SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sr K who wrote (21843)2/27/2008 12:52:15 PM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 224655
 
There are many articles on this.

Here's one I found right away.

Causes of Secession

Today it is very common to simply the cause of the war to the extent that it is distorted. Rather than the recitation of the facts one would expect, it has become an emotional issue. It is so emotional that when I have posted material like this I often received, to the effect, it was about slavery and you can't tell me otherwise.

So what was it about? They told us. You can read their complete statements in the following.

The following links are to the complete documents mentioned in the discusion.

* Georgia
* Mississippi
* South Carolina
* Texas

The states had two primary issues, both constitutional.

* The federal government was refusing to force the northern states to honor both federal and state law as required by the federal constitution.
* The federal government was practicing trade policies that deliberately discriminated against the southern states.

First to the fundamental issue, by the federal constitution, the Federalist Papers, and by all political thought in the country to the time of the war, the states were independent nations. They had banded together under the federal constitution for the reasons stated in the preamble be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." . The federal constitution was binding contract.

I agree today it is not looked at in that manner but that is today. The folks who wrote it certainly knew what they meant by it. It is foolishness to consider otherwise.

With that in mind consider the two points. The federal constitution required1 (and still requires) all states to honor the laws of any state. There were no exceptions. See below.

If you read the above declarations you will find this point much better said than I could say it.

The second point was that the federal government was engaged in encouraging the industrial revolution in the US. But this was being done in a manner inconsistant with equality between the states. The declaration of Georgia makes a particularly strong point of this.

The north was the particular beneficiary of improvements in harbors and other facilities related to international trade. The particular issue to the south was finished goods were be protected which raised their price but there was no similar protection for cotton.

Whether in hindsight these were good or bad policies (weighing in the lives lost in the war) is moot. They were in fact a consequence of the statehood policies that kept slave states impotent in Congress.

So we see, slavery was not the cause of secession but rather a consequence of the violation of the constitution, the contract. And as it was clearly destructive to the rights of the southern states, they exercised the principle of the Declaration of Independence and instituted a new government. Simple, direct and clear.

1Article IV

Sect. 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public act, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Sect. 2.

1. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.

2. A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime.

3. No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

giwersworld.org



To: Sr K who wrote (21843)2/27/2008 12:57:25 PM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 224655
 
TARIFF OF ABOMINATIONS"

(Sources: Davisdon, Gienapp, Heyrman, Lytle and Stoff's Nation of Nations, A Narrative History of the American Republic, Alfred A. Knopf, c1991; and Alfred H. Kelly & Winfred A. Harbison, The American Constitution, Its Origins and Development, Fourth Edition, W.W. Norton & Co., Inc. c1970.)

Congress had raised duties in 1816 and again in 1824. The tariff of 1824 included high duties on imported agricultural goods such as hemp, wheat and liquor to protect western farmers; imported textiles to protect New England interests; and iron to protect mining and forging industries of Pennsylvania. South Carolina had been particularly hard hit by the depression of 1819. The tariffs increased the prices of their imported goods by as much as 50 percent. South Carolina asserted that the tariffs were unfair as a tax on Southern agriculture for the benefit of Northern industry.

When Congress raised the duties even higher in 1828 with the so-called "Tariff of Abominations," South Carolina's Legislature published the "South Carolina Exposition and Protest," or South Carolina Doctrine, protesting the tariff as unconstitutional and advancing the theory of nullification. The Exposition declared that a sovereign State had the right to determine through a convention whether an act of Congress was unconstitutional and whether it constituted such a dangerous violation "as to justify the interposition of the State to protect its rights." If so, the convention would then decide in what manner the act ought to be declared null and void within the limits of the State, and the declaration would be obligatory on her own citizens, as well as the national government.

U.S. Vice President John C. Calhoun was the (secret) author of the nullification theory. The Union, he argued, was a compact or league between sovereign States. Sovereignty by its very nature was indivisible and absolute. Ultimate sovereignty could not be inherent in both the federal and State governments. The American colonies had always existed as distinct political communities, which became free, independent and sovereign states at the revolution. The Articles of Confederation had recognized that separate sovereignty. The Constitution of the United States had also been drafted by delegates acting and voting as states and the compact had been ratified by the separate states, each acting as a sovereign entity. Although the various States had delegated a portion of their functions to the federal government, they had not surrendered their ultimate sovereignty, which was by nature indivisible.

The Constitution was not supreme law, but a contract or agreement between sovereign states that set up a federal government to perform certain functions for the contracting parties. As such, the States possessed the final authority to interpret the Constitution. The central government could not pretend to sovereignty. There was no such thing as an American nation. The "people" were a political fiction, which under central government had come to mean the collective popular majority. The numerical majority would become tyrannical and disregard the Constitution in order to destroy minority rights. The only safeguard for minority rights was State sovereignty and nullification. Nullification was "simply a declaration on the part of the principal, made in due form, that an act of the agent transcending his power is null and void." (The American Constitution at 309.)

