[quote]shamus wrote:
I’m not racist, but the war was over taxes. The history books tell us the primary reason for the war was to free the slaves. Yeah right. Politics have been corrupt since, oh, about 1826. The day (July 4th) Jefferson and Madison both died.[/quote]
As a fan of Jefferson, I appreciate the sentiment, but I’m somewhat hard-pressed to name a single period in the history of civilization when politics has not been corrupt.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Okay, Headhunter, here’s a hypothetical for you: If the “Blue States” voted tomorrow to secede from the United States, and they elected Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi as the President and Vice President of their little confederacy, should George Bush send in the troops to drag the rebels back into the Union, or should he just shrug his shoulders and let them go?
Note: let’s assume that the use of nuclear weapons is not an option. :)[/quote]
Since I believe that all relationships between human beings should be voluntary on all sides, then those states are free to go their own way should they choose to do so.
As Lord Acton says, a union held together by force, at gunpoint, is not a society you’d want to live in.
[quote]shamus wrote:
I’m not racist, but the war was over taxes. The history books tell us the primary reason for the war was to free the slaves. Yeah right. Politics have been corrupt since, oh, about 1826. The day (July 4th) Jefferson and Madison both died.[/quote]
Well, this is just conclusory and dumb. If what you say was true, why did the last minute attempts at compromise to avoid secession have nothing to do with taxes?
And, in the decade leading up to 1860, pro-Southern Congresses and administrations mostly ran policy.
Remember, the Southern states seceded over an election result - they weren’t seceding over what had happened in the past, but rather what they expected to happen in the future.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
shamus wrote:
I’m not racist, but the war was over taxes. The history books tell us the primary reason for the war was to free the slaves. Yeah right. Politics have been corrupt since, oh, about 1826. The day (July 4th) Jefferson and Madison both died.
As a fan of Jefferson, I appreciate the sentiment, but I’m somewhat hard-pressed to name a single period in the history of civilization when politics has not been corrupt. [/quote]
That’s why the FFs established our Constitution; they knew corruption was the norm. They understood that we must keep government to a minimum.
Raising large armies and invading the homes of people who disagree with where the country is headed is endemic to that idea, no?
The Republican Party evolved out of the Whigs. Their philosophy was for ‘Internal Improvements’ (corporate welfare) and high tariffs. They wanted ‘Big Daddy Government’. They succeeded.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
That is an interesting question… especially because I could not invade my home state.
It depends on many factors, of course, including why Jersey would be seceding… but it is unlikely that I would turn against my home.[/quote]
We would let Jersey go.
[quote]shamus wrote:
I’m not racist, but the war was over taxes. The history books tell us the primary reason for the war was to free the slaves. Yeah right. Politics have been corrupt since, oh, about 1826. The day (July 4th) Jefferson and Madison both died.[/quote]
A HEX ON sHAMUS!!! May your skin fall from your body at random times.
It only took a few pages for some dink to say that the Civil War was not about slavery!!!
I told you it was coming. It is the mark of the uneducated.
Picture shamus deep in the process of tricking an unsuspecting woman into bed. Imagine him throwing up all sorts of his gimmicks/lies/half-truths. See his skin fall off!!! Imagine the look on the woman’s face!!!
JeffR
varq,
Don’t let people off this easy. Think up a issue might cause the bad guys (dems) to secede from the Union.
For example, George Bush is elected to a third term, an enormous cache of WMD is found in Iraq with a note that says, “I plan on using this against the United States on March 8th, 2003, signed, saddam hussein,” or soy milk goes out of production.
Push nephorm to see how dedicated he is to the United States.
JeffR
[quote]shamus wrote:
I’m not racist, but the war was over taxes. The history books tell us the primary reason for the war was to free the slaves. Yeah right. Politics have been corrupt since, oh, about 1826. The day (July 4th) Jefferson and Madison both died.[/quote]
Jefferson and Adams.
