| TaxJudas.com |
|---|
| The Rise of
American Civilization
Vol. II By Charles A. Beard, 1927. Quoted in: The Causes Of The American Civil War, Edited by Edwin C. Rozwenc, pages 98-119. Charles A. Beard explained the political desperation to demand— SLAVERY in the territories. “As the years passed, the planting leaders of Jefferson’s agricultural party insisted with mounting fervor that the opposition, first of the Whigs and then of the Republicans, was at bottom an association of interests formed for the purpose of plundering productive management and labor on the land.” “ Exclaimed Reuben Davis of Mississippi in 1860, (Northern interests are) ‘demanding legislative aid to enable it to enlarge its profits, . . .’ ‘ Those interests, having a common purpose of plunder, have united and combined to use the government as the instrument of their operation and have thus virtually converted it into a consolidated empire. Now this combined host of interests stands arrayed against the agricultural states; and this is the reason of the conflict which like an earthquake is shaking our political fabric to its foundation.’ The furor over slavery is a mere subterfuge to cover other purposes.” “ The fact that Free-soil advocates waged war only on slavery in the territories was to Jefferson Davis conclusive proof of an underlying conspiracy against agriculture. He professed more respect for the abolitionist than for the free-soiler. The former, he said, is dominated by an honest conviction that slavery is wrong everywhere and that all men ought to be free; the latter does not assail slavery in the states — he merely wishes to abolish it in the territories that are in due course to be admitted to the union.” “ With challenging directness, Davis turned upon his opponents in the Senate and charged them with using slavery as a blind to delude the unwary: ‘ What do you propose gentlemen of the “ It is that you may have a majority in the congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of northern aggrandizement. It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim. . . . You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states; and why? Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England states, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.’ ” “ Such in the mind of Jefferson Davis, fated to be president of the Confederacy, was the real purpose of the party which sought to prohibit slavery in the territories; that party did not declare slavery to be a moral disease calling for the severe remedy of the surgeon; it merely sought to keep bondage out of the new states as they came into the Union — with one fundamental aim in view, namely, to gain political ascendancy in the government of the United States and fasten upon the country an economic policy that meant the exploitation of the South for the benefit of northern capitalism. But the planters were after all fighting against the census returns, as the phrase of the day ran current.” William H. “ Seward knew from experience that a political party was no mere platonic society engaged in discussing abstractions.” “ This class of slaveholders, consisting of only three hundred and fortyseven thousand persons, . . . owned more than three million other ‘persons’ who were denied all civil and political rights, . . .” “ The slaveholding class has become the governing power in each of the slaveholding states and it practically chooses thirty of the sixty-two members of the Senate, ninety of the two hundred and thirty-three members of the House of Representatives, and one hundred and five of the two hundred and ninety-five electors of the President and Vice President of the United States.” “ Then he uttered those fateful words which startled conservative citizens from Maine to California — words of prophecy which proved to be brutally true — ‘ the irrepressable conflict.’ ” “ In uttering this indictment, this prophecy soon to be fulfilled with such appalling accuracy, Seward stepped beyond the bounds of cautious politics and read himself out of the little group of men who were eligible for the Republican nomination of 1860. Frantic efforts to soften his words by explanations and additions could not appease his critics.” “Given an irrepressable conflict which could be symbolized in such unmistakable patterns by competent interpreters of different factions, a transfer of the issues from the forum to the field, from the conciliation of diplomacy to the decision of arms was bound to come.” “ Those Democrats who operated on historic knowledge rather than on prophetic insight, . . . and counting upon the continued support of a huge array of farmers and mechanics marshaled behind the planters, imagined apparently that politics— viewed as the science of ballot enumeration— could resolve the problems of power raised by the maintenance of the Union.” “ General Winfield Scott, a hero of the Mexican war,” was the Whig presidential candidate for 1852. “ Democratic candidate, General Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire ” carried every state but four, receiving 254 out of 296 electoral votes.” “ In 1854, Congress defiantly repealed the Missouri Compromise and threw open to slavery the vast section of the Louisiana Purchase which had been closed to it by the covenant adopted more than three decades before. On the instant came a rush of slavery champions from Missouri into Kansas determined to bring it into the Southern sphere of influence. Not content with the conquest of the forbidden West, filibustering parties under pro slavery leaders attempted to seize Cuba and Nicaragua and three American ministers flung out to the world a flaming proclamation, known as the ‘Ostend Manifesto,’ which declared that the United States would be justified in wresting Cuba from Spain by force— acts of imperial aggression which even the Democratic administration in Washington felt constrained to repudiate.” “At the succeding election in 1856 they again swept the country— with James Buchanan of Pennsylvania as their candidate.” “ In the Dred Scott case decided in March, 1857, Chief Justice Taney declared in effect that the Missouri Compromise had been void from the beginning and that Congress had no power under the Constitution to prohibit slavery in the territories of the United States anywhere at any time. This legal triumph for the planting interest was followed in 