Secession Yesterday and Today pg. 2

The HumanClick button, just a way of contacting us direct, live and in person (well, almost !). There's nothing to download, it just opens a little pop up browser window running a Java Script, then "we'" will be in our own little private chat room. If we are online, you can contact a human, either BJ or me (AJ). If we are offline, you can contact us by email. You don't have to give your email address, but it does mean we can't reply.

The protective tariff issue constantly brought the question of national sovereignty versus states'-rights before the people. This, more than any other reason, including Slavery, enraged the populace towards conflict and disunion.

On the one hand the South was almost exclusively agricultural. The net wealth of the people was determined not only by the prices the planters received for their crops but also by the prices they had to pay for their manufactured goods. Had it been possible for the South to import the manufactured articles it needed without the tariff, the margin of profit for the southern planters would have been much greater than it was.

The Southerners insisted that Congress passed protective tariff laws for the benefit of the North alone. Only the Northern states benefited by this tariff. The Southern states suffered as a consequence of the tariff. The South felt that Congress was increasingly favoring the North although it was supposed to serve the needs of the entire nation.

The Tariff Act of 1828, the so-called "Tariff of Abominations," which had been framed to protect both raw products and manufactured articles, was especially obnoxious to the South.

South Carolina was so bitterly opposed to this act that a legislative committee published the "South Carolina Exposition and Protest," the author of which was John C. Calhoun (The champion of State-rights.). The "Exposition" advanced the compact theory of the Constitution. This theory was based on the historically documented principles that,

The Federal Government owes its existence to the sovereign states. The states had existed as independent entities when they wrote the Constitution, and placed controls within the document to assure their sovereignty. It is only through this construct that the Federal Government came into being.

The Federal Government, therefore, is the agent of the sovereign states. It is the duty and the mandate of the Constitution that the Federal Government carry out the wishes of the states.

The "South Carolina Exposition and Protest" was important because it stated definitely a theory concerning the relationship between the government of the United States and the individual states. Were this view to prevail, nullification and secession would certainly follow.

The (so-called) Civil War marked the beginning of the end of not only the Tenth Amendment, but our republic's existence as a constitutional republic.

Lincoln, in his unyielding desire to preserve the union at any cost, suspended the Constitution and presided over a war which changed forever the entire liberty landscape of America. Before the Civil War, these United States were a loosely-bound confederation of sovereign states. After the war, the stronger north imposed its will on the defeated south, and literally declared that these United States were now the United States. In effect, the federal government became omnipotent, and sovereignty of the respective states over the dictates of the federal government, which, up until the war, was assumed, was dealt a deafening blow.

And the battle to hang onto the original intent of the Tenth Amendment has been losing ground ever since. Our founders painstakingly sought to ensure that the people were the source of strength and liberty. The states were next in line as far as wielding political power. And the federal government was seen only as a minimally-empowered entity over which the people and the states had final say.

America has fallen so far from the founders' vision, and has convoluted their ideas so dramatically, that our republic has been turned upside down. The people are now, for all intents and purposes, powerless. The states, for all intents and purposes, wield whatever crumbs of power the federal government leaves for them. And the federal government is mere steps away from fitting the precise definition of totalitarian.

It may be said that the Civil War started it all. And surely it was a monumental catalyst. But there have been plenty of opportunities, over the last 135 years, for the American people to sit up and take notice that their country, and their very liberties, were being systematically stolen right from under their noses, and their Constitution was being dismantled. But, as a whole, we have chosen not to notice. At least not enough of us.

It is no exaggeration to say that the War Between the States is the continental divide of American history. Everything before 1860 was leading up to the war, and everything after 1865 has been a direct consequence of the war and the reconstruction that followed. Hence, if Americans don't understand that war, then they don't understand their country or themselves.

It's true that it's the most written-about aspect of American history, but most of the books -- and the interest -- have been on the military campaign, which is the least-important part. The war, after all, was an effect not a cause. Unless you contemplate a military career, you will not learn much useful by simply poring over maps and reading about the battles. What are most important are the political and cultural forces that led to the war and the political and cultural forces that emerged from it.

Some European historians have referred to the war and reconstruction as America's French Revolution. Two distinct political philosophies clashed, and only one survived. Just as the French Revolution established a centralized government with no competing sovereignties, so, too, did Lincoln's war establish in America a centralized government with no competing sovereignties.

