Was the civil war constitutional

[unionblue]

Tom, I cannot say for sure if Lincoln knew about these judgments of the court, but I am of the opinion that this idea that the Federal government was supreme and the States were subordinate was generally known by most of the statesmen and politicians of the time.

For instance, I found a rather interesting document titled, "Southerners Against Secession: The Arguments of The Constitutional Unionists in 1850-51, by James L. Huston.

In this document are numerous quotes by leading Southern politicians and citizens on the folly of secession. The author of the article compared statements of these Southern gentlemen to Lincoln's later statements on the same subjects. Example:

SOUTHERN UNIONIST, 1850-51
"No government could be supposed to contain a provision for, or to sanction as a right, its own destruction." (Tusaloosa, Ala., Independent Monitor, July 17, 1851.

LINCOLN, 1861
"The Union of these states is prepetual...It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination." (First Inaugural)

SOUTHERN UNIONIST, 1850-51
Secession "asserts the principle that the minority have the right to force the majority. There can be no government where such a principle is recognized." (Judge Garnet Andrews, Macon Georgia Journal & Messenger, Oct. 2, 1850.)

LINCOLN, 1861
"If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease."

SOUTHERN UNIONIST, 1850-51
"If the doctrine of 'peaceable secession' is recognized, and the false pride or unreasonable whims of a State are deemed sufficient reasons for its exercise, no year would pass without some one of the States throwing the whole machinery of government into a score of weak but hostile communities." (Independent Monitor, May 1, 1851.)

LINCOLN, 1861
If secession were allowed, then "why may not any portion of a new confederacy, a year or two hence, arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to seceded from it."

SOUTHERN UNIONIST, 1850-51
Southerners have a natural right to revolution but not a constitutional right of secession. (Letter of Howell Cobb, Lynchburg Virginian, Aug. 28, 1851.)

LINCOLN, 1861
The people "can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember, or overthrow it."

These are only a few examples I have found in this paper but just wanted to let you see how close some in the South and Lincoln were on the same track.

Until that time...

[blackirish]

The south fired on a fort that was being held, by their lights, by a foreign power. Is this any different than the men forming on the green at Lexington to take on foreign soldiers in red-coats? Or any different than men taking and trying to hold two old missions in Texas against what they considered was a foreign country invading their soil?

By their lights??? Maybe so, but by ALL legal sources and by their own admission the Forts belonged to the Federal Government and by ALL legal understandings (see the other posts on this subject) the Federal Government had the right to maintain men in these garrisons.
Is it any different? No. All were REVOLUTIONS to overthrow the existing government. The only difference is that the Southern States thought that they had a LEGAL right under the existing government to do so. The other two peoples in your example entertained no such ideas.

Bill, I can find no reference to the US Supreme Court hearing any case that would relate to secession pre- or post-WSI (War for Southern Independence) except the Dred Scot case.

Actually, there are more than one that occurred after the war. See Below:
State of Texas v. White 1868
From the opinion of the court:

It is needless to discuss, at length, the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause, regarded by herself as sufficient, is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [74 U.S. 700, 725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

The argument that the States somehow reserved the right to secede because the Constitution did not specifically grant the Federal Government the right to keep them from doing so borders on the ridiculous. Under that argument the States could logically assassinate any president they didn't like because the Constitution does not specifically rule out this possibility either.
The right to secede at will is the very essence of anarchy. Why would any state ever agree to resolutions passed by other states that they didn't like? This is the very type of thinking that forced the Constitutional Convention in the first place. The Articles of Confederation were an abject failure as a governing document for this very reason. That is why the Constitution was written and ratified. The members of the Convention that formed the Constitution were very explicit on this point.

blackirish

[blackirish]

Just a few quotes from the founding fathers pertinent to whether they considered secession legal.

"This quotation is the last sentence of No. 58 of the
"Federalist Papers" by James Madison

...the baneful practice of secessions, a practice which
has shown itself even in States where a majority only is required; a practice subversive of all the principles of order and regular government; a practice which leads more directly to public convulsions and the ruin of popular governments than any other which has yet been displayed among us."

