The Civil War Wasn't About Slavery- Walter Williams

[heavenlyboy34]

I am aware of where this is from. I suggested you read it in context since you seem to think Jefferson is advocating the ability to dissolve the Union with it. What I asked was if you would tell me the source of this statement you made: "In fact, when the issue of secession came up during his presidency, he wished the secessionists well (instead of trying to force them into the union as the tyrant Lincoln did later)." Have a source for this?

I didn't suggest that Jefferson advocated that seceding states could dissolve the union. EVER.

The Jefferson quote I refer to is in Jefferson's farewell address (posted previously). If you don't believe me, look up that speech for yourself.

 

[burt]

I didn't suggest that Jefferson advocated that seceding states could dissolve the union. EVER.

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." Jefferson

The Jefferson quote I refer to is in Jefferson's farewell address (posted previously). If you don't believe me, look up that speech for yourself.

"In fact, when the issue of secession came up during his presidency, he wished the secessionists well (instead of trying to force them into the union as the tyrant Lincoln did later).​

The above statement you posted is what I have been asking you for a source. It is not from Jefferson's farewell speech.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." Jefferson

"In fact, when the issue of secession came up during his presidency, he wished the secessionists well (instead of trying to force them into the union as the tyrant Lincoln did later).​

The above statement you posted is what I have been asking you for a source. It is not from Jefferson's farewell speech.

That's because I didn't quote him (except for the underlined above)-I wrote a narrative summary. If you want a quote, you'll have to read the speech. BTW, I should have said inaugural speech instead of farewell speech (excuse my typo). It's here- http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/inaugural/inrevdraft.html

 

[burt]

That's because I didn't quote him (except for the underlined above)-I wrote a narrative summary. If you want a quote, you'll have to read the speech. BTW, I should have said inaugural speech instead of farewell speech (excuse my typo). It's here- http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/inaugural/inrevdraft.html

Forget the quote you used from Jefferson's inaugural speech. I know where it is from....I suggested to you that you read it in context. I had asked if you thought Jefferson was advocating secession with it and you answered yes. He was not. You have embraced a quote that has undoubtedly been supplied to you by DiLorenzo which at first glance looks like it might fit your purpose. It does not. I suggest again....read it carefully in context of the inaugural speech.

But once again.....for about the fourth time.....the statement you made about Jefferson, during his presidency wishing secessionists well....what is your source for this? It sounds to me like something out of the Lew Rockwell/Tom DiLorenzo revision factory.

 

[acptulsa]

Bleeding Kansas was not instigated by John Brown. His attack at Pottawatomie was a response to previous attacks against Free Soilers. Learn your own history.

....and yes, slavery ripped the gash in the Titanic's hull.

Fail.

You're intelligent enough to address an analogy. Do it.

If slavery wasn't the issue it was so very much the catalyst that the war wouldn't have started but for the abolitionist movement. Address this or duck it.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Forget the quote you used from Jefferson's inaugural speech. I know where it is from....I suggested to you that you read it in context. I had asked if you thought Jefferson was advocating secession with it and you answered yes. He was not. You have embraced a quote that has undoubtedly been supplied to you by DiLorenzo which at first glance looks like it might fit your purpose. It does not. I suggest again....read it carefully in context of the inaugural speech.

But once again.....for about the fourth time.....the statement you made about Jefferson, during his presidency wishing secessionists well....what is your source for this? It sounds to me like something out of the Lew Rockwell/Tom DiLorenzo revision factory.

I already gave you my source, and I'm not repeating myself. (I am not repeating anyone-I came to these conclusions myself just by reading Jefferson) If you aren't asking me for the source I mentioned, what are you asking? Even in context, the quote I gave you stands. It means what I say it means. How much more context to you want?

 

[burt]

Fail.

You're intelligent enough to address an analogy. Do it.

I'm not interested in addressing an analogy with the Titanic.

If slavery wasn't the issue it was so very much the catalyst that the war wouldn't have started but for the abolitionist movement. Address this or duck it.

I have been very much claiming that slavery WAS the issue that caused secession and the zeal for war. Either I am confused about what you are asking, or you have me confused with someone else.

 

[burt]

I already gave you my source, and I'm not repeating myself.

Okay. You say the following statement you made (your "narrative summary") -

"In fact, when the issue of secession came up during his presidency, he wished the secessionists well (instead of trying to force them into the union as the tyrant Lincoln did later).​

is not from DiLorenzo, but is what you concluded from Jefferson's 1st inaugural speech. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Can you explain to me how Jefferson could have been speaking of an "issue of secession" that "came up during his presidency" where he "wished the secessionists well"......how did he comment on that in an inaugural address that was given at the very start of his presidency?