The tariff nonsense popped up after the war as an excuse to defend the reasoning of the South leaving the Union. If this excuse could be rambled about as the cause of the war, then it covers up the real reasons and lets the South keep its honor. The tariff was a sticking point between sections (South and North, East and West, Pennsylvania and Iowa, etc. etc.) before secession, but certainly not enough of an irritant to lead to secession.
The tariff of 1833 was opposed by New England, not by the South. The South supported the Walker Tariff of 1846 and the Tariff of 1857, the existing tariff at the time of secession. The only group who objected to the existing tariff at the time of secession was Pennsylvania steel. THE CONFEDERACY RESORTED TO ALMOST THE EXACT SAME TARIFF SYSTEM WHEN THEY SECEDED.
The Lost Causers pull up a bunch of random numbers out of their ass (like, 80% of the tariffs were paid by the South—all lies that not only have been refuted many times, but that defy plain common sense).
92% of the net tariff ($52,300,000) collected in 1860, was collected in Northern ports. Only 7.6% ($4,000,000) was collected in Southern ports. New York paid more duties than the top 10 Southern ports COMBINED.
Again, if you were to take the population of 1860 and divide it into the tariff revenues, it comes out to about $1.65 per person for the year. Get your gun, Cooter. We need to rebel.
No tariffs were collected on goods from the North shipped to and sold in the South prior to secession. The federal government was spending approximately $2.50 per person in the late 1850s. Big deal.
If the Federal government was raping the South, WHERE WAS THE MONEY? The Union entered the war with a couple hundred thousands bucks in its coffers.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Push nephorm to see how dedicated he is to the United States.
JeffR[/quote]
Considering I’m not a Democrat, I don’t know why you’re singling me out.
If George W Bush (somehow) violated the 22nd amendment, that would be problematic. Whether or not it would be a cause for violent rebellion is a separate matter.
Jeff, haven’t you been in favor of armed rebellion? Specifically, with regard to property rights being violated? Do you think it is wrong to use arms to protect one’s property from being seized by Walmart or a hotel chain?
If you cannot imagine a series of abuses so horrific that armed resistance or separation would be called for, you aren’t trying very hard.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
The problem with revolution (or secession) is simply: who would rule?
A wise and just Philosopher-King, of course. [/quote]
Philosophers don’t desire to rule.
[quote]Jack_Dempsey wrote:
shamus wrote:
I’m not racist, but the war was over taxes. The history books tell us the primary reason for the war was to free the slaves. Yeah right. Politics have been corrupt since, oh, about 1826. The day (July 4th) Jefferson and Madison both died.
Jefferson and Adams.
The tariff nonsense popped up after the war as an excuse to defend the reasoning of the South leaving the Union. If this excuse could be rambled about as the cause of the war, then it covers up the real reasons and lets the South keep its honor. The tariff was a sticking point between sections (South and North, East and West, Pennsylvania and Iowa, etc. etc.) before secession, but certainly not enough of an irritant to lead to secession.
The tariff of 1833 was opposed by New England, not by the South. The South supported the Walker Tariff of 1846 and the Tariff of 1857, the existing tariff at the time of secession. The only group who objected to the existing tariff at the time of secession was Pennsylvania steel. THE CONFEDERACY RESORTED TO ALMOST THE EXACT SAME TARIFF SYSTEM WHEN THEY SECEDED.
The Lost Causers pull up a bunch of random numbers out of their ass (like, 80% of the tariffs were paid by the South—all lies that not only have been refuted many times, but that defy plain common sense).
92% of the net tariff ($52,300,000) collected in 1860, was collected in Northern ports. Only 7.6% ($4,000,000) was collected in Southern ports. New York paid more duties than the top 10 Southern ports COMBINED.
Again, if you were to take the population of 1860 and divide it into the tariff revenues, it comes out to about $1.65 per person for the year. Get your gun, Cooter. We need to rebel.
No tariffs were collected on goods from the North shipped to and sold in the South prior to secession. The federal government was spending approximately $2.50 per person in the late 1850s. Big deal.
