So Mississippi is celebrating Confederate History Month

[AUDub 11,784]

Another post is up:

Massacre at Colfax

The violence against the newly freed black populace and their white defenders had been slowly ratcheted up by a series of increasingly horrifying acts of individual violence -- school burnings, lynchings, floggings, assassinations -- that began to reach a fever pitch that finally exploded in the spring of 1872.

There can only be one inevitable outcome to that much unrestrained and unrequited hate: an act of near-genocide like the Colfax Massacre.

It grew out of the realization that Democrats in the South, particularly Louisiana, were beginning to seize back political control not through the ballot box but by force -- literally sending in armed militias to take control of local government officers. One of the places where this was particularly acute was in Grant Parish, Louisiana.

[AUloggerhead 2,507]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/07/the-civil-war-and-150-years-of-forgotten-us-military-atrocities/

George Orwell wrote in 1945 that "the nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." The same moral myopia has carried over to most Americans' understanding of the Civil War. While popular historians have recently canonized the war as a practically holy crusade to free the slaves, in reality civilians were intentionally targeted and brutalized in the final year of the war.

The most dramatic forgotten atrocity in the Civil War occurred 150 years ago when Union Gen. Philip Sheridan unleashed a hundred mile swath of flames in the Shenandoah Valley that left vast numbers of women and children tottering towards starvation. Unfortunately, the burning of the Shenandoah Valley has been largely forgotten, foreshadowing how subsequent brutal military operations would also vanish into the Memory Hole. ...

...The carnage inflicted by Sheridan, Sherman, and other northern commanders made the South's post-war recovery far slower and multiplied the misery of both white and black survivors. Connecticut College professor Jim Downs' recent book, Sick From Freedom, exposes how the chaotic situation during and after the war contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of freed slaves.

After the Civil War, politicians and many historians consecrated the conflict and its grisly tactics were consigned to oblivion. The habit of sweeping abusive policies under the rug also permeated post-Civil War policy towards the Indians (Sheridan famously declared "the only good Indian is a dead Indian") and the suppression of Filipino insurgents after the Spanish-American War. Later historians sometimes ignored U.S. military tactics in World War Two and Vietnam that resulted in heavy civilian casualties. ...

[telling tiger 156]

Yes, historians are quick to paint a picture complimentary of the power they represent....In the same way some try to repaint lynchings, burnings, beatings, rapes, or biracial children they sired....You know, quite common to both sides of an issue, don't you think?

[japantiger 4,104]

States rights and slavery do not have to be mutually exclusive. The federal government and states have battled it out many times on the "states rights" battleground ever since the founding. Slavery, segregation, Roe V Wade, etc are just a few of the cases where states dug deep to defend their beliefs. The slavery issue no different than Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade was an abortions issue; however, as long as the states continue to fight the federal government for state rights such as legalizing abortion restrictions and waiting lists, the whole case is a state rights fight as well. So no, technically, if somebody wants to proclaim the civil war was caused by states rights, they are not wrong and I'll never suggest otherwise.

Similarly, if somebody wants to suggest that WW1 was started by a single assassination, I won't claim the person wrong, as the assassination was clearly the SPARK at a time when war was already inevitable.

Simply, accurately and logically very well put. If the distant federal gov't tries to get outside the boundaries the constitution prescribes for it (the rights granted to it by the states; not the other way around), then the states have every right to resist that intrusion on their rights. It speaks nothing to the morality of the issue; just simply that the constitution defines the Feds boundaries and if the Fed wants to go beyond it's boundaries it is obliged to seek redress thru the amendment process; not gunfire.

If the Fed can unilaterally decide which aspect of the constitution it wants to honor and which it does't; without regard to living within it's scope; then we are no longer a republic and we are no longer a nation of laws and states defacto have no rights. Lincoln was a horrible president and national leader in a time of crisis and jumped the shark when faced with understandable opposition to his constitutional end run ; he did however turn out to be a very good commander in chief and judge of military talent after he found his footing. We'll never know what kind of unifier and President of the United States he could have become.

[homersapien 12,172]

States rights and slavery do not have to be mutually exclusive. The federal government and states have battled it out many times on the "states rights" battleground ever since the founding. Slavery, segregation, Roe V Wade, etc are just a few of the cases where states dug deep to defend their beliefs. The slavery issue no different than Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade was an abortions issue; however, as long as the states continue to fight the federal government for state rights such as legalizing abortion restrictions and waiting lists, the whole case is a state rights fight as well. So no, technically, if somebody wants to proclaim the civil war was caused by states rights, they are not wrong and I'll never suggest otherwise.

