The Litmus Test for American Conservatism (The paloeconservative view of Abe Lincoln.)

Chronicles Magazine ^ | January 2001 | Donald W. Livingston

[quidnunc]

Abraham Lincoln is thought of by many as not only the greatest American statesman but as a great conservative. He was neither. Understanding this is a necessary condition for any genuinely American conservatism. When Lincoln took office, the American polity was regarded as a compact between sovereign states which had created a central government as their agent, hedging it in by a doctrine of enumerated powers. Since the compact between the states was voluntary, secession was considered an option by public leaders in every section of the Union during the antebellum period. Given this tradition — deeply rooted in the Declaration of Independence — a great statesman in 1860 would have negotiated a settlement with the disaffected states, even if it meant the withdrawal of some from the Union. But Lincoln refused even to accept Confederate commissioners, much less negotiate with them. Most of the Union could have been kept together. Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas voted to remain in the Union even after the Confederacy was formed; they reversed themselves only when Lincoln decided on a war of coercion. A great statesman does not seduce his people into a needless war; he keeps them out of it.

When the Soviet Union dissolved by peaceful secession, it was only 70 years old — the same age as the United States when it dissolved in 1860. Did Gorbachev fail as a statesman because he negotiated a peaceful dissolution of the U.S.S.R.? Likewise, if all states west of the Mississippi were to secede tomorrow, would we praise, as a great statesman, a president who refused to negotiate and launched total war against the civilian population merely to preserve the Union? The number of Southerners who died as a result of Lincoln’s invasion was greater than the total of all Americans killed by Hitler and Tojo. By the end of the war, nearly one half of the white male population of military age was either dead or mutilated. No country in World War II suffered casualties of that magnitude.

Not only would Lincoln not receive Confederate commissioners, he refused, for three crucial months, to call Congress. Alone, he illegally raised money, illegally raised troops, and started the war. To crush Northern opposition, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus for the duration of the war and rounded up some 20,000 political prisoners. (Mussolini arrested some 12,000 but convicted only 1,624.) When the chief justice of the Supreme Court declared the suspension blatantly unconstitutional and ordered the prisoners released, Lincoln ordered his arrest. This American Caesar shut down over 300 newspapers, arrested editors, and smashed presses. He broke up state legislatures; arrested Democratic candidates who urged an armistice; and used the military to elect Republicans (including himself, in 1864, by a margin of around 38,000 popular votes). He illegally created a “state” in West Virginia and imported a large army of foreign mercenaries. B.H. Liddell Hart traces the origin of modern total war to Lincoln’s decision to direct war against the civilian population. Sherman acknowledged that, by the rules of war taught at West Point, he was guilty of war crimes punishable by death. But who was to enforce those rules?

These actions are justified by nationalist historians as the energetic and extraordinary efforts of a great helmsman rising to the painful duty of preserving an indivisible Union. But Lincoln had inherited no such Union from the Framers. Rather, like Bismarck, he created one with a policy of blood and iron. What we call the “Civil War” was in fact America’s French Revolution, and Lincoln was the first Jacobin president. He claimed legitimacy for his actions with a “conservative” rhetoric, rooted in an historically false theory of the Constitution which held that the states had never been sovereign. The Union created the states, he said, not the states the Union. In time, this corrupt and corrupting doctrine would suck nearly every reserved power of the states into the central government. Lincoln seared into the American mind an ideological style of politics which, through a sort of alchemy, transmuted a federative “union” of states into a French revolutionary “nation” launched on an unending global mission of achieving equality. Lincoln’s corrupt constitutionalism and his ideological style of politics have, over time, led to the hollowing out of traditional American society and the obscene concentration of power in the central government that the Constitution was explicitly designed to prevent.

A genuinely American conservatism, then, must adopt the project of preserving and restoring the decentralized federative polity of the Framers rooted in state and local sovereignty. The central government has no constitutional authority to do most of what it does today. The first question posed by an authentic American conservative politics is not whether a policy is good or bad, but what agency (the states or the central government — if either) has the authority to enact it. This is the principle of subsidiarity: that as much as possible should be done by the smallest political unit.