I'm thinking it came from places like this:

The Official, Politically-Correct Cause of the 'Civil War'
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

"Indeed, when Jefferson was asked what would happen if New England seceded, he said in a letter that New Englanders, like all other Americans "would all be our children" and he would wish them all well." http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo206.html


Tom DiLorenzo on Secession:
' As Thomas Jefferson said late in life, if the country becomes several different republics, “they will all be our children.” He meant that they would all still be Americans, and he wished them all well.' http://dumpdc.wordpress.com/2010/05/22/tom-dilorenzo-on-secession/


As an example of why DiLorenzo is considered a joke by honest Civil War historians, I offer this:

"It should not be forgotten that Fort Sumter was, after all, a customs house where federal authorities collected tariffs and fees that interfered with southern commerce."
Thomas J DiLorenzo​

.....completely false.

 

[Aratus]

http://wn.com/Background_of_the_Reconstruction_Period_clip someone compiled several videos

 

[burt]

An excerpt from an 1863 speech by Richard Cobden, the "Apostle of Free Trade"

"...But I will tell you candidly, that if it was not for one cause, I should consider as hopeless and useless the attempt to subjugate the Southern States; and I will tell the parties upon whose views I have been commenting, that it is the object and purpose which they have that has rendered success by the Secessionists absolutely impossible. Indeed, if the moral and intellectual faculties of this country had not been misled upon that question, systematically misled, they would have been unanimous and of one opinion. We were told in the House of Commons by one, whom it was almost incredible to behold and think of saying so—who was once the great champion of democracy and of the rights and privileges of the unsophisticated millions,—we heard him say—I heard him say myself—that this civil war was originated because the South wished to establish Free-trade principles, and the North would not allow it. I have travelled—and it is for this that I am now going to mention, that I touch upon the subject at all—I travelled in the United States in 1859, the year before the fatal shot was fired at Fort Sumter, which has made such terrible reverberations since. I travelled in the United States—I visited Washington during the session of the Congress, and wherever I go, and whenever I travel abroad, whether it be in France, America, Austria, or Russia, I at once become the centre of all those who form and who avow strong convictions and purposes in reference to Free-trade principles. Well, I confess to you what I confessed to my friends when I returned, that I felt disappointed, when I was at Washington in the spring of 1859, that there was so little interest felt on the Free-trade question. There was no party formed, no public agitation; there was no discussion whatever upon the subject of Free Trade and protection. The political field was wholly occupied by one question, and that question was Slavery."​

http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Cobden/cbdSPP38.html

 

[burt]

Richard Cobden......cont.

Now, I will mention an illustrative fact, which I have not seen referred to. To my mind, it is conclusive on this subject. In December, 1860, whilst Congress was sitting, and when the country was in the agony of suspense, fearing the impending rupture amongst them, a committee of their body, comprising thirty-three members, being one representative from every State then in the Union,—that committee, called the Committee of Thirty-three, sat from December 11th, 1860, to January 14th, 1861. They were instructed by Congress to inquire into the perilous state of the Union, and try to devise some means by which the catastrophe of a secession could be averted. Here is a report of the proceedings in that committee [holding up a book in his hand]. I am afraid there is not another report in this country. I have reason to know so. There are forty pages. I have read every line. The members from the Southern States, the representatives of the Slave States, were invited by the representatives of the Free States to state candidly and frankly what were the terms they required, in order that they might continue peaceable in the Union; but in every page you see their propositions brought forward, and from beginning to end there is not one syllable said about tariff or taxation. From the beginning to end there is not a grievance alleged but that which was connected with the maintenance of slavery. There were propositions calling on the North to give increased security for the maintenance of that institution; they are invited to extend the area of slavery; to make laws, by which fugitive slaves might be given up; they are pressed to make treaties with foreign Powers, by which foreign Powers might give up fugitive slaves; but, from beginning to end, no grievance is mentioned except connected with slavery,—it is slavery, slavery, slavery, from the beginning to the end. Is it not astonishing, in the face of facts like these, that any one should have the temerity, so little regard to decency and self-respect, as to get up in the House of Commons, and say that secession has been upon a question of Free Trade and Protection?​

http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Cobden/cbdSPP38.html

 

[burt]

An excerpt from:

Another Court Historian’s False Tariff History

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

"The most egregious falsehood spread by Loewen is to say that the tariff that was in existence in 1860 was the 1857 tariff rate, which was in fact the lowest tariff rate of the entire nineteenth century. In his famous Tariff History of the United States economist Frank Taussig called the 1857 tariff the high water mark of free trade during that century. The Big Lie here is that Loewen makes no mention at all of the fact that the notorious Morrill Tariff, which more than doubled the average tariff rate (from 15% to 32.6% initially), was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives during the 1859–60 session of Congress, and was the cornerstone of the Republican Party’s economic policy....... The Morrill Tariff therefore represented a more than doubling of the rate of federal taxation!"​

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo199.html

Throughout 1860, the 1857 tariff rate..... and only the 1857 tariff rate was in effect. DiLorenzo calls this plain fact a "most egregious falsehood." There was a tariff bill (Morrill) that had passed in the House of Representatives in May of 1860, but does DiLorenzo mean to assert that that makes it law? Even he must concede that the bill still needed to get through the Democrat controlled Senate and be signed by Buchanan before it could replace the 1857 tariff. And even he must concede that the South had the votes to kill the bill.

