Did the South try to reconcile before Seceding?

From my "Confederate Handbook":

From There to Here:
In 1776 our Founding Fathers broke away from Tyranny and established a Democratic
Republic among a Confederation of States. These States assembled together UNITED in a cause; UNITED in their resolve; UNITED in their desire for liberty; but remained
independent and sovereign nevertheless. This is why the Declaration of Independence
and the Constitution of the United States both listed the whole of the States as the “united States of America”. Notice the little “u” in “united”. That is because the Founding Fathers believed in State Sovereignty, and they (aside from the plans of the
Hamiltonians) believed that the States should not be bound by a strong central
government.

Over the next 84 years, constant battle raged between the Anti-Federalists (Jeffersonians) and the Federalists (Hamiltonians), finally coming to a head in 1860 when the South seceded from the Federal Union. At the very moment the South seceded the North ceased to be the “united States of America”, a collection of Sovereign States; and instead became the “United States of America”, a single nation under a strong central government.

The Federal Union then invaded and militarily conquered the Confederate States of
America, conscripting her against her will as a part of the Federalist’s vision of America.To this day, the Federal Union has continued to grow unabated in its power and has stripped away the liberty of the individual, and the Sovereignty of the States.

It is the contention of “The Confederate Handbook” that the Confederate States of
America (CSA) is, and has been, a Sovereign Nation held in occupation by the Federal
Union of the United States of America. Furthermore, it is the contention of “The
Confederate Handbook” that the CSA is an extension of the country founded in 1776, and that the Federal Union of the United States of America has grown into what men like Thomas Jefferson fought to free themselves from.

Moving on from the pages of "The Confederate Handbook"...

Were there peaceful attempts to reconcile:
The answer is an unequivocal "YES". The South spent decades (or longer) trying to remain at peace in spite of the abuses of the North.

Fairly enough, I have been asked to give examples of peaceful attempts by the South to reconcile their differences with the North in order to avoid the need for secession.

In order to do this, I will have to go into a little history. Furthermore, I would like to reiterate the major areas of contention between the North and the South.

(Much of the following on the "points of contention" are from the Confederate Handbook)
Historical and Cultural Differences:

Those who settled in the North were primarily of English and Danish decent. Those that settled in the South were primarily of French, Scottish, and Irish decent. As you know, the English and the Danes had a long history of animosity with the French, the Scottish, and the Irish. That animosity continued during the settling of the United States.

The North has always been more “progressive” in terms of culture, while the South has always been more conservative.

There were, and still are, vast differences in cuisine, music, slang, etc.

Political and Philosophical Differences:

The North held a Federalists (Alexander Hamilton) view of government while the South held an Anti-federalist (Thomas Jefferson) view of government. The power of the Federal Beast was growing, much to the dismay of the South.

Religious Differences:

The North was primarily of a liberal theological belief; and Unitarianism thrived within the populace. The South was primarily of a conservative theological belief, and Unitarianism was primarily rejected.

The Economic Issues that Lead to Secession:

Here is where we get to the crux of what pushed the South over the edge; just like our forefathers in 1776.

There are a few facts you should know before we proceed in order for you to keep everything in perspective.

In 1861 the population of the North was about 20 million, while the population of the South was about 9 million.

The South had an agrarian economy which relied heavily on exports to Europe. The North, however, was heavily industrialized. Comparatively, the South only produced about 10% of all manufactured goods. Regardless of these facts, if the South of 1860 was assessed as its own Nation, it would have been the 4^th wealthiest Nation in the world with Southern exports accounting for over 70% of all exports from the United States up to the time of Secession.

Slavery:
Slavery was an important factor to the operations of large plantations. There had not yet been developed Tractors, Combines, and other machinery by which today's farms are run.

Though immoral, and to be quite honest, antithetical to Natural Law Theory (a topic best saved for another discussion), slavery was a very economically viable means by which large plantations could remain profitable and keep up with demand.

This is not to say that there was a Slave on every farm, because there wasn't. Only 6% to 9% of the population (including Black slave owners) owned slaves.

