid about $50,000,000 and the North perhaps $20,000,000 of the $70,000,000 raised annually by duties. In expenditure of the national revenues, Hammond thought the North got about $50,000,000 a year, and the South only $20,000,000. When in the Course of Human Events, Charles Adams As Adams notes, the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North. "The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole...we have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe. This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually." - Daily Chicago Times, December 10, 1860 "What were the causes of the Southern independence movement in 1860? . . . Northern commercial and manufacturing interests had forced through Congress taxes that oppressed Southern planters and made Northern manufacturers rich . . . the South paid about three-quarters of all federal taxes, most of which were spent in the North." - Charles Adams, "For Good and Evil. The impact of taxes on the course of civilization," 1993, Madison Books, Lanham, USA, pp. 325-327 From 1789 to 1845, the North received five times the amount of money that was spent on southern projects. More than twice as many lighthouses were built in the North as in the South, and northern states received twice the southern appropriations for coastal defense. In the North, enforcement of the Morrill Tariff contributed to support for the Union cause among industrialists and merchant interests. Speaking of this class, the abolitionist Orestes Brownson derisively remarked that "the Morrill Tariff moved them more than the fall of Sumter." Cotton states produced about 50% of US exports, but certainly did not received 50% of Federal spending. Years ago, I took time to spreadsheet & tally these numbers and overall "the South", meaning slave-states got 52% of Federal spending on fortifications, internal improvements, lighthouses, hospitalization & pensions. They were a little over on fortifications, a little under in internal improvements, especially during from 1838 to 1850, which could account for Calhoun's complaints. Bottom line: Fire Eaters' complaints about "the North" getting most Federal disbursements is only factual if by "the North" you mean all non-cotton states.

False. See above

[FLT-bird]

Incorrect. The graphic shows which cities were *COLLECTING* the money, but the South was paying 75-85% of it. As I keep telling you, the laws were jiggered to funnel almost all import traffic into New York where the Robber Baron crony capitalists who controlled Washington DC could get their cut. The South was paying for the vast bulk of the European trade, but the money was funneled into New York.

Ding! Exactly correct. The parallel would be today claiming that NY generates some large percentage of GDP. No it doesn't. They money flows through there. A lot is collected from the banks via various taxes and fees. They didn't generate that wealth. Take them away and a new finance center could be erected fairly quickly. Take away the vast vast hinterland that generates all that economic activity and NY would have its balls chopped off and would never recover. It was the same then as TONS of even NORTHERN newspapers were screaming. The PC Revisionists never have a good answer for that one. "Tariffs were collected in NY". LOLOLOL!!!! Does anybody with even a rudimentary understanding of economics think New York paid those tariffs? If Wal-Mart has a ship full of goods land in the busiest port in America, Long Beach California, does anybody think the city of Long Beach or the state of California pays the tariff? Do they do so out of the goodness of their hearts and because of their deep love of Wal-Mart? You'd have to be willfully blind to think so.

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket quoting, reportedly from Madison, 1788: "An observation fell from a gentleman, on the same side with myself (rustbucket: i.e., the ones who, like Madison, wanted to ratify the Constitution) which deserves to be attended to.
If we be dissatisfied with the national government, if we should choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our defence."

Others here have posted long lists of quotes (or alleged quotes) purporting to show that our Founders endorsed unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure.
None actually do that, all list conditions such as powers "perverted to... injury or oppression" or "necessity", all of which refer back to the Declaration of Independence listing of just what such words mean.

This reported quote from Madison seems to go a step closer to "at pleasure" secession, suggesting only "dissatisfaction" as the criteria to "renounce" national government.
So there are several things to note here:

1. The quote can't be found in a normal google search which means, at best, it's an obscure quote, at worst, fake.

2. Virginia's ratification statement does not reflect anything resembling an "at pleasure" secession, but says instead "withdrawal" will come when powers are "perverted to... injury or oppression."

3. President Madison himself prepared to invade New England in 1814 if the Hartford Convention declared secession.

4. In his letter to Trist, Madison clearly spells out his distinction between mutual consent and "at pleasure" secession:
   
   "...the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself.
   The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.
   It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."
   
   
5. So, bottom lines: we have one alleged Madison comment from Virginia's ratification convention, versus the actual language of Virginia's 1788 ratification, plus Madison's 1814 anti-secession actions and his full explanation regarding "at pleasure" to Trist in 1830.

I don't think this alleged quote overrules all the others.

