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:
- 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.
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:
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.