UnionBlue
I dont know what you have on your bookshelf, but anything that dealls in detail with Sumpter ought to contain refernces to the severall meetings in Cabinett, and the last one of these is where the of shore tarrif colection is discussed and adopted, BCF page 272 list further books that conatin these, although they are looking at motives and purposes of the supply to sumpter plans.
Then your unaware of content of the conventions on secesion, the tarif was certainly a strong motivation for secesion at them, tarif is mentioned in the causes of secesion docccuments and the reason for calling the secesion ordinaces in the first place, and was in some regions of states, the only motive for secesion, SC seceded over slavery, so it could adopt a Tariff more in keeping with its socio economic condition.
The wonder is not if you will have secesion, but which states will ally against others and over what, and when.
Secesion at will is in the public mind because Madison and Jeerson put it there in the first place.(It appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but . . . that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme
authority in each State -- the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution will not be a national but a federal act . . . Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. Madison)
The authority to grant Congress the constitional right to coerce compliance on any member of the state had been twice defeated in the PA debate, Madison voted to deny this right btw.
Secesion at will is Madisons biggest problem, after describbing that secesion is a atribute of being Sov it follows that it can be used at will by the Sov, Madison had spent 30 odd years expalining that to the public, but by 1836 had come to a different understanding, in his last work he adopts a different posistion, that nullification and secesion are not answers to the question.
Madison did not accept that nullifiocation over taxes was constitional, because every society requires taxes to function, the remedy was an easment of the effect of the tariffs, because while the tariff was uniform its effect was not and this had created the problem and required an easment, no one has the right to nullification over taxes, no one likes taxes but society cannot function without them is wher Madison is comming from, madison is not explaing no right of secesion or nullification only that a high tax is not suffiecent cause to excercise the right of secesion.
Another argument is to be found here, 1830, Senator Robert Y. Hayne, Carolina's champion in the famous Webster-Hayne Debate, sent Madison a copy of his speeches. Hayne obviously expected the author of the Virginia
Resolutions to endorse the doctrine of nullification. In response, Madison adopted totally different ground. He disapproved of the notion that a single state could nullify any statute which was not so oppressive as to absolve that state of all responsibility to the union. He added, "[T]he Constitution of the U.S. . . . must be its own interpreter according to its text and the facts of the case. The charter was that of one people and could not be negated but by the whole people."
He next stated that the supremacy clause governed the question; if that failed, impeachment might be tried, then amendment. Madison closed with the incongruous statement that the failure of all these remedies would entitle a state to resort to the law of self-preservation, but that that was a right the government need not respect.
Its in all the good acounts of the period, "Lincoln and the first shot" R Current, Adams " When in the Course of Human Events" MCpherson BCF page 263 refers to it, as do diarys of the key men in cabinett refer to the specifics of the paln, Welles, Blair etc. Firstly its what Lincoln promises to do in the inugrial, collect the taxes, ( 2 March 1861. Under this tariff, duties began at an average of 37%, compared to 10% in the CSA) to do this is deciced on the specifics in the cabinet meetings, and then it went to the AG who advised it was lawfull to collect the tariff on ships off shore, and then lincoln gave the order to do so to the navy.Union Blue said:
I dont know what you have on your bookshelf, but anything that dealls in detail with Sumpter ought to contain refernces to the severall meetings in Cabinett, and the last one of these is where the of shore tarrif colection is discussed and adopted, BCF page 272 list further books that conatin these, although they are looking at motives and purposes of the supply to sumpter plans.
Then your not familiar with Calhoun who saw that not enough states would secceded over the Triff question, and spent the rest of his life finding out what they would do over, and uniting enough on it, the answer was threats to slavery which would unite enough behind SC to make secesion viable, but the motive is a different tariff policy.Union Blue said:
Then your unaware of content of the conventions on secesion, the tarif was certainly a strong motivation for secesion at them, tarif is mentioned in the causes of secesion docccuments and the reason for calling the secesion ordinaces in the first place, and was in some regions of states, the only motive for secesion, SC seceded over slavery, so it could adopt a Tariff more in keeping with its socio economic condition.
The wonder is not if you will have secesion, but which states will ally against others and over what, and when.
Not applicable in the case at hand, the orders were not legal and not followed, because the chain of command was not lawfull. Your appying a good argument to an example that does not warrant that expalantion. See BCF page 268 for this specific instance.Union Blue said:
Odd how your post is fact free while noticing my facts are smoke instead. We can do better than that surely?.Union Blue said:
Lets see what they say, so private letters late in life, nothing from the Elliots where he expalins the right of secesion then, or even from the VA ratification and expalining the right to secceded during that as well.Union Blue said:
He starts with a reffernce to the Old Congress ie the AOC, in that compact the use of force as a right is an implied right by compact, which it was, but not so under the Constition.Union Blue said:
Secesion at will is in the public mind because Madison and Jeerson put it there in the first place.(It appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but . . . that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme
authority in each State -- the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution will not be a national but a federal act . . . Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. Madison)
The authority to grant Congress the constitional right to coerce compliance on any member of the state had been twice defeated in the PA debate, Madison voted to deny this right btw.
Secesion at will is Madisons biggest problem, after describbing that secesion is a atribute of being Sov it follows that it can be used at will by the Sov, Madison had spent 30 odd years expalining that to the public, but by 1836 had come to a different understanding, in his last work he adopts a different posistion, that nullification and secesion are not answers to the question.
Madison did not accept that nullifiocation over taxes was constitional, because every society requires taxes to function, the remedy was an easment of the effect of the tariffs, because while the tariff was uniform its effect was not and this had created the problem and required an easment, no one has the right to nullification over taxes, no one likes taxes but society cannot function without them is wher Madison is comming from, madison is not explaing no right of secesion or nullification only that a high tax is not suffiecent cause to excercise the right of secesion.
Another argument is to be found here, 1830, Senator Robert Y. Hayne, Carolina's champion in the famous Webster-Hayne Debate, sent Madison a copy of his speeches. Hayne obviously expected the author of the Virginia
Resolutions to endorse the doctrine of nullification. In response, Madison adopted totally different ground. He disapproved of the notion that a single state could nullify any statute which was not so oppressive as to absolve that state of all responsibility to the union. He added, "[T]he Constitution of the U.S. . . . must be its own interpreter according to its text and the facts of the case. The charter was that of one people and could not be negated but by the whole people."
He next stated that the supremacy clause governed the question; if that failed, impeachment might be tried, then amendment. Madison closed with the incongruous statement that the failure of all these remedies would entitle a state to resort to the law of self-preservation, but that that was a right the government need not respect.
Bringing the