Similarly, if somebody wants to suggest that WW1 was started by a single assassination, I won't claim the person wrong, as the assassination was clearly the SPARK at a time when war was already inevitable.

Simply, accurately and logically very well put. If the distant federal gov't tries to get outside the boundaries the constitution prescribes for it (the rights granted to it by the states; not the other way around), then the states have every right to resist that intrusion on their rights. It speaks nothing to the morality of the issue; just simply that the constitution defines the Feds boundaries and if the Fed wants to go beyond it's boundaries it is obliged to seek redress thru the amendment process; not gunfire.

If the Fed can unilaterally decide which aspect of the constitution it wants to honor and which it does't; without regard to living within it's scope; then we are no longer a republic and we are no longer a nation of laws and states defacto have no rights. Lincoln was a horrible president and national leader in a time of crisis and jumped the shark when faced with understandable opposition to his constitutional end run ; he did however turn out to be a very good commander in chief and judge of military talent after he found his footing. We'll never know what kind of unifier and President of the United States he could have become.

Let's not forget the topic is the Civil War.

The South had no problem with Federal power when they were the ones utilizing it to support and promote slavery in the decades prior to the war. Federal power was fine as long as they controlled it.

[AUloggerhead 2,507]

Yes, historians are quick to paint a picture complimentary of the power they represent....In the same way some try to repaint lynchings, burnings, beatings, rapes, or biracial children they sired....You know, quite common to both sides of an issue, don't you think?

I know of no one trying to "repaint" atrocities. The entire Civil War was an atrocity, and both sides engaged in them. I think it's total hypocrisy to cite only one (preferred) side and completely ignore the other. Andersonville prison is just one example. As horribly inhumane as Andersonville was, the Union's Elmira prison camp in NY wasn't far behind in cruelty & misery.

[japantiger 4,104]

States rights and slavery do not have to be mutually exclusive. The federal government and states have battled it out many times on the "states rights" battleground ever since the founding. Slavery, segregation, Roe V Wade, etc are just a few of the cases where states dug deep to defend their beliefs. The slavery issue no different than Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade was an abortions issue; however, as long as the states continue to fight the federal government for state rights such as legalizing abortion restrictions and waiting lists, the whole case is a state rights fight as well. So no, technically, if somebody wants to proclaim the civil war was caused by states rights, they are not wrong and I'll never suggest otherwise.

Similarly, if somebody wants to suggest that WW1 was started by a single assassination, I won't claim the person wrong, as the assassination was clearly the SPARK at a time when war was already inevitable.

Simply, accurately and logically very well put. If the distant federal gov't tries to get outside the boundaries the constitution prescribes for it (the rights granted to it by the states; not the other way around), then the states have every right to resist that intrusion on their rights. It speaks nothing to the morality of the issue; just simply that the constitution defines the Feds boundaries and if the Fed wants to go beyond it's boundaries it is obliged to seek redress thru the amendment process; not gunfire.

If the Fed can unilaterally decide which aspect of the constitution it wants to honor and which it does't; without regard to living within it's scope; then we are no longer a republic and we are no longer a nation of laws and states defacto have no rights. Lincoln was a horrible president and national leader in a time of crisis and jumped the shark when faced with understandable opposition to his constitutional end run ; he did however turn out to be a very good commander in chief and judge of military talent after he found his footing. We'll never know what kind of unifier and President of the United States he could have become.

Let's not forget the topic is the Civil War.

The South had no problem with Federal power when they were the ones utilizing it to support and promote slavery in the decades prior to the war.

Well no, that is incorrect. The slave states did not "use" federal power to promote slavery. The Fed had an obligation to enforce the constitution as written and enacted by all the states. Slavery happened to be a provision that was permissible to all states under the constitution. Again, under the constitution, the Fed is obliged to swim in the lanes that the states permit it to swim in and enact the provisions as written. At the point the other states and the Fed authorities felt those provisions were no longer in national interests, it was up to them, thru the amendment process, to change them...doing so ultimately by force of arms was defacto unconstitutional and the result of piss poor leadership.