The Democratic and Republican parties are Lincolnian parties. Neither honestly questions the limits of federal authority to do this or that. In 1861, the central government broke free from what Jefferson called “the chains of the Constitution,” and we have, consequently, inherited a fractured historical memory. There are now two Americanisms: pre-Lincolnian and post-Lincolnian. The latter is Jacobinism by other means. Only the former can lay claim to being the primordial American conservatism.

David W. Livingston is a professor of philosophy at Emory University and the author of Philosophical Melancholy and Delirium (University of Chicago Press).

[donmeaker]

You wrote:

TWO points which point out how IGNORANT you are:
1. Lee NEVER owned a single slave ever. his wife received a few slaves from her family, which Lee UNLAWFULLY freed immediately. (Lee was so POOR when stationed at Fortress Monroe, that her family sent the couple CARE PACKAGES, so that the children wouldn't go hungry. the USA paid military officers almost nothing in those days.)

2. reference my people, the American Indian & the hatefilled/racist/cruel damnyankees like Grant/Sheridan/Sherman: do you believe that might makes right???? (is anything you CAN do become OK thereby????)

First: According to the National Park Service, Arlington was 15,000 acres and was run by 250 slaves. So you are wrong on count one.

Second, the treaty at Appromatox was written out by a Colonel Ely Parker, who was born on the Tonawanda Indian Reservation near Buffalo. For a pack of racists, promoting them to Colonel in the army was an unusual step, don't you think?

Not all conflicts are racist, even conflicts between different races may not have race at the root of them. For example the US Army forces in the west had indian scouts. These scouts give the lie to your account of racism.

Zero for two. So, now apologize for your lie, or be forever held as an unrepentent wanna be traitor.

[stand watie]

in other words, you think the THOUSANDS of rapes, tortures & coldblooded murders of MY people was A-OK, just because the "farmers" were RACISTS & believed it was in the "farmers" best interest????

i guess then that you think the atrocities of the holocaust were OK too.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

NO APOLOGY NECESSARY because:

1. General Lee NEVER owned Arlington House (in point of fact, the Custis family didn't want her to marry him as he was one of the poorest of their relations.) General Lee had GROSS assets of less than $500US upon his resignation from the US Army. he never lived there for more than about 45 days at a time, and then only as a guest of HER family.

Arlington House belonged to his wife's FAMILY, who did have money, slaves & other property. his wife BRIEFLY had residence at Arlington House just before the WBTS, but as far as the curator of the museum knows, she never had title to the property.

once again, you are either ignorant or a liar. which is it????

2. COL Ely Parker was a traitor to the Seneca nation. the presence of a handfull of renegades & traitors to their respective tribes as auxilliaries to the US army means ZILCH to this conversation;there were Jews who assisted the NAZIs too.

furthermore, you never said whether you believe that "might makes right"???? inquiring minds want to know.

BTW, don't you get tired of knowledgeable people on FR laughing AT you????

free dixie,sw

[donmeaker]

BTW, don't you get tired of knowledgeable people on FR laughing AT you????

Let me know when you find a knowledgable person who laughs at me. Mary Custis Lee lived almost continuously at Arlington.

[Qwinn]

Wow... I'm coming in late, but this is an interesting thread (not that I've read all of it yet).

I never even considered Paleoconservative as a Southern/Northern thing. My impression of paleoconservative was formed by Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak. Perhaps they have similar north/south loyalties but I was unaware of them. What's marked paleoconservatives mostly to me is a strong isolationist, almost xenophobic streak. Mostly opposed to the Iraq war and very keen on restricting immigration and strict border controls as the solution to the 9/11 problem (personally, I favor both solutions).

