Secession
ADDING SLAVES TO POMONA HALL --
Historic Society Broadens Interpretation of Mansion Site.
"I don't think most people know there were slave plantations in
southern New
Jersey," said Secretary Thomas.
http://historiccamdencounty.com/ccnews58.shtml
"Although the state was free of slavery by the elections of 1860,
New Jersey leaned towards Southern sentiment. New Jersey supported
the doctrine of states' rights and believed the emancipation of
slaves would cause freed African Americans to flood the state,
competing with whites for employment.
The state was firmly under Democratic control in 1860 and 1864, and
Abraham Lincoln did not carry New Jersey in either election."
http://www.phillyburbs.com/undergroundrailroad/NJabolition.shtml
Iron Plantations in Jersey
http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/njh/SciANDTech/NJIron/HomePage.htm
The first permanent settlement was established by Mahlon Stacy, a
Quaker, in 1679. Stacy built a mill on the Delaware River. In 1714,
he sold his plantation to William Trent, who later became chief
justice of the colony
http://www.ohwy.com/nj/t/trenton.htm.
Lewis Morris of New York, West Chester Co., NY 4/8/1726 1/22/1798
a signer of the Declaration of Independence, was a plantation
owner, as was Caesar Rodney of Delaware Dover, DE 10/7/1728
6/29/1784. >>>>>
After Mr. Lincoln's war, Mr. Jefferson Davis was arrested and placed in prison prior to a trial. The trial was never held, because the chief justice of the supreme court Mr. Salmon Portland Chase: informed President Andrew Johnson that if Mr. Davis is placed on trial for treason the case will be decided thus. Justice Chase informed the President that the U.S. Government would LOSE the case because nothing in the constitution forbids secession. That is why no trial of Jefferson Davis was held, despite the fact he wanted one. Reserved powers totally kills the idea of secession is unconstitutional.
In April 1861, The Maryland
State legislature was meeting Frederick, Maryland, to avoid the occupation of
the state capitol in Annapolis, Maryland. Because of the arrest of the members
of the legislature who were sympathetic to the South, the body could not vote on
secession because of a lack of a quorum. Therefore, on this date in 1861 the
following resolution was made by the Maryland Legislature.
State Of Maryland
Legislative Resolution
Whereas, The war against the Confederate States is unconstitutional and
repugnant to civilization, and will result in a bloody and shameful overthrow of
our institutions; and whilst recognizing the obligations of Maryland to the
Union, we sympathize with the South in the struggle for their rights-for the
sake of humanity, we are for peace and reconciliation, and solemnly protest
against this war, and will take no part in it:--
Resolved, That Maryland implores the President, in the name of God, to cease
this unholy war, at least until Congress assembles; that Maryland desires and
consents to the recognition of the independence of the Confederate States. The
military occupation of Maryland is unconstitutional, and she protests against
it, though the violent interference with transit of Federal is discountenanced;
that the vindication of her rights be left to time and reason, and that a
convention, under existing circumstances, is inexpedient.
Missouri Ordinance of Secession
AN ACT declaring the political ties heretofore existing between the State of
Missouri and the United States of America dissolved.
WHEREAS, The government of the United States, in the possession and under
the control of a sectional party, has wantonly violated the compact
originally made between said government and the State of Missouri, by
invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making
prisoners the militia whilst legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly
occupying the State capital, and attempting, through the instrumentality of
domestic traitors, to usurp the State government, seizing and destroying
private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens,
men, women and children, together with other acts of atrocity indicating a
deep settled hostility towards the people of Missouri and their institutions,
and,
WHEREAS, The present administration of the government of the United
States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the government as
constructed and intended by its makers, and established a despotic and
arbitrary power instead thereof; now, therefore,
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, as
follows:
That all political ties of every character now existing between the
government of the United States of America, and the people and government of
the State of Missouri, are hereby dissolved, and the State of Missouri,
resuming the sovereignty granted by compact to the said United States upon
the admission of the State into the Federal Union, does again take its place
as a free and independent republic amongst the nations of the earth.
Charles Adams' time bomb of a book, "When in the Course of Human Events:
Arguing the Case for Southern Secession" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2000).
In a mere 242 pages, he shows that almost everything we thought we knew
about the war between the states is wrong.
Adams believes that both Northern and Southern leaders were lying when
they invoked slavery as a reason for secession and for the war. Northerners
were seeking a moral pretext for an aggressive war, while Southern leaders were
seeking a threat more concrete than the Northern tariff to justify a drive
to political independence. This was rhetoric designed for mass consumption.
Adams amasses an amazing amount of evidence -- including remarkable
editorial cartoons and political speeches -- to support his thesis that
the war was really about government revenue.
Consider this little tidbit from the pro-Lincoln New York Evening Post,
March 2, 1861 edition:>
"That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the
rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is
generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws
are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be
dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation
will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be
nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our
navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present
order of things must come to a dead stop.
"What, then, is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding states
repeal the revenue laws for the whole Union in this manner? Or will the
government choose to consider all foreign commerce destined for those
ports
where we have no custom-houses and no collectors as contraband, and stop
it, when offering to enter the collection districts from which our
authorities have been expelled?"
This is not an isolated case. British newspapers, whether favoring the
North or South, said the same thing: the feds invaded the South to collect
revenue. Indeed, when Karl Marx said the following, he was merely stating
what everyone who followed events closely knew: "The war between the North
and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle,
does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern
lust for sovereignty."
Marx was only wrong on one point: the war was about principle at one
level. It was about the principle of self-determination and the right not to be
taxed to support an alien regime. Another way of putting this is that the
war was about freedom, and the South was on the same side as the original
American revolutionaries.
Interesting, isn't it, that today, those who favor banning Confederate
symbols and continue to demonize an entire people's history also tend to
be partisans of the federal government in all its present political struggles?
Lincoln overthrew the second republic of the United States, established by the
U.S. Constitution, when he launched his war against the South. The U.S.
Supreme Court, according to the Prize Cases decided on in December 1862,
ruled: "Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states
by virtue of any clause in the Constitution. The President has no power to
initiate or declare war against a foreign nation or a domestic state. Several
of these states have combined to form a new Confederacy, claiming to be
acknowledged by the world as a Sovereign state. Their right to do so is
now being decided by wager of Battle."
The Stars and Stripes was the symbol of a regime that made
arbitrary arrests, suspended habeas corpus, and curtailed
freedom of speech,
press, and assembly. The number of political prisoners during the
Civil War era has been estimated to be as high as 38,000. The
Legislature of Maryland was overthrown by Lincoln's military.
The Chicago Times was among hundreds of Northern
newspapers suppressed for expressing "incorrect views."
As late as the middle of 1864, Lincoln was ordering his military
to "arrest and imprison the editors, proprietors and publishers
of the New York World and the New York Journal of Commerce."
The Stars and Stripes symbolizes a country that was conceived and
established as a slave republic. When the Declaration of Independence
was signed, the institution of slavery was legally sanctioned in all
thirteen colonies. There were, in fact, twice as many slaves in
New York than in Georgia.
"[B]y 1860 the Southern states were paying in excess of 80 percent of all tariffs," writes Thomas DiLorenzo. And although Lincoln did enact the first (unconstitutional) income tax during the war, prior to the war, the tariff was virtually the only source of income for the federal government. Without the Southern ports that received most of the country's imports, Lincoln could not possibly mount his campaign for a larger federal government, handing out subsidies to industrial interests.
Lincoln had to deny that there was a right of secession. And I quote the legal scholar, James Ostrowski, who, I think, put together a summary of what Lincoln’s interpretation of the Constitution on this topic has to say, and he’s sort of a mind game. He looks and he says, well, this is what the founders had to have believed in when they were ratifying the Constitution in order to take Lincoln’s position:
1) No state may ever secede for any reason.
2) If a state does secede, the federal government may suppress the secession with military force.
3) The federal government may coerce all states to provide militias to suppress the seceding state.
4) After suppressing the seceded state, the federal government may govern that state with a military dictatorship until the state accepts the supremacy of the federal government.
5) After the suppression, the federal government may force the state to adopt a new constitution imposed on it by military force, which happened in reconstruction.
6) The president may unilaterally suspend the Bill of Rights and the writ of habeas corpus.
And it’s unlikely that if they believe those things, the Constitution would ever pass; it barely passed to begin with.
"Then, on January 14, 1811, a mere twenty-two years after the signing of
the Constitution - the thing so dreaded by New England was at hand. A
portion of the Louisiana Tract, calling itself Louisiana, made
application for statehood and admission to the Union. This petition had
the effect of driving a stake through the heart of New England. Here
was the long dreaded fact - new states would form - increasing the
southern lands’ power in Congress, and ultimately - usurping New
England’s power entirely. During heated debates in Congress, Josiah
Quincy, a Massachusetts Representative, uttered the prophetic words that
were to be the harbingers of civil war. “... it as my deliberate
opinion that, if this bill passes, the bonds of this Union are virtually
dissolved; that the States which compose it are free from their moral
obligations; and that as it will be the right of all, so it will be the
duty of some, definitely to prepare for a separation, amicably, if they
can - violently, if they must. It is to preserve, to guard the
Constitution of my country that I denounce this attempt.” Now the
dragon’s teeth were sown.
The opinion of the US Supreme court in 1862, that states that Lincoln's war was a "Personal War", and that his order to blockade the Southern ports came weeks before congress approved it. But Congress is forbidden to enact ex-post facto laws.
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/67/635.html
Dear Mr. Chapman,
I read with interest your article concerning the present problems regarding
illegal aliens. I, too, was concerned about the problem as well. So much so,
that I wrote every single United States Senator in Congress. I was less than
impressed with the responses I received from Kennedy, Liebermann and Frist.
