Lincoln's War

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Tariffs were designed to benefit industrialization. If the southern states had chose to industrialize they would have received the same benefit. Hamilton was our original capitalist and he saw tariffs as a means of promoting a certain economic system. Tariffs targeted a type of economic system not a region specific. Tariffs impacted the south only because the south chose an agrarian economic system. They would not have made this choice though without slave labor. It was slavery that made agrarianism a viable economic system.

The "American System" Kevin was free-market capitalism and was the center point of the Federalist movement and what anti-federalists fought against. Ironic, don't you think...

However, the southern states did not choose to industrialize and the federal government does not have the right to punish them for not doing so. The government might as well be able to choose what profession we all go into if it is able to punish one section of the country for not following a course that it would prefer. Not all southern farmers or plantation owners owned slaves, and they were just as hampered by tariffs as slave owners were.

The American System was no where near free-market capitalism, and Federalists, I should say "Hamiltonians," did not believe in the free market whatsoever. Protectionism is the antithesis of the free market.

 

[PeterS]

However, the southern states did not choose to industrialize and the federal government does not have the right to punish them for not doing so.

Huh? So I enslave you for the purpose of you creating goods and services that I can export for my, not your, benefit and the federal government retains no right what so ever to stop me?

Don't think so Kevin. Try again...

The government might as well be able to choose what profession we all go into if it is able to punish one section of the country for not following a course that it would prefer. Not all southern farmers or plantation owners owned slaves, and they were just as hampered by tariffs as slave owners were.

And so were northern farmers. I've already been over that. Tariffs didn't target a region but an industry--an industry that was only viable because of slavery.

The American System was no where near free-market capitalism, and Federalists, I should say "Hamiltonians," did not believe in the free market whatsoever. Protectionism is the antithesis of the free market.

You cannot have a free-market when those who provide the productivity have no choice nor control of compensation. The agrarian south was anything but a free-market system and why they were in conflict with the industrialized north. Had they utilized a free-market agrarianism would have failed on its own and there would have been no conflict with the north...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Huh? So I enslave you for the purpose of you creating goods and services that I can export for my, not your, benefit and the federal government retains no right what so ever to stop me?

Don't think so Kevin. Try again...

This argument seems to suggest that the government imposed tariffs because of slavery, which is completely false. The United States government had no issue with slavery where it existed, and Lincoln supported an amendment to make slavery permanent. Also, the government wasn't only punishing slave owners, it was punishing those farmers that did not have slaves both in the north and the south. And those without slaves outnumbered those with slaves.

So, don't think so Pete... Try again.

And so were northern farmers. I've already been over that. Tariffs didn't target a region but an industry--an industry that was only viable because of slavery.

The government doesn't have the right to punish those who choose to go into agriculture, and since the south was mostly agricultural it amounted to the federal government punishing a particular region. Yes, there were northern farmers, and they would have been harmed by the tariffs as well. But the southerners were hurt the most.

You cannot have a free-market when those who provide the productivity have no choice nor control of compensation. The agrarian south was anything but a free-market system and why they were in conflict with the industrialized north. Had they utilized a free-market agrarianism would have failed on its own and there would have been no conflict with the north...

A majority of southerners were not slave owners. Slaves were expensive, and only the most wealthy plantation owners could afford them. Your argument suggests that tariffs were imposed to hurt slave owners but that isn't true, and it hurt southerners without slaves as much and probably more than those with slaves. The government does not have a right to hurt those who go into agriculture because they believe they should have industrialized instead, and that was the complaint of the southerners regarding tariffs.

Also, I did not argue that the south was operating under a free market. I said that the American System was not a free market system as you incorrectly claimed that it was.

 

[editec]

The Morrill Tariff, which would raise the tariff rate considerably, had already passed the House of Representatives, and Abraham Lincoln was a strong supporter of tariffs.

Morrill Tariff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This goes into great detail of the subject. The section entitled The Morrill Tariff and the Secession Movement is particularly interesting.

"And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue— to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures." - Robert Barnwell Rhett, Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States

Yeah, I can definitely see how that would thoroughly piss off the slave states.

This certainly does add significantly to the argument that the South wasn't entirely committing treason based entirely on slavery.

But again, I ask you to read the CSA consitution and note how very specifically it mentions slavery, how it defends it at every turn, how it discusses what to do about runaways slaves, how every slave owner has the right to love their slaves to new terrirtoties and so forth.

But credit does go to the argument that tariffs certainly might have been the straw that broke that camels back, I'll definitely grant you that.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yeah, I can definitely see how that would thoroughly piss off the slave states.