[aujeff11 6,243]

The states had several problems in its quest to retain state sovereignty on the issue. There were many comprimises that had to be reached throughout the duration of slavery beginning with the founding. It is believed that the 3/5ths compromise, and ESPECIALLY the compromise that banned the slave trade after 1808 were comprimises that could've squashed slavery in the butt right then. However, the south felt that the government was trying to encroach on their commercial interests, leaving the south to question the constitutionality of the the federal government.

"Federal power was fine as long as they controlled it." Yeah, that doesn't contradict anything though. If the south was controlling the federal government then there should've been harmony between the two. I wouldn't say that the south controlled the federal government either.

[japantiger 4,104]

The states had several problems in its quest to retain state sovereignty on the issue. There were many comprimises that had to be reached throughout the duration of slavery beginning with the founding. It is believed that the 3/5ths compromise, and ESPECIALLY the compromise that banned the slave trade after 1808 were comprimises that could've squashed slavery in the butt right then. However, the south felt that the government was trying to encroach on their commercial interests, leaving the south to question the constitutionality of the the federal government.

"Federal power was fine as long as they controlled it." Yeah, that doesn't contradict anything though. If the south was controlling the federal government then there should've been harmony between the two. I wouldn't say that the south controlled the federal government either.

Yep...a good leader would have met with each governor of the key southern states (VA, GA, SC) and would have found a way to resolve this short of killing 750k of the nations citizens thru war, disease and civilian casualties.

[homersapien 12,172]

States rights and slavery do not have to be mutually exclusive. The federal government and states have battled it out many times on the "states rights" battleground ever since the founding. Slavery, segregation, Roe V Wade, etc are just a few of the cases where states dug deep to defend their beliefs. The slavery issue no different than Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade was an abortions issue; however, as long as the states continue to fight the federal government for state rights such as legalizing abortion restrictions and waiting lists, the whole case is a state rights fight as well. So no, technically, if somebody wants to proclaim the civil war was caused by states rights, they are not wrong and I'll never suggest otherwise.

Similarly, if somebody wants to suggest that WW1 was started by a single assassination, I won't claim the person wrong, as the assassination was clearly the SPARK at a time when war was already inevitable.

Simply, accurately and logically very well put. If the distant federal gov't tries to get outside the boundaries the constitution prescribes for it (the rights granted to it by the states; not the other way around), then the states have every right to resist that intrusion on their rights. It speaks nothing to the morality of the issue; just simply that the constitution defines the Feds boundaries and if the Fed wants to go beyond it's boundaries it is obliged to seek redress thru the amendment process; not gunfire.

If the Fed can unilaterally decide which aspect of the constitution it wants to honor and which it does't; without regard to living within it's scope; then we are no longer a republic and we are no longer a nation of laws and states defacto have no rights. Lincoln was a horrible president and national leader in a time of crisis and jumped the shark when faced with understandable opposition to his constitutional end run ; he did however turn out to be a very good commander in chief and judge of military talent after he found his footing. We'll never know what kind of unifier and President of the United States he could have become.

Let's not forget the topic is the Civil War.

The South had no problem with Federal power when they were the ones utilizing it to support and promote slavery in the decades prior to the war.

Well no, that is incorrect. The slave states did not "use" federal power to promote slavery. The Fed had an obligation to enforce the constitution as written and enacted by all the states. Slavery happened to be a provision that was permissible to all states under the constitution. Again, under the constitution, the Fed is obliged to swim in the lanes that the states permit it to swim in and enact the provisions as written. At the point the other states and the Fed authorities felt those provisions were no longer in national interests, it was up to them, thru the amendment process, to change them...doing so ultimately by force of arms was defacto unconstitutional and the result of piss poor leadership.

"States rights, or sovereignty, was always more a means than an end, an instrument to achieve a certain goal more than a priniciple. In the antebellum South, the purpose of asserting state sovereignty was to protect slavery from the potential hostility of a national majority against Southern interests - mainly slavery.

But even so, state sovereignty was a fallback position. A more powerful instrument to protect slavery was control of the national government. Until 1861 Southern politicians did this remarkably well. They used that control to defend slavery from all kinds of threats and perceived threats. They overrode the rights of Northern states that passed personal liberty laws to protect black people from kidnapping by agents who claimed them as fugitive slaves. During forty-nine of the seventy-two years from 1789 to 1861, the presidents of the United States were Southerners - all of them slaveholders. The only presidents to be reelected were slaveholders. Two-thirds of the Speakers of the House, chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee, and presidents pro temp of the Senate were Southerners. This domination constituted what antislavery Republicans called the Slave Power and sometimes, more darkly, the Slave Power Conspiracy.