And what DiLorenzo fails to mention is that the original Morrill tariff, the tariff act of 1861 was not responsible for that rate of 32.6%, or as he claims in other articles, "soon to be 47%." It went into effect on April 1, 1861, and less than two weeks later, Ft Sumter was attacked. The only period in which duties were collected under the 1861 Morrill tariff was the 4th quarter of FY 1861. DiLorenzo relies heavily on Taussig, so lets see what Taussig actually had to say.

from Frank Taussig - Tariff History of the United States p. 139

"Hardly had the Morrill tariff act been passed when Fort Sumter was fired on. The Civil War began. The need of additional revenue for carrying on the great struggle was immediately felt; and as early as the extra session of the summer of 1861, additional customs duties were imposed. In the next regular session, in December, 1861, a still further increase of duties was made. From that time till 1865 no session, indeed, hardly a month of any session, passed in which some increase of duties on imports was not made.
During the four years of the war every resource was strained for carrying on the great struggle."​

http://mises.org/books/tariff_history_taussig.pdf

Actually, the average rate of duties (ratio of Duties Collected to Dutiable Imports) as listed in the Statistical Abstract found on page 345 of Tariff Historyshows 32.6% as being the rate for FY 1863. In FY 1861, in which the original Morrill tariff was collected for essentially one quarter, the average rate actually dropped to 18.84% from FY 1860 19.67%. DiLorenzo, in his writings tries to make the case that the Morrill tariff that had been passed in the House in 1860 months before the election, and then not in the Senate until after the first wave of secession was the main cause of secession. But it should be evident here that the (Morrill) tariff act of 1861 did not cause the rate increases he writes of. They were caused by later wartime tariff increases.

Taussig - Tariff History of the United States p. 144-145

"Such were the conditions under which the tariff act of 1864 was passed. As in 1862, three causes were at work: in the first place, the urgent need of revenue for the war; in the next, the wish to offset the internal taxes imposed on domestic producers; and finally, the protectionist leanings of those who managed our financial legislation. These causes made possible a tariff act which in ordinary times would have been summarily rejected. It raised duties greatly and indiscriminately,—so much so, that the average rate on dutiable commodities, which had been 37.2 per cent. under the act of 1862, became 47.06 per cent. under that of 1864."​

 

[Aratus]

http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/forum/detail/1845

http://www.youtube.com/user/ncvotered#p/u/7/0g4PZU4XNvs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGQeEKeBkZ8

 

[burt]

Fulton Anderson was commissioned by the State of Mississippi to convince Virginia to join her sister slave states in secession. Here is a small excerpt from his speech:

Speech of Fulton Anderson to the Virginia Convention

"This action of the Convention of Mississippi, gentlemen of the Convention, was the inevitable result of the position which she, with other slaveholding States, had already taken, in view of the anticipated result of the recent Presidential election, and must have been foreseen by every intelligent observer of the progress of events.

As early as the 10th of February, 1860, her Legislature had, with the general approbation of her people, adopted the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the election of a President of the United States by the votes of one section of the Union only, on the ground that there exists an irrepressible conflict between the two sections in reference to their respective systems of labor and with an avowed purpose of hostility to the institution of slavery, as it prevails in the Southern States, and as recognized in the compact of Union, would so threaten a destruction of the ends for which the Constitution was formed, as to justify the slaveholding States in taking council together for their separate protection and safety."

This was the ground taken, gentlemen, not only by Mississippi, but by other slaveholding States, in view of the then threatened purpose, of a party founded upon the idea of unrelenting and eternal hostility to the institution of slavery, to take possession of the power of the Government and use it to our destruction. It cannot, therefore, be pretended that the Northern people did not have ample warning of the disastrous and fatal consequences that would follow the success of that party in the election, and impartial history will emblazon it to future generations, that it was their folly, their recklessness and their ambition, not ours, which shattered into pieces this great confederated Government, and destroyed this great temple of constitutional liberty which their ancestors and ours erected, in the hope that their descendants might together worship beneath its roof as long as time should last.