This certainly does add significantly to the argument that the South wasn't entirely committing treason based entirely on slavery.

But again, I ask you to read the CSA consitution and note how very specifically it mentions slavery, how it defends it at every turn, how it discusses what to do about runaways slaves, how every slave owner has the right to love their slaves to new terrirtoties and so forth.

But credit does go to the argument that tariffs certainly might have been the straw that broke that camels back, I'll definitely grant you that.

Then it would seem we're in agreement, except for that part about treason. I don't deny the evils of slavery or the fact that the Confederacy destroys it's own argument by enslaving a people. It's hypocrisy to fight for your liberty with your right hand and to oppress with your left.

 

[editec]

The Federalist Papers do refer to perpetuity, and Alexander Hamilton would have probably done the exact same thing as Lincoln. They certainly believed that the federal government should have total control over the states. Thomas Jefferson, however, would not have agreed and argued very eloquently for states' rights in his Kentucky Resolution of 1798.

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

Until Jefferson was POTUS, of course, and then he got all kinds of FEDERALIST, didn't he?

Well the fact that the Confederates practiced slavery and tried to protect slavery in their Constitution is no surprise to anyone I think. However, I have also conceded the point that slavery was a reason that the south seceded. I will not, however, concede that tariffs were not also a major reason that the south seceded.

Oh, okay. I thought you were making the apology that slavery had nothing to do with it, as some folks around here have tried in the past.

Had a Confederate state tried to secede from the Confederacy the Confederate Constitution would no longer apply and the Confederate Congress would no longer have the authority to regulate the lands thereof.

Interesting theory. And we see here, just as we so often see with our constiution, that the wording is vague enough that a debate about that issue was inevitable, don't we?

The people and state governments did not turn over ownership of their states to the new federal government when they joined the Confederacy.

They didn't? Okay...then what lands are they talking about?

Let's assume that they were ONLY talking about the forts and military based of the CSA that were in those states, shall we?

So in the event that a state elected to secede, it would have been up to the CSA congress whether or not to give the STATE those forts, right?

Remind me again, when the Southern traitors started shooting...what was it they fired upon, again?

A fort, wasn't it?

See the problem with your theory?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Until Jefferson was POTUS, of course, and then he got all kinds of FEDERALIST, didn't he?

No doubt about that, but we all know that power corrupts. Jefferson had many flaws his Presidency not greatest among them.

Oh, okay. I thought you were making the apology that slavery had nothing to do with it, as some folks around here have tried in the past.

I have made that argument in the past, however I was given some very convincing evidence contrary to what I said. I have adjusted my argument accordingly.

Interesting theory. And we see here, just as we so often see with our constiution, that the wording is vague enough that a debate about that issue was inevitable, don't we?

Well I don't think it's vague. A Constitution can only apply to those working within the government that the Constitution represents. When you no longer associate with said government then that Constitution no longer applies to you.

They didn't? Okay...then what lands are they talking about?

Let's assume that they were ONLY talking about the forts and military based of the CSA that were in those states, shall we?

So in the event that a state elected to secede, it would have been up to the CSA congress whether or not to give the STATE those forts, right?

Remind me again, when the Southern traitors started shooting...what was it they fired upon, again?

A fort, wasn't it?

See the problem with your theory?

Well just as our federal government does not own a state, the Confederate government did not own the states that made up their union. The Confederate Congress had the power to regulate state land because the states ceded that power to the Confederate Congress in their Constitution, if they opted out of that compact then the Confederate Congress is no longer given that power.

Fort Sumter was a Union fort within the borders of the Confederacy, they did not attack it until Lincoln belligerently attempted to re-supply the fort knowing it would lead to conflict, and nobody was harmed in the attack.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

However, the southern states did not choose to industrialize and the federal government does not have the right to punish them for not doing so. The government might as well be able to choose what profession we all go into if it is able to punish one section of the country for not following a course that it would prefer. Not all southern farmers or plantation owners owned slaves, and they were just as hampered by tariffs as slave owners were.

The American System was no where near free-market capitalism, and Federalists, I should say "Hamiltonians," did not believe in the free market whatsoever. Protectionism is the antithesis of the free market.

I suggest you learn some FACTS. The Constitution is clear, any Tariff or tax MUST be applied uniformly across the entire Body of the United States to be valid. It is not a punishment unless you subscribe to the theory that the Federal Government collects tariffs and taxes as punishment, rather then as revenue to run said Government.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I suggest you learn some FACTS. The Constitution is clear, any Tariff or tax MUST be applied uniformly across the entire Body of the United States to be valid. It is not a punishment unless you subscribe to the theory that the Federal Government collects tariffs and taxes as punishment, rather then as revenue to run said Government.