As for the north/south division expressed here... let me be obnoxious and throw a hypothetical future situation, which to me is a great analogy to the first civil war:

Anti-abortion sentiment in the country rises, with by far the most opposition it in the Heartland region, and the remaining holdouts supporting it on the coasts. The population of the South rises to the point that between the House and Senate, enough votes are acquired to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing -all- abortion, 1st 2nd and 3rd trimester. But then, due to encroaching supreme court decisions that were leaning toward counting the fetus as a life, in a bizarre twist of logic manage to argue that the liberal north counts all pregnant women as two votes, shifting the balance so that the Amendment cannot pass and abortion remains legal.

Before the vote is actually held, the pro-life President, whose sympathies lie with the Heartland, issues an Executive Order, the Defense of Life Proclamation, declaring that abortion in all forms is against the law. Fury and vitriol from the liberal states over this usurpation of their rights by the conservative heartland is loud and vitriolic. Eventually, rather than give up the right to abortion, most of New England south to Maryland and west to Illinois, Florida and a good number of Western states including California, Oregon and Washington State all secede from the Union.

The Heartland finds itself very unconveniently restricted in it's access to coastal and thus shipping lanes. Also, many major cities that comprised a great deal of the economy have broken away, along with most major airports, seaports and manufacturing capacity.

The President (and Washington D.C.), siding with the Heartland (yeah, I know, work with me here) as a result of the Defense of Life Proclamation, decides that in the interest of the solidarity of the Union, and the saving of the lives of the Unborn, declares war on the breakaway states. Eventually, the Heartland wins. Two centuries later, most look back on the practice of abortion with disgust and horror.

My question to those whose sympathies lay with the South in the original civil war: Would you consider this President a monster for having declared war on the breakaway states in order to end abortion throughout the United States, after all possible means to end it otherwise had been exhausted?

I wouldn't.

Qwinn

[Qwinn]

By the way... I should add... I am very much for States' Rights - very very much so. I am strongly against the increasing power of the Federal government. But some things, to me, transcend arguments such as federal vs. state. To me, slavery and abortion are among them. To me, the ending of slavery and abortion are causes severe and basic enough to justify war.

Qwinn

[stand watie]

the only problem with your position is that the WBTS was NOT about the end of slavery.

that was a self-serving LIE, compounded by the lincoln regime AFTER they started losing the war & it appeared that England, France & several other nations would enter the war on the southern side.

the so-called Emancipation Proclamation was INTENTIONALLY worded so that it would NOT free any slaves in US-held areas of the south AND NOT free any northern-owned slaves.

the only MAIN CAUSE of the war was the continuing lust for dixie LIBERTY!

free dixie,sw

[donmeaker]

In 1778, John Parke Custis, George Washington’s stepson, bought the Abingdon Estate and other tracts from Gerard Alexander. George Washington Parke Custis, son and heir of John Custis and step grandson of George Washington inherited the northern 1100 acres of this land and began construction of a mansion in 1802 on the high ground overlooking the Potomac River and the City of Washington. The building was finally completed in 1817. At first named Mount Washington, it was soon renamed Arlington after the original Custis estate established before 1680 in Northhampton County, Virginia. G.W.P. Custis, ever conscious of his role as “the child of Mount Vernon” (he spent his boyhood years living there), made his home a museum of Washington heirlooms and relics.

In 1831 Mary Anne Randolph Custis, the heiress of Arlington, married her third cousin, Lieutenant Robert Edward Lee of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Although born at Stratford in Westmoreland County, Robert Lee had grown up in Alexandria. After his marriage, having no home of his own, he came to feel at home at Arlington. He spent some part of almost every year on leave there and lived there during a three-year tour of duty in Washington, 1834-1837.

G.W.P. Custis died in 1857, leaving his estate to his daughter and naming his son-in-law to be his executor. Thus Lieutenant Colonel Lee became the master of Arlington. It took him a two-year leave of absence from the Army to get the estate in order.

From the Arlington Historical society.

[donmeaker]

One should note that slavery in the District of Columbia was ended in 1862.

The rebellion was begun by the southern planter aristocracy, for the continuance of slavery. The rebellion was put down by the legitimate government of the United States, for the continuance of the Union.