Southern politicians did not use this national power to buttress state's rights; quite the contrary. In the 1830s Congress imposed a gag rule to stifle antislavery petitions from Northern states. The Post Office banned antislavery literature from the mail if it was sent to Southern states. In 1850 Southerners in Congress plus a handful of Northern allies enacted a Fugitive Slave Law that was the strongest manifestation of *national* power thus far in American history. In the name of protecting the rights of slaveholders, it extended the long arm of federal law, enforced by marshals and the army, into Northern states to recover escaped slaves and return them to their owners.

Senator Jefferson Davis, who later insisted the the Confederacy fought for the principle of state sovereignty, voted with enthusiasm for the Fugitive Slave Law. When Northern legislatures invoked *their* states rights against this federal law, the Supreme Court with its majority of Southern justices reaffirmed the supremacy of national law to protect slavery (Ableman vs. Booth, 1859). Many observers in the 1850s would have predicted that if a rebellion in the name of states rights were to erupt, it would be the North that would rebel.

The presidential election of 1860 changed that equation. Without a single electoral vote from the South, Lincoln won the presidency on a platform of restricting the future expansion of slavery."

This Mighty Scourge - Perspectives on the Civil War" by James M. McPherson

[homersapien 12,172]

The states had several problems in its quest to retain state sovereignty on the issue. There were many comprimises that had to be reached throughout the duration of slavery beginning with the founding. It is believed that the 3/5ths compromise, and ESPECIALLY the compromise that banned the slave trade after 1808 were comprimises that could've squashed slavery in the butt right then. However, the south felt that the government was trying to encroach on their commercial interests, leaving the south to question the constitutionality of the the federal government.

"Federal power was fine as long as they controlled it." Yeah, that doesn't contradict anything though. If the south was controlling the federal government then there should've been harmony between the two. I wouldn't say that the south controlled the federal government either.

Yep...a good leader would have met with each governor of the key southern states (VA, GA, SC) and would have found a way to resolve this short of killing 750k of the nations citizens thru war, disease and civilian casualties.

It was the South that seceded rather than attempting to "resolve it". It was the South that determined the preservation of slavery was worth secession.

Apparently, there was no way of resolving it - at least from the Confederate perspective.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

Yep, "states rights" my ass. They cared about one "states' right" - the right to own other people as slaves to enrich themselves.

[homersapien 12,172]

States rights and slavery do not have to be mutually exclusive. The federal government and states have battled it out many times on the "states rights" battleground ever since the founding. Slavery, segregation, Roe V Wade, etc are just a few of the cases where states dug deep to defend their beliefs. The slavery issue no different than Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade was an abortions issue; however, as long as the states continue to fight the federal government for state rights such as legalizing abortion restrictions and waiting lists, the whole case is a state rights fight as well. So no, technically, if somebody wants to proclaim the civil war was caused by states rights, they are not wrong and I'll never suggest otherwise.

Similarly, if somebody wants to suggest that WW1 was started by a single assassination, I won't claim the person wrong, as the assassination was clearly the SPARK at a time when war was already inevitable.

I really don't understand your point, but the Confederate states supported "states rights" for the purpose of preserving and expanding the institution of slavery.

[homersapien 12,172]

The states had several problems in its quest to retain state sovereignty on the issue. There were many comprimises that had to be reached throughout the duration of slavery beginning with the founding. It is believed that the 3/5ths compromise, and ESPECIALLY the compromise that banned the slave trade after 1808 were comprimises that could've squashed slavery in the butt right then. However, the south felt that the government was trying to encroach on their commercial interests, leaving the south to question the constitutionality of the the federal government.

"Federal power was fine as long as they controlled it." Yeah, that doesn't contradict anything though. If the south was controlling the federal government then there should've been harmony between the two. I wouldn't say that the south controlled the federal government either.

See post # 35 for my response.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Yep, "states rights" my ass. They cared about one "states' right" - the right to own other people as slaves to enrich themselves.

the south felt their way of commerce was being trampled on by the majority of the other states. Slavery being the institution at the center and the driving force of its commerce. To say states rights wasn't an issue is idiotic. Equally idiotic, thinking the civil war was fought ONLY because of slavery.

