United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jun 23, 2015
Author: David John Marotta & Megan Russell
Post Date: 2015-06-27 13:56:37 by lana
Keywords: None
Views: 14512
Comments: 53
Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War by David John Marotta & Megan Russell | 06-23-2013 Although they opposed permanent tariffs, political expedience in spite of sound economics prompted the Founding Fathers to pass the first U.S. tariff act . For 72 years, Northern special interest groups used these protective tariffs to exploit the South for their own benefit. Finally in 1861, the oppression of those import duties started the Civil War. In addition to generating revenue, a tariff hurts the ability of foreigners to sell in domestic markets. An affordable or high-quality foreign good is dangerous competition for an expensive or low-quality domestic one. But when a tariff bumps up the price of the foreign good, it gives the domestic one a price advantage. The rate of the tariff varies by industry. If the tariff is high enough, even an inefficient domestic company can compete with a vastly superior foreign company. It is the industry's consumers who ultimately pay this tax and the industry's producers who benefit in profits. The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the defendant's moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings. As early as the Revolutionary War, the South primarily produced cotton, rice, sugar, indigo and tobacco. The North purchased these raw materials and turned them into manufactured goods. By 1828, foreign manufactured goods faced high import taxes. Foreign raw materials, however, were free of tariffs. Thus the domestic manufacturing industries of the North benefited twice, once as the producers enjoying the protection of high manufacturing tariffs and once as consumers with a free raw materials market. The raw materials industries of the South were left to struggle against foreign competition. Because manufactured goods were not produced in the South, they had to either be imported or shipped down from the North. Either way, a large expense, be it shipping fees or the federal tariff, was added to the price of manufactured goods only for Southerners. Because importation was often cheaper than shipping from the North, the South paid most of the federal tariffs. Much of the tariff revenue collected from Southern consumers was used to build railroads and canals in the North. Between 1830 and 1850, 30,000 miles of track was laid. At its best, these tracks benefited the North. Much of it had no economic effect at all. Many of the schemes to lay track were simply a way to get government subsidies. Fraud and corruption were rampant. With most of the tariff revenue collected in the South and then spent in the North, the South rightly felt exploited. At the time, 90% of the federal government's annual revenue came from these taxes on imports. Â Domestic Tariffs at the South's Expense "Cartoon drawn during the nullification controversy showing the Northern domestic manufacturers getting fat at the expense of impoverishing the South under protective tariffs." - Encyclopedia of Britannica Historians Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffer found that a few common factors increase the likelihood of secession in a region: lower wages, an economy based on raw materials and external exploitation. Although popular movies emphasize slavery as a cause of the Civil War, the war best fits a psycho-historical model of the South rebelling against Northern exploitation. Many Americans do not understand this fact. A non-slave-owning Southern merchant angered over yet another proposed tariff act does not make a compelling scene in a movie. However, that would be closer to the original cause of the Civil War than any scene of slaves picking cotton. Morrill Tariff Cartoon Morrill Tariff Cartoon, featured in Harper's Weekly on April 13, 1861 saying:THE NEW TARIFF ON DRY GOODS. Unhappy condition of the Optic Nerve of a Custom House Appraiser who has been counting the Threads in a Square Yard of Fabric to ascertain the duty thereon under the New MORRILL Tariff. The Spots and Webs are well-known Opthalmic Symptoms. It is confidently expected that the unfortunate man will go blind. Slavery was actually on the wane. Slaves visiting England were free according to the courts in 1569. France, Russia, Spain and Portugal had outlawed slavery. Slavery had been abolished everywhere in the British Empire 27 years earlier thanks to William Wilberforce. In the United States, the transport of slaves had been outlawed 53 years earlier by Thomas Jefferson in the Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves (1807) and the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act in England (1807). Slavery was a dying and repugnant institution. The rewritten history of the Civil War began with Lincoln as a brilliant political tactic to rally public opinion. The issue of slavery provided sentimental leverage, whereas oppressing the South with hurtful tariffs did not. Outrage against the greater evil of slavery served to mask the economic harm the North was doing to the South. The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the defendant's moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings. Toward the end of the war, Lincoln made the conflict primarily about the continuation of slavery. By doing so, he successfully silenced the debate about economic issues and states' rights . The main grievance of the Southern states was tariffs. Although slavery was a factor at the outset of the Civil War, it was not the sole or even primary cause. The Tariff of 1828, called the Tariff of Abominations in the South, was the worst exploitation. It passed Congress 105 to 94 but lost among Southern congressmen 50 to 3. The South argued that favoring some industries over others was unconstitutional. The South Carolina Exposition and Protest written by Vice President John Calhoun warned that if the tariff of 1828 was not repealed, South Carolina would secede. It cited Jefferson and Madison for the precedent that a state had the right to reject or nullify federal law. In an 1832 state legislature campaign speech, Lincoln defined his position, saying, "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." He was firmly against free trade and in favor of using the power of the federal government to benefit specific industries like Lincoln's favorite, Pennsylvania steel. The country experienced a period of lower tariffs and vibrant economic growth from 1846 to 1857. Then a bank failure caused the Panic of 1857. Congress used this situation to begin discussing a new tariff act, later called the Morrill Tariff of 1861. However, those debates were met with such Southern hostility that the South seceded before the act was passed. The South did not secede primarily because of slavery. In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address he promised he had no intention to change slavery in the South. He argued it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. But he promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order to enforce them. It was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a declaration of war on the South. Slavery was an abhorrent practice. It may have been the cause that rallied the North to win. But it was not the primary reason why the South seceded. The Civil War began because of an increasing push to place protective tariffs favoring Northern business interests and every Southern household paid the price.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: lana, All (#0)
Slavery was an abhorrent practice. It may have been the cause that rallied the North to win. But it was not the primary reason why the South seceded. The Civil War began because of an increasing push to place protective tariffs favoring Northern business interests and every Southern household paid the price. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Nice post.