1859 by another decision in which the Supreme Court upheld the fugitive slave law and all the drastic procedure provided for its enforcement. To the frightened abolitionists it seemed that only one more step was needed to make freedom unconstitutional throughout the country.” “ In 1857, the tariff was again reduced, betraying an unmistakable drift of the nation toward free trade. In support of this action, the representatives of the South and Southwest were almost unanimous and they gathered into their fold a large number of New England congressmen on condition that no material reductions should be made in duties on cotton goods.” “ Immediately after the new revenue law went into effect an industrial panic burst upon the country, spreading distress among business men and free laborers. While that tempest was running high, the paper money anarchy let loose by the Democrats reached the acme of virulence as the notes of wildcat banks flooded the West and South and financial institutions crashed in every direction, fifty “ The amazing acts of mastery— legislative, executive, judicial— committed by the federal government in the decade between 1850 and 1860 changed the whole political climate of America. They betrayed a growing consolidation in the planting group, its increased dominance in the Democratic party, and an evident determination to realize its economic interests and protect its labor system at all hazards. In a kind of doom, they seemed to mark the final supremacy of the political army which had swept into office with Andrew Jackson.” “ By the end of the period, the old farmer-labor party organized by Jackson had passed under the dominion of the planting interest and the farming wing of the North was confronted with the alternative of surrender or secession.” “ In this shift of power the Whigs of the South, discovering the tendencies of the popular balloting, moved steadily over into the Democratic camp. Though unavoidable, the transfer was painful; the planting Whigs, being rich and influential, had little affection for the white farmers who rallied around the Jacksonian banner. According to the estimate of a southern newspaper in 1850, the Whigs owned at least three-fourths of all the slaves in the country . . . Indeed to a southern gentleman of the old school the radical agrarianism of Andrew Johnson was probably more odious than the tariff schedules devised by Daniel Webster. It was said that one of them, when asked whether a gentleman could be a Democrat, snapped back the tart reply: ‘ Well, he is not apt to be; but if he is, he is in damned bad company.’ ” “Every shocking incident on the one side only consolidated the forces on the other. By 1860 leaders of the planting interest had worked out in great detail their economic and political scheme— their ultimatum to the serried opposition— and embodied it in many official documents.” “ Besides driving a wedge into the nation, the conditions laid down by the planters also split the Democratic party itself into two factions.” “ Soon after the Democratic convention assembled at Charleston in April, 1860, this fundamental division became manifest. The northern wing, while entirely willing to endorse the general economic program of the planters, absolutely refused to guarantee them sovereignty in the party and throughout the country. Rejecting the proposal of the southern members to make slavery obligatory in the territories, it would merely offer to ‘abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court on all questions of constitutional law.’ Since the Dred Scott case had opened all the territories to slavery, that tender seemed generous enough but the intransigent representatives of the planting interest would not accept it as adequate. Unable to overcome the majority commanded in the convention by the northern group, they withdrew from the assembly, spurning the pleas of their colleagues not to break up the union of hearts on ‘a mere theory’ and countering all arguments with a declaration of finality: ‘go your way and we will go ours.’ ” “ After balloting for a time on candidates without reaching a decision under the two-thirds rule, the remaining members of the Charleston conference adjourned to meet again at Baltimore. When they reassembled, they nominated Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois, the apostle of ‘squatter sovereignty,’ who was ready to open the territories to slavery but not to guarantee the planting interests unconditional supremacy in the Democratic party and the Union. Determined to pursue their separate course to the bitter end, the Charleston seceders adopted the platform rejected by the Douglas faction and chose as their candidate, John C. Breckenridge of Kentucky, . . .” “ During the confusion in the Democratic ranks, the Republicans, in high glee over the quarrels of the opposition, held their convention in Chicago— a sectional gathering except for representatives from five slave states. Among its delegates the spirit of opposition to slavery extension, which had inspired the party assembly four years before, was still evident but enthusiasm on that ticket subject was neutralized by the prudence of practical politicians who, sniffing victory in the air, had rushed to the new tent.” “ Advocates of a high protective tariff and friends of free homesteads for mechanics and farmers now mingled with the ardent opponents of slavery in the territories. With their minds fixed on the substance of things sought for, the partisans of caution were almost able to prevent the convention from indorsing the Declaration of Independence. Still they were in favor of restricting the area of slavery; they had no love for the institution and its spread helped to fasten the grip of the planting interest on the government at Washington. So the Republican convention went on record in favor of liberty for the territories; free homesteads for farmers, a protective tariff, and a Pacific railway. As the platform was read, the cheering became especially loud and prolongued when the homestead and tariff planks were reached. Such at least is the testimony of the stenographic report.” “ Since this declaration of principles was well fitted to work a union of forces, it was essential that the candidate should not divide them.” “ The available candidate was Abraham Lincoln of Illinois. Born in Kentucky, he was of southern origin. A