Ending slavery was the right thing to do, during the war, in territory controlled by the rebels, to weaken the south. Black Americans fought for the legitimate US government. Ending slavery became the good thing that came out of the war, unless you also count the deaths of many foolish supporters of the aristocracy as a good thing. The United States ended slavery by means of the 13th amendment.

[stand watie]

you should note that the proclamation was INTENTIONALLY written at protect NORTHEN slaveowners, whether their slaves were physically located in the north or in the occupied south.

no matter how much you wish TWBTS was about ending slavery, it was ONLY about LIBERTY for dixie.

arguing the opposite makes you look STUPID and/or IGNORANT of the period. in 1861 you couldn't have found 10,000 people who cared a damn about the plight of the slaves (NOBODY of course asked the slaves!).

when the war began going badly for the damnyankees in late '61 & Great Britain, Canada, Mexico & France were about to enter the war on the southron side, SUDDENLY the damnyankees declared the war to be a "crusade to end slavery". it was a self-serving,outright lie then AND now.

free dixie,sw

[donmeaker]

No, you have it wrong again.

The Federal government, to include the northern states, and many from the south, fought to preserve the Union. The southern plantation class, and the state governments they dominated began the war to preserve slavery. Slavery was perpetuated by the southern plantation class, because it was they who most benefited from it.

The european governments were all for the rebels winning, knowing that it would provide endless opportunity for stirring up conflict between north and south, and continued access to cheap raw materials. Prince Albert, on his deathbed saw things more clearly. He saw that to support the southern rebels was to support slavery, and mad that point to both Gladstone and Disraeli.

Again, on the southern side the war was about preserving slavery. On the Union side, the war was about preserving the Perpetual union that all the states had agreed upon, and preventing the theft of half the country that the southern plantation class had decided was necessary to for the continued existence of slavery. The southern plantation class had over 4 billion dollars in slave property, and because they could not use modern agriculture (they had to keep the slaves ignorant, or risk a higher runaway rate) they needed to continually head off to new territory when the land was worn out.

The Republican policy was to limit the evil of slavery to the states where it already existed, in the hope that slavery would become less lucrative and eventually die. The Dred Scott decision made that policy dependent on a constituitional amendment.

Compare Brazil. They rid themselves of slavery by making all persons born after 1872 (I recall, the year might be off a bit) free. In practice, very shortly after 1872 all became treated as free when ever they were born. No war, no conflict, and the evil of slavery ended! It was a policy like that, to which the Republicans were heading. That policy was anathema to the southern plantation class.

So the southern plantation class got their war. They were used to using the federal government as their private piggybank, supporting slaves in the non agricultural months by renting them out for public works paid for by the federal dollar. The rest of the country had been so deferential to them in the past that they were sure they could get away with addtional theft and embezzlement, rather than fight a war. Most of the army officers were of the southern plantation class, it being one of the few honorable jobs open to men of that class. The southern militia was drafted, and was at a higher readiness than northern militia units, due to the high risk of slave insurrection. Those advantages were thought enough to see them through.

They guessed wrong. The country paid a terrible price for their folly. As a wartime measure, slaves under their control were freed by the federal government, and it had a severe effect on the southern economy. Before the emancipation proclaimation, there was a hope that the south could come to their senses, but it became apparent that a full conquest would be necessary. The conquest was successful. The matter was settled for a hundred years.

Civil rights in the south were in a terrible state, and the jim crow laws were inflicted in this century as balm for the defeated south. That was not cured until 50 years ago.

Then the rebel battle flag was resurrected as a symbol of opposition to the civil rights movement, staining the honorable, if deluded soldiery of the south with the stain of modern racism and plutocracy.

The sin was that of the southern plantation class, dragging along the rest of the south with them.

I still do not understand why Lee could fight for such a cause. I understand his

[donmeaker]

No, you have it wrong again.

The Federal government, to include the northern states, and many from the south, fought to preserve the Union. The southern plantation class, and the state governments they dominated began the war to preserve slavery. Slavery was perpetuated by the southern plantation class, because it was they who most benefited from it.