The central government was not a separate sovereignty, but simply an agent of the several States. Thus the people of each State, acting in special conventions, had the right to nullify federal law that exceeded the powers granted to Congress through the Constitution. If a popular convention declared a law unconstitutional, it would become null and void in a State. Congress could then either yield and repeal the law or propose a constitutional amendment expressly giving it the power in question. If the amendment was ratified by three-fourths of the States and added to the Constitution, the nullifying State could then either accept the decision or exercise its ultimate right as a sovereign state and secede from the Union.

When Senator Robert Hayne of South Carolina explained Calhoun's theory on the floor of the Senate, Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts replied that the Union was not a compact of sovereign states.

When Congress passed another tariff in 1832, moderating some of the duties of the prior act but continuing the protective system, South Carolina's legislature called for the election of delegates to a popular convention on November 10 to decide whether the State would nullify the new tariff according to Calhoun's formula. The convention overwhelmingly adopted an ordinance of nullification drawn by Chacellor William Harper by a vote of 136 to 26. The ordinance declared the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 "unauthorized by the Constitution" and "null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State, its officers or its citizens" after February 1, 1833. The convention also established legal penalties for any State or federal officer who attempted to collect the tariff duties. It declared that in no case at law or equity in the courts of the State could the validity of the ordinance or implementing legislation be questioned and that no appeal could be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The legislature further enacted a replevin act authorizing the owner of imported goods that were seized by customs officials for nonpayment of duties to recover them (or twice their value) from customs officials. The law also authorized the governor to call out the militia to enforce the laws of the State. The nullifiers declared that any effort of the federal government to employ naval or military force to coerce the State, close its ports, destroy or harass its commerce, or enforce the tariff acts, would impel the people of South Carolina to secede from the Union and organize a separate independent government.

In November 1832, President Andrew Jackson sent seven small naval vessels and a man-of-war to Charleston with orders to be ready for instant action. In December, 1832, he issued a "Proclamation On Nullification" to the people of South Carolina written by Secretary of State Livingston, stating that the Union was perpetual, and under the Constitution, there was no right of secession. The United States was a nation and not a league and secession was revolutionary and would destroy the nation.

The power to annual a law of the United States, assumed by one State, Jackson stated, was "incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed," (Robert Kelley's The Shaping of the American Past, Fifth Edition, Prentice Hall, c1990, pg 266.)

The proclamation ended in a strong plea and threat: "Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent [the execution of the laws] deceived you; they could not have been deceived themselves... Their object is disunion. But be not deceived by names. Disunion by armed force is treason. Are you really ready to incur its guilt? If you are, on the heads of the instigators of the act be the dreadful consequences; on their heads be the dishonor, but on yours may fall the punishment. On your unhappy State will inevitably fall all the evils of the conflict you force upon the Government of your country... I adjure you ... to retrace your steps." (Source: Essay by Hal Morris based mainly on: Robert V. Remini's, The Life of Andrew Jackson for The American Revolution.)

Jackson claimed he could have 100,000 men on the side of the Union in a matter of weeks. The South Carolina legislature authorized its Governor to call a draft, and appropriated $200,000 for arms.

On the 16th of January, Jackson requested that Congress take steps that would "solemnly proclaim that the Constitution and the laws are supreme and the Union indissoluble." (The American Constitution at 313.) He also sent to Congress the "Force Bill" (often called the "Bloody Bill"), reaffirming the President's powers to call up State militias, the army and navy to quell any insurrection and granted greater powers to use the courts to enforce collection of duties. The bill asserted the supreme sovereignty of the national government and its right to enforce its statutes directly upon individuals by force, if necessary. The Force Act passed in the Senate 32-1, with nearly all the nullifiers having walked out to avoid casting any vote and in March, the House passed the Force Act 149-48. On March 1, the Senate passed a Compromise Tariff.

The nullifiers reassembled their popular convention on March 11 and repealed the nullifying ordinance, then proceeded to nullify the Force Act. (Jackson chose to ignore the latter.)



To: Sr K who wrote (21843)2/27/2008 12:57:46 PM
From: longnshort  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224655
 
Here's another, remember the south called it the War of Northern Aggression or the 2nd revolutionary war.

Remember the causes of the 1st revolutionary war, English Aggression.

civilwarhistory.com



To: Sr K who wrote (21843)2/27/2008 12:58:55 PM
From: HPilot  Respond to of 224655
 
Tarrifs were on exports and imports, mostly cotton. It was mostly its heavy demand that allowed a high tarrif.