George Washington on secession:

"I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several states. To be fearful of vesting Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me to be the very climax of popular
absurdity and madness."
George Washington to John Jay, 15 August 1786

"Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure." -- James Madison letter to Nicholas Trist, 15 Feb 1830.

The following is from the Debates on the Constitution in North Carolina:

"Mr. DAVIE. ... Now, sir, I think it must be clear to every candid mind, that no part of this government can be continued after the state governments lose their existence, or even their present forms. It may also be easily proved that all federal governments possess an inherent weakness, which continually tends to their destruction. It is to be lamented that all governments of a federal nature have been short-lived.
Such was the fate of the Achæan league, the Amphictyonic council, and other ancient confederacies; and this opinion is confirmed by the uniform testimony of all history. There are instances in Europe of confederacies subsisting a considerable time; but their duration must be attributed to circumstances exterior to their government. The Germanic confederacy would not exist a moment, were it not for fear of the surrounding powers, and the interest of the emperor. The history of this confederacy is but a series of factions, dissensions, bloodshed, and civil war. The confederacies of the Swiss, and United Netherlands, would long ago have been destroyed, from their imbecility, had it not been for the fear, and even the policy, of the bordering nations. It is impossible to construct such a government in such a manner as to give it any probable longevity. But, sir, there is an excellent principle in this proposed plan of federal government, which none of these confederacies had, and to the want of which, in a great measure, their imperfections may be justly attributed--I mean the principle of representation. I hope that, by the agency of this principle, if it be not immortal, it will at least be long-lived. I thought it necessary to say this much to detect the futility of that unwarrantable suggestion, that we are to be Swallowed up by a great consolidated government. Every part of this federal government is dependent on the constitution of the state legislatures for its existence. The whole, sir, can never swallow up its parts. The gentleman from Edenton (Mr. Iredell) has pointed out the reasons of giving this control over elections to Congress, the principal of which was, to prevent a dissolution of the government by designing states. If all the states were equally possessed of absolute power over their elections, without any control of Congress, danger might justly apprehended where one state possesses as much territory as four or five others; and some of them, being thinly peopled now, will daily become more numerous and formidable. Without this control in Congress, those large states might successfully combine to destroy the general government. It was therefore necessary to control any combination of this kind.

Another principal reason was, that it would operate, in favor of the people, against the ambitious designs of the federal Senate. I will illustrate this by matter of fact. The history of the little state of Rhode Island is well known. An abandoned faction have seized on the reins of government, and frequently refused to have any representation in Congress. If Congress had the power of making the law of elections operate throughout the United States, no state could withdraw itself from the national councils, without the consent of a majority of the members of Congress. Had this been the case, that trifling state would not have withheld its representation. What once happened may happen again; and it was necessary to give Congress this power, to keep the government in full operation. This being a federal government, and involving the interests of several states, and some acts requiring the assent of more than a majority, they ought to be able to keep their representation full. It would have been a solecism, to have a government without any means of self-preservation. The Confederation is the only instance of a government without such means, and is a nerveless system, as inadequate to every purpose of government as it is to the security of the liberties of the people of America. When the councils of America have this power over elections, they can, in spite of any faction in any particular state, give the people a representation."

Later on in the same debates: "Gov. JOHNSTON. Mr. Chairman, I knew that many gentlemen in this Convention were not perfectly satisfied with every article of this Constitution; but I did not expect that so many would object to this clause. The Constitution must be the supreme law of the land; otherwise, it would be in the power of any one state to counteract the other states, and withdraw itself from the Union. The laws made in pursuance thereof by Congress ought to be the supreme law of the land; otherwise, anyone state might repeal the laws of the Union at large. Without this clause, the whole Constitution would be a piece of blank paper. Every treaty should be the supreme law of the land; without this, any one state might involve the whole Union in war. The worthy member who was last up has started an objection which I cannot answer. I do not know a word in the English language so good as the word pursuance, to express the idea meant and intended by the Constitution. Can any one understand the sentence any other way than this? When Congress makes a law in virtue of their constitutional authority, it will be an actual law. I do not know a more expressive or a better way of representing the idea by words. Every law consistent with the Constitution will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation or law repugnant to it cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void. I am at a loss to know what he means by saying the laws of the Union will be unalterable. Are laws as immutable as constitutions? Can any thing be more absurd than assimilating the one to the other? The idea is not warranted by the Constitution, nor consistent with reason.