The european governments were all for the rebels winning, knowing that it would provide endless opportunity for stirring up conflict between north and south, and continued access to cheap raw materials. Prince Albert, on his deathbed saw things more clearly. He saw that to support the southern rebels was to support slavery, and mad that point to both Gladstone and Disraeli.

Again, on the southern side the war was about preserving slavery. On the Union side, the war was about preserving the Perpetual union that all the states had agreed upon, and preventing the theft of half the country that the southern plantation class had decided was necessary to for the continued existence of slavery. The southern plantation class had over 4 billion dollars in slave property, and because they could not use modern agriculture (they had to keep the slaves ignorant, or risk a higher runaway rate) they needed to continually head off to new territory when the land was worn out.

The Republican policy was to limit the evil of slavery to the states where it already existed, in the hope that slavery would become less lucrative and eventually die. The Dred Scott decision made that policy dependent on a constituitional amendment.

Compare Brazil. They rid themselves of slavery by making all persons born after 1872 (I recall, the year might be off a bit) free. In practice, very shortly after 1872 all became treated as free when ever they were born. No war, no conflict, and the evil of slavery ended! It was a policy like that, to which the Republicans were heading. That policy was anathema to the southern plantation class.

So the southern plantation class got their war. They were used to using the federal government as their private piggybank, supporting slaves in the non agricultural months by renting them out for public works paid for by the federal dollar. The rest of the country had been so deferential to them in the past that they were sure they could get away with addtional theft and embezzlement, rather than fight a war. Most of the army officers were of the southern plantation class, it being one of the few honorable jobs open to men of that class. The southern militia was drafted, and was at a higher readiness than northern militia units, due to the high risk of slave insurrection. Those advantages were thought enough to see them through.

They guessed wrong. The country paid a terrible price for their folly. As a wartime measure, slaves under their control were freed by the federal government, and it had a severe effect on the southern economy. Before the emancipation proclaimation, there was a hope that the south could come to their senses, but it became apparent that a full conquest would be necessary. The conquest was successful. The matter was settled for a hundred years.

Civil rights in the south were in a terrible state, and the jim crow laws were inflicted in this century as balm for the defeated south. That was not cured until 50 years ago.

Then the rebel battle flag was resurrected as a symbol of opposition to the civil rights movement, staining the honorable, if deluded soldiery of the south with the stain of modern racism and plutocracy.

The sin was that of the southern plantation class, dragging along the rest of the south with them.

I still do not understand why Lee could fight for such a cause. I understand his

[donmeaker]

No, you have it wrong again.

The Federal government, to include the northern states, and many from the south, fought to preserve the Union. The southern plantation class, and the state governments they dominated began the war to preserve slavery. Slavery was perpetuated by the southern plantation class, because it was they who most benefited from it.

The european governments were all for the rebels winning, knowing that it would provide endless opportunity for stirring up conflict between north and south, and continued access to cheap raw materials. Prince Albert, on his deathbed saw things more clearly. He saw that to support the southern rebels was to support slavery, and mad that point to both Gladstone and Disraeli.

Again, on the southern side the war was about preserving slavery. On the Union side, the war was about preserving the Perpetual union that all the states had agreed upon, and preventing the theft of half the country that the southern plantation class had decided was necessary to for the continued existence of slavery. The southern plantation class had over 4 billion dollars in slave property, and because they could not use modern agriculture (they had to keep the slaves ignorant, or risk a higher runaway rate) they needed to continually head off to new territory when the land was worn out.

The Republican policy was to limit the evil of slavery to the states where it already existed, in the hope that slavery would become less lucrative and eventually die. The Dred Scott decision made that policy dependent on a constituitional amendment.

Compare Brazil. They rid themselves of slavery by making all persons born after 1872 (I recall, the year might be off a bit) free. In practice, very shortly after 1872 all became treated as free when ever they were born. No war, no conflict, and the evil of slavery ended! It was a policy like that, to which the Republicans were heading. That policy was anathema to the southern plantation class.