Frankly, you can take off the salutations, shuffle them and then you will not be
able to tell one from the other. They just cannot get away from describing
illegal aliens as 'undocumented workers'. Well hell yes they're undocumented!
What part of illegal do they not understand? However, it is not your views on
the illegal aliens that I wish to discuss with you.
I find that I must call to question your statements regarding the illegality of
secession. You may be interested to know that your logic is much the same as
that used by Abraham Lincoln and the Radical Republicans of his day. His
reasoning ran along the same line that since secession is not explicitly allowed
in the Constitution that the States of the South must be in rebellion against
the Constitution. It is true that the Constitution does not explicitly give
this power to the States, however, it does not deny it either. Go ahead; show
me where it explicitly states that secession is not allowed to a sovereign State
of the Union. You cannot.
Sir, in order to reach your outlook on the unconstitutionality of secession, one
must resort to 'implicit' reasoning. Even so, implicitly denying a sovereign
State the right of secession is grossly weak and only maintained today over the
loss of 600,000 lives between 1861-1865. On the other hand, your 'implicit'
reasoning is countered by the many 'explicit' writings in the Federalist Papers
and the ratification documents of the original thirteen States that formed our
current Union.
It was in the text of the Constitution that the sovereign States surrendered
certain Rights in order to form the Union. I refer you to Article 1, Section 8
of the Constitution. Therein resides all the ‘explicit’ powers given by the
States of the New Union to the new federal government. Where in that well
defined article do the States give up their Right to leave this New Union, if
necessary, to preserve the Happiness of their People? Certainly clause 15, used
by Honest Abe to carry out his four year war against the south sought to define
secession as 'rebellion'. However, it is clear to even the most imbecilic among
us that this clause is intended for true rebellions such as the Whiskey Tax
Rebellion in Pennsylvania in 1794 or even John Brown's Raid in 1859. These were
true rebellions with no associated Republican form of government created and
maintained to support the State.
Throughout its short history, the Confederacy always maintained a Republican
form of government as mandated by the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution.
First the seceding states met in convention and voted to withdraw from the
Union. Most hoped to do so peacefully. Next, they formed their own
decentralized federal government and the offices necessary to administer it.
These actions are identical to the ones performed by the Founding Fathers upon
their secession from England some 80 years earlier. At every step, the seceding
States maintained a Republican form of government.
You may be interested to know that there is ample 'explicit' evidence that the
Founding Fathers were frightened of a strong central government usurping the
powers of the sovereign States. This is reasonable since they had just won
their independence from the greatest military power then on Earth! No less than
six (6) of the original thirteen colonies placed ‘explicit’ conditions on their
ratification documents. Here are just two: Massachusetts, "That it be
explicitly declared that all powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid
Constitution are reserved to the several states, to be by them exercised." and
New York, "That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People,
whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power,
Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated
to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government
thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective
State Governments to whom they may have granted the same." Remember, these are
northern states. The other states that put similar stipulations include:
Virginia, South Carolina, Rhode Island and New Hampshire. Let me see, that is
four (4) northern states to two (2) southern ones.
Not yet convinced? Alright, then since we cannot find 'explicit' verbiage
either for or against secession in the Constitution then we must search for
'implicit' reasoning. You may want to read the Federalist Papers. They discuss
the following subject in greater detail than this message allows. Basically,
the men responsible for creating the Constitution and defining the intricate
weave of powers between the federal and state governments were concerned that in
later generations men, like you perhaps, might misread their ratification of the
Constitution. This led them to create the Bill of Rights. Specifically, the
2nd, 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. Most of the ratifiers
insisted on the addition of these amendments to retain unto the States all
rights not given up to the federal government (refer again to Article 1, Section
8).
The 9th Amendment states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people." Now do not insult my intelligence by telling me that the People are
not represented by their State legislatures. After all, even old King George
granted independence to the sovereign colonies individually. No where is there
a document where the King granted independence to the United States or any
centralized federal government. Why not? Because it did not exist. Each of
the colonies, for a limited time, was indeed a sovereign nation! I digress.
The 10th amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people."
These two amendments, given the ratification documents, seem clear to me even if
they do not categorically mention the word secession. Since your argument can
also not find anything against secession then we are left with only 'implicit'
reasoning. I believe I can make a much better case for secession than you can
against it even after four years of bloody, unconstitutional and illegal warfare
against sovereign states to force them back into the Union. I have not yet
addressed one final amendment. It is the 2nd amendment, which most central
government loving liberals hate because it says, "A well regulated militia,
being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep
and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Now I know that liberals wish to remove
weapons from the hands of the People. However, that is only because they do not
trust the People. In fact, truthfully, they fear them. Well, they should. The
People through their sovereign State governments are meant to hold the real
power in this 'Republic'. No, wait, the American Republic died in 1865. The
'American System' replaced it, but that is another story for another time.
Finally, you may be interested to know that the Founding Fathers almost did
place another clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution that would have
'explicitly' stated that secession would be unconstitutional. It read,
""...call forth the force of the Union against any member of the Union, failing
to fulfill its duty under the articles thereof." It failed and failed
miserably! I believe that speaks volumes about the mindset of our forefathers
regarding the unconstitutionality of forcing States to remain in an involuntary
Union.
V/R
H.G. Manning
Lieutenant Commander
Texas Division
So that the issue thus made by the
people of the North among themselves was really whether the war then being waged
by them against the South was right or wrong; and on that issue, thus clearly
presented, out of four millions of voters who went to the polls nearly one-half
said, in effect, that the war was wrong, and that the principles for which the
South was contending--the "rights of the States unimpaired "--were
right, and that their overthrow was to be resisted by all patriotic Americans.
Lincoln received 2,216,067 votes, whilst McClellan received 1,808,725 votes; the
latter receiving very nearly as many votes in the Northern States alone as
Lincoln had received in the whole country when he was elected in 1860, his vote
at that time being only 1,866,352.
I construe this as a condemnation of
their cause by nearly one-half the people of the North, "out of
their own mouths." It will be remembered that in this election the
soldiers in the field voted, and it is to be presumed, of course, voted in
support of the cause for Which they were then fighting.--which fact alone would
doubtless account for a very large part of the votes cast for Mr. Lincoln. In
this election, too, there was again the most shameless interference by the
military to carry the election for Mr. Lincoln. When we consider these facts, I
think the result was truly remarkable, and something for the Northern people to
think of now, when many of them so flippantly taunt the Southern people with
having been "rebels" and "traitors." Let them ask
themselves, did not the South have a just cause, and did not nearly one-half the
Northern people so pronounce at the time?
As a sample of the interference by
the military authorities in that election, General B. F. Butler tells us in his
book how he was sent by Mr. Stanton to New York with a military force to control
that city and State for Mr. Lincoln. He says he stationed his troops
conveniently near to every voting place in New York city, and that "he took
care that the Southerners should understand that means would be taken for their
identification, and that whoever of them should vote would be dealt with in such
a manner as to make them uncomfortable"; and "the result was," he
says, that "substantially no Southerners voted at the polls on election
day."
I think these figures and these facts
demonstrate that if this election had been a fair one, without the interference
of the military, a majority of the voters of the North would have said by their
votes that the war then being waged against the South was wrong, and
would therefore have stopped it of their own accord, because they were convinced
it was wrong, and contrary to "justice, humanity, liberty, and the
public welfare."
It is most interesting to notice the
vote in some of the great States of the North in this contest on the issue thus
presented. Notwithstanding the interference by the military, as above stated by
General Butler, the vote in New York was 368,726 for Lincoln and 361,986 for
McClellan, or a little over 6,000 majority for Lincoln and his cause. Can any
one doubt what the result would have been but for what General Butler says he
and his troops did? In Pennsylvania the vote was 296,389 for Lincoln, and
276,308 for McClellan. That in Ohio was 265,154 for Lincoln, and 205,568 for
McClellan. That in Indiana was 150,422 for Lincoln, and 130,233 for McClellan.
That in Illinois was 189,487 for Lincoln, and 158,349 for McClellan. That in
Wisconsin was 79,564 for Lincoln, and 63,875 for McClellan. In New Hampshire it
was 36,595 for Lincoln, and 33,034 for McClellan. In Connecticut it was 44,693
for Lincoln, and 42,288 for McClellan; and whilst McClellan got the electoral
votes of only New Jersey, Delaware and Kentucky, it is shown by the large vote
he polled in all the States that the feeling of the people of the North against
their cause was not confined to any State or locality, but pervaded the whole
country; nearly every State, except perhaps Massachusetts, Vermont, Kansas,
Maine and West Virginia, endorsing the war policy of the Republicans by smaller
majorities than they have since given to the same party on purely economic
issues. And just think of it, my comrades, that by a change of 209,000 in a vote
of more than four millions, a majority of the people of the North would have
voted that their cause was wrong, and that ours was consequently right.
Judge George L. Christian
Before the Grand Camp of Confederate Veterans at the Annual Meeting held
at Culpeper C. H., Va., October 4th, 1898
To ignore the religious questions that were behind the war is to ignore the noblest aspirations of men like Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Alexander H. Stephens. Men of this caliber didn't fight for mere economic motives, or just so they could 'keep their slaves.' To think such is to trivialize their efforts and sacrifices.
We know from research that, in the three decades prior to the war, the North had become permeated with Unitarian thought and influence, which extended far beyond their numbers. One major consequence of too much Unitarian thinking is the tendency toward strong, centralized government, the urge to force people to live a certain way with the power of the state, "for their own good," of course. And, when the Almighty is dethroned in the small minds of men, the state rushes in to fill the void.
