I guess I’m having to overcome a degree of cognitive
dissonance here as I have never given much thought to any influence the
socialist or communist ideology may have had on US political leaders in the mid
1800’s. Considering the time frame of
Lincoln’s rise to power in the US and the attempts of communist revolutions in
Europe, coupled with Marx and Engle’s little book being published about the
same time, I can certainly see how some of the philosophy might spill over into
America during that time.
Collectivism is not a “new” concept in America.
The puritans all signed a charter while still onboard the Mayflower that
was basically a primitive form of communist arraignment in the colonies. They worked on a system of common land
tillage, stored their production in a common warehouse and drew from the common
storage to survive.
Interestingly enough, these same New Englanders continued the threat of
secession all during the War of 1812 which they called “Mr. Madison’s war.” When the planters of the South made the same
threat in 1861 they suddenly became nationalist again. Again, as evident throughout history it just
depends on who’s economic ox is being gored.
I’ve read a good deal on these matters since my retirement 13 years ago. (the instruction I was deprived of as a
youth) I’ve been determined to approach these “studies” from the most unbiased
position I can as a human. There are
those on both sides of the issues during the period 1861-1865 (and beyond) who are
fixed and unmovable in their positions as to what actually happened and were
the cause of the war. I personally have
concluded that the cause is the State itself.
I speak of the institution itself, its purpose and nature. (but that’s for another place and time) the most obvious direct reason in this case I
can find, is the distribution of wealth or rather who was getting the bulk of
the production into their pockets.
Slavery was but a single matter which was used effectively to stir
passion and action among several factions.
first, let me say that the State and government are not one in the same. The State is the land, people and recognition
of sovereignty. The government arises
from the state as the political means of administration. Governments change. We change it at every election. Government is composed of the people who
wield the power of the State over all citizens.
The less power the State has, the more power the people themselves have
and consequently the more power the State has the less power the people
have. Only people have the power to form
the State. The only way ANY State has
been formed in history is through one of two ways. Conquest or confiscation.
As an example, the king of England claimed ownership of the American Colonies. The people were HIS citizens. The colonist rebelled and defeated the King’s
army removing them from the land. They
conquered the King and confiscated his land. The Treaty of Paris codified this and each of
the 13 colonies was recognized as sovereign States. Through Articles of Confederation of the
several states representatives were sent to Paris and signed on behalf of all
the States. For 10 years until the Constitution
was ratified the nation operated as 13 sovereign States (or nations) in
congress with one another.
The Constitution changed things. Once ratified, it was out with the articles
of Confederation and the Declaration of Independence was just a historic
document. There was no thought of
“natural rights” or popular sovereignty and the never-ending topic of strong
central government vs States rights was begun.
I think it safe to say that Mr. Jefferson on his return from France was
not happy with the Constitution. He
envisioned a government that was national in foreign affairs and non-national
in domestic affairs. But it was what it
was and he dealt with that the best he could.
in the 1930’s Jay Nock wrote of the Constitutional
Convention;
“The further task therefore, in Madison’s phrase, was to “administration” the
constitution into such absolutist modes as would secure economic supremacy, by
a free use of the political means, to the groups which made up the first
division. (Moneyed and banking interest)
This was accordingly done. For the first ten years of its existence the
constitution remained in the
hands of its makers for administration in the directions most favourable to
their interests. For an
accurate understanding of the newly- erected system’s economic tendencies, too
much stress can
not be laid on the fact that for these ten critical years “the machinery of
economic and political
power was mainly directed by the men who had conceived and established it.
Washington, who had been chairman of the convention, was elected President.
Nearly half the
Senate was made up of men who had been delegates, and the House of
Representatives was
largely made up of men who had to do with the drafting or ratifying of the
constitution. Hamilton,
Randolph and Knox, who were active in promoting the document, filled three of
the four positions
in the Cabinet; and all the federal judgeships, without a single exception,
were filled by men who
had a hand in the business of drafting or of ratification, or both.”
The economic die was cast and the agrarian South was in my opinion odd man out
from the beginning.
Lest we forget that it was a bountiful business in the North for the carriage
and sale of slaves imported from the African continent. Money and financial affairs flowed for many
years to banking interest in New York just as it still does today.
The new nation enjoyed free trade among the several states. Raw material for factories in the north
flowed out of the south. Agriculture and
commerce grew in the south. It took only
8 years before moneyed interest in the north decided a tariff was a good
idea. The idea was to severely restrict
foreign vessels and favor US vessels thereby growing the trade and ship
building in New England. It worked and
earnings of the northern shipping interest grew from around $6 million to over
$42 million by 1807.
The war of 1812 hit New England the hardest.
That’s why they threatened secession and referred to it as Mr. Madison’s
war. After the war the British used the port of New
York as a dumping ground for products from abroad and nearly bankrupted the
area. Through a clever arraignment of
the routing of southern cargo, New York shavers were able to extract about 40
cent of every dollar spent on southern cotton.
During the 1850’s US trade had risen to $318 million dollars and tripled
that in the next decade.
By now, the south accounted for 2/3 of the nation’s exports
and cotton alone 60%.