"It has been so often said as to be generally believed that Congress has no power ... to enforce anything; for example, contributions of money. It was not necessary to give them that power expressly; they have it by law of nature. When two parties make a compact, there results to each a power of compelling the other to execute it."
Thomas Jefferson, 1787

"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 free to combat it."
Thomas Jefferson, March 4, 1801

In his famous letter to John Holmes dated April 22, 1820, Jefferson wrote: "But this momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed, indeed, for the moment. But this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper. I can say, with conscious truth, that there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would to relieve us from this heavy reproach, in any practicable way. The cession of that kind of property, for so it is misnamed, is a bagatelle which would not cost me a second thought, if, in that way, a general emancipation and expatriation could be effected; and gradually, and with due sacrifices, I think it might be. But as it is, we have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other. Of one thing I am certain, that as the passage of slaves from one State to another, would not make a slave of a single human being who would not be so without it, so their diffusion over a greater surface would make them individually happier, and proportionally facilitate the accomplishment of their emancipation, by dividing the burthen on a greater number of coadjutors. An abstinence too, from this act of power, would remove the jealousy excited by the undertaking of Congress to regulate the condition of the different descriptions of men composing a State. This certainly is the exclusive right of every State, which nothing in the constitution has taken from them and given to the General Government. ...

"I regret that I am now to die in the belief, that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire self-government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I live not to weep over it. If they would but dispassionately weigh the blessings they will throw away, against an abstract principle more likely to be effected by union than by scission, they would pause before they would perpetrate this act of suicide on themselves, and of treason against the hopes of the world. To yourself, as the faithful advocate of the Union, I tender the offering of my high esteem and respect."

"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged." -- James Madison, letter to Daniel Webster 15 Mar 1833.

"It might have been added, that whilst the Constitution, therefore, is admitted to be in force, its operation, in every respect must be precisely the same, whether its authority be derived from that of the people, in the one or the other of the modes, in question; the authority being equally Competent in both; and that, without an annulment of the Constitution itself its supremacy must be submitted to." James Madison, letter to Daniel Webster, 15 Mar 1833.

"A fundamental error lies in supposing the State Governments to be the parties to the Constitutional compact from which the Govt. of the U. S. results." James Madison, Outline, September, 1829.

"Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure." James Madison, letter to Nicholas Trist, 15 Feb 1830.

"A political system which does not contain an effective provision for a peaceable decision of all controversies arising within itself, would be a Govt. in name only. Such a provision is obviously essential; and it is equally obvious that it cannot be either peaceable or effective by making every part an authoritative umpire. The final appeal in such cases must be to the authority of the whole, not to that of the parts separately and independently. This was the view taken of the subject, whilst the Constitution was under the consideration of the people. It was this view of it which dictated the clause declaring that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. should be the supreme law of the Land, anything in the constn or laws of any of the States to the contrary notwithstanding." James Madison, Notes on Nullification, 1835-36.

"It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences. Lastly, it would facilitate and foster the baneful practice of secessions; a practice which has shown itself even in States where a majority only is required; a practice subversive of all the principles of order and regular government; a practice which leads more directly to public convulsions, and the ruin of popular governments, than any other which has yet been displayed among us." James Madison, The Federalist #58.