As the North began to industrialize, they began to sell their slaves to the South. As time progressed, much of the North then saw no real "need" for Slavery (Ironically though, the North used "sweatshop" employment tactics... moving from "Slavery" to "Indentured Servitude")

There are many myths, and a vast history about Slavery in the ENTIRE US... but that is for another discussion.

Tariffs:

Tariffs were in effect since the inception of the US Constitution of 1787; however they did not begin in earnest until after the War of 1812. The North had a “Protectionists” attitude when it came to tariffs which contradicted the South’s desire for “Free Trade”. With the South being the chief exporter of goods, high tariffs hurt them the most.

A tariff enacted in 1816 of 25 cent per yard of cheap cotton cloth (a major export of the South) was used to shelter New England mills from English competition by making Southern cotton so expensive to buy that it virtually removed it from the American marketplace.

The fierce opposition of New England shipping interests and Southern plantations led to the Tariff of 1828, called the “Tariff of Abominations”, which almost caused the South to secede at that time. The Tariff of 1828 forced the South to buy manufactured goods at inflated prices, while at the same time facing reduced income due to the loss of sale of raw goods.

In late 1832, South Carolina attempted a protest by enacting an Ordinance of Nullification stating that the States had a right to nullify a Federal law that the State found aberrant. The Order essentially made null the Tariffs imposed in 1828 and 1832.

President Andrew Jackson responded by sending seven naval vessels and a man-of-war to Charleston. He then issued a proclamation against the nullifiers stating they “stood on the brink of insurrection and treason”. President Jackson then appealed to the citizens to reassert their allegiance to the Union. Congress then passed a “Force Bill” authorizing the President to take whatever action he deemed fit to enforce the law.

The situation was defused in early 1833 by Senator Henry Clay (a protectionists and rival of Jackson’s, and who would serve as a mentor to Abraham Lincoln) who pushed through a compromise measure. The compromise stated that the Tariffs would be steadily reduced over the course of 10 years to the level of the 1816 Tariff.

The conflict in 1832 and 1833 showed the South that any attempts to avert economic tyranny would result in physical tyranny; however, it also showed the South that they did not have to put up with the Federal Government, which planted the seed of secession.

In 1857 the biggest of many “Panics” occurred when Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Co. collapsed due to embezzlement. On top of this event, there was a series of other setbacks, including British investors removing money from the US Banks, the fall of grain prices, Russia’s re-entry into the global markets after the Crimean War, the stockpiling of manufactured goods causing layoffs, and widespread railroad failures; all of which contributed to severe economic setbacks which primarily impacted the North.

In 1857 a new, lower tariff was put in place to allow the South better income, however, the North then instituted higher interest rates on the South; essentially burdening the South with the task of pulling the North from its economic problems. Tensions between the North and South began to increase dramatically.

By 1860, the South was paying 87% of all tariffs, 83% of federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen; as well as payments totaling $35 million to Northern shippers who had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports (keep in mind, the Federal Government controlled Trade). The South was essentially paying all of the bills.

In 1860, the final straw was placed on the camel’s back… the Republican Lincoln was elected President. Among the Republican platform was a call for higher tariffs; which was enacted as the Morris Tariff in 1861, signed by President Buchannan prior to Lincoln taking the oath of office.

The Morris Tariff was the highest tariff in US history, imposing a 50% duty on iron, 25% on clothing, with other rates averaging about 47%.

What did the South do to try and fix it?
Dating back as far as the birth of the US, the South has tried to work with the North from within "the system" to keep at peace.

In 1787 a Constitutional Convention was called (pushed primarily by Northern "Federalists") in order to "amend" the Articles of Confederation. However, a brand new document emerged.

The subject of Slavery was a hot-button issue from the days of the Declaration of Independence, and the Founders avoided, as best they could, the mention of it by name in official documents.

As the idea of representation began to be debated, the controversy arose in which the South wanted Slaves to be counted in the census as "people" so that representation in the Federal Government would reflect how many people actually resided in the South. The North rejected that idea as they believed that this would give the South too much power.

Eventually the 3/5ths Compromise took place in which everyone would count... except for slaves, who would only count as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of representation.

From the Constitution:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

"Other Persons", of course, meaning "Slaves".

Another compromise was the idea of Electing 2 Senators to represent the States, so that the States would be on equal footing, while allowing the House to reflect population (to which the North would prevail).

