Posted on 01/05/2018 12:07:18 PM PST by DoodleDawg
That's a false claim often made by our Pro-Confederates.
In fact, our Founders fully understood the difference between legitimate, lawful disunion from mutual consent (I.e. 1788) or absolute necessity (1776) versus unlawful secessions & rebellion "at pleasure".
Many Founders expressed approvals of the former, but none, not one, of the latter.
And your claims are further falsified by the historical fact that secession itself in 1861 did not cause Civil War.
What caused Civil War was Confederate actions at Fort Sumter and Confederate formal declaration of war on May 6, 1861
And still further, Confederates could have ended their Civil War on any day before spring of 1865 on much better terms than the "Unconditional Surrender" they fought on & on to finally achieve.
JohnyBoy: " we’re still a republic when it comes to electing leaders, but we’re no longer the union of sovereign states that signed the constitution.
Instead, our form of government is an empire of states controlled from DC. "
Only somewhat true as regards law abiding Republicans, lawless Democrats as always do whatever they want, I.e. "sanctuary cities".
Further, we still have the same rights of legitimate, lawful disunion our Founders recognized in 1788 -- via mutual consent or necessity.
Our Founders never approved of rebellion or war against the United States.
>That’s a false claim often made by our Pro-Confederates.
In fact, our Founders fully understood the difference between legitimate, lawful disunion from mutual consent (I.e. 1788) or absolute necessity (1776) versus unlawful secessions & rebellion “at pleasure”.
Many Founders expressed approvals of the former, but none, not one, of the latter.
My ancestor John Adams did nothing when New England talked of leaving the Union During the war of 1812. His reasoning was simple: The declaration of independence. If they wanted to go their own way then they were entitled to do so. It would have made a mockery of our entire independence movement to stop them.
The reason you’re repeating Lincolns lies about “saving the union” today is simple: He won. Military victory decides things and people retroactively make up justifications or more typically with the simple-minded just repeat the same propaganda the victor’s used.
We stopped being a confederation of sovereign states with the signing of the US Constitution.
Like all pro-Confederates you falsely equate the situations in 1776 with 1860 when, in fact, the only accurate comparison would put Confederates in the role of 1776 Brits.
That's how different the two situations were.
As for the Hartford Convention of 1814-1815, we should remember first that it caused the downfall of old John Adams' Federalist party -- their secession talk so discredited & diminished them, Federalists' political party disappeared from history.
But with Democrats, no one is ever held accountable, they can threaten disunion, they can declare secession, they can wage war against the United States, but, hey, it's not a problem, all is soon forgiven, "with malice towards none", etc., etc.
Think of today's Democrat "sanctuary cities".
They demonstrate a crucial difference.
Yes, on the Hartford Convention, there is a quote from then ex-President Jefferson saying, in effect: "hey, New England, go ahead and secede, we don't mind, we give you our mutual consent to get the hell out!"
But at the same time that ex-President Jefferson was talking smack, then President Madison was moving United States army units off the hostile frontier with Canada and into position to suppress any New England rebellion.
Bottom line: no Founder ever condoned unilateral declarations of secession "at pleasure" such as those of 1860-'61.
JohnyBoy: "The reason you’re repeating Lincolns lies about 'saving the union' today is simple: He won.
Military victory decides things and people retroactively make up justifications or more typically with the simple-minded just repeat the same propaganda the victor’s used."
You must be thinking of somebody else, since I've repeated no lies, by Lincoln or anyone else, without clearly identifying them as such.
But regardless, the "right of secession" remains today the same as it was in 1860 or 1776 for either of two reasons:
Neither condition existed in 1860
Instead, that was secession declared "at pleasure" followed soon by a declaration of war against the United States.
Only because they were deterred from doing so by the FedGov and the laws rigged to pressure them to buy from the North.
You aren't grasping the situation here. The laws were *RIGGED* to create a demand for Northern products. The South could only buy imports at significant added extra cost, or if they were something that the North didn't produce.
The Federal Government deliberately had it's thumb on the scale in favor of the Northern interests. It's one of the things they (the South) wanted to get out from under.
1.By mutual consent as in 1788 or,
2.By absolute necessity as in 1776.
I'm curious. Do you think the British recognized this "absolute necessity" in 1776?
ML/NJ
They had to be...”persuaded”.
You aren't getting my point. The "money" to which I referred was the money which would be needed to buy imports. I.E. European money. The South had it, and the North didn't.
Sure, the North could buy European imports with specie, but nobody wants to do that if they can help it. It's far more desirable to sell them goods for which they will sell you goods.
Of this specific business of Import/Export Trade, the South produced (most of) the European money it would require to buy the European imports.
Said laws being?
You aren't grasping the situation here. The laws were *RIGGED* to create a demand for Northern products. The South could only buy imports at significant added extra cost, or if they were something that the North didn't produce.