Thomas Jefferson said, "I can scarcely contemplate a more incalculable evil than the breaking of the Union into two or more parts." [Jefferson to George Washington, 23 May, 1792]

The Federalist No. 22 said it was a "gross heresy" to maintain there was such a right. That same document also said, "No nation acquainted with the nature of our political association would be unwise enough to enter into stipulations with the United States, by which they conceded privileges of any importance to them, while they were apprised that the engagements on the part of the Union might at any moment be violated by its members."

In his Farewell Address, George Washington said, "The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts."

blackirish

[blackirish]

: "Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation. This penalty, whatever it may be, can only be inflicted in two ways: by the agency of the courts and ministers of justice, or by military force; by the COERCION of the magistracy, or by the COERCION of arms. The first kind can evidently apply only to men; the last kind must of necessity, be employed against bodies politic, or communities, or States. It is evident that there is no process of a court by which the observance of the laws can, in the last resort, be enforced. Sentences may be denounced against them for violations of their duty; but these sentences can only be carried into execution by the sword. In an association where the general authority is confined to the collective bodies of the communities, that compose it, every breach of the laws must involve a state of war; and military execution must become the only instrument of civil obedience. Such a state of things can certainly not deserve the name of government, nor would any prudent man choose to commit his happiness to it." [The Federalist #15]

"It has not a little contributed to the infirmities of the existing federal system, that it never had a ratification by the PEOPLE [emphasis in original]. Resting on no better foundation than the consent of the several legislatures, it has been exposed to frequent and intricate questions concerning the validity of its powers, and has, in some instances, given birth to the enormous doctrine of a right of legislative repeal. Owing its ratification to the law of a State, it has been contended that the same authority might repeal the law by which it was ratified. HOWEVER GROSS A HERESY IT MAY BE TO MAINTAIN THAT A PARTY TO A COMPACT HAS A RIGHT TO REVOKE THAT COMPACT [my emphasis], the doctrine itself has had respectable advocates. The possibility of a question of this nature proves the necessity of laying the foundations of our national government deeper than in the mere sanction of delegated authority. The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE [emphasis in original]. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority." [The Federalist #22]

"A political system which does not contain an effective provision for a peaceable decision of all controversies arising within itself, would be a Govt. in name only. Such a provision is obviously essential; and it is equally obvious that it cannot be either peaceable or effective by making every part an authoritative umpire. The final appeal in such cases must be to the authority of the whole, not to that of the parts separately and independently. This was the view taken of the subject, whilst the Constitution was under the consideration of the people. It was this view of it which dictated the clause declaring that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. should be the supreme law of the Land, anything in the constn or laws of any of the States to the contrary notwithstanding." [James Madison, Notes on Nullification]

"It was generally agreed that the objects of the Union could not be secured by any system founded on the principle of a confederation of sovereign States. A voluntary observance of the federal law by all the members, could never be hoped for. A compulsive one could evidently never be reduced to practice, and if it could, involved equal calamities to the innocent & the guilty, the necessity of a military force both obnoxious & dangerous, and in general, a scene resembling much more a civil war, than the administration of a regular Government.

"Hence was embraced the alternative of a Government which instead of operating, on the States, should operate without their intervention on the individuals composing them; and hence the change in the principle and proportion of representation.

"The second object, the due partition of power, between the General & local Governments, was perhaps of all, the most nice and difficult. A few contended for an entire abolition of the States; some for indefinite power of Legislation in the Congress, with a negative on the laws of the States: some for such a power without a negative: some for a limited power of legislation, with such a negative: the majority finally for a limited power without the negative. The question with regard to the Negative underwent repeated discussions, and was finally rejected by a bare majority. As I formerly intimated to you my opinion in favor of this ingredient, I will take this occasion of explaining myself on the subject. Such a check on the States appears to me necessary 1. to prevent encroachments on the General authority. 2. to prevent instability and injustice in the legislation of the States.

"1. Without such a check in the whole over the parts, our system involves the evil of imperia in imperio. If a compleat supremacy some where is not necessary in every Society, a controuling power at least is so, by which the general authority may be defended against encroachments of the subordinate authorities, and by which the latter may be restrained from encroachments on each other.