High tariffs prompted the Nullification crisis of 1832 .South Carolina demanded the right to nullify federal laws or secede . Andrew Jackson threatened force. No state joined the movement, and South Carolina backed down. Then there was a period of low tariffs until the Morill tariff act was debated . Yet even though South Carolina was at the forefront of the nullification crisis ;not one mention of the tariff proposal was made in the SC declaration of cessation . http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp They did mention slavery quite a bit however . During the elections ,tariffs did not dominate the debate ;Slavery in the territories did . The irony is that if the Southern Senators had not left the Senate ,it is likely that the Morill tariff would not have passed. That's not just my observation . It was the opinion of Alexander Stephens, the future Confederate Vice President . So the truth is that the Morill Act did not cause the war . If anything the Southern cessation guaranteed the acts passage (which the South used to their advantage in trying to form an alliance with Great Britain). Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Much of the tariff revenue collected from Southern consumers was used to build railroads and canals in the North. Between 1830 and 1850, 30,000 miles of track was laid. At its best, these tracks benefited the North. Much of it had no economic effect at all. Many of the schemes to lay track were simply a way to get government subsidies. Fraud and corruption were rampant. With most of the tariff revenue collected in the South and then spent in the North, the South rightly felt exploited. At the time, 90% of the federal government's annual revenue came from these taxes on imports.... He [Lincoln] promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order to enforce them. It was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a declaration of war on the South. Good info...So again, to the victor goes the "official" historical narrative... The South's war was economical. And defending its sovereignty. About "slavery"?? Not so much at all, but with Lincoln etal. turning a conflict into a moral crusade -- "Slavery!" (with help from the media), this meme resonated with the population of the north as a justification. It was portrayed as a noble mission. CW's roots were based on a Lie. And Power. Usurping the rights of the citizenry. Don't we see many parallels these days? Lincoln demonstrated NOT to be truthful -- despite his "Honest Abe" moniker. NOT big respecter of the US Constitution. EVER. That he was ready to invade, destroy, and plunder sovereign homes and southern states unwilling to yield to his dictatorial demands tainted his reputation and integrity enough. And when was the last time a SC Judge was arrested for rendering an opinion? ANSWER: during Lincoln's dictatorship...er...I mean Presidency. He would have made a great emperor in ancient Rome. Between execution of his shameless unconstitutional CW acts, refusal to respect southern states' sovereign right to secede, waging war based on a lie, his orders to brutalize southern cities...We who grew up and were educated in the north NEVER heard THE complete truth of the matter.
Yes. To what small advantage they managed as a matter of economic survival. The North was strangling the South's farm-base economy, arguable using it as its own "plantation" of sorts. Lincoln supported a National Bank. The same one Andrew Jackson rejected, knowing it was controlled by internationalists. The international banking elites obviously had their claws into Lincoln, while the well-monied elites controlled Northern states and political policies and agenda. The two regions were bonded as a nation in name only; Their cultures, quite different.
Yes, it does. The victors or "writers" can say what they like or destroy any historical documentation/monuments, etc. in order to promote their version of "history."
Like many of our politicians of today, Lincoln was an attorney, and they know better than most how to "work" the system.
The Lost Cause narrative lasted until relatively recently . That wasn't a northern writing . I'll refer again to the VP of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, and his 'Cornerstone Speech" . March 21, 1861 "The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind -- from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti- slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just -- but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal. " http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/stephens.html Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Thank GOD for the protective tariffs that secured our independence from Britain, enabled us to crush the Confederate slaveholders, build the Panama Canal, save the world from Hitler/Mussolini/Tojo, put Man on the Moon and become the world's only superpower!!! Without protective tariffs, we'd probably be as economically feckless as Canada or Mexico while Communist China rules the world.