[FLT-bird]

BroJoeK said: Others here have posted long lists of quotes (or alleged quotes) purporting to show that our Founders endorsed unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure. None actually do that, all list conditions such as powers "perverted to... injury or oppression" or "necessity", all of which refer back to the Declaration of Independence listing of just what such words mean. This reported quote from Madison seems to go a step closer to "at pleasure" secession, suggesting only "dissatisfaction" as the criteria to "renounce" national government.

ah yes, Ye Olde adding of "conditions" gambit. There are several quotes from various Founding Fathers prior to ratification of the Constitution that all say it was a VOLUNTARY act...that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed....that each state is a separate sovereign community....they did not set out any specific list of conditions that had to be satisfied before exercising the right of secession - which all 13 colonies had just done 8 or so years prior when they seceded from the British Empire. They CERTAINLY did not say that anybody but each state itself had any right to sit in judgment as to whether those "conditions" were satisfied. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BroJoeK said: Virginia's ratification statement does not reflect anything resembling an "at pleasure" secession, but says instead "withdrawal" will come when powers are "perverted to... injury or oppression."

Here are the express reservations of the three states that made them. Note that these include the two main sectional leaders Virginia and New York and also note that under the Comity Principle EVERY state understood itself to have the same rights as every other state.

"We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the general assembly, and now met in convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon, Do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and AT THEIR WILL...."

"We, the delegates of the people of New York... do declare and make known that the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that EVERY power, jurisdiction, and right which is NOT by the said Constitution CLEARLY delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the department of the government thereof, REMAINS to the people of the SEVERAL States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, DO NOT IMPLY that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions in certain specified powers or as inserted merely for greater caution."

"We, the delegates of the people of Rhode Island and Plantations, duly elected... do declare and make known... that the powers of government may be resumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right which is NOT by the said Constitution CLEARLY DELEGATED to the Congress of the United States, or the department of the government thereof, REMAINS to the people of the SEVERAL States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same; that Congress shall guarantee to EACH STATE its SOVEREIGNTY, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is NOT by this Constitution EXPRESSLY delegated to the United States."

Nobody at the time of ratification said this was a partial ratification of the constitution...that the ratification was thereby defective and was null and void. Everybody agreed such reservations were perfectly consistent with the constitution. Every state understood itself to have these rights and powers retained.

Did everybody see the part about "EXPRESSLY DELEGATED"? There was no implied grant of all sorts of extra powers to the federal government....such as the power to prevent secession. Nowhere did any of these states agree that anybody but each state had the power to prevent secession, that others had any sort of right to determine if conditions were met to allow such a thing. Each state in its sovereign capacity has the right to determine if the conditions are satisfied for itself. That is the only reasonable interpretation. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BroJoeK said: In his letter to Trist, Madison clearly spells out his distinction between mutual consent and "at pleasure" secession: "...the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."

What Madison or anybody else said AFTER ratification is irrelevant. He was not a party to the contract. The states and the federal governments were. What the states actually agreed to prior to/at the time of ratification is what matters. Nobody can legally alter a contract unilaterally after it has been signed. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BroJoeK said: So, bottom lines: we have one alleged Madison comment from Virginia's ratification convention, versus the actual language of Virginia's 1788 ratification, plus Madison's 1814 anti-secession actions and his full explanation regarding "at pleasure" to Trist in 1830. I don't think this alleged quote overrules all the others.

Bottom line, we have Madison's and others comments in the federalist papers and elsewhere prior to ratification. We have the express provisos of 3 states at the time of ratification. We have no express delegation of power by the sovereign states to the newly created federal government that it would have the power to prevent any state from leaving what everybody understood to be a voluntary union based on consent.

[OIFVeteran]

Excellent fine on the Madison quote. Trying to compare the rebels in 1776 to the rebels in 1861 is tenuous at best. By the time the founders declared their independence what little voice they had in their government was ended. They had no representation or voice in England, and England had been conducting military operations against them for awhile. They rebelled to restore their rights as Englishman, not to perpetuate a system of chattel slavery for all time.

There was a discussion on this thread earlier about who was conservative and liberal in 1861. I would agree with you that the Republicans were the conservatives. For proof I offer this quote from the great George Washington in a letter to Mr. Mercer;
“It being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this country may be abolished by law.” - Letter to John Mercer, September 9, 1786
Most of the founding fathers understood that slavery was a contradiction to our declaration of independence and our Republic. They wished to see it eventually end, and thought they had put it on the road to extinction. The Republican party wanted to return slavery to the road of extinction, therefore conserving the original intent of our founding fathers.

[FLT-bird]

OIFVeteran said: Excellent fine on the Madison quote. Trying to compare the rebels in 1776 to the rebels in 1861 is tenuous at best. By the time the founders declared their independence what little voice they had in their government was ended. They had no representation or voice in England, and England had been conducting military operations against them for awhile. They rebelled to restore their rights as Englishman, not to perpetuate a system of chattel slavery for all time.

That isn't what those who seceded in 1861 were seceding for. Had that been their aim, they could have agreed to the North's "slavery forever" constitutional amendment. They refused. Also, several political leaders and columnists in the South as well as several in the UK thought the parallels between 1861 and 1776 quite close.