[Mims44 1,969]

Yep, "states rights" my ass. They cared about one "states' right" - the right to own other people as slaves to enrich themselves.

On the surface states rights and slavery both adequately show the reason, the states right of course being the right to own slaves.

What's turned most people off to the use of "States rights" as an answer (you too I'm sure) is the reason most people will say states rights instead of slavery is to either evade the slavery issue altogether or to at least downplay it out of some sense of southern guilt.

It's the same as saying wealth & power caused the Civil War, or more accurately the threat of losing that wealth & power caused secession. but since the wealth and power were both built on slave labor, slavery is still the reason.

Unless someone is doing an academic study based on wealth & power to secession fervor or trying to incite new thought into an old thought process, there isn't much reason to say one instead of the other except to deflect.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Yep, "states rights" my ass. They cared about one "states' right" - the right to own other people as slaves to enrich themselves.

On the surface states rights and slavery both adequately show the reason, the states right of course being the right to own slaves.

What's turned most people off to the use of "States rights" as an answer (you too I'm sure) is the reason most people will say states rights instead of slavery is to either evade the slavery issue altogether or to at least downplay it out of some sense of southern guilt.

It's the same as saying wealth & power caused the Civil War, or more accurately the threat of losing that wealth & power caused secession. but since the wealth and power were both built on slave labor, slavery is still the reason.

Unless someone is doing an academic study based on wealth & power to secession fervor or trying to incite new thought into an old thought process, there isn't much reason to say one instead of the other except to deflect.

The threat of losing their wealth didn't even cause the secession. Many wealthy slaveowners( and remember the resources were highly consecrated) didn't even want to secede from the union. They felt their wealth was safe only in the union. The threat of adding more free states to the union, allowing an overwhelming majority against the south was the reason the south chose to secede... after they exhausted all legal possibilities possible.

Nobody is trying to evade the issue either. We can have a discussion like grown men and discuss things in a reasonable manner. The slaveowners made morally bankrupt choices but I'm arguing that they believed they had the right to make those choices.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

Yep, "states rights" my ass. They cared about one "states' right" - the right to own other people as slaves to enrich themselves.

the south felt their way of commerce was being trampled on by the majority of the other states. Slavery being the institution at the center and the driving force of its commerce. To say states rights wasn't an issue is idiotic. Equally idiotic, thinking the civil war was fought ONLY because of slavery.

It's not idiotic. "States rights", as homer pointed out, was a hypocritical euphemism for "keeping slavery." There were numerous other instances where they were more than happy to trample on the sovereignty rights of Northern states through federal power to - again - preserve slavery.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Yep, "states rights" my ass. They cared about one "states' right" - the right to own other people as slaves to enrich themselves.

the south felt their way of commerce was being trampled on by the majority of the other states. Slavery being the institution at the center and the driving force of its commerce. To say states rights wasn't an issue is idiotic. Equally idiotic, thinking the civil war was fought ONLY because of slavery.

It's not idiotic. "States rights", as homer pointed out, was a hypocritical euphemism for "keeping slavery." There were numerous other instances where they were more than happy to trample on the sovereignty rights of Northern states through federal power to - again - preserve slavery.

Point out the instances where they were more than willing to trample on the northern states rights. It was nothing more than a power struggle between both.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

Yep, "states rights" my ass. They cared about one "states' right" - the right to own other people as slaves to enrich themselves.

the south felt their way of commerce was being trampled on by the majority of the other states. Slavery being the institution at the center and the driving force of its commerce. To say states rights wasn't an issue is idiotic. Equally idiotic, thinking the civil war was fought ONLY because of slavery.

It's not idiotic. "States rights", as homer pointed out, was a hypocritical euphemism for "keeping slavery." There were numerous other instances where they were more than happy to trample on the sovereignty rights of Northern states through federal power to - again - preserve slavery.

Point out the instances where they were more than willing to trample on the northern states rights. It was nothing more than a power struggle between both.

From homer's earlier post:

"States rights, or sovereignty, was always more a means than an end, an instrument to achieve a certain goal more than a principle. In the antebellum South, the purpose of asserting state sovereignty was to protect slavery from the potential hostility of a national majority against Southern interests - mainly slavery.

But even so, state sovereignty was a fallback position. A more powerful instrument to protect slavery was control of the national government.

Until 1861 Southern politicians did this remarkably well. They used that control to defend slavery from all kinds of threats and perceived threats.