So you are good with killing the south even though north had slavery too? The fact that only only a tiny proportion of the south even had slaves includes black men owning slaves. You are good with torching the south? Have you sought help for you hatred issue from a psychiatrist? Without protective tariffs, we'd probably be as economically feckless as Canada or Mexico while Communist China rules the world. How would you know. The reason why we have such a problem with Tariffs is because its applied in such a haphazard way benefiting only special interest. Explaining economics to a socialist is like a preacher explaining sin to the unrepentant sinner! Neither one gives a crap about the truth!
The South could've developed their own manufacturing if they wanted to. They would've been protected by the same tariffs that protected the North. And then they would'nt have had to buy anything from anybody because they would've been self-sufficient. But they were too lazy and dependent on slaves to do their work for them. That's why they were noncompetitive and the North whooped their sorry butts... Too bad, so sad, boohoo for the traitors.
You just don't get it. North needed tariffs and the south did not. Only 4% or so owned slaves in the south. The rest competed just fine. Its the north who wanted control of the south just like carpetbaggers. The north wanted blood. Don't forget just under 2% of the north owned slaves. Im sure that slipped your mind. Its always the big rich global corps that rule the world and you are just another patsy to believe their propaganda. Like I said before the north was getting their buts kicked by the lazy incompetent inbred racist slob southerns. If not for the endless numbers of Irish fools who die for the rich northern money manipulators the northerners would have had to actually deal with the truth.
I vaguely remember that another factor was the northern bankers were upset over the south shipping cotton and tobacco directly out of southern ports because they had been getting a percentage of all shipments from northern ports and this cut them out. I may be wrong on some or all of the details because it was a long time ago and I barely remember reading about it. Maybe some of you can clarify or correct? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Truth to tell,so are all wars. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
What were the lies of the revolutionary war?
IMHO, they wanted to bankrupt the southern economy so they could step in and buy the land at bankruptcy sales. They eventually did this during Reconstruction. The two regions were bonded as a nation in name only; Their cultures, quite different. And that is still true today,even with all the retired yankees living here and trying to screw it up. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
In their defense they had no idea what was going on,and probably cared nothing about it one way or the other. What they did care about was being told on Ellis Island that if they wanted to come to America they had to enlist in the Union Army or they and their families would be sent back home. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I don't remember right now and don't have the time or the desire to look it up. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I just asked because it was an absolutist statement you made. I didn't think you could come up with any.
No,you just asked because you want to be a pain in the ass due to my pointing out how anti-American your stand on homosexuals is. You can't possibly be so stupid as to think there weren't economic as well as freedom issues behind the Revolutionary War. After all,it was primarily the wealthy gentry class that pushed it. The "Trust Fund Kids of the 17th Century". And it was primarily the "Trust Fund Kids" with family money in England that fought for the British. And there can be no doubt there were people playing both sides for personal profits and power. The one constant throughout all of history is human nature. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
That statement is kind of true. Being that I am classic American and you are part of the "New America". The antithesis of classic American culture. You would be, and probably were considered an odd ball back in those days. At least if you went around saying gay marriage gay marriage. But you are quite at home in today's culture.
I don't do that now,why would I have done it when I was a kid? I don't even care about heterosexual marriage. What I do care about is all Americans being equal in the eyes of the law. I don't and won't back away from that. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I know your obsessed Pete. But stay on topic.
Remind me,which of us was it that brought the Revolutionary War into a discussion about the Civil War? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The truth is that there was no single cause of the war. Certainly eoconomics played a big role, IMO larger than the issue of slavery, but reasonable people can, and often, disagree about this. It is also very true that most, if not all, of the framers of the Consitution knew that the issue of slavery would have to be addressed and addressed relatively soon after the ratification of the Consitution or else the Union would fracture. In fact many, including Franklin, believed that the reckoning would come in 10-20 years and that it would involve bloodshed. He obviously was wrong about the timing but not about the bloodshed. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Of course they did. They were all educated people,and had to understand that the Bill of Rights would apply to everyone. IMHO they were just playing to the political realities of the time because they knew that at that time any attempt to abolish slavery would end in England retaining complete control over her "colony". They may not have liked this decision,but they knew they really had no choice but punt the slavery football down the field. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Truth to tell,so are all wars.
This is well written absolute nonsense. The reason for the civil war was rested in the early importation of European feudalism into into the South. What evolved was a systen of hereditary lords or nobles living in opulant plantation houses while the rest of the South lived as practical vassels. I know, because my great grandfather or granduncle was one of the lords who owned about 10% of Alabama. It was said that one could ride on horseback for 2 1/2 days and not come to the end of his land. When he died 35 years after the civil war, he left an estate of three million dollars. Such people were not bothered by tarriffs. They did a lucrative business selling Cotton to the North and to England. They were very happy in their big plantation houses counting their money and holding Gone With The Wind type social events. They were very happy with the things the way they were and in their complacency were not interested in founding new industries. This ultimately left the South without the industrial capacity to defend itself. Whe writers of the article are trying to pursue a mission saying government economic interference caused the war. It did no such thing.