To further deal with the Slave issue, the South agreed to various "Compromises" in order to keep the balance of power "even" in the Federal Government.

Examples include the Compromise of 1850, and the Missouri Compromise... though most Southerners thought the Compromises were not particularly in their favor.

The South often believed the North would not abide by those compromises... and they were right.

For example:
In 1847 a vote was held on whether or not to continue to adhere to the line set in the "Missouri Compromise"... the entire South voted to adhere to the agreement, the entire North voted not to. The North Won.

Jefferson Davis, a Congressman at the time (in which the "Line" was being "nudged" Southward by the North) stated "Pacification had been the fruit borne by the tree, and it should not have been recklessly hewn down and cast in the fire."

Note: the "Line" was the geographical division through the "Louisiana Purchase" to prohibiting slavery north of 36 degrees 30 minutes (essentially, any State North of that line would come in as a "Free" State, South of that line would be a "Slave" State).

Northern control of the Federal Government allowed very divisive legislation to pass, such as the Kansas-Nebraska Act (which shattered the Missouri Compromise, and almost caused secession in 1854).

Note: Even after a compromise was struck regarding the admission of Kansas, the North managed to block (via the Congress) the entrance of Kansas as a slave state.

Note 2: The determination of the balance of "Free" and "Slave" States was important to the "balance" of power between North and South.

Note 3: Ironically, and little discussed, there was a Convention in Worcester, MA in 1857 to discuss the disunion of the US along the North/South border... essentially what happened after the South seceded. However, it was NORTHERNERS that called this Convention.

The South tried, in vain, to work out legislation and compromise in regards to the high Tariffs and unfair Trade practices, but the North held predominant control of the Federal Government blocking the South every chance they had.

(Think of it like a Democratically controlled Congress of today with the likes of Ron Paul trying to get things passed).

The Southern Congressmen and Senators attempted with all their might to avert sectional aggressions that were being legislated; however, the North maintained control.

Several political parties were formed, protests and petitions were filed, all in an attempt to get the North's foot off the South's throat. The last hope the South believed they had was the election of a friendly President.

With the election of Lincoln the final straw was laid, and the South seceded.

Immediately upon voting to secede, Mississippi sent word to their Senator, Jefferson Davis, that he was to vacate his seat in DC.

Upon getting word, Jefferson Davis immediately addressed the US Senate for the final time stating:

"I do think she [Mississippi] has justifiable cause, and I approve of her act. I conferred with her people before that act was taken, counseled them that if the state of things which they apprehended should exist when their convention met, they should take the action which they have now adopted.

I find in myself perhaps a type of the general feeling of my constituents toward yours. I am sure I feel no hostility toward you, Senators of the North. I am sure there is not one of you, whatever sharp discussion there may have been between us, to whom I cannot say in the presence of my God, I wish you well, and such I am sure is the feeling of the people whom I represent toward those whom you represent.

I carry with me no hostile remembrance. Whatever offense I have given which has not been redressed or for which satisfaction has not been demanded. I have, Senators, in this hour of our parting, to offer you my apology for any pain which in the heat of discussion I have inflicted.

I go hence unencumbered by the remembrance of any injury received, and having discharged the duty of making the only reparation in my power for any injury offered, Mr. President and Senators, having made the announcement which the occasion seemed to me to require, it only remains for me to bid you a final adieu."

Unfortunately, Lincoln had other ideas...

Thoughts on the "Libertarian Movement"

I have absolutely no problem with the definition and idea of "libertarian" and find that term a suitable label to describe an overall view that (in my opinion) is positive. In fact, I have even called myself a "conservative-libertarian (not to be confused with the party)" on many occasions. It is that "not to be confused with the party" part that is the kicker. You see, while I have no problem with the term "Libertarian"... I have a MAJOR problem with the Libertarian Party and, well, much of the "Libertarian Movement"... that is to say, I prefer to associate myself with a "Liberty Movement" instead.

You may be thinking... "isn't that the same thing?" The answer is an unequivocal "NO!!!"

The reason I say this is because there are many in the "Libertarian Movement" that have more in common with the "Libertarian Party" than "Liberty"... and NO, those two things are not the same either.