"2. A constitutional negative on the laws of the States seems equally necessary to secure individuals agst. encroachments on their rights. The mutability of the laws of the States is found to be a serious evil. The injustice of them has been so frequent and so flagrant as to alarm the most stedfast friends of Republicanism. I am persuaded I do not err in saying that the evils issuing from these sources contributed more to that uneasiness which produced the Convention, and prepared the public mind for a general reform, than those which accrued to our national character and interest from the inadequacy of the Confederation to its immediate objects. A reform therefore which does not make provision for private rights, must be materially defective. The restraints agst. paper emissions, and violations of contracts are not sufficient. Supposing them to be effectual as far as they go, they are short of the mark. Injustice may be effected by such an infinitude of legislative expedients, that where the disposition exists it can only be controuled by some provision which reaches all cases whatsoever. The partial provision made, supposes the disposition which will evade it." [James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 24 Oct 1787]

"What stronger evidence can be given of the want of energy in our government
than these disorders? If there exists not a power to check them, what
security has a man of life, liberty, or property? To you, I am sure I need
not add aught on this subject, the consequences of a lax or inefficient
government, are too obvious to be dwelt on. Thirteen sovereignties pulling
against each other, and all tugging at the federal head, will soon bring
ruin to the whole; whereas a liberal, and energetic Constitution, well
guarded and closely watched, to prevent encroachments, might restore us to
that degree of respectability and consequence, to which we had a fair claim,
and the brightest prospect of attaining..."

George Washington to James Madison November 5, 1786

"I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged
somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a
manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the
several states. To be fearful of vesting Congress, constituted as that body
is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me to be the
very climax of popular absurdity and madness."

George Washington to John Jay, 15 August 1786

blackirish

[unionblue]

Rick, I am constantly amazed, impressed and humbled by the depth and power of your research. Thank you for taking the time to put your efforts up on this board. It has definitely been an education for me and a pure joy to obtain more information on a subject so interesting to me. Thanks again.

Doesn't all this information say that the South was in a state of self-delusion when they thought they could secede from the Union? I completely understand the difference of a revolution, such as occurred in America from England and Texas from Mexico. Those folks did not claim any legal means of separating from their mother country.

But as for the South, it was just as Ben Wade of Ohio said in the Senate, December 8, 1860, "I acknowledge, to the fullest extent, the right of revolution, if you may call it a right, and the destruction of the Government under which we live, if we are discontented with it, and on its ruins to erect another more in accordance with our wishes. I believe nobody at this day denies the right; but they that undertake it undertake it with this hazard; if they are successful, then all is right, and they are heroes; if they are defeated, they are rebels."

Sadly, this is exactly what happened to the South.
Unionblue

[blackirish]

Unionblue,
I agree completely; and by the way, a most hearty welcome. I hope you enjoy the forum. I enjoy the exchange of ideas on this board immensely and have a tremendous amount of respect for the civil manner in which it is conducted by all concerned. ALL are to be congratulated.

best regards,
blackirish

Wow....do I disagree with most everything..but is my opinion that the South not only had the Right but it had the moral obligation to seperate from the Union. The thing bothers me is how blind everyone is to the fact the North had in fact been waging economic warfare upon the South for almost 30 years... How is it that is forgotten? Is that the act and attitude of Union? Of country? unity? brotherhood? No, it was blatant antagonistic "Yankee Business Sense" ..How else could the South have felt? Just my humble opinion...btw, Is there such a thing? As a Humble Opinion?

[mobile_96]

Mental_Nomad,
First off, yes,... to me there is such a thing as Humble Opinion. I consider the thought to mean unpretentious. You have an opinion based on everything you've read or heard, but....are also willing to listen to and Consider others opinions 'and' presented facts. And this is all IMHO.(And if you join anyother discussion groups you will see this quite often, in several variations.)
Secondly, could you go into detail on the
"economic warfare upon the South for almost 30 years"
Also, if they had the Right to separate, why didn't they take it to the supreme court and to try and prove their right.
And if you have any documentation that you based your opinion on, would love to hear what they are. Most in the group enjoy, nay, Love to read more on topics being discussed. We don't always manage to change other peoples opinions, but with this group, have found them at least willing to read and mull over new ideas and original source material.
Thanks in advance,
Chuck in Il.