Yes and that depleted old farm lands . So even though the invention of the cotton gin made the harvesting of cotton into a productive big business; They still needed slavery(to open the new fields) and new land to keep the trade profitable . That's why slavery in the territories became the pivotal issue. Lose access to the new lands and the source of the gentry's wealth withers . There was talk of annexation of Cuba ( Ostend Manifesto)and parts of Central America (Golden Circle). As I already noted ,the SC “Declaration of the Immediate Causes”, a document designed not just for the State ,but to convince other Southern states to join in rebellion, dealt exclusively with the slave issue. It claimed the Federal Government had an obligation to defend the rights of slave holders. Since it was unlikely that Lincoln would do so,it called for cessation. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Didn't bush enact the same laws to get illegal aliens to fight in the middle east? I guess too many of them saw the news and decided its not worth it.
Yes,and no. IF I remember correctly,he offered citizenship as an option,but unlike the Irish on Ellis Island,they had a choice. I also don't THINK that option was offered to illegals already arrested and in the system. I THINK it was a deal where any immigrant from any 3rd worlds shithole that wanted to come here with his family got put on the fast track if they agreed to enlist for 4 years in a combat arms branch of the USMC or the US Army. I am positive about the enlistment part,but unsure about the class of immigrants that got the offer. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Truth to tell,so are all wars. The CW was not just ANY war....or not just any lie. The CW -- and it's fake memes -- changed the entire course of...America. As far as the Left and many blacks are concerned today -- 150 years later -- YOU are obligated to pay for the guilt of you fathers. Moreover, according to today's lying meme, you are also a bigot and privileged -- you have "made nothing." OTHERS did that. Lastly, you still owe untold reparations for "slavery."
They eventually did this during Reconstruction. I believe that as well. Cheap "spoils of war" plucked out for pennies on the dollar. As if the South's majority had much to begin with. All the retired yankees living here and trying to screw it up. That's a given, ain't it? Transplanted northern academe also hijacked many of the public schools and universities. Not happy to live south, they are stealing the traditional culture. Sure -- now you have decent pizza and better food....BUT....
That describes the South as well. There was the lowland south of cotton plantations, where the Democrat planter aristocracy owned the slaves. And then there was the Piedmont, up above the fall line, where the great majority of whites lived, and did not own slaves. The narrative that is passed down today is that Tara was the typical station of Southern whites, it is far from the truth. The overwhelming majority of Southern whites were in an economic position of competing with slave labor. They faced an economic situation where the value of labor had been reduced to that required to maintain life. This seems to be the strategy employed by America's ruling class of today, with massive 3rd world immigration and free trade with 3rd world sweat shop nations employed as a weapon against American labor. The South was an economic ruin, and slavery was the root of the problem, but popular attention was aimed at the tariff. The Piedmont was an area that lent itself to industrialization, with ample water power and labor. And in fact the textile industry of New England went into decline not due to foreign competition; they were unable to compete with the Piedmont. when it industrialized. The Democrat planter aristocracy of the South was economically degenerate, they operated a business model based upon externalization of costs, to other peoples and even other generations. They are not unlike our modern ruling class. They ruined millions of acres of good farmland, strip-mining soil fertility to grow cotton with no crop rotation. Under their system Dr. GW Carver would have died a slave, doing work that ruined the soil. As a free man realizing his God given potential he worked our legume rotations that restored lands brought to ruin by the Democrat planter aristocracy. Arabs ruined vast swaths of once productive farmland, the Democrat planter aristocracy was of the same instant gratification mindset and gave the same results.
Lincoln had no moral problems with slavery. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Bingo,plus the 3rd worlders help to create the crisis the bankers need to suspend the Bill of Rights and declare Martial Law. And make no mistake about it,the time is not far off when enough whites will be fed up with being attacked from all directions,and start to fight back. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
He married into a slave-owning family and summered at the plantation. And pointedly did not free any Northern slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation.
We do have to admit that was a clever bit of political disinformation,though. And that it shows you how devious "Honest Abe" really was. Despite being described in all the history books and taught in all the public schools as "Lincoln freeing the slaves",he didn't free even ONE single slave. The purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was to encourage southern slaves to revolt against their masters and start murdering the masters families in order to encourage Confederate soldiers and officers to desert to go home to protect their families. In other words,start a guerrilla war in the southern rear so they would have to fight on multiple fronts instead of just one. EVERYBODY understood this at the time including all the northern and southern newspapers,yet there seems to be no historical record of those editorials and no mention made of this in public schools. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Whether he did or not is irrelevent . South Carolina believed he would not defend the institution . Here is the exact quote from the 'Declaration of Immediate Cause ' : " A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. " Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I'd like to enslave Obama. I'd make him pick weeds from my garden. I'd also beat him if he complained.
Be careful . The emperor has eyes all over the internet .