During this same period, the South was tending more and more toward a strong, orthodox, Calvinistic position, which may have culminated in something of a national revival if given enough time. The South was producing some theologians of the nature of Robert L. Dabney and James Henley Thornwell while the North was producing apostates such as Henry Ward Beecher! So there was a distinct theological cleavage between the North and the South. Al Benson
Introduction to:
Lincoln's Tariff War
By Thomas J. DiLorenzo
When Charles Adams published his book For Good and Evil, a world history of taxation, the most controversial chapter by far was the one on whether or
not tariffs caused the American War between the States. That chapter generated so much discussion and debate that Adams's publisher urged him to
turn it into an entire book, which he did, in the form of When in the Course
of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession.
Many of the reviewers of this second book, so confident were they that slavery was the one and only possible reason for both Abraham Lincoln's
election to the presidency and the war itself, excoriated Adams for his analysis that the tariff issue was a major cause of the war. (Adams recently
told me in an email that after one presentation to a New York City audience,
he felt lucky that "no one brought a rope.")
My book, The Real Lincoln, has received much the same response with regard to the tariff issue. But there is overwhelming evidence that: 1) Lincoln, a
failed one-term congressman, would never have been elected had it not been for his career-long devotion to protectionism; and 2) the 1861 Morrill
tariff, which Lincoln was expected to enforce, was the event that triggered Lincoln's invasion, which resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of
Americans.
A very important article that documents in great detail the role of
protectionism in Lincoln's ascendancy to the presidency is Columbia University historian Reinhard H. Luthin's "Abraham Lincoln and the Tariff,"
published in the July 1944 issue of The American Historical Review. As I document in The Real Lincoln, the sixteenth president was one of the most
ardent protectionists in American politics during the first half of the nineteenth century and had established a long record of supporting
protectionism and protectionist candidates in the Whig Party.
In 1860, Pennsylvania was the acknowledged key to success in the presidential election. It had the second highest number of electoral votes,
and Pennsylvania Republicans let it be known that any candidate who wanted the state's electoral votes must sign on to a high protectionist tariff to
benefit the state's steel and other manufacturing industries. As Luthin writes, the Morrill tariff bill itself "was sponsored by the Republicans in
order to attract votes in Pennsylvania and New Jersey."
The most influential newspaper in Illinois at the time was the Chicago Press and Tribune under the editorship of Joseph Medill, who immediately
recognized that favorite son Lincoln had just the protectionist credentials that the Pennsylvanians wanted. He editorialized that Lincoln "was an old
Clay Whig, is right on the tariff and he is exactly right on all other
issues. Is there any man who could suit Pennsylvania better?"
At the same time, a relative of Lincoln's by marriage, a Dr. Edward Wallace of Pennsylvania, sounded Lincoln out on the tariff by communicating to
Lincoln through his brother, William Wallace. On October 11, 1859, Lincoln wrote Dr. Edward Wallace: "My dear Sir: [Y]our brother, Dr. William S.
Wallace, showed me a letter of yours, in which you kindly mention my name, inquire for my tariff view, and suggest the propriety of my writing a letter
upon the subject. I was an old Henry Clay-Tariff Whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject than any other. I have not since changed my
views" (emphasis added). Lincoln was establishing his bona fides as an ardent protectionist.
At the Republican National Convention in Chicago, the protectionist tariff was a key plank. As Luthin writes, when the protectionist tariff plank was
voted in, "The Pennsylvania and New Jersey delegations were terrific in their applause over the tariff resolution, and their hilarity was
contagious, finally pervading the whole vast auditorium." Lincoln received "the support of almost the entire Pennsylvania delegation" writes
Luthin, "partly through the efforts of doctrinaire protectionists such as Morton
McMichael . . . publisher of Philadelphia's bible of protectionism, the North American newspaper."
Returning victorious to his home of Springfield, Illinois, Lincoln attended a Republican Party rally that included "an immense wagon" bearing a gigantic
sign reading "Protection for Home Industry." Lincoln's (and the Republican
Party's) economic guru, Pennsylvania steel industry publicist/lobbyist Henry C. Carey, declared that without a high protectionist tariff, "Mr. Lincoln's
administration will be dead before the day of inauguration."
The U.S. House of Representatives had passed the Morrill tariff in the 1859-1860 session, and the Senate passed it on March 2, 1861, two days
before Lincoln's inauguration. President James Buchanan, a Pennsylvanian who owed much of his own political success to Pennsylvania protectionists,
signed it into law. The bill immediately raised the average tariff rate from
about 15 percent (according to Frank Taussig in Tariff History of the United States) to 37.5 percent, but with a greatly expanded list of covered items.
The tax burden would about triple. Soon thereafter, a second tariff increase would increase the average rate to 47.06 percent, Taussig writes.
So, Lincoln owed everything--his nomination and election--to Northern protectionists, especially the ones in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. He was
expected to be the enforcer of the Morrill tariff. Understanding all too well that the South Carolina tariff nullifiers had foiled the last attempt
to impose a draconian protectionist tariff on the nation by voting in political convention not to collect the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations,"
Lincoln literally promised in his first inaugural address a military
invasion if the new, tripled tariff rate was not collected.
At the time, Taussig says, the import-dependent South was paying as much as 80 percent of the tariff, while complaining bitterly that most of the
revenues were being spent in the North. The South was being plundered by the tax system and wanted no more of it. Then along comes Lincoln and the
Republicans, tripling (!) the rate of tariff taxation (before the war was an
issue). Lincoln then threw down the gauntlet in his first inaugural: "The power confided in me," he said, "will be used to hold, occupy, and possess
the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects,
there will be no invasion--no using force against, or among the people
anywhere" (emphasis added).
"We are going to make tax slaves out of you," Lincoln was effectively saying, "and if you resist, there will be an invasion." That was on March 4.
Five weeks later, on April 12, Fort Sumter, a tariff collection point in Charleston Harbor, was bombarded by the Confederates. No one was hurt or
killed, and Lincoln later revealed that he manipulated the Confederates into
firing the first shot, which helped generate war fever in the North.
With slavery, Lincoln was conciliatory. In his first inaugural address, he said he had no intention of disturbing slavery, and he appealed to all his
past speeches to any who may have doubted him. Even if he did, he said, it would be unconstitutional to do so.
But with the tariff it was different. He was not about to back down to the South Carolina tariff nullifiers, as Andrew Jackson had done, and was
willing to launch an invasion that would ultimately cost the lives of 620,000 Americans to prove his point. Lincoln's economic guru, Henry C.
Carey, was quite prescient when he wrote to Congressman Justin S. Morrill in
mid-1860 that "Nothing less than a dictator is required for making a really good tariff" (p. 614, "Abraham Lincoln and the Tariff").
Thomas DiLorenzo is a professor of economics in the Sellinger School of Business and Management at Loyola College in Baltimore, and is senior fellow
of the Mises Institute.
More: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo57.html
The Union War Department's General Order #100 -- was written by Francis Lieber,
a German immigrant of mushy liberal-nationalist views, which centered on
state-worship. Thus Lieber: "the state stands incalculably above the individual,
is worthy of every sacrifice, of life, and goods, of wife and children, for it is the
society of societies, the sacred union by which the creator leads man to
civilization, the bond, the pacifier, the humanizer, of men, the protector
of all undertakings". Anything done by a commander in the field could be
justified under the rubric of "military necessity." So Sherman's men could burn
and pillage (and worse) to their heart's content, while staying within the
fraudulent limitations.
Reasons for the War, According to Sherman: Well, strangely enough, all of
Sherman's concerns involved economics, geopolitics, or the glorious union.
As secession loomed, Sherman wrote to his brother John Sherman, the future
Senator, on December 1, 1860 that "If Texas should draw off, no great harm
would follow - Even if S. Carolina, Georgia, Alabama & Florida would cut away,
it might be the rest could get along, but I think the secession of Mississippi,
Louisiana and Arkansas will bring war - for though they now say that Free Trade
is their Policy yet it wont be long before steamboats will be taxed and molested
all the way down" (Sherman's Civil War: Selected Correspondence of William T.
Sherman, 1860-1865, eds., Brooks D. Simpson and Jean V. Berlin [University
of North Carolina Press, 1999], p. 15).
Sherman was then serving as superintendent of the Louisiana State
Seminary of Learning and Military Academy in Alexandria, La., and thought himself
in a good position to gauge the ideas and temper of Southerners as the crisis
developed. On December 9, he wrote to his brother that "it would be
folly to liberate or materially modify the condition of the Slaves." In letters of
December 25 and January 5, 1861, he told correspondents that "it is not slavery"
behind the breakup of the union but "anarchy," which he equated with an excess
of "Democratic spirit" (pp. 27, 30). On January 8, he assured his father-in-law,
Thomas Ewing, that "Slavery is not the Cause but the pretext" (p. 32). To his wife,
on January 20, Sherman observed that "Down here they think they are going
to have fine times. New Orleans a free port, whereby she can import Goods
without limit or duties, and Sell to the up River Countries. But Boston, New York,
Philadelphia and Baltimore will never consent that N. Orleans should be a Free
Port, and they Subject to Duties" (p. 46). Thus, it was essential to blockade New
Orleans to prevent such a ghastly outcome.
Sherman repeated this last theme to his brother on February 1: "They want
free trade here - to import free, and send their goods up the Rivers free
of all charges but freight & insurance - New York, Boston, Phila. &
Baltimore could not afford to pay duties if New Orleans is a Free port"
(p. 50). In addition, Sherman believed the union to be unbreakable, legally and
metaphysically. Writing to his brother on March 21, he sorted things out
thus: "On the Slavery Question as much forbearance should be made as
possible, but on the Doctrine of Secession, none whatever" (p. 63). For
Sherman, secession was treason, and that was that. So uninterested was
Sherman in fighting for emancipation that he could write David F. Boyd,
April 4, 1861, that slavery "is and was no cause for a severance of the old
Union, but [I] will go further and say that I believe the practice of slavery in
the South is the mildest and best regulated system of slavery in the world
now or heretofore" (p. 65).