I subscribe to the theory that tariffs always benefit one group while punishing another, because that is the truth. It was a clear cut case in this instance, tariffs benefitted the industrial north while hurting the agricultural south. Which is why Lincoln, who was very pro-tariff, received no support from the south.

I am not suggesting that tariffs not be applied uniformly across the United States, I would advocate that tariffs be very uniform. Meaning that I don't like tariffs at all and think that they should be abolished completely.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I subscribe to the theory that tariffs always benefit one group while punishing another, because that is the truth. It was a clear cut case in this instance, tariffs benefitted the industrial north while hurting the agricultural south. Which is why Lincoln, who was very pro-tariff, received no support from the south.

I am not suggesting that tariffs not be applied uniformly across the United States, I would advocate that tariffs be very uniform. Meaning that I don't like tariffs at all and think that they should be abolished completely.

Except that The Congress with the consent of the President has always had the power to create and collect tariffs and taxes. Every State from the Colonies agreed to that. You do not get to take your ball and go home cause you did not get what you wanted in the Congress. That pretty much ensures that the ENTIRE purpose of said Constitution and said Union was null and void before anyone even agreed to accept it.

Ohh and ask Jillian about Supreme Court decisions. A Supreme Court Decision IS the law of the land until such time as the Legislature creates either an amendment to over turn it or a law that meets the demands of the Court vis a vie the Constitutionality of said law.

You nor I get to decide a Supreme Court ruling was Unconstitutional. In fact the ENTIRE premise of the Court is that any ruling they make is in FACT Constitutional. Do they make bad rules? Sure do. But the system is such that the Supreme Court is the FINAL say on what is and what is NOT Constitutional. The ONLY recourse after is to create an amendment to said Constitution or create a law that meets the parameters established by the Court.

So once again the 1869 case settles the issue. No State may leave without some form of permission from the other States. That form is left to the legislature to create and make into law. However one need only look at the requirement to ACCEPT the Constitution to see that it took 75 percent of the Colonies to accept, so it is reasonable to assume it would take 75 percent of the States to agree to a State leaving.

But since Congress has refused for 140 years to create such a mechanism I suggest they have no intention of EVER creating a method for one State to leave the Union.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Except that The Congress with the consent of the President has always had the power to create and collect tariffs and taxes. Every State from the Colonies agreed to that. You do not get to take your ball and go home cause you did not get what you wanted in the Congress. That pretty much ensures that the ENTIRE purpose of said Constitution and said Union was null and void before anyone even agreed to accept it.

Ohh and ask Jillian about Supreme Court decisions. A Supreme Court Decision IS the law of the land until such time as the Legislature creates either an amendment to over turn it or a law that meets the demands of the Court vis a vie the Constitutionality of said law.

You nor I get to decide a Supreme Court ruling was Unconstitutional. In fact the ENTIRE premise of the Court is that any ruling they make is in FACT Constitutional. Do they make bad rules? Sure do. But the system is such that the Supreme Court is the FINAL say on what is and what is NOT Constitutional. The ONLY recourse after is to create an amendment to said Constitution or create a law that meets the parameters established by the Court.

So once again the 1869 case settles the issue. No State may leave without some form of permission from the other States. That form is left to the legislature to create and make into law. However one need only look at the requirement to ACCEPT the Constitution to see that it took 75 percent of the Colonies to accept, so it is reasonable to assume it would take 75 percent of the States to agree to a State leaving.

But since Congress has refused for 140 years to create such a mechanism I suggest they have no intention of EVER creating a method for one State to leave the Union.

However, when the system is abused by the government to unjustly punish one part of the country to benefit another it is the duty of the state governments to protect their citizens from the encroachments to their liberty.

However, it was not intended to be that way. Giving the federal government the ability to decide how much power it has means that they are going to decide that they can do whatever they want. Thomas Jefferson argued against this nonsense in his Kentucky Resolution of 1798.

Resolved, That the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by compact, under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and no force; that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party; that this government, created by this compact, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as the mode and measure of redress.

The Virginia and Kentucky Resolves - The Virginia And Kentucky Resolves

The Supreme Court deciding that the Constitution, despite not saying so anywhere in the document, gives the authority to the federal government to stop any state from leaving the compact known as the United States of America is wrong, and is therefore, in the words of Jefferson, unauthoritative, void, and no force. Meaning that when the Supreme Court goes against the Constitution it's decision is essentially meaningless, as in this case.