son of poor frontier parents, self-educated, a pioneer who in his youth had labored in field and forest, he appealed to the voters of the backwoods. Still by an uncanny genius for practical affairs, he had forged his way to the front as a shrewd lawyer and politician.” “ On the slavery question Lincoln’s attitude was firm but conservative. He disliked slavery and frankly said so; yet he was not an abolitionist and he saw no way in which the institution could be uprooted. On the contrary he favored enforcing the fugitive slave law and he was not prepared to urge even the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.” “ Evidently Lincoln was the man of the hour: . . .” “ He sent word to his friends at Chicago that, althought he did not endorse Seward’s higher-law doctrine, he agreed with him on the irrepressible conflict. The next day Lincoln was nominated amid huzzas from ten thousand lusty throats.” “Able spokesmen from the South ” mapped out plans to clinch its grip and prevent a return to the Hamilton-Webster policy as the industrial North rapidly advanced in wealth and population . . .” “ Senate resolutions adopted on May “ The meaning of the ultimatum was not to be mistaken. It was a demand upon the majority of the people to surrender unconditionally for all time to the minority stockholders under the Constitution. Besides driving a wedge into the nation, the conditions laid down by the planters also split the Democratic party itself into two factions.” (page 118.) “ Merely by the accidents of climate, soil, and geography was it a sectional struggle. If the planting interest had been scattered evenly throughout the industrial region, had there been a horizontal rather than a perpendicular cleavage, the irrepressible conflict would have been resolved by other methods and been accompanied by other logical defense mechanisms.” The Ordeal of The Union By Allan Nevins, 1947. Quoted in: The Causes Of The American Civil War, Edited by Edwin C. Rozwenc, pages 200-217. Chapter VI. The Problem Of Synthesis clearly explains the difficulty and conflict to achieve consistent policy in the industrial North and agricultural states. Mr. Nevins provides more detail regarding the terse comments of Woodrow Wilson, in Division and Reunion. It is a seductive temptation to quote extensively from the extraordinary Book, cited above, by Edwin C. Rozwenc. You will deprive yourself, if you are content with my brief summary. I am grinding the axe of endorsing low tariff policy, which avoids Government corruption. The natural magnetism between Sheriff and Bootlegger, was an affliction of Thaddeus Stevens. Fernando Wood gave a speech to encourage Secession from the union! The Confederate States adopted a small, uniform import tariff (Art I. Sec. 8.). “ In the official explanations which one Southern State after another published for its secession, economic grievances are either omitted entirely or given minor position. There were few such supposed grievances which the agricultural states of Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota did not share with the South— and they never threatened to secede. Charles A. Beard finds the tap-root of the war in the resistance of the planter interest to Northern demands enlarging the old Hamilton-Webster policy. The South was adamant in standing for ‘no high protective tariffs, no ship subsidies, no national banking and currency system; in short, none of the measures which business enterprise deemed essential to its progress.’ ” The Pacific Railroad was advocated both by the Douglas Democrats and the Republicans; and it is noteworthy that (William) Seward and (Stephen) Douglas were for building both a Northern and a Southern line. In short, the divisive economic issues are easily esaggerated.” Henry J. Raymond was the editor of the New York Times. He wrote an analysis of the impending conflict in January, 1860. He wrote that the competition for political power was the immediate issue of the conflict. Alexander H. Stevens agreed with this opinion. “ The leading object seems to be simply, and wantonly, if you please, to put the institutions of nearly half of the states under the band of public opinion and national condemnation. This, upon general principles, is quite enough of itself to arouse a spirit not only of general indignation, but of revolt on the part of the proscribed.” Mr. Raymond provides an analogy of a political party, organized by the people of the Northern States, dedicated to preventing the extension of slavery “ into the common territories, even after the highest judicial tribunal of the land had decided they had no such constitutional power. And suppose that a party so organized should carry a presidential election.” Presidential Conventions of 1860. This excellent book by Mr. Rozwenc is copyright 1961, printed 1966, and has a July 25, 1968, date stamp of the Orange and White Book Store. This implies that a University Of Tennessee history professor recognized the quality of analysis, and encouraged students to enjoy learning. “Why go to Collage, when you can go to Perversity? ” ScoolDaze.com Two observations, and a reflection: First, I endured an economics course— “Oligopolies and Concentrated Industries,” which was a degenerate contrast, to the introductory course taught by Professor George A. Spiva. Second, Textbooks are created by Sadistic Pedagogues, most usually. This book is a pleasure to read— if you enjoy building your own understanding. My father observed the pervasive tendency of human nature to resist the intrusion of knowledge. Gerald W. Johnson is more entertaining. He worked with Henry L. Mencken at the Baltimore Sun. James W. Bellamy: He taught us a lesson in his American History class— Learning is a joy! Those who learned from history, desire John R. NEAL set the stage Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism. “Competition In Doctrine Nation. Scopes Trial. The Butler Act, Trial, ReTrial Petition, Decision of Supreme Court of Tennessee. This act “requires nothing to be taught.” “It prohibits merely.” “It is purely an act of neutrality.” No theory shall be taught “which denies that God is the Creator of man --” The First Acadamic Farmer. Friday, 4 May, 2007 Mike Huckabee said: He “can accept that others believe that they and their families come from apes.” Club FRED! For Bottom Fishers — Switch and Bait at VINBOB’s Bait Shop ! |