In 1828 Congress passed a high tariff act which favored the industrial north. Another tariff was passed in 1832, even though
the tariff act of 1832 was slightly easier than the tariff of 1828. South Carolina declared the tariff of 1828 and 1832 null and void. The state threatened to secede, or leave the Union if the government tried to collect duties.

On December 10,1832 Jackson ordered troops and warships to be sent to Charleston. He felt that the action by South Carolina to refuse to pay the tariff of 1928 was treason. "The Force bill" he rammed through Congress allowed him use the armed forces to collect tariffs. To prevent use of federal troops against South Carolina, Senator Henry Clay passed through a compromise tariff bill that would be in effect for ten years.

South Carolina immediately called a convention that passed a law of nullification forbidding a collection of tariff duties in the state. Nullification was a political doctrine holding that a state might reject or nullify any federal law that it was considered unconstitutional. The idea of nullification influenced southern political thought about states rights and helped clear the way for secession at the time of the Civil War. The rise of states' rights theory in the South was made especially strong due to the rise on the importance of cotton in the South's economy during the early 1800s. Nullification was justified in the 1830s when southerners charged the Tariff Act not was only discriminative in term but was thought of as being unconstitutional.

The former Vice-President John C. Calhoun put it this way:

"The North had adopted a system of revenue and disbursements in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed upon the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North the South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue."

In March 1861, the New York Evening Post editorialized on this point:

That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop.

Given the serious financial difficulties the Union would face if the Southern states were a separate republic on its border engaging in duty-free trade with Britain, the Post urged the Union to hold on to its custom houses in the Southern ports and have them continue to collect duty. The Post goes on to say that incoming ships to the "rebel states" that try to evade the North's custom houses should be considered as carrying contraband and be intercepted.

Observers in Britain looked beyond the rhetoric of "preserve the Union" and saw what was really at stake. Charles Dickens views on the subject were typical:

Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.

Karl Marx seconded this view:

The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty.

The South fought the war for essentially the same reason that the American colonies fought the Revolutionary War. The central grievance of the American colonies in the 18th century was the taxes imposed on them by Britain. Colonists particularly objected to the Stamp Act, which required them to purchase an official British stamp and place it on all documents in order for them to be valid. The colonists also objected to the import tariff that Britain placed on sugar and other goods (the Sugar Act).

After the enactment of what was called the "Tariff of Abomination" in 1828, promoted by Henry Clay, the tax on imports ranged between 20-30%. It rose further in March 1861 when Lincoln, at the start of his presidency, signed the Morrill Tariff into law. This tax was far more onerous than the one forced on the American colonies by Britain in the 18th century.

It should also be mentioned that Federal subsidies for railroads and canals were almost exclusively expended in the North. Immediately prior to 1860 the Messabi Iron Ore was starting to be shipped to the city of Pittsburg, PA and its nascent steel mills. It was also an open question in early 1861 about the possible secession of New York and New Jersey over the tarrif issue.

If that isn't economic warfare I don't know what is.

[mobile_96]

IIRC, the Nullification bill was suppended on Jan 11, 1833, the tarrif was reduced in amount over several years, eventually going back down to the about half the difference in the pre 1828 rates and the new rate, by means of the Verplank bill.
What is not generally acknowledged is that Jackson was an ardent fan of tarrif reform, but
also felt that Nullification must be put down at any cost. From what I've read, I think there was more involved in the Nullification crisis than just the tarrifs. IMHO.
The real interesting thing is, only South Carolina was involved, with the rest of the southern states actually wanting nothing to do with South Carolina's bill.
By the way, for me to learn more what book/books did you source for your answer.
And if you look around you can find a thread already on the topic of nullification.