They overrode the rights of Northern states that passed personal liberty laws to protect black people from kidnapping by agents who claimed them as fugitive slaves.

During forty-nine of the seventy-two years from 1789 to 1861, the presidents of the United States were Southerners - all of them slaveholders. The only presidents to be reelected were slaveholders. Two-thirds of the Speakers of the House, chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee, and presidents pro temp of the Senate were Southerners. This domination constituted what antislavery Republicans called the Slave Power and sometimes, more darkly, the Slave Power Conspiracy.

Southern politicians did not use this national power to buttress state's rights; quite the contrary.

In the 1830s Congress imposed a gag rule to stifle antislavery petitions from Northern states. The Post Office banned antislavery literature from the mail if it was sent to Southern states. In 1850 Southerners in Congress plus a handful of Northern allies enacted a Fugitive Slave Law that was the strongest manifestation of *national* power thus far in American history. In the name of protecting the rights of slaveholders, it extended the long arm of federal law, enforced by marshals and the army, into Northern states to recover escaped slaves and return them to their owners.

Senator Jefferson Davis, who later insisted the the Confederacy fought for the principle of state sovereignty, voted with enthusiasm for the Fugitive Slave Law.

When Northern legislatures invoked *their* states rights against this federal law, the Supreme Court with its majority of Southern justices reaffirmed the supremacy of national law to protect slavery (Ableman vs. Booth, 1859). Many observers in the 1850s would have predicted that if a rebellion in the name of states rights were to erupt, it would be the North that would rebel.

The presidential election of 1860 changed that equation. Without a single electoral vote from the South, Lincoln won the presidency on a platform of restricting the future expansion of slavery."

This Mighty Scourge - Perspectives on the Civil War

" by James M. McPherson

The South was in favor of "states' rights" on to the degree that it furthered their main end of preserving slavery and thus enriching themselves. When slavery needed protecting from Northern states asserting their own "states' rights", then states' rights were conveniently cast aside in favor of broad federal power to interfere in the affairs of Northern states.

[aujeff11 6,243]

So because the south held power in Congress, the rights of the north were trampled on? Did you study the Dred Scott Case or the judge that ruled on the Dred Scott case? The judge was from Maryland. A slaveholding UNION state.

[aujeff11 6,243]

http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/southernside.htm

Here is a pretty good LONG read.

Just a small excerpt with many citations to boot. Forgive me if I don't apologize for the south exploiting the North..LMAO

The high tariff in the North compelled the Southern states to pay tribute to the North, either in taxes to fatten Republican coffers or in the inflated prices that had to be paid for Northern goods. Besides being unfair, this violated the uniformity command of the Constitution by having the South pay an undue proportion of the national revenue, which was expended more in the North than in the South. . . . (When In the Course of Human Events, p. 26)

Economist Frank Taussig, one of the foremost authorities on the tariff, acknowledged that the tariff fell “with particular weight” on the South:

The Southern members, who were almost to a man supporters of Jackson, were opposed unconditionally not only to an increase of duties, but to the high range which the tariff had already reached. They were convinced, and in the main justly convinced, that the taxes levied by the tariff fell with particular weight on the slave States. . . . (The Tariff History of the United States, New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1910, p. 54, emphasis added)

Steven Weisman, in his study of the role that taxation has played in American history, notes that Northern economic exploitation of the South, particularly in the form of the tariff, was a major concern to Southerners:

The tariff would effectively raise prices on clothing, farm equipment and many other everyday necessities. Farmers in the South . . . squeezed by these high prices and struggling to sell their own farm products abroad, protested the high tariff. . . .

These were some of the factors that thrust Lincoln to the threshold of the most violent and transforming presidency in American history. . . .

South Carolina went first. The state’s grievances had been long-standing and not simply focused on slavery. Its major complaint went to the heart of the nation’s finances–tariffs. A generation earlier, South Carolina had provoked a states’ rights crisis over its doctrine that states could "nullify" or override, the national tariff system. The nullification fight in 1832 was actually a tax revolt. It pitted the state’s spokesman, Vice President John C. Calhoun, against President Andrew Jackson. Because tariffs rewarded manufacturers but punished farmers with higher prices on everything they needed–clothing, farm equipment and even essential food products like salt and meats–Calhoun argued that the tariff system was discriminatory and unconstitutional. Calhoun’s anti-tariff battle was a rebellion against a system seen throughout the South as protecting the producers of the North. . . .