"The simple chances of war, provided we adhere to the determination of
subduing the South, will of course involve the destruction of all able bodied
men of this Generation and go pretty deep into the next" (p. 126). Sherman's
defenders like to say he was prone to exaggerate, that he was blowing
off steam in his letters. Fine. The war "only" cost North and South 620,000
deaths. What a bargain. And for what did Sherman think it reasonable to
fight such a war: tariff revenues, control of the Mississippi River, and the
nationalist theory of the union.
in the Colonies
The fact is that during the early days of the colonies, the colonies acted independently from each other. They generally did not join in concert to deal with the King, each colony acted without regard to her sister colony. For example, during those days John Stark was captured by the savages and brought to Albany in the Colony of New York. He was there presented for ransom. "Inasmuch as he belonged to the colony of New Hampshire, the government of New York took no action for his release. There was not even enough community of feeling to induce individual citizens to provide money for the purpose."
Another truth of the later colonial period is that temporary unions were also formed for the common good of the colonies that entering the agreement. These unions were then disbanded when they were no longer useful to the one or all of the members. One of this time period was the United Colonies of New England, which lasted 50 years. Afterwards there were several other "temporary and provisional associations of colonies&. formed, and the people were taught the advantages of union for a common purpose; they never abandoned or compromised the great principles of community independence, however," (Davis) The fact is that even in these temporary unions we see that the colonies maintained and cultivated the germ principle of what would become States rights. This forming of unions, dissolving of unions and reforming into new unions testifies to the sovereignty of the communities to accede or secede from unions as they saw fit.
The Revolution
By declaring independence from the British kingdom the Colonies declared their intent to secede from British Governmental Control. It is important to note that after independence was gained by the colonies each was recognized as a Sovereign State by their individual recognition by Great Britain. Therefore as free and independent countries/city/states they came together to form a government. Their first compact was to be short lived, but the principle of individual state rights was strengthened.
The Articles of Confederation
The first union of the newly freed states was to be under the Articles of Confederation. These articles formed a compact between the states, one that was even hope to be "perpetual", but, in the second article it is clear that the States who were to join this compact retained their primary rights. "Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." Even with this explicit guarantee that their God given rights would not be lost two states did not join at once for fear that their sovereignty may be infringed upon. It took three years for their fears to be quieted and they then came into the union. (important to note what did not happen) They were not forced to join. They were free and independent States who could voluntarily accept of reject the Articles of Confederation.
After the 7 or so years that the Articles were in effect for the New Union it was believed, I now believe wrongly, that the Federal Government needed additional grants of power from the States. The States agreed to send delegates to a Constitutional Convention" to revise the "Articles of Confederation". Revise and not replace was their charter, however they did replace the Articles with our present constitution. Was all this a ruse, a CON, was this the plan of those who wanted an All-powerful central government from the start? I hope not but sometimes I am to optimistic when it comes to fellow men, perhaps as Patrick Henry said we have placed too much faith in the belief that man is virtuous. None the less our forefathers entered into the revision process and came out with a new plan for our federal government.
The Framing of the Constitution, a revised Confederation
During the process of revision of the Articles a new document was produced which became our Constitution, simply a plan for the general government and it's limitations. There are some key actions taken during that convention that address the issue of secession.
First, early on in constitutional convention the convention representatives promptly stuck from that document the words National Government. That this was quickly stricken from is of great importance to those who would understand the founder's stance on an all-powerful National Government. To quote President Davis, "The prompt rejection, after introduction, of this word national, is obviously more expressive than its mere absence from the constitution would have been." The rejection makes it abundantly clear they did not mean our government to be a consolidated nationality, instead of a confederacy of sovereign members." A National Government would have replaced the individual states and their rights would have been lost.
The framers forged a document that protected States rights for the states were to be the greatest check upon usurpation by the general government!
The second issue addressed speedily by the convention was would the general government be granted the use of force to coerce a State into compliance with the federal government. It was rejected, as being without justification for ours was to be a system of sovereign states not subjects of the Federal Government. Furthermore, Mr. Madison stated, "the use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts (constitution), by which it was bound," Mr. Hamilton added, "For in politics as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword." Therefore, force was denied the general government to force compliance in our constitution.
These two key rejections by the Constitutional convention influence and contribute mightily to all the future debates or considerations of powers to be granted to the "General Government". The fact that ours was not to be a national Government, replacing in essence the States, assures us that the States retained their sovereign right to self-government. In other words the States still retained their God given right of self-determination. Therefore, they could recall all their rights if at anytime they believed the general government had overstep the bounds and broken the compact.
What is clear is that the States were therefore to be the greatest check on Federal Government infringements on the rights of the States.
The Ratification
After the document was complete, it then had to be ratified by nine States before it could take effect, and then only in those nine States. Again, the State's who did not ratify immediately were not forced to join the union.
Article VII
The ratification of the Convention of nine states, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
Who ratified the Constitution? The people, with their respective States acting as their agent. I offer these proofs as to the truth of this statement for it became fashionable, particularly under Lincoln to argue that the people refers to them in aggregate without respect to their States. It was necessary to change this basic understanding of who the people are to prove their erroneous point, that the States were not sovereign.
The People
Always, to the writers of the Constitution, the "people" referred to the people of the separate States.
To Rawle, whose book, "A View of the Constitution" published in 1825 and used at West Point by Lee and Davis, in fact used by all at West Point during the years of 1825 until late in the 1800's, the people are defined during his assessment of the ratification process. "It was not the act of a homogeneous body of men, either large of small. It was to be the act of independent States, though in a greater degree the act of the people set in motion be those States; it was to be the act of the people of each State, not the people at large."
To Madison; "The act therefore establishing the Constitution will not be a national but a federal act&..the act of the people forming so many independent States, not as forming one nation&..
Each State in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only bound by it's own voluntary act." Clearly, the Constitution cannot be said to have been ratified by the people of the Nation. The people of the individual States acting in concert for their State and independent from the people of the other States. Pennsylvania's ratification read; In the name of the people of Pennsylvania,&.the delegates of the people of Pennsylvania&. ratify. New York stated, every power not delegated "remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same." The people of the individual States could either accede to, accept or reject the Constitution. They, by their accession did form a voluntary union not one held together by bayonet.
A Compact
Was the Constitution a compact between the States? The reason this is an important consideration is that Webster and others would deny that our constitution was a voluntary compact between equals. This was necessary for Lincoln's arguments "to preserve the union". It was just seen that the Constitution was freely ratified, though not unanimously by any state. But still, ratified none-the less. While it would be clearly understood by reasonable people that such a process clearly forms a compact between the parties, it is equally true that dishonest people would deny this point to further their agendas. Why, because a compact freely entered can be freely left!
Was the Constitution a Compact?
Madison; "It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach committed by either of the parties absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void."
Gouverneur Moris of Pennsylvania, an advocate of a strong central government, "but as the compact was to be voluntary, it is vain for the eastern States to insist on what the Southern States will never agree too."
Elbert Gerry, representative of Mass., said, "If nine out of thirteen (States) can dissolve the compact, six out of nine will be just as able to dissolve the new one hereafter."
Daniel Webster, remember he and is ilk said the founding fathers never referred to the constitution as a compact, in his debate on Sen. Henry S. Foote's resolution he referred to "accusations which impute to us a disposition to evade the Constitutional Compact." (Three years later he discovered "there was no compact called the constitution.")
Chief Justice John Jay, an advocate of a strong central government in the case Chisholm v. State of Georgia, "expressly declares that the Constitution of the United States is a Compact."
John Quincy Adams, stated, "our Constitution of the United States and all our State Constitutions, have been voluntary compacts."
Edmund Pendleton of Virginia, president of Virginia's ratifying convention said, "This is the only Government founded in real compact."
Thomas Jefferson said, "the States entered into a compact which is called the Constitution of the United States."
There are many others of the day who saw the Constitution as a compact but reasonable men would say that the founders intended a compact between the States.
Secessionist
I hope it is abundantly clear, though I have by no means exhausted the facts that would support it, that secession was and is legitimate (see Madison above on the principles of contracts). It was clearly recognized as an option for the people of the individual States, should they at anytime again seek self-determination. The 10th Amendment to our Constitution recognized that right and acknowledged that it was not given up by joining into a compact with the other States.
THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.
In fact after the acceptance of the Constitutionally created general government secession was threatened several times. The most times by the northern states.
First, Massachusetts threatened to secede because of the Louisiana purchase. Their reason was it gave more weight to the Southern Section of the country. Their solution;
The principles of our Revolution point to the remedy a separation. That this can be accomplished, without spilling one drop of blood, I have little doubt&. I do not believe in the practicality of a long-continued union. A Northern Confederacy would unite congenial characters and present a fairer prospect of public happiness; while the Southern States, having a similarity of habits, might be left to manage their own affairs in their own way." (Colonel Timothy Pickering, of Washington's cabinet and Senator from Mass. , in letter to George Cabot).
Other instances where secession was offered as a " remedy". S.C. threatened secession in 1832 over the unfair tariffs that the South in general suffered under, but S.C. more so. Another northern secession threatened in 1845 when the "measures for the annexation of Texas evoked remonstrance's, accompanied by threats of dissolution."
The Southern States not one to continually threaten and not do then left the union starting in 1860. They acted on their God given right to create a government suited to their constituents. Recognizing as Col. Pickering did that they could "manage their affairs in their own way."
Given the above facts, that the north had considered dissolution at several times and many there had been present at the creation of the American Republics it seemed probable that the northern States would not stand in the way of the South's desire for self-government. Again from Rawle's Textbook used at West Point, "To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed." Henry Kyd Douglas, of Stonewall's staff stated, "In those days Virginia boys read the Federalist and all the debates of the framers of our government and constitution. I had no more doubt of the right of a State to secede than I had of the truth of the catechism."
