Posted on 05/13/2003 6:17:13 AM PDT by VMI70
Well that's where we disagree I think. If on the one hand you acknowledge that the national government HAS the right to set tariffs, then you can't on the other hand assert the states' rights to violently resist them. E Pluribus Unum.
That is why I say they resorted to anarchy. Republicanism depends on the parties all honoring their obligation to the compact. Now, can we say that certain policies were obnoxious to the spirit of Union? Most definitely. We could say certain tariffs were obnoxious to southern interests, just as we could say the Fugitive slave laws were obnoxious to certain northern interests. And so on. In fact, the most accurate historical descriptions of American politics of that era speak of "sectionalism":
"These opposite economic arguments furnished agitators on each side abundant ammunition for rhetorical exercises in reciprocal denunciation. When submitted to scientific analysis, such arguments will be found to consist partly of solid truth and partly of fallacy. It was true that the South had an essentially colonial economy, from which heavy profits were drained off by Northern middlemen. It was also true that Southern political power, disproportionate to the sections economic strength, helped retard measures which Northern capitalists desired. Yet the Southerner usually erred in refusing to admit that the North was making a major contribution to the Southern economy, while the Northerner often failed to see how much of his profits depended upon the Southern trade. Those Southerners who demanded separation for economic reasons were not thinking sufficiently in terms of mutual dependence. Even if separation should come, yet physically, as Lincoln said, the sections could not separate: they would have to go on living side by side; and the many elements of economic interdependence would continue to operate."From www.civilwarhome.com
From the standpoint of a republican, the question becomes this: Was the Revolution fought over the issue of taxation? Or taxation without representation? I believe it was the latter. No tariff, no obnoxious pamphleteers agitating slave insurrection, no regulation of slavery in DC is cause for revolution against the United States. That's not reasonable.
There is the fact that government derives its power from the consent of the people it governs. The very basic bedrock on which our government was built gives us the right to change, or to leave, that government.
Otherwise we are just rebellious british citizens
Built into this is the assumption that violence need follow separation. There are examples of peaceful secession, though not many.
Can you name an instance of peaceful secession where one party acted in a unilateral manner? Without the agreement of both parties then you are guaranteeing conflict.
It's beside the point. The point is that if the Congress has the right to set tariffs, then they are not acting unconstitutionally. Therefore, all the states are obligated to adhere to them, or use the proper channels to alter the law. To resist the lawful execution of national policy is to invite enforcement, which is to say, violence.
For something called "secession" to occur with any hope of peace, all the parties to the compact would have had to agree to it, or at least to agree to a process from which it would be decided. That wasn't the case.
You can't undo the Constitution--or your obligation to it--just because you don't agree with policy, or the outcome of an election. That's anti-republican. It's anarchy.
What's wrong with anarchy?
The former Soviet republics, the Czech and Slovak republics. Granted, the centralized power which could have coerced them to return was in collapse during the time.
Agreed, and since there is no recourse to abuse within the limits of the Constitution, to which the South acknowledged they were bound - thus the need for secession.
To resist the lawful execution of national policy is to invite enforcement, which is to say, violence.
Had they remained within the Union and demanded the benefits thereof as a member state, I would agree with you. Once they have 'left the fold' then 'national policy' no longer applies; thus a guarantee that 'naional policy' will remain in the best interests of the people.
For something called "secession" to occur with any hope of peace, all the parties to the compact would have had to agree to it, or at least to agree to a process from which it would be decided. That wasn't the case.
However, the South knew that they were outmatched in any nationally representative body and no such agreement was possible. That they did not attempt it, IMO, was still a mistake.
You can't undo the Constitution--or your obligation to it--just because you don't agree with policy, or the outcome of an election. That's anti-republican. It's anarchy.
I don't think that even you agree with such a blanket statement. If such is the case, then no resistance to tyrants is justified.
I have discussed the question of anarchy at length with others. My opinion has always been (and remains) that anarchy is a logical impossibility -- due to the nature of man it can never happen in sustained fashion. If all authority were dissolved tomorrow, the first thing people would do is begin forming alliances for self-protection (i.e. forming pseudo-governments and granting them authority, negating the notion of anarchy).
Reason? Or excuse put forward by 21st century revisionist. The fact of the matter is that in the year prior to the rebellion almost 95% of all tariff income was collected in three Northern ports. If the south was so dependent on imports, if they paid such a large part of the tarrif, then why didn't those goods go directly to the consumers? The fact of the matter is that the south did pay a disproportionate share of the tariff, a disproportionately low share.
However, the South knew that they were outmatched in any nationally representative body and no such agreement was possible.
Others don't agree with you.