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I'd like to put him in chains. Sell him to the zoo.
I think that that is generally true but with a key exception: escaped slaves from the South were apparently granted some provisional legality as free men in the North and the laws on escaped slaves were not enforced against them. But, no, Lincoln freed no lawfully held slaves in the North. Nor did he free any slaves as more territory in the South was conquered. A huge number of slaves were herded together into slave camps and were rented out to their former owners. Conditions in the camps were terrible and probably killed more slaves than the entire war killed off. Some Northerners were quite happy that the slaves were just magically dying off once removed from the plantations. The Guardian, 2012 Paul Harris, New York Hundreds of thousands of slaves freed during the American civil war died from disease and hunger after being liberated, according to a new book. The analysis, by historian Jim Downs of Connecticut College, casts a shadow over one of the most celebrated narratives of American history, which sees the freeing of the slaves as a triumphant righting of the wrongs of a southern plantation system that kept millions of black Americans in chains. But, as Downs shows in his book, Sick From Freedom, the reality of emancipation during the chaos of war and its bloody aftermath often fell brutally short of that positive image. Instead, freed slaves were often neglected by union soldiers or faced rampant disease, including horrific outbreaks of smallpox and cholera. Many of them simply starved to death. After combing through obscure records, newspapers and journals Downs believes that about a quarter of the four million freed slaves either died or suffered from illness between 1862 and 1870. He writes in the book that it can be considered "the largest biological crisis of the 19th century" and yet it is one that has been little investigated by contemporary historians. Downs believes much of that is because at the time of the civil war, which raged between 1861 and 1865 and pitted the unionist north against the confederate south, many people did not want to investigate the tragedy befalling the freed slaves. Many northerners were little more sympathetic than their southern opponents when it came to the health of the freed slaves and anti-slavery abolitionists feared the disaster would prove their critics right. "In the 19th century people did not want to talk about it. Some did not care and abolitionists, when they saw so many freed people dying, feared that it proved true what some people said: that slaves were not able to exist on their own," Downs told the Observer. Downs's book is full of terrible vignettes about the individual experiences of slave families who embraced their freedom from the brutal plantations on which they had been born or sold to. Many ended up in encampments called "contraband camps" that were often near union army bases. However, conditions were unsanitary and food supplies limited. Shockingly, some contraband camps were actually former slave pens, meaning newly freed people ended up being kept virtual prisoners back in the same cells that had previously held them. In many such camps disease and hunger led to countless deaths. Often the only way to leave the camp was to agree to go back to work on the very same plantations from which the slaves had recently escaped. Treatment by union soldiers could also be brutal. Downs reconstructed the experiences of one freed slave, Joseph Miller, who had come with his wife and four children to a makeshift freed slave refugee camp within the union stronghold of Camp Nelson in Kentucky. In return for food and shelter for his family Miller joined the army. Yet union soldiers in 1864 still cleared the ex-slaves out of Camp Nelson, effectively abandoning them to scavenge in a war-ravaged and disease-ridden landscape. One of Miller's young sons quickly sickened and died. Three weeks later, his wife and another son died. Ten days after that, his daughter perished too. Finally, his last surviving child also fell terminally ill. By early 1865 Miller himself was dead. For Downs such tales are heartbreaking. "So many of these people are dying of starvation and that is such a slow death," he said. Downs has collected numerous shocking accounts of the lives of freed slaves. He came across accounts of deplorable conditions in hospitals and refugee camps, where doctors often had racist theories about how black Americans reacted to disease. Things were so bad that one military official in Tennessee in 1865 wrote that former slaves were: "dying by scores – that sometimes 30 per day die and are carried out by wagonloads without coffins, and thrown promiscuously, like brutes, into a trench". So bad were the health problems suffered by freed slaves, and so high the death rates, that some observers of the time even wondered if they would all die out. One white religious leader in 1863 expected black Americans to vanish. "Like his brother the Indian of the forest, he must melt away and disappear forever from the midst of us," the man wrote. Such racial attitudes among northerners seem shocking, but Downs says they were common. Yet Downs believes that his book takes nothing away from the moral value of the emancipation. Instead, he believes that acknowledging the terrible social cost born by the newly emancipated accentuates their heroism. "This challenges the romantic narrative of emancipation. It was more complex and more nuanced than that. Freedom comes at a cost," Downs said.
Kind of a gray area when you consider that none of the slaves in the north were freed,and the escaped slaves from the south were only allowed to remain free for the political mileage they could get from it. Some Northerners were quite happy that the slaves were just magically dying off once removed from the plantations. Remember the draft riots in NYC? Part of that was because the workers there didn't want to be drafted to go off and fight a war they didn't believe in,and part of it was because the northern factory workers didn't want the slaves in the south freed to move north and take their jobs away because they would work cheaper. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
OTOH, the working class in the North also hated slavery because they were competing against no-cost "slave wages", the origin of that phrase. So slave wages were abolished but cheap ex-slave labor was their reward for "winning".