But, in defiance of the warning thus given and of the evidences accumulated from a thousand other sources, that the Southern people would never submit to the degradation implied in the result of such an election, that sectional party, bounded by a geographical line which excluded it from the possibility of obtaining a single electoral vote in the Southern States, avowing for its sentiment implacable hatred to us, and for its policy the destruction of our institutions, and appealing to Northern prejudice, Northern passion, Northern ambition and Northern hatred of us, for success, thus practically disfranchizing the whole body of the Southern people, proceeded to the nomination of a candidate for the Presidency who, though not the most conspicuous personage in its ranks, was yet the truest representative of its destructive principles."​

http://civilwarcauses.org/anderson.htm

 

[burt]

by heavenlyboy34 - post #89

"If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." -from Jefferson's inaugural address

When I asked you if you thought Jefferson was advocating secession, you answered "He was." After I suggested to you that he indeed wasn't and that you should read it in context, you answered "Even in context, the quote I gave you stands. It means what I say it means."

Here is the origin of the statement you quoted from Jefferson as he first wrote it in his first draft -

"I do not believe there is one native citizen in the US. who wishes to dissolve this union. I am confident there are few native citizens who wish to change it’s republican features." ​

In part of his many revisions to that first draft of his inaugural speech, he then revised the sentence which stands as you quoted. Jefferson did not tinker and revise his speech, however, in order to take a 180 degree turn in his opinions. If you cannot decipher from his words in the final speech that he is not, in a speech given at the kickoff of his presidency, advocating a right of secession, then his prior sentence in his first draft should make it easier for you.

But once again, there is no substitute for reading the whole thing in context.

"Let us then, fellow citizens, unite with one heart and one mind, let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty, and even life itself, are but dreary things. And let us reflect that having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance, as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. During the throes and convulsions of the ancient world, during the agonising spasms of infuriated man, seeking through blood and slaughter his long lost liberty, it was not wonderful that the agitation of the billows should reach even this distant and peaceful shore; that this should be more felt and feared by some and less by others; and should divide opinions as to measures of safety; but every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all republicans: we are all federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it. I know indeed that some honest men fear that a republican government cannot be strong; that this government is not strong enough. But would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm, on the theoretic and visionary fear, that this government, the world’s best hope, may, by possibility, want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest government on earth. I believe it the only one, where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern."​

http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/inaugural/infinal.html

Jefferson was not, in of all things, his first inaugural address, advocating a right of secession - not in the sentence you quoted - nor anywhere else. You have been suckered in by the Rockwell/DiLorenzo bullshit factory. That kind of dishonesty on their part gives libertarians a bad name. And when Ron Paul subscribes to it, it makes him look foolish to all those who credibly study the history of the Civil War.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Just popped in to say that I don't care if Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln or any other politicians living or long since dead believe(d) I have a right to not acquiesce to a ruler. I do. And no 200 year old piece of paper changes that.

 

[burt]

Just popped in to say that I don't care if Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln or any other politicians living or long since dead believe(d) I have a right to not acquiesce to a ruler. I do. And no 200 year old piece of paper changes that.

Agreed. But that is the natural right of rebellion. It is that right that Jefferson referred to in the DOI. It is not a legal right of unilateral secession. To state that it is legal is to claim that it is found in the terms of the Constitution. It is not. The Constitution did explicitly include the means to address disputes over legalities, but the South chose instead to go the route of rebellion. An oligarchy of slaveholders, instead of trying it in the Supreme Court where they held a majority (and always had), chose to test it where most rebellions are tested - on the battlefield.

As for you personally, you may think that you, and you alone, can decide when you are being forced to "acquiesce to a ruler" and under the powers reserved you under the 10th Amendment, declare yourself a sovereign nation no longer bound under the terms of any US laws. Good luck with that.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Yes, I alone as a consequence of my God-given rights can decide that I am not required to obey the commands of some person or group of people who through whatever machinations declares themselves to be my ruler.

And yes, I fully understand what those people would do to me, if I did, and acted upon that declaration of sovereignty. Thus, the inherent immorality of the state.

 

[sratiug]

The North attacked the South, so Southern reasons for secession have nothing to do with the cause of the war. Lincoln, the invader, said the invasion had nothing to do with slavery.

 

[burt]

Yes, I alone as a consequence of my God-given rights can decide that I am not required to obey the commands of some person or group of people who through whatever machinations declares themselves to be my ruler.

I trust you are not trying to apply this philosophy as being in play by either side during the decades leading up to the Civil War. I suspect you would not have had anyone's ear.
What do you think of this excerpt of the 'Cornerstone Speech' given by Alex Stephens, the vice-president of the confederacy?

"The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."​

Apparently, if one believes that a god gives rights, he also then believes that the god of the Bible took them away from the negro with the curse of Ham. Personally, I don't think any god gave me my rights.