We know the outcome, Lincoln wage his war of aggression for a north that needed our moneys. His basic lie was that he sought to preserve the Union, but when he was asked to let the South go he said, "Let the South go, LET THE SOUTH GO, where would we get our revenues." His smoke and mirrors claim was that legally we had no right to secede. His legal arguments were without foundation. "In his July 4th, 1861 address to Congress, President Lincoln called the doctrine of the secessionist "an insidious debauching of the public mind." "They invented." he said, "an ingenious sophism, which, if conceded, was followed by perfectly logical steps, through all the incidents, to the complete destruction of the Union. The sophism itself is, that any state of the Union may, consistently with the national Constitution, and therefore lawfully, and peacefully, withdraw from the Union, without the consent of the Union (does the Creator have to ask the Creature), or of any other State." Ironically, it was not "fire-eating" Southern rebels who originated this "sophism" but the man Lincoln called "the most distinguished politician in our history." Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson who called Virginia his "country," planted the seeds of secession doctrine with his Kentucky Resolution of 1798, written in protest to the Alien and Sedition laws:
"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 the Constitution of the United States, and of certain amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for general purposes, delegated tot that government certain 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 of no effect."
President Davis stated,
"It is a poor evasion for any man to say: I make war on the rights of a whole section; I make war on the principles of the constitution; and yet; I uphold the union and desire to see it protected. Undermine its foundation and still pretend that he desires the fabric to stand."
There were more slave states in the Union than the Confederacy when the war began at
Ft. Sumter!
Submitted by
Robert McNabbAn act of secession was neither “rebellion” nor “insurrection,” but the act of the same sovereign states that had ratified the Constitution in the first place.
It was not secession that was unconstitutional, but the suppression of secession. The North fought the Civil War by allowing its chief executive to exercise dictatorial powers, raising armies and money and suspending civil liberties without consulting Congress, and even arresting the Maryland legislature and installing a puppet government. This was “government of the people, by the people, for the people”? What happened to “the consent of the governed”?
The Northern enemies of secession weren’t always rigid in their principles: they did allow a pro-Union part of Virginia to secede from Virginia. That’s how the United States got West Virginia. Since Virginia never ceded that territory, as prescribed by the Constitution, that was the only real case of unconstitutional secession. To make matters worse, the North never admitted that Virginia had legally left the Union. How, then, could it be split without its legal consent?
After the war, the North forced the seceding states to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment as a condition of re-admission to the Union it insisted they had never legally quit.
Joseph Sobran article
1798-99 Virginia and Kentucky Resolves. Said states could nullify national
law if they violated individual state rights!
Mass was going to secede over the Assumption of war debts.
After the revolution Va. agreed to stayed only after they were given
the new nations capitol.
1804-, Mass. plotted to secede and tried to get New York to withdraw from
the union and establish a "Northern Confederacy"! Check out Essex Junto.
1807 embargo Act New. Jersey was going to secede due prohibition of foreign
trade
The Southern Perspective
The Southern States, had the audacity to actually believe in the
following words of our founding document, THE DECLARATION OF
INDEPENDENCE;
WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People
to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another,
and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal
Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a
decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should
declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - That
to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any
Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of
the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in
such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness.
These words are quite clear. (1) Governments are established by the
people organized under them for the purpose of securing rights of the
people, (2) Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
people and, (3) "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
these Ends (securing the rights, safety and happiness of the people), it
is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing
its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their Safety and Happiness."
Item 3 sounds like secession. In fact, the Declaration of Indep. is a
secession document. In it's own words "WHEN in the Course of human
Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political
Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the
Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of
Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,…" this document tells us that
it is one of our founding principals, or actually entitlement, to
dissolve political bands when the people deem it justified.
The Colonist had the same problem with England that the Southern States
had with the Congress led Northern States, and that was the refusal on
the part of the abusive entity to recognize the legitimacy of the right
to separate by the abused party.
Based upon the principals on which our Nation is founded, South
Carolina's Ordinance of Secession dated Dec. 20, 1860 was legitimate.
Fort Sumter was unlawfully occupied by the Federal Military for almost 4
months before the sovereign state of South Carolina attempted to reclaim
it's property by force.
Fort Sumter was fired upon on April 12, 1861 at the expense of no loss
of life. No one died on either side. The firing on Fort Sumter was
lawful if you believe in the principals of free government as stated by
our founding fathers.
The Jefferson Davis problem
This brings us to the end of the war and the 39th Congress. The 39th
Congress in its' desire to punish the Southern States found that they
could not do it if the states were considered to have not left the
union. The object of the war, after all, was not for any purpose of
conquest or subjugation, but rather to preserve the union with all the
dignity, equality and rights of the several states unimpaired.
The North had two distinct ways to look upon the situation; (1) The
Southern States never left the Union and therefore those that
participated in the "rebellion" had committed treason, or (2) the
Southern States had left the Union and the Northern States had conquered
the sovereign nation of the Confederate States of America. Those
citizens that bore arms against the Federal Government were merely a
conquered people that Congress could govern as they so chose.
Under situation #1 Jefferson Davis could be tried for treason as a
citizen bearing arms against his own country. At his trial the Federal
government would have to face the legitimacy of their actions of waging
a war over the states right to sever it's political bonds with the
Federal Government. For the reasons stated above, along with other
reasons, the Feds would have a tough, if not impossible task of
overcoming the criminality of their actions by not acknowledging and
allowing secession.
In this situation, the Feds might release President Davis in order to
avoid the issue concerning the right to secede. President Davis would,
under this situation, be considered at all times a United States
citizen.
Under situation #2 the Southern citizens would be considered Confederate
citizens and not a United States citizens. Therefore they could not be
charged with the crime of treason.
The good part about situation #2, from Congress's point of view, was
that Congress could trade out charging President Davis with treason in
return for being able to treat the Southern States and their Citizens as
conquered territory and conquered people. At the same time they get the
added benefit of avoiding the issue concerning the right to secede in
Court.
The main problem with situation #2 is that it is contrary to the
official object of the war declared by Congress themselves. All of the
Northern soldiers that died would be in their graves for a purpose for
which they did not fight for and the South would be in a position of
subjugation that they did not surrender to.
Position #2 obviously is the most dishonest and criminal manner in which
this situation could be handled. But you may have guessed it. Situation
#2 is the route Congress chose. Jefferson Davis would be considered NOT
a citizen of the United States and the issue of secession would not come
before the Court, and Congress could punish the Southern States as they
so pleased.
Jefferson Davis was not tried for treason for the simple reason that
Congress's stronger desire was to reconstruct the Southern States as a
form of punishment.
John C. Ainsworth
Why would the South want to secede? If the original American ideal of federalism and constitutionalism had survived to 1860, the South would not have needed to. But one issue loomed larger than any other in that year as in the previous three decades: the Northern tariff. It was imposed to benefit Northern industrial interests by subsidizing their production through public works. But it had the effect of forcing the South to pay more for manufactured goods and disproportionately taxing it to support the central government. It also injured the South's trading relations with other parts of the world.
In effect, the South was being looted to pay for the North's early version of industrial policy. The battle over the tariff began in 1828, with the "tariff of abomination." Thirty year later, with the South paying 87 percent of federal tariff revenue while having their livelihoods threatened by protectionist legislation, it became impossible for the two regions to be governed under the same regime. The South as a region was being reduced to a slave status, with the federal government as its master.
But why 1860? Lincoln promised not to interfere with slavery, but he did pledge to "collect the duties and imposts": he was the leading advocate of the tariff and public works policy, which is why his election prompted the South to secede. In pro-Lincoln newspapers, the phrase "free trade" was invoked as the equivalent of industrial suicide. Why fire on Ft. Sumter? It was a customs house, and when the North attempted to strengthen it, the South knew that its purpose was to collect taxes, as newspapers and politicians said at the time.
Lou Rockwell
Yankee Hate…War time
"The North simple demands blood, blood, blood….Domination, spoliation,
confiscation."…….The London Telegraph.
'Resolves, That we hail any policy of our Government toward the South, be it
annihilation, extermination, starvation, or damnation."
…..Republican meeting, Cadiz, Wisconsin, March 26th, 1863.
"I find fault with Lincoln, not because he suspended the habeas corpus, but
instead of doing it by the dash of a pen, he did not do it by 'ropes around
the necks of the rebles'…..Cassius Clay in a public speech.
" I do not believe in battles ending this war. You may plant a fort in every
district of the South, you may take possession of her capitals and hold them
with your armies, but you have not begun to subdue her people. I know this
seems like absolute barbarian conquest, I allow it, but I do not believe
their will be any peace until 347,000 men of the South are hanged or exiled.
(Cheers)….in a speech by Wendell Phillips in Rad Repub Rev Beecher's church.
"If I had the power," Parson Brownlow said, " I would arm and uniform in the
Federal habiliments every wolf and panther and catamount and tiger and bear
in the mountains of American; every crocodile in the swamps of Florida and
South Carolina; every negro in the Southern Confederacy, and every devil in
hell, and turn them on the rebels in the South, if it exterminated every
rebel from the face of God's green earth___ Every man, woman and child south
of the Mason Dixon line. I would like to see Richmond and Charleston captured
by negro troops commanded by Butler the Beast. We will crowd the rebels into
the Gulf of Mexico, and drown the entire race, as the devil id the hogs in
the Sea of Galilee." (Long and loud applause)….Brownlow at a New York rally.
"I would like, said Senator Lane, "to live long enough to see every white man
in South Carolina in hell, and the negroes inheriting their territory. (Loud
applause) It would not any day wound my feelings to fine the dead bodies of
every rebel sympathizer pierced with bullet holes, in every street and alley
in Washington City. (Applause) Yes; I would regret the waste of powder and
lead. I would rather have these Copperheads hung and the ropes saved for
future use. (Loud Applause) I would like to see them dangle until their
stinking bodies would rot and fall to the ground piece by piece."…(Applause
with laughter)….1863, in the Washington speech by Jim Lane,
Republican Senator from Kansas.