I'm grasping what you're trying to say. I just find your premise completely idiotic.
Rather interesting way of answering, NO !
My point, BTW, is that I have. And I'm not speaking of the time when I was a "college student," as you put it. I'm speaking about when I was more than 50 years old. One in particular told me, while mostly agreeing with me, that he could not write such things and retain his (Ivy WBTS professor) position, tenure notwithstanding apparently in this case.
ML/NJ
Your point all along seem to have been that without Southern Cotton trade, the North would collapse financially. That’s why the secret cabal of New York Bankers and Abraham Lincoln fomented a Civil War to ensure that the Tariff revenue kept flowing into New York City. The instant the South seceded, all that money would flow south and financial disaster would beset the North. Not really the case. There was far more wealth in the North based on industry, manufacturing and commerce. The North could live without cotton. It did, there were other ways to finance government. The South could not live without cotton. As long as cotton was king, financial investment in any other industrial, manufacturing or commercial enterprise was going to be very limited. The South’s money went almost exclusively to supporting cotton and the exclusive aristocracy that benefitted from it.
Not exactly. Without the Southern Trade being controlled by the North, eventually the South would become more and more a financial threat to the existing power base.
Taking 200 million dollars out of the New York economy (which was 1.4 billion, if I recall correctly) and moving it to the Charleston economy would cause Charleston to gain capital, gain population, gain assets, and eventually to gain industry.
The greater threat to the Northern interests is what would happen over time. The South would begin by dominating trade with Europe, and eventually it would dominate trade to the Western states.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
It's difficult to understand something when it makes zero sense. Hundreds of millions of dollars in imports came into the U.S. prior to the rebellion. Enough so that tariff revenues in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia approached $45 million in that year. In your view most of that was destined for Southern consumers because they generated the exports. But those goods did not go to Southern consumers. They went to Northern ones. When I asked why your response was the law was "*RIGGED*" to benefit Northern products and that the South could only buy imports "at significant added extra cost". Well yeah, that's what a tariff does. Yet for all that there were still hundreds of millions of dollars in imports coming in. And those imports had "significant added extra cost" regardless of whether the purchaser was in the North or the South. But that didn't discourage Northern consumers so why did it cause Southern consumers to dig in their heels and buy American? If the quality was so poor, as you imply? And why would they suddenly change to the European sources had they won their rebellion?
That's why I say your scenario makes no sense. If the imports were destined for Southern consumers then why didn't they go to Southern ports. It's an easy question and one you seem to go to wild gyrations in order to avoid answering it.
You figure that one out and then get back to me.
In 1864, at the height of the rebellion when there was no cotton to export, U.S. tariff revenue exceeded $102 million dollars. Obviously the North got the money from somewhere and it's an indication that your scenario is incorrect.
But I'll play along. I suspect that the North got all that money to pay for European imports by buying cotton from the Southern plantation owners and then selling it to the Europeans. How about that?
Then I take that to mean that this person deliberately lied in his published works in order to make someone look good or to carry on a preconceived notion of what happened? I guess my question would then be if they would lie in their published works then why should we believe they weren't lying to you?
That has nothing to do with where the North would get European money in 1860.
I suspect that the North got all that money to pay for European imports by buying cotton from the Southern plantation owners and then selling it to the Europeans. How about that?
If that is so, why couldn't the South just sell it to the Europeans themselves? Why have a middleman cutting into your profits?
Sure it would. In your world all that money in 1860 was in the South and not the North. Yet the North consumed the overwhelming majority of imports. They got that money to buy the imports somewhere, just like they got that money to buy imports in 1864 somewhere.
If that is so, why couldn't the South just sell it to the Europeans themselves? Why have a middleman cutting into your profits?
Because it was easier for cotton producers to go through a cotton broker. They received their money. They didn't have to get into a business - exporting - that they weren't knowledgeable in. They got their money up front. The cotton broker and other businessmen took on the risk of getting the cotton from the south to Europe, and got paid for it. Everyone came out ahead.
The fact is that the South was dependent on the north for banking, transportation, insurance, exporting, brokering, and the like because the South wanted it that way. As Louis Wigfall put it to William Russell of The Times of London, "We are an agricultural people; we a primitive but civilized people. We have no cities-we don't want them. We have no literature-we don't need any yet. We have no press-we are glad of it. We have no commercial marine-no navy-we don't want them. Your ships carry our produce and you can protect your own vessels. We want no manufactures; we desire no trading, no mechanical or manufacturing classes. As long as we have our cotton, our rice, our sugar, our tobacco, we can command wealth to purchase all we want from these nations with which we are in amity."
Well, gee. I guess you're wrong again. The professor I have in mind didn't write about the Baltimore Plot or about incidents that reflect upon Lincoln's character so far as I recall.
ML/NJ
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.