The new [Confederate] president, Jefferson Davis, had been a hero of the Mexican War, a former Secretary of War to President Franklin Pierce, and a respected champion of the South as senator from Mississippi. He was a vigorous exponent of the view that the war was, at its core, not a fight to preserve slavery but a struggle to overthrow an exploitative economic system headquartered in the North.

There was a great deal of evidence to support Davis’s view of the South as the nation’s stepchild. . . . The South had to import two-thirds of its clothing and manufactured goods from outside the region, and southerners paid artificially high prices because of the high tariffs. The South even had to import food. . . .

From the perspective of the South, the North’s economy rested on a kind of state capitalism of trade barriers, government-sponsored railroads, coddling of trusts, suppression of labor and public investment in canals, roads and other infrastructures. Southern slave owners sought . . . to secure free trade, overseas markets and cheaper imports. Southern resentment of the tariff system propelled the Democratic Party to define itself as the main challenger to the primacy of the industrialist and capitalist overlords of the system. (The Great Tax Wars: Lincoln to Wilson--The Fierce Battles Over Money and Power that Transformed the Nation, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002, pp. 21-22, 52)

Weisman notes that even when New York merchants initially issued a resolution of support for the South’s right to leave in peace, Southerners suspected that the merchants’ support was based on their desire to maintain a commercial relationship that exploited the South:

As South Carolina and other states seceded, New York’s merchants issued a resolution of solidarity with the South and the right of its states to break away. . . . Southerners were cynical about the support, knowing that it derived from a commercial relationship that primarily benefited New York and exploited the South. (The Great Tax Wars, p. 76)

Weisman also points out that the Confederate Constitution’s prohibition against protective tariffs and government favoritism toward particular businesses was based on the South’s desire to avoid the Union practice of favoring certain industries. Under the Confederate Constitution, says Weisman,

State legislatures were given the right to overrule . . . [officials of the national Confederate government] on certain issues, and taxes and tariffs “designed to promote or foster any branch of industry” were barred, as were public expenditures to benefit a particular section of the populace. These clauses were a residue of the South’s desire to avoid the Union practice of showering largesse on certain industries. (The Great Tax Wars, p. 65)

Jeffrey R. Hummel, a professor of economics and history, notes the negative impact of the tariff on the Southern states and concedes that Southern complaints about the tariff were justified:

Despite a steady decline in import duties, tariffs fell disproportionately on Southerners, reducing their income from cotton production by at least 10 percent just before the Civil War. . . .

At least with respect to the tariff’s adverse impact, Southerners were not only absolutely correct but displayed a sophisticated understanding of economics. . . . The tariff was inefficient; it not only redistributed wealth from farmers and planters to manufacturers and laborers but overall made the country poorer. (Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War, Chicago: Open Court, 1996, pp. 39-40, 73)

Economists Mark Thornton and Robert Ekelund explain why the tariff was such an important issue to the South:

The South was basically an agrarian economy. This input-producing region’s major crops were tobacco, rice, and cotton, with much of the latter intended for export or for the textile mills of the North. Southerners had to earn their revenue to buy finished goods from the North and from abroad through the export of raw materials. Since tariffs on finished goods, such as textiles and luxuries, and on capital goods, such as machinery, raised the prices paid by Southerners, they believed correctly that the “terms of trade” were set against them by high protectionist tariffs. Thus, from the earliest days of the nation, the tariff issue was paramount to Southerners. (Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War, Wilmington, Delaware: Scholarly Resources Inc., 2004, p. 16)

Civil War scholar Webb Garrison, a former associate dean of Emory University, discusses the South’s long-standing problem with the tariff, the history of the tariff, and the fact that most Southerners believed their cost of living would go down if the South were independent:

Long before Charlestonians began taking over forts, the U.S. Customs Service and the tariff system had angered the South. Tariffs on imported goods served to protect the industrialized North and boosted the cost of manufactured goods in the agricultural South.

Such sectional differences had surfaced while the United States was still in its infancy. Congress had imposed an 8 percent tariff on imports in 1789, but by 1816 the rate had jumped to 25 percent and continued to rise. A ceiling was reached in 1828 when the so-called tariff of abominations boosted the cost of imported goods 45 percent. . . .