"I am one of those who believes the war has ended too soon. We have whipped
the rebels but not enough…..The second army of invasion will, as they ought
to, make the entire South as God found the earth, without form and void. They
will not, and ought not to, leave one rebel fence-rail, out house, one
dwelling, in the eleven seceded states. As for the Rebel population, let them
be exterminated. When the second war is wound up, which should be done with
swift destruction, let the land be surveyed and sold out to pay
expenses.…..Parson Brownlow, carpet bagger Governor of Tenn, Southern
traitor, at the post War convention in Philadelphia, 1866, called to arouse
the North for another war on the disarmed and prostrated South.
..more Brownlow.. "Let [the first army] them be the largest division, and do
the killing. Let the second division be armed with pine torches and spirits
of turpentine and, and let them do the burning! Let the third and last
division be armed with surveyors' compasses and chains, that will survey the
land and settle it with loyal people."
Editors note: Brownlow's speech so much pleased the Republicans they
invited him to go about repeating similar speeches to stir up the old
soldiers to the fury of a second war on the South.
..in another Brownlow speech….'burn and kill! Burn and kill!" until the whole
rebel race is exterminated.
Governor Yates of Illinios…."Illinois raised 250,000 troops to fight the South,
and now we are ready to raise 500,000 more to finish the good work."
Carpetbagger Texas Governor Hamilton…at the same Philadelphia 2nd War
convention…"Prepare your hearts, and your guns, and your swords, for another
conflict. It is bound to come. Get yourselves ready." "We are ready,"
shouted back a blood thirsty Republican. "We are ready! We'll march down and
finish the Rebs!"
Battle Hymn of the Southern Republic
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord,
He is trampling northern tyrants where His grapes of wrath are stored,
He's defended Southern freedom by His terrible swift sword,
Our Cause is marching on!
Chorus:
Glory, glory, Hallaluia! Glory, glory, Hallaluea! Glory, glory, Hallaluia!
Our Cause is marching on!
Proud invaders have reduced each home to a charred and smoking shell,
They have torched our fields and burned our barns o'er every hill and dell,
God's vengeance and our quickened arms will send them all to hell,
Our Cause is marching on!
(chorus)
He will throw back the invaders from our homes and hearths so dear,
He will vindicate our Southern cause as righteous, bold and clear,
He will comfort now each orphan, He will dry each widow's tear,
Our Cause is marching on!
(chorus)
He is smelting out our manhood-ore, discarding slacken dross,
He is forging Southern character, straight, true, and with no loss,
We'll love His grace and liberty beneath the Starry Cross,
Our Cause is marching on!
(chorus)
He is standing with our leaders, field and line, both rank and file,
In each arsenal and hospital, on rails, each fragile mile,
Our wives and sweethearts bless our arms, we cherish each sweet smile,
Our Cause is marching on!
(chorus)
We have marched forth from the cornfields, from the cotton-fruited plain,
From hills teeming with cattle, and where cured tobacco's lain,
From bayous and wet rice fields, spreading swards of sugar cane,
Our Cause is marching on!
(chorus)
We will cross o'er the Potomac, full one hundred thousand free,
We will bivouac on the White House lawn, oh what a sight to see!
We will hang Abe Lincoln by a sour apple tree!
Our Cause is marching on!
(chorus)
by: Scott W. Owens, Copyright, 1996
J Wilcox Brown was a Richmond, Virginia Banker and he attended a dinner one night, one of the guests was Salmon P.
Chase.
At this dinner it was decided to "nolle prosequi" President Davis on the Treason Charges.
Rev. J. William Jones, University of Virginia, July 18: Let me add my
earnest and hearty protest against calling our war the " Rebellion. " It was
not a rebellion, and we were not rebels or traitors. George Washington was a
rebel because he fought against properly constituted and legal authority,
and if he had failed he would probably have been tried as a rebel, and
executed as a traitor. But Jefferson Davis was no rebel when he led the
great struggle to maintain proper authority, to uphold law and constitution,
and when the Federal Government held him as a prisoner they never dared to
bring him to trial, because they knew, under the advice of Chief Justice
Chase and the ablest lawyers at the North, that they could, never convict
him of treason under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
I remember that one day down at Beauvoir, several years before his death,
the grand old chief of the Confederacy said to me alluding to this question:
"Rebellion indeed! How can a sovereign State rebel? You might as well pay
that Germany rebelled against France, or that France, who was overwhelmed in
the conflict, rebelled against Germany, as to say that the sovereign States
of the Confederacy rebelled against the North or the government. O that they
had dared give me the trial I so much coveted, and for which I so earnestly
begged, in order that I might have opportunity to vindicate my people and
their cause before the world and at the bar of history! They knew that I
would have been triumphantly acquitted, and our people purged of all taint
of treason, and they never dared to bring my case to trial."
Is it not time, then, for those people to cease talking about treason and
rebellion, and to stop their insults in calling us rebels? If there were any
rebels in that great contest) they were north of the Potomac and the Ohio
the men who trampled under foot the Constitution of our country and the
liberties bequeathed us by our fathers.
Gen. Lee always spoke of the war as the "great struggle for Constitutional
freedom," and that is a truthful and distinctive title which I prefer. " The
War Between the States" was the title given by A. H. Stephens, and is a good
one. "Confederate War" would do, but that implies that we made the war.
which, of course, we did not, our policy being peace. The " War of
Coercion," or the "War against State Sovereignty" would express it, but the
"Rebellion," never.
PRELUDE TO CIVIL WAR: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836 by William Freehling. We've always come to associate SC statesman John C. Calhoun with "secession", or certainly the stalwart defender of "states rights", haven't we? Nullification is a reserved power retained by the states at the framing of the Constitution to declare a federal decree or congressional law that was outside the boundaries of the federal government's authority - null and void. The contemporary application would be enforcing the 10th Amendment.
Now, with this said, the US Congress at this time, namely the House of Representatives was under the control of the "manufacturers", a euphemism for Northerners. A protective tariff was passed which sheltered certain northern special interests, enabling them to charge higher prices for domestically-produced goods, and saddled the South with punishing duties on their required imports. Southern family wealth was effectively transferred North, impoverishing southerners, primarily South Carolina.
Calhoun argued that Congress was authorized only to assess tariffs for the stated Constitutional purpose of raising revenue. Protective tariffs were introduced for the expressed purpose of favoring one class and section of the country over another, and consequently un-Constitutional. Even more critical was that Calhoun viewed nullification as the means to avoid a sectional conflict - Civil War. He was a unionist to the core, but a Constitutionalist first. He did his utmost best, almost at the risk of his political career, to suppress the secessionist movement under full swing in South Carolina. During this period the remaining southern states did not stand by South Carolina. It was not until much later - and too late for resolution - that the remaining southern states went for secession. Tragically, Congress viewed the tariff issue otherwise, and as they say: "the rest is history."
I've attached the Prologue to The Nullification Controversy, and I hope it makes clear that "slavery" was never an issue for secession until 19th century subversives ("abolitionists") made it one much later. And, the northern media, political compromisers, southern scalawags, and demagogues ran with it. Much like today. Congress is still the key.
Prologue: February 1833
February was the gay month in ante bellum Charleston. From all over the lowcountry planters came, from the golden rice fields in Georgetown, from the lush sea-island cotton lands on St. Helena Island, from the sickly swamps of the Savannah. The wealthiest of the Carolina chivalry, as they loved to call themselves, came in carriages with coats of arms, drawn by high-stepping horses, driven by Negroes dressed in livery. They came to watch the Jockey Club Races on the Washington Course, to dance at exclusive balls, to inspect the new fashions, and to indulge in idle chatter. It was a decaying aristocracy, but it still displayed enormous wealth and exquisite cultivation, and made Charleston the most English city in America.
The gaiety in February 1833 was noticeably muffled. The races were run, the balls continued, the wine flowed, but the gentry played less than half-heartedly. A grim tension hung over the state. South Carolina had become an armed camp. In Charleston the South Carolina and federal armies eyed each other nervously across the waters of the harbor, ready for an attack which might lead to civil war. The Nullification Crisis had reached its final stage.
In November 1832 a convention of the people of South Carolina had declared the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional and null and void within the state limits after February 1, 1833. More ominously, the Nullification Convention had proclaimed that if any attempt were made to collect the duties by force, South Carolina would secede from the Union.
In Washington an angry Andrew Jackson, victorious over the British at New Orleans and, more recently, triumphantly reelected President after a successful skirmish with the United States Bank, met his newest foe with his usual resolution. The scarred, white-haired old hero loved nothing better than a fight and hated no man as cordially as Senator John C. Calhoun, the most famous nullifier of them all. Privately the President threatened to hang Calhoun and to lead the federal army into South Carolina himself. Publicly he announced his determination to enforce the laws against nullifiers or seceders. To back up his threats, Jackson sent reinforcements to Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinckney, two federal forts in Charleston harbor, and several revenue cutters to patrol the area. To direct military preparations, the President dispatched his leading general, Winfield Scott, also a hero in the War of 1812 and as determined a fighter as the old man in the White House. Many South Carolina unionists, led by Joel Poinsctt, stood ready to desert their state and to help Scott enforce the tariff.
In January the nullifiers had retreated a bit, virtually suspending the Ordinance until after Congress had finished its deliberations on a compromise tariff. The delay was a strategic maneuver, not a final surrender. At the very meeting where suspension was adopted, James Hamilton, Jr., former governor of the state, president of the Nullification Convention, and the most astute political manager among the Carolina radicals, had announced his determination to reconvene the Convention and propose secession if Congress gave Jackson authority to coerce the nullifiers.
