Recevez notre Marketbriefing
In the same category
Pappy Yokum
Member since July 2013
5 commentaries -
0 followers
has posted a comment on the article :
>What Americans Used To Know  - Tom DiLorenzo - lewRockwell
There are problems with your analysis, Mr.C.
You believe secession for the first seven states could not apply because no rights had been violated. That is not for you to determine. The final determiner of those rights is the state itself. That is, the people of the state had that right. The people of the states which seceded voted in convention to do so. There was no insurrection. The Constitution prohibited states from attacking one another and the federal military could not enter a state unless invited by the state governor to stop an insurrection or foreign invasion. Lincoln was not invited.

The reasons for secession are listed by some of the states in their articles of secession. These include the loss of control the government; the unjust distribution of taxes; the second class status of slave holders who were not allowed to settle in territories administered for all of the states by the federal government. States were nullifying federal fugitive slave laws in violation of the Constitution.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 was a prid pro quo for the South agreeing to a northern route for the trans-continental railroad from Lincoln's Chicago to San Francisco. The South needed the two Senators from Kansas to prevent the Republican Party from implementing the old Whig American System, that Lincoln endorsed, and the North had been trying to pass since 1828. They did not get them and in 1860 the Morrill Tariff had passed the House and was set to pass the Senate in 1860 or 1861. President Buchannan signed it.

Slavery was not the trigger issue. The potential shutting of international trade due to the recent more than doubling of the tax was what pushed the Confederacy to form. SC threatened secession over the Tariff of Abominations three decades before. The amount of trade the first seven states to secede were doing in the mean time had only increased. Lincoln offered to protect slavery, but he never offered to work to lower the new tariff. The Union had to remain whole in order for the American System to work; The exporting South could not be taxed to the benefit of the North if it left. The Southern economy would have to be reorganized if it stayed since it could no longer block the implementation of the Republican Party agenda. Mississippi stated in its reasons for leaving was the South had lost control of the government.

The upper South only seceded after Lincoln called for troops to invade the lower South. Though these states held slaves, they were not big exporters of cotton and therefore dependent on international trade.

If one cannot argue for individual rights of a state or a group of states when those states are themselves trampling on individual rights by holding slave, how can one make the same argument for the original 13 states leaving the British Empire when the people of those states held slaves? Contrarywise, how can one argue that the states had to remain bound to the Union, which they voluntarily joined, but the people of those states could not hold others, who were born into it, in bondage?


Commented
3956 days ago
-
Send
Beginning of the headline :"During the weeks following the [1860] election, [Northern newspaper] editors of all parties assumed that secession as a constitutional right was not in question . . . . On the contrary, the southern claim to a right of peaceable withdrawal was countenanced out of reverence for the natural law principle of government by consent of the governed." ~ Howard Cecil Perkins, editor, Northern ... Read More
Reply to this comment
You must be logged in to comment an article8000 characters max.
Log in or Sign up
Top articles