Same thing with the working class whites in the south. Some may have owned subsistence farms,but most were lucky to be able to feed themselves and buy seeds and breeding stock. They had to "Farm themselves out" to other local farmers that had bigger operations that could afford to hire help,and even then they had to compete with the slave labor local plantation owners were renting out at low bids so the slaves could pay for their upkeep until the next planting and harvesting seasons. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Lincoln's Proclamation of 15 April 1861. Note that it is addressed to "combinations" of persons, and not to States. It cites "too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law," calls forth the militia, not the regular army, and commands "the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse." This follows the law for quelling a domestic disturbance. You may recall the delay of federal forces entering Louisiana after Katrina, awaiting explicit permission from the State prior to entry. Louisiana had not been invaded. U.S. Const., Art. 4, Section 4, Apply that to what Lincoln did. See the Militia Act of 1795, Section 2 and 3. Now therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. The details, for this object, will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department. I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs already long enough endured. I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to re-possess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event, the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with, property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country. And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date. Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers, at 12 o'clock, noon, on Thursday, the fourth day of July, next, then and there to consider and determine, such measures, as, in their wisdom, the public safety, and interest may seem to demand. In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the city of Washington this fifteenth day of April in the year of our Lord One thousand, Eight hundred and Sixtyone, and of the Independence the United States the Eightyfifth. ABRAHAM LINCOLN By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. - - - - - The Militia Act of 1792 was passed on May 2, 1792. That Act may be seen in the U.S. Statutes at large here. The Militia Act of 1792 was repealed and replaced by the Militia Act of 1795. | PAGES 1507-1508 | The Militia Act of 1795 begins on page 1508 and ends on page 1510. The Militia Act of 1795 An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions, and to repeal the act now in force for those purposes. Be it enacted, &c., That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the State or States most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper. And, in case of an insurrection in any State against the Government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the Legislature of such State, or of the Executive, (when the Legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other State or States as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection. Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed in any State, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such State, or of any other State or States, as may be necessary to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and the use of militia so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the then next session of Congress. Sec. 3. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That whenever it may be necessary, in the judgment of the President, to use the military force hereby directed to be called forth, the President shall forthwith, by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within a limited time, Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United Status shall be subject to the same rules and articles of war as the troops of the United States; and that no officer, non-commissioned officer, or private of the militia, shall be compelled to serve more than three months after his arrival at the place of rendezvous, in any one year, nor more than in due rotation with every other able-bodied man of the same rank in the battalion to which he belongs. Sec 5. And he it further enacted, That every officer, non-commissioned officer, or private of the militia, who shall fail to obey the orders of the President of the United States, in any of the cases before recited, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one year's pay, and not less than one month's pay, to be determined and adjudged by a court-martial; and such officers shall moreover be liable to be cashiered, by sentence of a court-martial, and be incapacitated from holding a commission in the militia for a term not exceeding twelve months, at the discretion of the said court; and such non-commissioned officers and privates shall be liable to be imprisoned, by a like sentence, on failure of payment of the fines adjudged against them, for one calendar month for every five dollars of such fine. Sec 6. And be it further enacted, That courts-martial for the trial of militia shall be composed of militia officers only. Sec 7. And be it further enacted, That all fines to be assessed, as aforesaid, shall be certified by the presiding officer of the court-martial, before whom the same shall be assessed, to the Marshal of the District in which the delinquent shall reside, or to one of his deputies, and also to the Supervisor of the Revenue of the same District, who shall record the said certificate in a book, to be kept for that purpose. The said Marshal or his deputy shall forthwith proceed to levy the said fines, with costs, by distress and sale of the goods and chattels of the delinquent; which costs and the manner of proceeding, with respect to the sale of the goods distrained, shall be agreeable to the laws of the State in which the same shall be in other cases of distress. And where any non-commissioned officer or private shall be adjudged to suffer imprisonment, there being no goods or chattels to be found, whereof to levy the said fines, the Marshal of the District or his deputy may commit such delinquent to jail during the term for which he shall be so adjudged to imprisonment, or until the fine shall be paid, in the same manner as other persons condemned to fine and imprisonment at the suit of the United States may be committed. Sec, 8. And be it further enacted, That the Marshals and their deputies shall pay all such fines by them levied to the Supervisor of the Revenue in the District in which they are collected within two months after they shall have received the same, deducting therefrom five per centum as a compensation for their trouble; and, in case of failure, the same shall be recoverable by action of debt or information in any Court of the United States of the district in which such fines shall be levied, having cognizance thereof, to be sued for, prosecuted, and recovered, in the name of the Supervisor of the District, with interest and costs. Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That the Marshals of the several Districts and their deputies shall have the same powers, in executing the laws of the United States, as Sheriffs and their deputies in the several States have, by law, in executing the laws of the respective States. Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That the act, entitled "An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions," passed the second day of May, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-two, shall be and the same is hereby repealed. Approved, February 28, 1795.