All over the state, nullifiers prepared for an imminent encounter. In Charleston Governor Robert Y. Hayne, the former United States senator whose debates with Daniel Webster in 1830 had given national publicity to the Carolina doctrines, tried to form an army which could hope to challenge the forces of "Old Hickory." Hayne recruited a brigade of mounted minutemen, 2,000 strong, which could swoop down on Charleston the moment fighting broke out, and a volunteer army of 25,000 men which could march on foot to save the beleaguered cit. In the North Governor Hayne’s agents bought over $100,000 worth of arms; in Charleston Hamilton readied his volunteers for an assault on the federal forts. True to the chivalric spirit, which demanded courageous battling for violated honor, Carolina nullifiers stood ready to take on the nation. As Congressman George McDuffie solemnly proclaimed at the Nullification Convention, "We would infinitely prefer that the territory of the State should be the cemetery of freemen than the habitation of slaves."
The only hope of averting hostilities lay in the halls of Congress. President Jackson himself had urged tariff reform, and Senator Henry Clay, a leading protectionist, was working hard for a tariff compromise. But in Washington, as in Charleston, nullifiers expected the worst. In late January Calhoun had almost given up hope for a compromise and was desperately trying to convince his cohorts to renounce secession. By mid-February Governor Hayne saw "not the slightest chance" of Clay’s compromise succeeding. McDuffie noted that "all hope of adjusting the tariff . . . has now vanished." He made it clear that the nullifiers would repudiate Calhoun’s counsel of moderation. "It is now the duty of every citizen of So. Carolina," he wrote,
"…. to defend the rights and liberties of the State." "Dreadful as this alternative is," added James Hammond, "I am for it rather than become a slave myself and meanly throw upon posterity the duty of resistance."2
1 State Papers on Nullification . . . (Boston, 1834). p. 71.
2 Calhoun to William Campbell Preston, n.d. [late Jan. 1833]. Virginia Carrington
Scrapbook, Preston Family Papers, LC; 1. W. Hayne to James Hammond, Feb. 20.
1833. Hammond to [Preston], Jan. 27, 1833, Hammond Papers. LC; George McDuffie to Armistead Burt, Feb. 19, 1833, McDuffie Papers, DU. See Abbreviations. from the Charleston Voice
Declaration by the People of the Cherokee Nation
Declaration by the People of the Cherokee Nation of the Causes Which Have Impelled Them to Unite Their Fortunes With Those of the Confederate States of America. When circumstances beyond their control compel one people to sever the ties which have long existed between them and another state or confederacy, and to contract new alliances and establish new relations for the security of their rights and liberties, it is fit that they should publicly declare the reasons by which their action is justified.
The Cherokee people had its origin in the South; its institutions are similar to those of the Southern States, and their interests identical with theirs. Long since it accepted the protection of the United States of America, contracted with them treaties of alliance and friendship, and allowed themselves to be to a great extent governed by their laws.
In peace and war they have been faithful to their engagements with the United States. With much of hardship and injustice to complain of, they resorted to no other means than solicitation and argument to obtain redress. Loyal and obedient to the laws and the stipulations of their treaties, they served under the flag of the United States, shared the common dangers, and were entitled to a share in the common glory, to gain which their blood was freely shed on the battlefield.
When the dissensions between the Southern and Northern States culminated in a separation of State after State from the Union they watched the progress of events with anxiety and consternation. While their institutions and the contiguity of their territory to the States of Arkansas, Texas, and Missouri made the cause of the seceding States necessarily their own cause, their treaties had been made with the United States, and they felt the utmost reluctance even in appearance to violate their engagements or set at naught the obligations of good faith.
Conscious that they were a people few in numbers compared with either of the contending parties, and that their country might with no considerable force be easily overrun and devastated and desolation and ruin be the result if they took up arms for either side, their authorities determined that no other course was consistent with the dictates of prudence or could secure the safety of their people and immunity from the horrors of a war waged by an invading enemy than a strict neutrality, and in this decision they were sustained by a majority of the nation.
That policy was accordingly adopted and faithfully adhered to. Early in the month of June of the present year the authorities of the nation declined to enter into negotiations for an alliance with the Confederate States, and protested against the occupation of the Cherokee country by their troops, or any other violation of their neutrality. No act was allowed that could be construed by the United States to be a violation of the faith of treaties.
But Providence rules the destinies of nations, and events, by inexorable necessity, overrule human resolutions. The number of the Confederate States has increased to eleven, and their Government is firmly established and consolidated. Maintaining in the field an army of 200,000 men, the war became for them but a succession of victories. Disclaiming any intention to invade the Northern States, they sought only to repel invaders from their own soil and to secure the right of governing themselves. They claimed only the privilege asserted by the Declaration of American Independence, and on which the right of the Northern States themselves to self-government is founded, of altering their form of government when it became no longer tolerable and establishing new forms for the security of their liberties.
Throughout the Confederate States we saw this great revolution effected without violence or the suspension of the laws or the closing of the courts. The military power was nowhere placed above the civil authorities. None were seized and imprisoned at the mandate of arbitrary power. All division among the people disappeared, and the determination became unanimous that there should never again be any union with the Northern States. Almost as one man all who were able to bear arms rushed to the defense of an invaded country, and nowhere has it been found necessary to compel men to serve or to enlist mercenaries by the offer of extraordinary bounties.
But in the Northern States the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated Constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all the rules of civilised warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded. In States which still adhered to the Union a military despotism has displaced the civil power and the laws became silent amid arms. Free speech and almost free thought became a crime. The right to the writ of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the Constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the lowest grade. The mandate of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was set at naught by the military power, and this outrage on common right approved by a President sworn to support the Constitution.
War on the largest scale was waged, and the immense bodies of troops called into the field in the absence of any law warranting it under the pretence of suppressing unlawful combination of men. The humanities of war, which even barbarians respect, were no longer thought worthy to be observed. Foreign mercenaries and the scum of cities and the inmates of prisons were enlisted and organised into regiments and brigades and sent into Southern States to aid in subjugating a people struggling for freedom, to burn, to plunder, and to commit the basest of outrages on women; while the heels of armed tyranny trod upon the necks of Maryland and Missouri, and men of the highest character and position were incarcerated upon suspicion and without process of law in jails, in forts, and in prison-ships, and even women were imprisoned by the arbitrary order of a President and Cabinet ministers; while the press ceased to be free, the publication of newspapers was suspended and their issues seized and destroyed; the officers and men taken prisoners in battle were allowed to remain in captivity by the refusal of their Government to consent to an exchange of prisoners; as they had left their dead on more than one field of battle that had witnessed their defeat to be buried and their wounded to be cared for by Southern hands.
Whatever causes the Cherokee people may have had in the past, to complain of some of the Southern States, they cannot but feel that their interests and their destiny are inseparably connected with those of the South. The war now raging is a war of Northern cupidity and fanaticism against the institution of African servitude; against the commercial freedom of the South, and against the political freedom of the States, and its objects are to annihilate the sovereignty of those States and utterly change the nature of the General Government.
The Cherokee people and their neighbours were warned before the war commenced that the first object of the party which now holds the powers of government of the United States would be to annul the institution of slavery in the whole Indian country, and make it what they term free territory and after a time a free State; and they have been also warned by the fate which has befallen those of their race in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oregon that at no distant day they too would be compelled to surrender their country at the demand of Northern rapacity, and be content with an extinct nationality, and with reserves of limited extent for individuals, of which their people would soon be despoiled by speculators, if not plundered unscrupulously by the State.
Urged by these considerations, the Cherokees, long divided in opinion, became unanimous, and like their brethren, the Creeks, Seminoles, Choctaws, and Chickasaws, determined, by the undivided voice of a General Convention of all the people, held at Tahlequah, on the 21st day of August, in the present year, to make common cause with the South and share its fortunes.
In now carrying this resolution into effect and consummating a treaty of alliance and friendship with the Confederate States of America the Cherokee people declares that it has been faithful and loyal to is engagements with the United States until, by placing its safety and even its national existence in imminent peril, those States have released them from those engagements.
Menaced by a great danger, they exercise the inalienable right of self-defense, and declare themselves a free people, independent of the Northern States of America, and at war with them by their own act. Obeying the dictates of prudence and providing for the general safety and welfare, confident of the rectitude of their intentions and true to the obligations of duty and honour, they accept the issue thus forced upon them, unite their fortunes now and forever with those of the Confederate States, and take up arms for the common cause, and with entire confidence in the justice of that cause and with a firm reliance upon Divine Providence, will resolutely abide the consequences.
Tahlequah, Cherokee Nation, October 28, 1861.
Why America Lost the "Civil War"
contributed by Nat G. Rudulph"Civil War" is at best a misleading name for that conflict. Many Southerners avoid using it because of the implication that there were factions in every locality. "Civil" means "relating to the people within a community." The term describes only one aspect of the event, and subtly discredits Southerners defending home and country, rather than fomenting a political coup. The typical Southern community was not divided at all. Dixie was that community, and the consensus in Dixie was to defy strangers and meddlers from the North who insisted on ruling and intended to invade. The typical Southerner fought for independence. There were (and still are) more differences between Yankees and Southerners than between Yankees and English-speaking Canadians.
t was a civil war, but not on the battlefield. It was a civil war in New York City when a draft protest turned into a rampaging mob of 70,000. That civil war lasted four days because all the available troops were at Gettysburg, fighting soldiers from another land. It was a civil war when they returned and fired into this New York crowd, killing nearly 2,000 of their own divided "community."
It was a civil war when Illinois' Governor Yates reported an "insurrection in Edgar County. Union men on one side, Copperheads on the other. They have had two battles." It was a civil war for the Union Army when the 109th Illinois had to be disbanded because its men were Southern sympathizers. It was a civil war in Indiana when thousands of draft resisters hid in enclaves. From the governor: "Matters assume grave import. Two hundred mounted armed men in Rush county have today resisted arrest of deserters . . . southern Indiana is ripe for revolution."