I'll jump right to some examples of why I say what I say... and then try and put it all together.

There are quite a few Libertarians that hold up Ayn Rand and her philosophies... below is a look at a few of Ayn Rand's thoughts on most "Libertarians" and "Anarchists"; and a few thoughts by one of her heirs. Though Ayn Rand is upheld by many Libertarians, the comments below, oddly enough, do not defend the "Libertarian Movement" but instead lead directly to my point.

"Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs." -- Ayn Rand

I personally put the viability of "Anarchy" on par with the existence of faeries, all you can eat diets, and unicorns... Furthermore, Anarchy is every bit as detrimental to Liberty as the most vile, corrupt, authoritarian dictator. Anarchy begets chaos, begets mob rule, begets fascism and the tyranny of the majority.

"...‘libertarian’ hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism" -- Ayn Rand, given as a reason why she did not join ideological movements or groups (such as the Libertarian Party).

"Libertarianism is a Perversion of Liberty" -- Peter Schwartz

"...the libertarian interprets liberty to mean the license to do whatever he feels like doing...to him, any obstacle in the path of people's whims is undesirable." -- Peter Schwartz

"IS LIBERTARIANISM AN EVIL DOCTRINE? Yes, if evil is the irrational and the destructive. Libertarianism belligerently rejects the very need for any justification for its belief in something called "liberty." It repudiates the need for any intellectual foundation to explain why "liberty" is desirable and what "liberty" means. Anyone from a gay-rights activist to a criminal counterfeiter to an overt anarchist can declare that he is merely asserting his "liberty"—and no Libertarian (even those who happen to disagree) can objectively refute his definition. Subjectivism, amoralism and anarchism are not merely present in certain "wings" of the Libertarian movement; they are integral to it. In the absence of any intellectual framework, the zealous advocacy of "liberty" can represent only the mindless quest to eliminate all restraints on human behavior—political, moral, metaphysical. And since reality is the fundamental "restraint" upon men's actions, it is nihilism—the desire to obliterate reality—that is the very essence of Libertarianism." -- Peter Schwartz

A good example of evil would be the Libertarian stance that murdering the unborn is fine as it is in keeping with a woman's freedom to do what she will with her body.

Another example is that gay marriage can be forced upon a society that overwhelmingly rejects it so as to pacify the "liberty" (i.e. militant activism) of the homosexual. Though few seem to consider the fact that legislative and judicial tyranny engaged to "liberate" someone is just as fascist as legislative and judicial tyranny used to enslave them. (I will elaborate more on this point in another essay)

Oftentimes some members of the "Libertarian Movement" confuse "Libertarian" with "Libertine"... they go beyond "tolerating" immoral actions, to embracing them. They do not seem to understand that just because someone "can" do something doesn't mean they "should" do it... or that you are not treading upon someone's liberty because you denounce or object to that which another has done. It is as if they believe shame, embarrassment, public scorn, or objection felt by one party somehow renders one or another incapable of being free. The ironic thing is... these "libertine libertarians" (keeping a straight face) claim they believe in "accountability".

On many issues (such as the ones listed above) elements of the 'Libertarian Movement" shows an almost complete lack of understanding of what liberty is, instead clinging to those things liberty is NOT, such as amorality, immorality, indifference, self-indulgence, selfishness, nihilism, and so on.

I am not saying that members of the "Libertarian Movement" are bad people... in fact, I am pretty confident that many of them are trying, as best they know how, to make a better world. However, the same can be said of some Marxists, Socialists, Communists, and yes... even Fascists. In other words, just because you have a good heart, and mean to do the right thing doesn't mean you are not inadvertently engaging in a social evil.

The "Libertarian Movement" (for the most part) lacks a great deal of rationality, with too wide a range of viewpoints (ranging from the Anarchist to the Liberal Statist), and is too focused on "me, me, me" to be able to step out of their self-imposed "fishbowl" long enough to see how much damage they are doing to themselves; and, in the long run, society.

If the "Libertarians" are not careful, soon the term "Libertarian" may no longer retain the meaning it was supposed to have, and will go the way of the term "Liberal"... a word that was synonymous with liberty which evolved into an ugly epithet.