"But again, gentlemen, what do we have to gain from this proposed change of our relationship with the general government? We have always had control of it, and can yet, if we remain in it, and are as united as we have been. We have had a majority of Presidents chosen from the south; as well as the control and management of most of those chosen form the North. We have had sixty years of Southern Presidents to their twenty four, thus controlling the Executive Department. So of the judges of the Supreme Court, we have had eighteen from the South, and but eleven from the North; although nearly four-fifths of the judicial business has arisen in the Free States, yet a majority of the Court has always been from the South. This we have required so as to guard against any interpretation of the Constitution unfavorable to us. In like manner we have been equally watchful to guard our interest in the Legislative branch of government. In choosing the presiding Presidents (pro Tempore) of the Senate, we have had twenty-four to their eleven. Speakers of the House, we have had twenty-three, and they twelve. While the majority of Representatives, from their greater population, have always been from the North, yet we have so generally secured the Speaker, because he, to a great extent, shapes and controls the legislation of the country. Nor have we had less control in every other department of the general government. Attorney-Generals we have had fourteen, while the North have had but five. Foreign ministers we have had eighty-six, and they but fifty-four. While three-fourths of the business which demands diplomatic agents abroad is clearly from the Free States, from their greater commercial interests, yet we have had the principle embassies, so as to secure the world markets for our cotton, tobacco, and suger on the best possible terms. We have had the vast majority of the higher officers of both army and navy, while a larger proportion of the soldiers and sailors were drawn from the North. Equally so of Clerks, Auditors, and Comptrollers filling the Sxecutive department; the records show that for the last fifty years, of the three thousand thus employed, we have had more than two-thirds of the same, while we have but one-third of the white population of the Republic." - Alexander Stephens, January 1861
Not the case - but as a consequence of who? The South made clear their desire for separation in the declarations of secession. Representatives were sent to DC for the purpose of negotiating federal lands, trade, etc. Was there an opportunity for reconciliation?
We'll never know. Rather than attempt it the Federals covered their ears and screamed, "I'm ignoring you, I'm not listening to you."
Despite all the lofty rhetoric from 'statesman' on both sides, no consensus was sought by either. The South was hell-bent on leaving; the Republicans were hell-bent on war. Each pursued its ends with childish fervor, and IMO each was wrong to do so.
The difference is that the South would soon have seen the errors of her ways and (I believe) states would have begun to leave the Confederacy in short-order to rejoin their former Union. In contrast, there was no return from Lincoln's bloody war.
We live today as subjects of unchecked federal power. I would not make the mistake of saying that such would not be the case had it not been for the WBTS, but its contribution cannot be ignored.
I'm sure those charitable Northern merchants just sucked up that tarriff cost as a consequence of doing business. Those gracious souls, God Bless them.
Either that, or you might consider researching the effects of tarrifs on consumers.
I'm aware of the effect of tariffs on consumers. My point is that the south consumed next to nothing on imports. Had it been otherwise then 95% of the tariff income would have come in to Charleston, New Orleans and Mobile instead of New York, Boston, and Philadelphia.
But let me ask you. If you sign on to the claim that the south paid the lion's share of the tariff then what was it that they were importing? If your claim is that they indirectly paid that tariff in higher goods for domestic products then what domestic products did they consume in such massive quantities?
If you mean by reconciliation an end to the rebellion and the reunification of the country then no, there was no chance. Because the group sent by Davis for these 'negotiations' had as their primary purpose the negotiation of relations between independent countries. In other words, recognize the legitimacy of the southern secession. That was a non-starter from the beginning.
That's an inadmissable leap. States do not withhold the right to abrogate their responsibilities at their convenience, whether or not they continue to demand the "benefits" as a "member" state. They are not mere members of a league. They are parties to a compact. Did all the states not report delegates in the Presidential election of 1860? Last I checked, they all did. States cannot ditch those results when it pleases. It's not allowed under the Constitution. You can't dodge it.
You toss that off as an aside? C'mon, Gianni. I don't think I've met you before this thread, but you come across as a nice person to debate with, reasonable, fair, level-headed. But that was nothing short of comical. I can imagine Michael Palin saying it out of the side of his mouth, trailing off, "Well, the central government was a little weakened at the time....A bit! A bit!"
The South was heavily export dependent, and transshipment of goods has already been discussed at length by GOPcapitalist. If you disagree with his statements on the subject, then nothing I say will sway you.
But let me ask you. If you sign on to the claim that the south paid the lion's share of the tariff then what was it that they were importing? If your claim is that they indirectly paid that tariff in higher goods for domestic products then what domestic products did they consume in such massive quantities?
I don't believe I ever stated that the South paid the lion's share of the tarriff, only that it was abusive. If I have, I apologize, because that would be errant. The problem with a broad import tarrif is that all suffer, including those in the South.
Apportionment of a wrong does not make it a right.
GOPcap - courtesy ping.
Well, then, we've come full circle.
The Confederacy was illegitimate because the federal gov't chose not to recognize it.... and chose not to recognize it because it was illegitimate.
Thier responsibilities? Not sure I'm following. I believe it possible to work out an agreement for repayment of a state's portion of the debt, etc, but what continued responsibilities do they have? They are not mere members of a league. They are parties to a compact.
As are we in NATO and certain trade alliances, no doubt. It does not abrogate our right to withdraw if such institutions become abusive in our eyes. An important distinction to make, since a governing body would never admit to such abusiveness.
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.