Not only is sneakypete confused about the cause of the Civil War, he is certainly confused about its duration. He's under the impression that the Union was still enlisting troops in 1892 when Ellis Island was established.
To be fair, he appears mistaken about where the immigration center was, not when the war ended. During the CW it had not yet become a Federal affair and was done by NY authorities down in the Battery (the lower end of Manhattan).
To be fair, he appears mistaken about where the immigration center was, not when the war ended. During the CW it had not yet become a Federal affair and was done by NY authorities down in the Battery (the lower end of Manhattan). I'm sure he knew that,and was just paying the standard political shithead game of telling a lie by going anal and shading the truth. Ellis Island existed long before there was an Immigration Service. AND....,"the Union" is STILL enlisting troops today,and will doing the same tomorrow. Is that precise enough for you,durtdawg? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
That I didn't know. I had just assumed Ellis Island was already in use because of the desire to quarantine immigrants to prevent the spread of disease. There can be no doubt that immigrants that didn't know any better were handed rifles and sworn into service under the assumption this was necessary to prevent them from being sent back to Europe. Also,notice how nobody from the northern side of these discussions ever wants to talk about the draft riots in NYC? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
They got me at 90 Church St down on the lower end of Manhattan.
Loads of Irish were enlisted right off the boat. They were offered a bonus for enlisting and the great Potato Famine was back home. Lots of them fought on both sides of the war. Troops marched from Gettysburg to NYC, and the Navy bombarded downtown Manhattan. Blacks were strung up from lamp posts. Mayor Wood brought up secession of the city from the state/union. Notice that about half the able-bodied men in the state of Wisconsin were foreigners who had not been naturalized. Stanton’s reply confirmed they were eligible for the draft. OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 3, vol 2, Part 1 (Union Letters, Orders, Reports) Page 369 UNION AUTHORITIES. Honorable E. M. STANTON: About one-half of the able-bodied men between eighteen and forty- five years in this State are foreign born. They have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States. Have the right to vote under our State constitution if twenty-one years old. Have enjoyed and are enjoying all the privileges of citizens. Are they liable to be drafted? They should be liable. Great injustice will be done to our State if they are exempt, and our quota would be too large if they are exempt. Cannot those who are not willing to subject themselves to draft be ordered to leave the country? Answer this immediately. I must have the time for volunteering extended, as asked for by my dispatches of Saturday and yesterday. Please answer them. E. SALOMON, Governor of Wisconsin. - - - - - Washington City, D. C., August 12, 1862. Governor SALOMON, Madison, Wis.: Foreigners who have voted at our elections are regarded as having exercised a franchise that subjects them to military duty. Declaration of intention to become naturalized is not of itself sufficient to prevent their taking advantage of their alienage, but a man who votes must bear arms. Your telegram respecting extension of time for volunteering cannot be answered until to- morrow, some information from different States being required. EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. - - - - -
The South did not secede primarily because of slavery. In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address he promised he had no intention to change slavery in the South. He argued it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. But he promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order to enforce them. It was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a declaration of war on the South.
#2. To: SOSO (#1)
#3. To: SOSO (#1)
#4. To: lana (#0)
(Edited)
Because manufactured goods were not produced in the South, they had to either be imported or shipped down from the North. Either way, a large expense, be it shipping fees or the federal tariff, was added to the price of manufactured goods only for Southerners. Because importation was often cheaper than shipping from the North, the South paid most of the federal tariffs.
#5. To: tomder55 (#3)
(Edited)
The South used to their advantage in trying to form an alliance with Great Britain).
#6. To: Liberator (#4)
Good info...So again, to the victor goes the "official" historical narrative...
#7. To: Liberator (#4)
Lincoln demonstrated NOT to be truthful -- despite his "Honest Abe" moniker
#8. To: Liberator (#4)
So again, to the victor goes the "official" historical narrative
#9. To: lana (#0)
#10. To: Willie Green (#9)
enabled us to crush the Confederate slaveholders
#11. To: Justified (#10)
#12. To: Willie Green (#11)
The South could've developed their own manufacturing if they wanted to. They would've been protected by the same tariffs that protected the North.
#13. To: lana (#0)
#14. To: Liberator (#4)
CW's roots were based on a Lie.
#15. To: sneakypete (#14)
Truth to tell,so are all wars.
#16. To: Liberator (#5)
(Edited)
The North was strangling the South's farm-base economy, arguable using it as its own "plantation" of sorts.
#17. To: Justified (#12)
If not for the endless numbers of Irish fools who die for the rich northern money manipulators the northerners would have had to actually deal with the truth.
#18. To: A K A Stone (#15)
What were the lies of the revolutionary war?
#19. To: sneakypete (#18)
What were the lies of the revolutionary war? I don't remember right now and don't have the time or the desire to look it up.