I say again, when 75% of the colonies ratified the Constitution and became states those that did not ratify it remained independent nations until they did so. If we followed your rationale when 75% of the colonies ratified the Constitution it should have meant that even those that didn't had no choice in the matter and would have had to become states, but this is not the case. Therefore, no state needs the permission of any other state to declare that it no longer wishes to remain in the Union.

 

[editec]

Then it would seem we're in agreement, except for that part about treason.

My prejudice is showing...not for the North but against any society which promotes slavery for any reason.

In this case that would be the South, of course.

I don't deny the evils of slavery or the fact that the Confederacy destroys it's own argument by enslaving a people. It's hypocrisy to fight for your liberty with your right hand and to oppress with your left.

Well, given that the SOUTH is now winning the tariff wars, I'd say that the South is currently getting the last laugh...

Except, of course, for the fact that the whole damned nation is suffering because so many industrial jobs have left to take advantage of FREE TRADE so in that sense the whole damned nation is losing more than its gaining from free traderism.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

However, when the system is abused by the government to unjustly punish one part of the country to benefit another it is the duty of the state governments to protect their citizens from the encroachments to their liberty.

However, it was not intended to be that way. Giving the federal government the ability to decide how much power it has means that they are going to decide that they can do whatever they want. Thomas Jefferson argued against this nonsense in his Kentucky Resolution of 1798.



The Virginia and Kentucky Resolves - The Virginia And Kentucky Resolves

The Supreme Court deciding that the Constitution, despite not saying so anywhere in the document, gives the authority to the federal government to stop any state from leaving the compact known as the United States of America is wrong, and is therefore, in the words of Jefferson, unauthoritative, void, and no force. Meaning that when the Supreme Court goes against the Constitution it's decision is essentially meaningless, as in this case.

I say again, when 75% of the colonies ratified the Constitution and became states those that did not ratify it remained independent nations until they did so. If we followed your rationale when 75% of the colonies ratified the Constitution it should have meant that even those that didn't had no choice in the matter and would have had to become states, but this is not the case. Therefore, no state needs the permission of any other state to declare that it no longer wishes to remain in the Union.

Ahh using that logic then the Supreme Court ruling giving women the right to abortions is null and void also since no such right to privacy exists in the Constitution, RIGHT?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ahh using that logic then the Supreme Court ruling giving women the right to abortions is null and void also since no such right to privacy exists in the Constitution, RIGHT?

I agree completely. The federal government is not given the authority to regulate abortion one way or another.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And yet, it stands and will continue to stand. Same as Social Security and Medicare will continue to exist, even though both are illegal.

The Court is accepted as the fial decider of Constitutional issues. Get over it.

And once again the effort spent writing and ratifying the Constitution was a waste if any member State can at any time simply disagree with the majority and quit. The words are not even worth the cost of the Ink to have written them if anyone can simply leave any time they disagree with the majority or the Federal Government. Negating the entire PREMISE of why we changed from Confederation to Constitution.

The Federal Government has no power at all if a State can simply disagree and leave the Union.

And taking your logic out, your claim that cities and Counties can not exersize this same right to leave any time the higher Government does what they do not like is nul and void. If A State can leave, then a County or Town can leave also. In other words Anarchy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And yet, it stands and will continue to stand. Same as Social Security and Medicare will continue to exist, even though both are illegal.

It stands until enough people are convinced that it's wrong, at most the abortion issue should be left to the individual state governments.

The Court is accepted as the fial decider of Constitutional issues. Get over it.

No. If people simply got over things then the government would have free reign to do as it pleases.

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson

And once again the effort spent writing and ratifying the Constitution was a waste if any member State can at any time simply disagree with the majority and quit. The words are not even worth the cost of the Ink to have written them if anyone can simply leave any time they disagree with the majority or the Federal Government. Negating the entire PREMISE of why we changed from Confederation to Constitution.

The Federal Government has no power at all if a State can simply disagree and leave the Union.

No, the federal government was delegated specific powers by the Constitution. If it stuck to those powers, and did not abuse them then there would be no issue. Secession is a legitimate power the states have to keep the federal government from restricting their liberty.

And taking your logic out, your claim that cities and Counties can not exersize this same right to leave any time the higher Government does what they do not like is nul and void. If A State can leave, then a County or Town can leave also. In other words Anarchy.

