Drag to reposition your photo

T Lee Horne III

Male. Lives in Pensacola, Florida, United States. Is single.

About Me

I retired when I turned 50 years old. I am working again at 72 years old.

I started back to work at A... View More

Liked Pages1

34 Likes

CSA II: The New Confederate States of America

Company, Organization, or Institution

T Lee Horne III

Report this User

Link

T Lee Horne III

May 8, 2026 8:03 am

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE SOUTHERN STATES Chet McAteer ·May 1, 2026 THE WAR WAS A SCAM: The Tariff, the Union, and the Cost of Coercion The path to the American Civil War was paved with m... View MoreTHE CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE SOUTHERN STATES Chet McAteer ·May 1, 2026 THE WAR WAS A SCAM: The Tariff, the Union, and the Cost of Coercion The path to the American Civil War was paved with more than the moral debates of the age; it was cemented by the hard, cold reality of trade and taxes. To the industrialists of the North and the editors who gave them voice, the Union was a financial entity that could not survive the departure of the South without risking the catastrophic collapse of its own economy. If the Southern States were permitted to secede, the fiscal architecture of the federal government, dependent as it was on Southern-generated customs, would have been effectively dismantled. Jefferson Davis’s foresight in his 1850 Senate speech remains one of the clearest Constitutional statements ever made in defense of the Rights of the States and the limits of federal power. In that address, Davis declared, “If I have a superstition, sir, which governs my mind and holds it captive, it is a superstitious reverence for the Union. If one can inherit a sentiment, I may be said to have inherited this from my revolutionary father. And if education can develop a sentiment in the heart and mind of man, surely mine must I shall never find my allegiance there and here in conflict.” He went on to warn that fidelity to constituents could never properly be treated as hostility to the Union, asking, “God forbid that the day should ever come when to be true to my constituents is to be hostile to the Union. If, sir, we have reached that hour in the progress of our institutions, it is past the age to which the Union should have lived.” His central fear was unmistakable: “If there is a dominant party in this Union which can deny to us equality, and the rights we derive through the Constitution; if we are no longer the freemen our fathers left us; if we are to be crushed by the power of an unrestrained majority, this is not the Union for which the blood of the Revolution was shed; this is not the Union I was taught from my cradle to revere; this is not the Union in the service of which a large portion of my life has been passed; this is not the Union for which our fathers pledged their property, their lives, and sacred honor.” Davis therefore concluded, “No, sir, this would be a central Government, raised on the destruction of all the principles of the Constitution, and the first, the highest obligation of every man who has sworn to support that Constitution would be resistance to such usurpation. This is my position.” The War Between the States did not arise from a simple or single cause, and it is a mistake to compress a complex Constitutional, economic, and sectional crisis into a narrow moral slogan, yet the period’s own documents show that the conflict was deeply entangled with tariffs, revenue, commerce, and the power of centralized government. In that light, the Southern view of the crisis was that the federal Compact had been transformed into an engine of sectional domination, one that increasingly treated the Southern States less as equal members of a federation and more as tributary provinces to finance Northern interests. From this perspective, Lincoln’s War became not merely a contest over Union, but a War over economic control, fiscal power, and the Right of the States to resist coercive consolidation. Lincoln’s own conduct before and during the crisis further reveals how tangled the issues had become. Had the preservation of slavery truly been the sole or even the principal object of the conflict, one would be hard pressed to explain why his administration entertained Constitutional measures designed to protect slavery where it then existed. The Corwin Amendment, supported in the final months before war, sought to protect slavery from federal interference if the Southern States would remain in the Union, a deal that the South could have easily accepted had slavery been their sole or primary grievance, but which failed to address the real tyranny of economic subjugation. The significance of that fact is plain: the crisis was not reducible to a simple crusade against slavery, because Lincoln was willing to countenance slavery’s Constitutional protection if disunion could be avoided, even suggesting that if the Southern States returned to the Union he saw no reason why slavery could not continue “until the end of the Century” under the South’s own prominent gradual phase-out plan. At the same time, the South could reasonably argue that if slavery alone were the issue, then a Constitutional guarantee would have removed the grievance; instead, the deeper conflict was over Sovereignty, fiscal policy, and whether the States were to remain equal parties to a Compact or be held inside an increasingly consolidated nation-state. The revenue question lies at the center of this interpretation, with Lincoln himself revealing the fiscal stakes when reportedly asking, “What then will become of my tariff?”, a question that captured Northern panic over losing the South’s customs revenue, which funded nearly the entire federal government. The anxiety of the Northern mercantile class was raw and immediate. As the Daily Chicago Times argued on December 10, 1860, the economic consequences of disunion were viewed as an existential threat to Northern prosperity: “In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it is now. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufacturers would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system or that of a tariff for revenue and these results would likely follow.” This fear was echoed by other Northern outlets, which framed the maintenance of federal authority not as an act of political hegemony, but as an absolute necessity for revenue collection. The same paper articulated the necessity of military intervention at vital ports, noting: “The government cannot well avoid collecting the federal revenues at all Southern Ports, even after the passage of secession ordinances; and if this duty is discharged, any State which assumes a rebellious attitude will still be obligated to contribute revenue to support the federal government or have her foreign commerce entirely destroyed.” Southern leaders were quick to identify these threats as the true mask behind the veil of “Union.” They viewed the federal government not as a partner, but as a mechanism for siphoning wealth from the agricultural South to build the industrial North. In the House of Representatives, John H. Reagan of Texas captured this sentiment with biting clarity, describing the economic burden placed upon his people: “You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue laws... You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange... You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of Northern Capitalist.” Abraham Lincoln’s own political economic philosophy, deeply tied to the protectionist interests of the Republican Party, bridged this divide between editorial anxiety and legislative policy. By the time of his inauguration, the Morrill Tariff was already taking shape as the premier instrument of the new administration's policy, designed to shield Northern manufacturing from foreign competition at the expense of Southern importers. His remark that the tariff was “to the government what a meal is to the family” underscored a reality that Southern States felt acutely: their Secession would starve the federal government of the very revenue it required to function. As the crisis deepened, foreign observers and domestic critics alike noted that the rhetoric of liberty was increasingly being used to justify an expansive state power that looked more like the regimes of Europe than the republic of the Founders. The Quarterly Review of Britain highlighted this transformation, noting that under Lincoln, the government had become a land of "conscriptions, of press censorship and post-office espionage," where the preservation of the central government took precedence over the Sovereignty of the States. To the South, the message was clear: the war was not just a defense of a map, but a defense of an economic empire. Ultimately, the Secession of the South represented a threat that the Northern establishment could not ignore without inviting its own ruin. The Northern economy was so tightly integrated with the tariff-driven extraction of Southern wealth that the loss of the South meant the loss of their own industrial foundation. When the forts were held and the blockade was ordered, it was the final, violent insistence that the federal revenue machine would not be denied, regardless of the cost in blood. In Liberty and Eternal Vigilance, C.M.McAteer October 7, 2013 Links updated 2022 References Daily Chicago Times-December 10, 1860, via HardcoreConfederates.com “The Tariff as a Motive For Secession,” Abbeville Institute. 3. Abraham Lincoln’s Speech at Pittsburgh, February 15, 1861, House Divided Project-Dickinson College. 4“The Civil War Tariff,” Mises Institute. The Cost of the High Tariffs and Protectionism Was Wa, LSU Scholarly Repository. “Tariffs and the American Civil War,” Essential Civil War Curriculum. “Abraham Lincoln and the Tariff,” Abraham Lincoln’s Classroom. Morrill Tariffs - Hardcoreconfederates.com https://www.hardcoreconfederates.com/morrill-tariffs The Tariff as a Motive For Secession - Abbeville Institute https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/the-tariff-as-a.../ The Civil War Tariff - Mises Institute https://mises.org/mises-daily/civil-war-tariff Tariffs and the American Civil War https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/tariffs-and... The Cost Of The High Tariffs And Protectionism Was War https://repository.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi... Abraham Lincoln and the Tariff https://www.abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/.../index.html Abraham Lincoln's Speech at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, February 15 ... https://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/25128

View Less