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