So the southern plantation class got their war. They were used to using the federal government as their private piggybank, supporting slaves in the non agricultural months by renting them out for public works paid for by the federal dollar. The rest of the country had been so deferential to them in the past that they were sure they could get away with addtional theft and embezzlement, rather than fight a war. Most of the army officers were of the southern plantation class, it being one of the few honorable jobs open to men of that class. The southern militia was drafted, and was at a higher readiness than northern militia units, due to the high risk of slave insurrection. Those advantages were thought enough to see them through.

They guessed wrong. The country paid a terrible price for their folly. As a wartime measure, slaves under their control were freed by the federal government, and it had a severe effect on the southern economy. Before the emancipation proclaimation, there was a hope that the south could come to their senses, but it became apparent that a full conquest would be necessary. The conquest was successful. The matter was settled for a hundred years.

Civil rights in the south were in a terrible state, and the jim crow laws were inflicted in this century as balm for the defeated south. That was not cured until 50 years ago.

Then the rebel battle flag was resurrected as a symbol of opposition to the civil rights movement, staining the honorable, if deluded soldiery of the south with the stain of modern racism and plutocracy.

The sin was that of the southern plantation class, dragging along the rest of the south with them.

I still do not understand why Lee could fight for such a cause. I understand his

[stand watie]

arrogant,self-serving, ignorant, self-righteous, historically flawed,south-hating LIES repeated THREE (3) TIMES does NOT make those lies become factual.

PLEASE go do some research from origional source documents, rather than the damnyankee REVISIONIST drivel that you recite, and we'll talk.

free dixie,sw

[donmeaker]

sorry about sending it 3 times. I clicked on the post button, and the computer froze. popped it a few more times, and darned if it didnt unfreeze, and send it 3 times.

Do you want links, or should I copy the documents?

[donmeaker]

he never lived there for more than about 45 days at a time, and then only as a guest of HER family.


My previous post shows that this statement of yours is wrong. He lived at Arlington for 2 years as executor of the estate.

[donmeaker]

the only MAIN CAUSE of the war was the continuing lust for dixie LIBERTY!

There is no liberty to enslave. That is the supposed right for which the south made war. Theft is outside the usual definition of liberty to steal. Seizure of the fort built with federal money would be theft. There is no right to smuggle. Smuggling, which means importation of goods without payment of the lawful tariff, was the intent of the hotheads who fired on the fort. Those was the proximate cause for firing on Ft Sumpter.

[donmeaker]

you wanted some original documents. Here are the first few paragraphs from the Georgia Declaration of causes of secession. Now recall this is the fine southern gentlemen who, in their complaint state that the Republican party is an anti slavery party.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

I figure this pretty much shoots holes in your position that the anti slavery notion began in the north after several military defeats, and in response to the potential of European intervention. The southern plantation aristocracy seems to me to have sensed the antislavery purpose in the Republican party before the war began.

I am waiting to hear your apology.


Georgia
[Copied by Justin Sanders from the Official Records, Ser IV, vol 1, pp. 81-85.]
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state.....

[donmeaker]

This post shows the importance of antislavery behavior in the decision of South Carolina. the post is related to that previously. Now recall, this is not lying damn yankees, but the fine southern gentlemen of the legislature, who didn't care about slavery at all, but were rather, the people you say were devoted to southern libery. (Dixie was a song written in NYC, by the way.) These were

"The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. "

Note: the argument is that S.Carolina is released from her obligation to the whole, because of the antislavery activity of some states with in their own borders. Of course it would not be appropriate to say that the northern states were free of obligation to pay tariffs because some federal money was spent supporting slavery, or policing the sea lanes by which cotton was exported.

[donmeaker]

ok, I have demonstrated that Lee lived at arlington for 2 years, and controlled the estate as executor, having gotten a leave of absence to do so.

I have demonstrated that at least two of the states (and more but it gets so tedious) cited antislavery activity on the part of the north as the reason for their withdrawal. I have cited original documents.

So, the south did not begin the war for libery, but rather, for its opposite: slavery.

I am waiting for that apology.