I have never claimed any such thing. I believe I stated that that would be a state issue, not a federal issue. And it is not anarchy as the state governments remain intact, they simply take back the power they ceded to the federal government.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It stands until enough people are convinced that it's wrong, at most the abortion issue should be left to the individual state governments.



No. If people simply got over things then the government would have free reign to do as it pleases.

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson



No, the federal government was delegated specific powers by the Constitution. If it stuck to those powers, and did not abuse them then there would be no issue. Secession is a legitimate power the states have to keep the federal government from restricting their liberty.



I have never claimed any such thing. I believe I stated that that would be a state issue, not a federal issue. And it is not anarchy as the state governments remain intact, they simply take back the power they ceded to the federal government.

You can not have it both ways. Either the right to leave is absolute, for ANY reason or it requires some action by all members of the Government.

It may sound all nice to claim that if the Government is despotic the States have a right to leave. But the truth is using your logic, they could leave cause the color of the sky today was off blue. That negates the entire concept of a Federal Government that the States ceded certain powers too.

Further, in the case of the Civil War the South had no legit reason to leave. The federal Government was neither despotic or evil. It had not exceeded it's authority under the Constitution in any manner. In fact the Supreme Court bent over backwards violating the Free States rights to protect the Slave States rights.

If and when the Government becomes despotic or Tyranical we will have a Revolution. The Civil War was NOT a revolution.

In fact I do not know of ANY Country that thinks parts of it can just leave when they feel like it.

 

[editec]

Quote:
Interesting theory. And we see here, just as we so often see with our constiution, that the wording is vague enough that a debate about that issue was inevitable, don't we?

Well I don't think it's vague. A Constitution can only apply to those working within the government that the Constitution represents. When you no longer associate with said government then that Constitution no longer applies to you.

Yeah, but I was talking about the vagueness of the CSA consitution, not the USA constitution.

AS in what land are they talking about that exists in the states and which the CSA congress has complete control over?

They don't clarify that, do they?

So, it must be interpreted by whom?

The states? The CSA congress?

Whomsoever has the largest army?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You can not have it both ways. Either the right to leave is absolute, for ANY reason or it requires some action by all members of the Government.

I'm not sure that I was trying to argue for both ways of anything.

It may sound all nice to claim that if the Government is despotic the States have a right to leave. But the truth is using your logic, they could leave cause the color of the sky today was off blue. That negates the entire concept of a Federal Government that the States ceded certain powers too.

If the Union is to their benefit they're not going to leave because the sky wasn't blue today.

Further, in the case of the Civil War the South had no legit reason to leave. The federal Government was neither despotic or evil. It had not exceeded it's authority under the Constitution in any manner. In fact the Supreme Court bent over backwards violating the Free States rights to protect the Slave States rights.

They did not believe the Fugitive Slave Act, which was a part of the Constitution, was being enforced as it should be, as you provided the evidence for. The federal government imposed high tariffs that hurt the south and helped the north, which means it was violating the liberty and property (Money) of the south.

If and when the Government becomes despotic or Tyranical we will have a Revolution. The Civil War was NOT a revolution.

It was a revolution, it's just that the "revolutionaries" lost.

In fact I do not know of ANY Country that thinks parts of it can just leave when they feel like it.

Of course not, no country wants to weaken itself or lose it's control over a a part of it's population. Power corrupts. But we live in a country that was founded with the belief "that government rests upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish a government whenever it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established." To quote Jefferson Davis' Inaugural Address.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In the Slavery Forever speech Lincoln gets down to very ugly business when he threatens his fellow citizens with "bloodshed." He did not threaten a foreign power that might contemplate invading his country, but his fellow countrymen. "[T]here needs to be no bloodshed, and there shall be none unless it is forced upon the national authority," he said. What on earth was he talking about? What could cause of the "national authority" to murder its own citizens? Failure to collect taxes, said Dishonest Abe. It was his duty "to collect the duties and imposts," he said in the next sentence, and as long as the citizens of all states continued to pay these taxes, the most important of which, the tariff, had just been doubled, "there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere." (At the time, tariff revenues accounted for over 90 percent of all federal tax revenues.)

Of course, the Southern states that had already seceded had no intention of paying any more taxes to the government in Washington. Lincoln kept his promise and delivered "bloodshed" in the form of killing some 350,000 Southerners, including about 50,000 civilians.

Abraham Delano Messiah Obama? by Thomas DiLorenzo

This is a new article from Thomas J. DiLorenzo, author of The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked. He talks about how Obama is compared to Lincoln, and how that is not a good thing. He also re-affirms my point that it was indeed "Lincoln's War."