If the Federal government was raping the South, WHERE WAS THE MONEY? The Union entered the war with a couple hundred thousands bucks in its coffers.
[/quote]
Since tariffs raised the price of all goods (since Northern manufacturers could raise their prices w/o competition), that meant that Southerners were subsidizing Northern companies. The Morill Tariff would have made this even worse.
The North was also gaining population must faster than the South. The Southerners saw this all and decided to bail. They saw a Republican Prez and a Republican Congress. To them, that was a threat.
Morrill Tariff
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Morrill Tariff of 1861 was a protective tariff bill passed by the U.S. Congress in early 1861. The act is informally named after its sponsor, Rep. Justin Morrill of Vermont, who designed the bill around recommendations by Pennsylvania economist Henry C. Carey. It was signed into law by Democratic president, James Buchanan of Pennsylvania, where support for higher tariffs to protect the iron industry was strong. It replaced the Tariff of 1857. Some historians such as Beard and Beard (1928) argued there was a divergence in economic interests between an industrializing Northeast and a plantation South before the American Civil War. But Beard did not identify the tariff as a major issue that divided North and South. Two additional tariffs sponsored by Rep. Morrill, each one higher, were passed during Lincoln’s administration to raise urgently needed revenue for war.
The high rates of the Morrill tariff inaugurated a period of relatively continuous trade protection in the United States that lasted until the Underwood Tariff of 1913. As Frank Taussig observes, the schedule of the Morrill Tariff and its two successor bills were retained long after the end of the Civil War."
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
The problem with revolution (or secession) is simply: who would rule?
A wise and just Philosopher-King, of course.
Philosophers don’t desire to rule.[/quote]
The Founding Fathers come close…they were axiomaticin their thinking:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident…”
Logic applied to Politics! Who’d a thunk it!!!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The North was also gaining population must faster than the South. The Southerners saw this all and decided to bail. They saw a Republican Prez and a Republican Congress. To them, that was a threat.[/quote]
So the right of secession can be invoked because your population happens to be slowing and you are afraid of future legislation?
Simply stated, if that be justification for leaving the Union - there is no Union to speak of; no nation, no country.
And if secession is so accessible, why did Jefferson Davis put down the Unionists in Eastern Tennessee that wanted to be part of the Union?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The Founding Fathers come close…they were axiomaticin their thinking:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident…”
Logic applied to Politics! Who’d a thunk it!!!
[/quote]
Close, but Constitutional rule is not Philosophical rule. Constitutional rule applies generally, and Philosophical rule applies both generally and particularly.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The North was also gaining population must faster than the South. The Southerners saw this all and decided to bail. They saw a Republican Prez and a Republican Congress. To them, that was a threat.
So the right of secession can be invoked because your population happens to be slowing and you are afraid of future legislation?
Simply stated, if that be justification for leaving the Union - there is no Union to speak of; no nation, no country.
And if secession is so accessible, why did Jefferson Davis put down the Unionists in Eastern Tennessee that wanted to be part of the Union?[/quote]
I’m still reading up on the topic. But I would think he SHOULD have let them go.
The world does appear to be devolving into smaller political units over the past 150 years or so. I don’t think that process will be stopped by violence, except temporarily. The advantage is swinging over to the defense — stinger missles, IEDs, and the like. Lincoln was able to maintain the Union because of overwhelming offensive power, which was probably true w/regard to the Tennessee Unionists and Davis.
More later!
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
That is an interesting question… especially because I could not invade my home state.
It depends on many factors, of course, including why Jersey would be seceding… but it is unlikely that I would turn against my home.
We would let Jersey go.[/quote]
I wish they would.
All it would have taken was another few miles of river, and we’d be a damn island…
I wish…
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Simply stated, if that be justification for leaving the Union - there is no Union to speak of; no nation, no country.[/quote]
I would be interested, Thunderbolt, in hearing your opinion on what circumstances, if any would justify secession, rebellion and/or revolution in the United States. Yours, too, Irish.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Simply stated, if that be justification for leaving the Union - there is no Union to speak of; no nation, no country.
