- This topic has 6 voices and 5 replies.
-
Posts
-
The following is a letter to the editor of the Albany Herald(Ga). It was written by James King of Albany , a friend of mine”Big government led to war for freedom The problems that led to the Civil War of 1861-65 are the same problems we have today ? big, intrusive government. The reason we don?t face the specter of another Civil War is because today?s Americans don?t have yesteryear?s spirit of liberty and constitutional respect, and political statesmanship is in short supply. Actually, the war of 1861 was not a civil war. A civil war is a conflict between two or more factions trying to take over a government. In 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was no more interested in taking over Washington than George Washington was interested in taking over England in 1776. Like Washington, Davis was seeking independence. Therefore, the war of 1861 should be called ?The War Between the States? or the ?War for Southern Independence.? The more bitter Southerner might call it the ?War of Northern Aggression.? History books have misled today?s Americans to believe the war was fought to free slaves. Statements from the time suggest otherwise. In President Lincoln?s first inaugural address, he said, ?I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so.? During the war, in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, ?My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery.? A recent article by Baltimore?s Loyola College Professor Thomas DiLorenzo titled ?The Great Centralizer,? in The Independent Review (Fall 1998), cites quotation after quotation of similar Northern sentiment about slavery. Lincoln?s intentions, as well as that of many Northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to ?impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government that place at defiance the intentions of the republic?s founders.? Douglas was right, and Lincoln?s vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed. A precursor for a War Between the States came in 1832, when South Carolina called a convention to nullify tariff acts of 1828 and 1832, referred to as the ?Tariffs of Abominations.? A compromise lowering the tariff was reached, averting secession and possibly war. The North favored protective tariffs for their manufacturing industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a northern- dominated Congress enacted laws similar to Britain?s Navigation Acts to protect Northern shipping interests. Shortly after Lincoln?s election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs. That?s when the South seceded, setting up a new government. Their constitution was nearly identical to the U.S. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts, and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures. The great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that ?Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed? was overturned by force of arms. By destroying the states? rights to nullification and secession, Abraham Lincoln opened the door to the kind of unconstrained, despotic, arrogant government we have today, something the framers of the Constitution could not have possibly imagined. States should again challenge Washington, D.C.?s unconstitutional acts through nullification. But you tell me where we can find leaders who have the love, courage and respect for our Constitution and Bill of Rights like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason, Patrick Henry, and John C. Calhoun. Even if we had such leaders today, would citizens have the fortitude to follow them or have we become a craven society fit only for the yoke of a dictator or despot? “
I always thought big government had it's start more during the FDR years, but your friend makes some good points that it's foundation was laid much earlier, good points about that and many other things, thanks for sharing.
Yes, thanks for that. It is an interesting perspective. I have often wondered why in grade school they teach that the civil war was all about freeing the slaves. It wasn't until I got to college that I heard anything about tariffs and the real reasons the south wanted to secede.
I really enjoyed this letter that H.H. shared with us and would like to hear others opinions on this. and do you agree with his points about big government having its foundation in Lincolns administration. Like I said before I really had thought that was more an FDR thing.
Great letter. Lincoln was insistent that slavery was not the issue throughout the war and he only made it one for political reasons to keep England out of the war and stop them from recognizing the Confederacy.
I disagree with it. Southerners had arguably more to do with the formation of the United States than Northerners did. (Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Morris, Henry Lee etc….). When things didn't go their way (expansion of slavery), their fears took over their logic and they bailed on the Union they led the way in creating. Now did they have a right to secede? Yes. Were they wise to do so? No. They jumped the gun and paid the price. The Fire Eaters caused the South to commit state suicide and bring unnecessary suffering upon themselves. And if you're wondering, I always sympathize with the South for the most part, but it is how I honestly see things historically.
The following is a letter to the editor of the Albany Herald(Ga). Actually, the war of 1861 was not a civil war. A civil war is a conflict between two or more factions trying to take over a government. In 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was no more interested in taking over Washington than George Washington was interested in taking over England in 1776. Like Washington, Davis was seeking independence. ?Shortly after Lincoln?s election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs. ?That?s when the South seceded
H.H. Buggfuzz?Your friend needs to check his facts. The Merriam-Webster On-line dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil+war) and others define civil war as: ?a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.? Your friend is in denial; ?The War Between the States? was indeed a civil war. Succession was well under way before either the passage of the Morrill Tariff or Lincoln?s inauguration. In January 1861 South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, and Florida all seceded from the union. The Morrill Tariff was adopted on March 2, 1861–well after succession began. Additionally, it was signed into law by Buchanan, not Lincoln. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff). Lincoln was not inaugurated until March 4, 1861. —Furthermore, I disagree with your friend?s overall theory. That he resulted to using ?false facts? does not surprise me. (I hear this sort of thing from my sister, who lives in South Carolina, together with her in-laws and friends all the time. They do and say similar things, plus they are totally unwilling to accept the South had any culpability for the Civil War.)Throughout most of U.S. history Americans have been willing to settle their differences through compromise. There would not have been a civil war had the ?fire eaters? been as willing to compromise as was Lincoln. The Civil War resulted far more from a ?my way or the highway? Southern attitude fostered by the fire eaters than it did a Southern dislike of big government. (As witness the constitution the South adopted which created a big government very similar to that of the United States, albeit one with more states rights than existed in the U.S. Constitution.)