When the seceded states merged to form the Confederate States of America, most of the southern population believed their cost of living would decline because tariffs would no longer be collected. (Lincoln’s Little War, Nashville, Tennessee: Rutledge Hill Press, 1997, p. 27)

Historians William and Bruce Catton summarized the economic case that Southern leaders put forth in favor of secession:

On the economic front, long-standing Southern grievances against Northern financial and commercial exploitation, Northern high-tariff policies, Northern monopoly of the coastwise trade, and similar items, were contrasted to the bright future that awaited an independent South, secure and prosperous on a foundation of cotton, free trade, and an inexhaustible European market with no Northern middlemen to siphon off the profits. (Two Roads to Sumter: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, and the March to Civil War, Edison, New Jersey: Castle Books, 2004, reprint of original edition, p. 251)

[TitanTiger 21,064]

So because the south held power in Congress, the rights of the north were trampled on?

No, read the portions I highlighted. Focus on the fact that they had zero problem ditching "states' rights." The means by which they had the power to do it is just a footnote. The South asserted federal power over states rights when it suited them. They railroaded the rights of Northern states to handle issues related to slavery within their borders themselves.

Did you study the Dred Scott Case or the judge that ruled on the Dred Scott case? The judge was from Maryland. A slaveholding UNION state.

Relevance to the issue being discussed? The issue is whether the South truly believed in states' rights or whether it was merely a convenient euphemism for upholding slavery. I think the record of their actions when they had federal power at their disposal shows that what they really were about was preserving slavery for their own economic benefit. If a states' rights argument would further that end in one situation, then they were all about states' rights. But if a raw power grab by the federal government, denying Northern and non-slavery states their "rights" would further that end, then states' rights be damned - all hail the mighty federal government!

[aujeff11 6,243]

So because the south held power in Congress, the rights of the north were trampled on?

No, read the portions I highlighted. Focus on the fact that they had zero problem ditching "states' rights." The means by which they had the power to do it is just a footnote. The South asserted federal power over states rights when it suited them. They railroaded the rights of Northern states to handle issues related to slavery within their borders themselves.

Did you study the Dred Scott Case or the judge that ruled on the Dred Scott case? The judge was from Maryland. A slaveholding UNION state.

Relevance to the issue being discussed? The issue is whether the South truly believed in states' rights or whether it was merely a convenient euphemism for upholding slavery. I think the record of their actions when they had federal power at their disposal shows that what they really were about was preserving slavery for their own economic benefit. If a states' rights argument would further that end in one situation, then they were all about states' rights. But if a raw power grab by the federal government, denying Northern and non-slavery states their "rights" would further that end, then states' rights be damned - all hail the mighty federal government!

Dred Scott is highly relevant to the fugitive laws. Be more clear on how the south denied the north their rights? Because a national law dictated that states couldn't harbor fugitive slaves?

[TitanTiger 21,064]

The primary and most egregious way was through the Fugitive Slave Laws. Even if this were the only means, it is laughable to assert a philosophy of states rights, then to use the federal government to override the laws of Northern states. Who the judge was is simply not relevant to the fact that the South easily and quickly ditched their supposed belief in states' rights when it suited them.

They overrode the rights of Northern states that passed personal liberty laws to protect black people from kidnapping by agents who claimed them as fugitive slaves...

...In 1850 Southerners in Congress plus a handful of Northern allies enacted a Fugitive Slave Law that was the strongest manifestation of *national* power thus far in American history. In the name of protecting the rights of slaveholders, it extended the long arm of federal law, enforced by marshals and the army, into Northern states to recover escaped slaves and return them to their owners.

Did Northern states not have their right as sovereign states to treat any human being within their borders as persons and not property? If one truly believes in states' rights, this is a completely untenable position to take. A consistent states' rights belief would say that while Southern states have the right to continue with the institution of slavery within their borders, if a slave escapes and makes it to a Northern state, that Northern state is under no obligation to be subject to a Southern state's laws.

But of course, that's not what happened. Because the South was never a true believer in states' rights. They were believers in whatever helped them maintain the status quo on slavery.

In the 1830s Congress imposed a gag rule to stifle antislavery petitions from Northern states.

Asserting the power of the federal government to prevent discussion or debate.

The Post Office banned antislavery literature from the mail if it was sent to Southern states.

Again, the federal government was used to stifle dissent on slavery. Rather than use their "states rights" to deal with any anti-slavery literature on their end, they simply banned Northern citizens and organizations from mailing it to the South in the first place.