The governors of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York reported that they could not enforce the draft without 10-20,000 troops in each state. Violent opposition struck in Wisconsin and Michigan. Four thousand Pennsylvanians refused to march south. Sherman wrote: "Mutiny was common to the whole army, and it was not subdued till several regiments, or parts of regiments had been ordered to Fort Jefferson, Florida, as punishment."
It was not a civil war in those parts of the South removed from the border regions. Had it been a civil war, Lincoln's government could have leveraged local support to subdue those states brutally, as it did in Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and West Virginia. Union policy was to treat border state combatants as renegades under martial law instead of as legitimate armed forces.
Marylanders were similar to Virginians strongly Southern, but cautious. However, when Lincoln called for troops to coerce the states, Virginia seceded. Immediately, Lincoln moved to secure Maryland. Habeus corpus was suspended and Southern sympathizers arrested in Baltimore. General Banks dissolved the Baltimore police board. Secretary of War Cameron wrote him: "The passage of any act of secession by the legislature of Maryland must be prevented. If necessary all or any part of the members must be arrested." Arrests were sufficient to prevent a vote. The mayor of Baltimore, most of the city government, and newspaper editors were jailed. One of those editors was the grandson of the author of The Star Spangled Banner. Francis Key Howard wrote of his imprisonment:
When I looked out in the morning, I could not help being struck by an odd and not pleasant coincidence. On that same day forty-seven years before, my grandfather, Mr Francis Scott Key, then prisoner on a British ship, had witnessed the bombardment of Fort McHenry. When on the following morning the hostile fleet drew off, defeated, he wrote the song so long popular. . . . As I stood upon the very scene of that conflict, I could not but contrast my position with his, forty-seven years before. The flag which he had then so proudly hailed, I saw waving at the same place over the victims of as vulgar and brutal despotism as modern times have witnessed.
Documents of the period show more than 38,000 political prisoners in northern jails. In The Life of William H. Seward, Bancroft wrote: The person "suspected" of disloyalty was often seized at night, borne off to the nearest fort. . . . Month after month many of them were crowded together in gloomy and damp case mates, where even dangerous pirates captured on privateers ought not to have remained long. Many had committed no overt act. There were among them editors and political leaders of character and honor, but whose freedom would be prejudicial to the prosecution of the war.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus everywhere, arrested candidates, and banished Ohio congressman Vallandigham from the country. More than 300 newspapers were closed. Secretary of War Stanton told a visitor, "If I tap that little bell, I can send you to a place where you will never again hear the dogs bark." Neither habeas corpus nor freedom of the press were ever suspended in the South, even in the most desperate of times. The Raleigh News and Observer wrote after the war "It is to the honour of the Confederate government that no Confederate secretary could touch a bell and send a citizen to prison."
Yankee power was most unrestrained in Missouri. From its initial defiant movement of troops, the Union routinely escalated hostilities. They encouraged atrocities, insidiously veiled behind a facade of inept negligence. They exhibited arrogance and contempt for law, their own constitution, Southerners, and life itself.
The authorities entered private homes without warrant or provocation, seizing arms and other properties. They required written permits for travel. Random "drive-by" shootings of citizens from trains by soldiers were commonplace. Citizens were fined, jailed, banished, and even executed for as little as expressing dissent, or upon the accusation of a government informer.
Authorities called citizens to their door in the middle of the night and shot them or took them away. Amnesty was promised to partisans, but many who attempted to surrender were executed. Men like Frank and Jesse James witnessed these things and vowed never to accept a pardon from such a government.
Senator Jim Lane, known as "the grim chieftain of Kansas," ravaged Missouri. Halleck wrote McClellan: "I receive almost daily complaints of outrages committed by these men in the name of the United States, and the evidence is so conclusive as to leave no doubt of their correctness . . . Lane has been made a brigadier-general. I cannot conceive of a more injudicious appointment . . . offering a premium for rascality and robbing." McClellan gave the letter to Lincoln. After reading it, Lincoln turned it over and wrote on the back, "An excellent letter, though I am sorry General Halleck is so unfavourably impressed with General Lane."
September 1862 brought executions for refusing to swear allegiance to the U.S. In October at Palmyra, Missouri, ten political prisoners and POWs were executed because a Union informer disappeared. Soon afterwards, Lincoln promoted to brigadier-general the man responsible.
In 1863 General Ewing imprisoned as many wives, mothers, and sisters of Quantrill's Confederate partisan band as could be found. The building housing most of them collapsed in August, killing many. Ewing had been warned that the building was in danger of collapse, and the guerrillas believed that it had been deliberate. In retaliation Quantrill sacked and burned Lawrence, Kansas. Ewing then issued an order forcing all persons in four counties of western Missouri living more than a mile from a military base to leave the state. They were forced from their homes at gunpoint and escorted away. Then all property was destroyed. Cass County, which had a population of 10,000 was reduced to 600 by this "ethnic cleansing." Union Colonel Lazear wrote his wife that the ensuing arson was so thorough that only stone chimneys could be seen for hundreds of miles. "It is heart sickening to see what I have seen since I have been back here. A desolated country, men, women, and children, some of them almost naked. Some on foot and some in wagons. Oh God."
Loyalty oaths and bonds were required of all citizens. If guerrillas attacked, property in the area was confiscated and sold at auction. Suspects were imprisoned and by 1864 the mortality rate of Union-held prisoners had reached fifty percent. Union Surgeon George Rex reported: Undergoing the confinement in these crowded and insufficiently ventilated quarters are many citizen prisoners, against whom the charges are of a very trivial character, or perhaps upon investigation . . . no charges at all are sustained.
The Union implemented Sherman's philosophy of war against civilians. He wrote: "To the petulant and persistent secessionist, why, death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better. . . . There is a class of people . . . who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order." To General Sheridan, Sherman wrote: ". . . the present class of men who rule the South must be killed outright rather than in conquest of territory. . . a great deal of it yet remains to be done, therefore, I shall expect you on any and all occasions to make bloody results." To General Kilpatrick he wrote: "It is petty nonsense for Wheeler and Beauregard and such vain heroes to talk of our warring against women and children. If they claim to be men they should defend their women and children and prevent us reaching their homes." In a moment of candor he wrote Grant: "You and I and every commander must go through the war justly chargeable with crimes."
While ransacking Georgia, Sherman removed two thousand women, children, and elderly to Ohio where they were forced to work in Union war factories. Families were separated, property confiscated, and even wedding bands taken from their hands. The U.S. never tried to reunite them.
Crimes were committed on both sides, but the Confederate offenses were a fraction of the Federals'.
The Southern leadership spoke and acted against abuses, while Lincoln ran a "loose ship" of administration, under which authorities could tacitly countenance abuses while professing to be against them. Lincoln once asked McClellan if he could get close enough to Richmond to shell the civilian population of the city. When Jefferson Davis was urged to retaliate in kind, and adopt a cruel war policy like the U.S., cabinet member Judah P. Benjamin said "he was immovable in resistance to such counsels, insisting that it was repugnant to every sentiment of justice and humanity that the innocent should be made victims for the crimes of such monsters."
America lost the "civil war" because she lost her soul. You opine that those were necessary war measures? Then why were they never employed by the Confederacy even in the dark days of imminent defeat? It was because the South still adhered to the transcendence of principle. The South did not believe that the end justified the means. Most Southerners believed that right and wrong and truth were God-given, and not man's creation. Therefore, man had to submit to them. It was not man's place to decide that principles could be abandoned when expedient. Robert E. Lee said it best: "There is a true glory and a true honour; the glory of duty done the honour of the integrity of principle."
Transcendence means "above and independent of, and supreme." To recognize the transcendence of principle is to recognize that there are absolutes, and that absolutes must come from a Creator. It is to acknowledge that these absolutes are not social constructs that have evolved over time or situational posits that can be altered when fashionable. This humility leads men to respect authority, honor their heritage, and submit to the wisdom that has preceded them, acknowledging their own dependence, and not imagining that they are autonomous, without accountability.
It is chiefly social and familial accountability, enabled by the presence of law written in the conscience of humanity, which restrains the evil that is present within man, thereby establishing civilization. The reality of evil within humanity is evident in the corrupting effect of power, since power is of itself neither good nor evil. Power, in its simplest form, is the lack of restraint, while restraint is accountability in some form. Enduring and benevolent civilizations have recognized this and embraced restraints to ensure that human power would not be concentrated to their detriment. The Constitution was a codified restraint of this kind.
Restraints on the central government are as necessary to protect us from tyranny as the balance between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The limits are proportional to the power retained by the states, because the states are the only entities capable of enforcing meaningful restraint upon the federal government. Although they originally delegated limited power to that government, it has usurped all the power. That usurpation became unstoppable after the South lost, because the tenth amendment became a dead letter, and all the states lost. The possibility of secession was the only deterrent sufficient to guarantee states the sovereignty necessary to hold the central power accountable.
The victors justified themselves to the world and history by brute force and sly obfuscation. The elimination of slavery was trumpeted as the justifying crown of victory. As to saving the Union, is that not like preserving a marriage by beating the wife into submission?
The result is the humanist monster-state, and activist judges who reinvent what the constitution means. They have lost the ability to understand and receive it, since they have abandoned the transcendence of principle. They will always find a way to make themselves the final authority. New amendments designed to strengthen the plain intent of the Founding Fathers will eventually fail, because no loophole can be drawn so tight as to eliminate a scoundrel.
Both sides lost. The U.S. lost its character and began the abandonment of transcendent foundations. Dixie lost its will to live. Yet where principles remain- under cold ashes, deeply buried remains an ember of hope. And where there is a smoldering hope, the fire may yet burn again.
Mr. Rudulph is the SL Southwest Alabama District Chairman.