#20. To: A K A Stone (#19)
I just asked because it was an absolutist statement you made. I didn't think you could come up with any.
#21. To: sneakypete (#20)
No,you just asked because you want to be a pain in the ass due to my pointing out how anti-American your stand on homosexuals is.
#22. To: A K A Stone (#21)
At least if you went around saying gay marriage gay marriage.
#23. To: sneakypete (#22)
#24. To: A K A Stone (#23)
I know your obsessed Pete. But stay on topic.
#25. To: tomder55, lena (#3)
So the truth is that the Morill Act did not cause the war .
#26. To: SOSO (#25)
It is also very true that most, if not all, of the framers of the Consitution knew that the issue of slavery would have to be addressed and addressed relatively soon after the ratification of the Consitution or else the Union would fracture.
#27. To: sneakypete (#24)
Remind me,which of us was it that brought the Revolutionary War into a discussion about the Civil War?
#28. To: lana (#0)
(Edited)
Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War
#29. To: rlk (#28)
(Edited)
They did a lucrative business selling Cotton to the North and to England
#30. To: sneakypete (#17)
In their defense they had no idea what was going on,and probably cared nothing about it one way or the other. What they did care about was being told on Ellis Island that if they wanted to come to America they had to enlist in the Union Army or they and their families would be sent back home.
#31. To: Justified (#30)
Didn't bush enact the same laws to get illegal aliens to fight in the middle east?
#32. To: sneakypete (#14)
(CW's roots were based on a Lie.)
#33. To: sneakypete (#16)
(Edited)
IMHO, they wanted to bankrupt the southern economy so they could step in and buy the land at bankruptcy sales.
"The two regions were bonded as a nation in name only; Their cultures, quite different."
#34. To: Liberator (#33)
"The two regions were bonded as a nation in name only; Their cultures, quite different."
#35. To: tomder55 (#29)
(Edited)
It claimed the Federal Government had an obligation to defend the rights of slave holders. Since it was unlikely that Lincoln would do so,it called for cessation.
#36. To: nativist nationalist (#34)
The overwhelming majority of Southern whites were in an economic position of competing with slave labor. They faced an economic situation where the value of labor had been reduced to that required to maintain life. This seems to be the strategy employed by America's ruling class of today, with massive 3rd world immigration and free trade with 3rd world sweat shop nations employed as a weapon against American labor.
#37. To: sneakypete (#35)
Lincoln had no moral problems with slavery.
#38. To: TooConservative (#37)
And pointedly did not free any Northern slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation.
#39. To: sneakypete (#35)
Lincoln had no moral problems with slavery.
#40. To: tomder55 (#39)
#41. To: A K A Stone (#40)
#42. To: tomder55 (#41)
#43. To: sneakypete, GarySpFc, Vicomte13, redleghunter, lana, tpaine, Liberator, A K A Stone, All (#38)
(Edited)
Despite being described in all the history books and taught in all the public schools as "Lincoln freeing the slaves",he didn't free even ONE single slave.
How the end of slavery led to starvation and death for millions of black Americans
Fugitive slaves in Virginia in about 1863, many of whom ended up in “contraband camps” near Union army bases where conditions were unsanitary and food limited. Photograph: Andrew J. Russell/Medford Historical Society Collection/CORBIS
#44. To: TooConservative (#43)
I think that that is generally true but with a key exception: escaped slaves from the South were apparently granted some provisional legality as free men in the North and the laws on escaped slaves were not enforced against them.
#45. To: sneakypete (#44)
Remember the draft riots in NYC? Part of that was because the workers there didn't want to be drafted to go off and fight a war they didn't believe in,and part of it was because the northern factory workers didn't want the slaves in the south freed to move north and take their jobs away because they would work cheaper.
#46. To: TooConservative (#45)
OTOH, the working class in the North also hated slavery because they were competing against no-cost "slave wages", the origin of that phrase.
#47. To: lana (#0)
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law,
#48. To: sneakypete (#17)
#49. To: durtdawg, sneakypete (#48)
Not only is sneakypete confused about the cause of the Civil War, he is certainly confused about its duration. He's under the impression that the Union was still enlisting troops in 1892 when Ellis Island was established.
#50. To: nolu chan, durtdawg (#49)
Not only is sneakypete confused about the cause of the Civil War, he is certainly confused about its duration. He's under the impression that the Union was still enlisting troops in 1892 when Ellis Island was established.
#51. To: nolu chan (#49)
During the CW it had not yet become a Federal affair and was done by NY authorities down in the Battery (the lower end of Manhattan).
#52. To: sneakypete (#50)
AND....,"the Union" is STILL enlisting troops today,and will doing the same tomorrow.
#53. To: sneakypete (#51)
There can be no doubt that immigrants that didn't know any better were handed rifles and sworn into service under the assumption this was necessary to prevent them from being sent back to Europe.
MADISON, WIS., August 12, 1862.
WAR DEPARTMENT,
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]