The American Revolution, fought by 13 independent states in a loose confederation, produced a government that was a republic of sovereign republics. It was the states that created the federal government by delegating to it a few of their sovereign powers. The differences that would one day erupt into war were already evident in the ratification debates. Patrick Henry, for example, who fiercely opposed the new constitution, argued that differences between sections of the country were already too sharp. He predicted, accurately, it turned out, that as soon as one section grew strong enough, it would attempt to dominate the other.

But, nevertheless, it was clearly understood that what was being created was not a national government but a federal government with only very limited powers and duties. Several of the states, including New York, expli- citly stated in their ratification resolutions that they reserved the right to withdraw the powers delegated should they decide that the federal government was exceeding its powers.

For the first 30 years or so, no one even questioned the right of states to secede. During that time, New England states twice threatened to secede. It was customary in those days to speak not of the United States but of these United States. We should recall that the original 13 states had been in existence as colonies -- with separate and distinct identities -- for more than 150 years prior to the Declaration of Independence.

As time passed, some Americans began to think more and more in terms of a supreme national government. Andrew Jackson, a Southerner, was one of them. Nevertheless the majority of Southerners held to the original philosophy, and there were many clashes in Congress between North and South over many issues. Slavery did not become a hot point of controversy until several decades had passed.

Jefferson Davis' Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government and Alexander Stephens' History of the War Between the States will give you a graduate-level course in American history. They are both clearly written. Judging by the ignorant statements made in the Confederate-flag flap, many people have huge gaps in their knowledge. American history is too important to be learned from Hollywood and cheap political demagogues. You can find book dealers at www.dixienet.org who have these volumes.