I would be interested, Thunderbolt, in hearing your opinion on what circumstances, if any would justify secession, rebellion and/or revolution in the United States. Yours, too, Irish.[/quote]
Really good question.
I’d start with the basic idea that democracy negates the entire point of revolt. While there are exceptions, I think that is the foundational rule. Once you commit to democratic government (and I am using that term in the broadest sense to include our constitutional republic), you commit to the idea that change in society is possible by pre-arranged and accepted means.
So there exists an avenue for change, which undermines the primary argument for revolt: that we want change and we are being denied our opportunity for it.
This is especially strong in the case where you (or the state) gets to review the rules they will live under prior to agreeing to it.
Of course, buying into the idea of democracy means buying into the idea of having winners and losers. There will always be people who aren’t getting what they want in a democratic format. And that is inherent in any democratic layout, so my next stop would be to say that anyone who thinks revolt is a fair response to just being unhappy with the results in the democratic arena can’t possibly be right.
I’d say this - when interested citizens are actually denied from having their voice heard in the system and laws they signed up for, then that sounds like the birth of a revolt. But there has to be tangible denial - not just being denied your preferences in policy matters.
Compare that to the antebellum South. They seceded due to an election - an election they got to participate in, make speeches on behalf of the candidate, throw money behind the candidate, run voting booths, campaign, etc. There was no denial of their political rights - which is what Jefferson spoke of in the Declaration. They lost an election fair and square under the rules they agreed to prior to the election.
Lincoln and the Republicans had “their just powers from the consent of the governed”, so the South can’t claim a Jeffersonian revolt.
So, I don’t have a hard and fast rule, of course, but I like Jefferson’s formulation pretty well - when the day we comes that the power to govern ourselves is taken away, I think you can make a good case for revolt.
One caveat to that though - there is a big difference in being denied self-government and having it but choosing not to use it. I think a fair amount of that is what is occurring today.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Compare that to the antebellum South. They seceded due to an election - an election they got to participate in, make speeches on behalf of the candidate, throw money behind the candidate, run voting booths, campaign, etc. There was no denial of their political rights - which is what Jefferson spoke of in the Declaration. They lost an election fair and square under the rules they agreed to prior to the election.
[/quote]
No one denies that they had all the political rights you’ve named. They were afraid that steps were being taken to deny those rights in the future. They saw the demographics, they saw a ‘Big Government’ party being elected, and surmised that the system would now be biased against them. The history of the Reconstruction bears that out, btw.
If they were perfectly logical, then they would have accepted the outcome graciously, provided they thought they were going to be left alone by the National Government. But that’s their point: They thought the Republicans would screw them, despite Mr. Lincoln’s assurances that he could not.
Fear of change is as old as humanity.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
No one denies that they had all the political rights you’ve named. They were afraid that steps were being taken to deny those rights in the future. They saw the demographics, they saw a ‘Big Government’ party being elected, and surmised that the system would now be biased against them. The history of the Reconstruction bears that out, btw.[/quote]
So, by your own admission, if they had the rights, then the rights weren’t denied.
And that was my entire point - the South saw political change ahead, that’s it. No functioning democracy can exist if political losers get to opt out of the system by mere virtue of losing the policy debate.
Jefferson’s point was that revolution was justified when fundmental rights were denied - not just policy preferences. The threshold has to be higher if any form of republican government to work.
But back to the basic problem - if you get defeated in a democratic contest, you haven’t been “screwed”. You had your chance to win the day, and you lost. The South wanted a republican Union when they won the day on policy, but not when they lost. But if the will of the people gets recognized, by and through constitutional means, no one is getting unfairly “screwed” - it is a convenient scapegoat to hide the real motive to leave: protecting your naked self-interest when you get fairly defeated in a contest.
I don’t doubt it, but it doesn’t justify secession given the history leading up to it.