OIFVeteran said: There was a discussion on this thread earlier about who was conservative and liberal in 1861. I would agree with you that the Republicans were the conservatives. For proof I offer this quote from the great George Washington in a letter to Mr. Mercer; “It being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this country may be abolished by law.” - Letter to John Mercer, September 9, 1786 Most of the founding fathers understood that slavery was a contradiction to our declaration of independence and our Republic. They wished to see it eventually end, and thought they had put it on the road to extinction. The Republican party wanted to return slavery to the road of extinction, therefore conserving the original intent of our founding fathers.

huh? There was no Republican Party in the 18th century or early 19th. Then (ie mid 19th century) just as now, support for big government, higher taxes, centralized power and the crushing of state's rights was the majority sentiment in the North. Support for limited government, low expenditures, balanced budgets, decentralized power and states' rights was the majority sentiment in the South.

[DoodleDawg]

Does anybody with even a rudimentary understanding of economics think New York paid those tariffs?

LOL! You think others are economically challenged? Really?

Take away the vast vast hinterland that generates all that economic activity and NY would have its balls chopped off and would never recover. It was the same then as TONS of even NORTHERN newspapers were screaming.

In 1863 tariff revenue was over $110 million dollars. How was that possible without the South and their demand for imported goods?

If Wal-Mart has a ship full of goods land in the busiest port in America, Long Beach California, does anybody think the city of Long Beach or the state of California pays the tariff?

Whoever had ordered those goods pay the tariff, not the city of Long Beach or the state of California. Duh.

But say for the sake of argument that Walmart was limited to what was called the Confederacy. And they had millions of customers throughout the South. Would then be ordering their imported goods be landed in New York and add all those extra costs onto their goods? Or would they have those goods shipped to Charleston or New Orleans or Savannah where their customers were?

[FLT-bird]

LOL! You think others are economically challenged? Really?

McPherson certainly is as are any PC Revisionists who think that WHERE the cargo lands and thus the tariffs are paid somehow means that locality or state are paying the tariff. -----------------------------------------------------------

In 1863 tariff revenue was over $110 million dollars. How was that possible without the South and their demand for imported goods?

So all those commentators at the time, all those politicians and newspapers as well as a tax expert who has written about it were wrong and you are right? Because the US was importing things in the midst of a war that means it was the Northern states doing the exporting/importing and thus paying the tariff all along? Please tell me that's not your argument. ----------------------------------------------------------

Whoever had ordered those goods pay the tariff, not the city of Long Beach or the state of California. Duh. But say for the sake of argument that Walmart was limited to what was called the Confederacy. And they had millions of customers throughout the South. Would then be ordering their imported goods be landed in New York and add all those extra costs onto their goods? Or would they have those goods shipped to Charleston or New Orleans or Savannah where their customers were?

If the CSA had gone its own way and was thus free of the Navigation Acts that all but monopolized trade through those areas that had a larger shipping industry to begin with...ie NY and New England, then yes I'm sure they would import in ports that were in their own country. Rhett and others said as much when he said Charleston would quickly become a great metropolis once the Southern states seceded.

Hey, I'll give you credit. At least you are able to recognize that WHERE the goods are landed and thus WHERE the tariff is paid is not indicative of WHO is doing the paying. That alone puts you miles ahead of James McPherson and lots of other PC Revisionists in understanding how taxes work. Yes, their argument really is that idiotic.

[DoodleDawg]

McPherson certainly is as are any PC Revisionists who think that WHERE the cargo lands and thus the tariffs are paid somehow means that locality or state are paying the tariff.

Where the cargo lands and where the tariffs are paid are a good indication of where the customers are.

So all those commentators at the time, all those politicians and newspapers as well as a tax expert who has written about it were wrong and you are right?

Once again I present facts and you present opinions. Lincoln gave the revenue resulting from tariffs in his 1864 message to Congress - over $103 million rather than over $110 million, my error. How was that possible if the claims of you and DiogenesLamp are correct?

If the CSA had gone its own way and was thus free of the Navigation Acts that all but monopolized trade through those areas that had a larger shipping industry to begin with...ie NY and New England, then yes I'm sure they would import in ports that were in their own country.

What the Navigation Act said was that foreign ships could not bring goods from one U.S. port to another. It did not say that foreign ships, or American ships for that matter, could not bring those foreign goods to Charleston or New Orleans if that was where the demand for those goods was.

But if New York wanted to monopolize imports through the port why didn't they want to monopolize exports as well?

Hey, I'll give you credit. At least you are able to recognize that WHERE the goods are landed and thus WHERE the tariff is paid is not indicative of WHO is doing the paying.

But it is an indication of where the demand for those goods was.