	Put Your Heart In.... \| home Commentary of the Week \| Headlines From Around the CSA \| NO VOTES FOR TURNCOATS! \| Counter-Boycott \| Has History Been Rewritten? \| Secession yesterday and today \| Secession Yesterday and Today pg. 2 \| Secession Supplement \| From: The Southron Nation Website \| Did You Also Know? \| Opinions That Matter pg. 1 \| Opinions That Matter pg. 2 \| Photo Commentaries \| Family Events Photo Album \| How The SC Scalawags voted \| Favorite Links \| Contact Us Secession Yesterday and Today pg. 2 The HumanClick button, just a way of contacting us direct, live and in person (well, almost !). There's nothing to download, it just opens a little pop up browser window running a Java Script, then "we'" will be in our own little private chat room. If we are online, you can contact a human, either BJ or me (AJ). If we are offline, you can contact us by email. You don't have to give your email address, but it does mean we can't reply. The Basics Behind the Original Secession of the Southron States THE NULLIFICATION ISSUE. The protective tariff issue constantly brought the question of national sovereignty versus states'-rights before the people. This, more than any other reason, including Slavery, enraged the populace towards conflict and disunion. On the one hand the South was almost exclusively agricultural. The net wealth of the people was determined not only by the prices the planters received for their crops but also by the prices they had to pay for their manufactured goods. Had it been possible for the South to import the manufactured articles it needed without the tariff, the margin of profit for the southern planters would have been much greater than it was. The Southerners insisted that Congress passed protective tariff laws for the benefit of the North alone. Only the Northern states benefited by this tariff. The Southern states suffered as a consequence of the tariff. The South felt that Congress was increasingly favoring the North although it was supposed to serve the needs of the entire nation. The Tariff Act of 1828, the so-called "Tariff of Abominations," which had been framed to protect both raw products and manufactured articles, was especially obnoxious to the South. South Carolina was so bitterly opposed to this act that a legislative committee published the "South Carolina Exposition and Protest," the author of which was John C. Calhoun (The champion of State-rights.). The "Exposition" advanced the compact theory of the Constitution. This theory was based on the historically documented principles that, The Federal Government owes its existence to the sovereign states. The states had existed as independent entities when they wrote the Constitution, and placed controls within the document to assure their sovereignty. It is only through this construct that the Federal Government came into being. The Federal Government, therefore, is the agent of the sovereign states. It is the duty and the mandate of the Constitution that the Federal Government carry out the wishes of the states. The "South Carolina Exposition and Protest" was important because it stated definitely a theory concerning the relationship between the government of the United States and the individual states. Were this view to prevail, nullification and secession would certainly follow. ---------------------------------------------- The (so-called) Civil War marked the beginning of the end of not only the Tenth Amendment, but our republic's existence as a constitutional republic. Lincoln, in his unyielding desire to preserve the union at any cost, suspended the Constitution and presided over a war which changed forever the entire liberty landscape of America. Before the Civil War, these United States were a loosely-bound confederation of sovereign states. After the war, the stronger north imposed its will on the defeated south, and literally declared that these United States were now the United States. In effect, the federal government became omnipotent, and sovereignty of the respective states over the dictates of the federal government, which, up until the war, was assumed, was dealt a deafening blow. And the battle to hang onto the original intent of the Tenth Amendment has been losing ground ever since. Our founders painstakingly sought to ensure that the people were the source of strength and liberty. The states were next in line as far as wielding political power. And the federal government was seen only as a minimally-empowered entity over which the people and the states had final say. America has fallen so far from the founders' vision, and has convoluted their ideas so dramatically, that our republic has been turned upside down. The people are now, for all intents and purposes, powerless. The states, for all intents and purposes, wield whatever crumbs of power the federal government leaves for them. And the federal government is mere steps away from fitting the precise definition of totalitarian. It may be said that the Civil War started it all. And surely it was a monumental catalyst. But there have been plenty of opportunities, over the last 135 years, for the American people to sit up and take notice that their country, and their very liberties, were being systematically stolen right from under their noses, and their Constitution was being dismantled. But, as a whole, we have chosen not to notice. At least not enough of us. ---------------------------------------------- American history's great divide -- War Between the States - Charley Reese <http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a388dc3d869f9.htm> Government </perl/latest?t=9> Editorial Opinion (Published) Source: Orlando Sentinel <http://www.FreeRepublic.com/perl/redirect?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.orlandocentinel.com> Published: January 25, 2000 Author: Charley Reese Posted on 01/25/2000 07:40:08 PST by George Frm Br00klyn Park American history's great divide -- War Between the States Charley Reese Columnist It is no exaggeration to say that the War Between the States is the continental divide of American history. Everything before 1860 was leading up to the war, and everything after 1865 has been a direct consequence of the war and the reconstruction that followed. Hence, if Americans don't understand that war, then they don't understand their country or themselves. It's true that it's the most written-about aspect of American history, but most of the books -- and the interest -- have been on the military campaign, which is the least-important part. The war, after all, was an effect not a cause. Unless you contemplate a military career, you will not learn much useful by simply poring over maps and reading about the battles. What are most important are the political and cultural forces that led to the war and the political and cultural forces that emerged from it. Some European historians have referred to the war and reconstruction as America's French Revolution. Two distinct political philosophies clashed, and only one survived. Just as the French Revolution established a centralized government with no competing sovereignties, so, too, did Lincoln's war establish in America a centralized government with no competing sovereignties. The American Revolution, fought by 13 independent states in a loose confederation, produced a government that was a republic of sovereign republics. It was the states that created the federal government by delegating to it a few of their sovereign powers. The differences that would one day erupt into war were already evident in the ratification debates. Patrick Henry, for example, who fiercely opposed the new constitution, argued that differences between sections of the country were already too sharp. He predicted, accurately, it turned out, that as soon as one section grew strong enough, it would attempt to dominate the other. But, nevertheless, it was clearly understood that what was being created was not a national government but a federal government with only very limited powers and duties. Several of the states, including New York, expli- citly stated in their ratification resolutions that they reserved the right to withdraw the powers delegated should they decide that the federal government was exceeding its powers. For the first 30 years or so, no one even questioned the right of states to secede. During that time, New England states twice threatened to secede. It was customary in those days to speak not of the United States but of these United States. We should recall that the original 13 states had been in existence as colonies -- with separate and distinct identities -- for more than 150 years prior to the Declaration of Independence. As time passed, some Americans began to think more and more in terms of a supreme national government. Andrew Jackson, a Southerner, was one of them. Nevertheless the majority of Southerners held to the original philosophy, and there were many clashes in Congress between North and South over many issues. Slavery did not become a hot point of controversy until several decades had passed. Jefferson Davis' Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government and Alexander Stephens' History of the War Between the States will give you a graduate-level course in American history. They are both clearly written. Judging by the ignorant statements made in the Confederate-flag flap, many people have huge gaps in their knowledge. American history is too important to be learned from Hollywood and cheap political demagogues. You can find book dealers at www.dixienet.org who have these volumes. No people should allow political sleaze to rewrite their country's history. Published in The Orlando Sentinel on January 25, 2000. Back to Top