When the U.S. Constitution was going through the ratification process, concerned citizens debated the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed federalist system. Advocates for a strong central government were deemed federalist, detractors were called anti-federalists when in fact it was just the opposite. The power of branding and distortion of words was as important back then as it is today. Laws and history aren’t immune.
The pseudonymous writer Brutus was considered an “anti-federalist.” He warned fellow citizens of unscrupulous judges
who would distort laws by the use of precedent.
Here is a quote:
Perhaps nothing could have been better conceived
to facilitate the abolition of the state governments than the constitution of
the judicial. They will be able to extend the limits of the general government
gradually, and by insensible degrees, and to accommodate themselves to the
temper of the people. Their decisions on the meaning of the constitution will
commonly take place in cases which arise between individuals, with which the
public will not be generally acquainted; one adjudication will form a precedent
to the next, and this to a following one. These cases will immediately affect
individuals only; so that a series of determinations will probably take place
before even the people will be informed of them. In the mean time all the art
and address of those who wish for the change will be employed to make converts
to their opinion.
That’s prescient.
We’ve witnessed this first hand with the 14th Amendment. We’ve watched Supreme Court justices
bastardize a law, that was meant to protect ex-slaves and their progeny while
at the same time punish southerners who tried to protect their homeland from
Yankee invaders, into a tool for gay rights, forcing local communities to educate
illegal alien children and banishing Christianity from schools. If Brutus were alive today, he’d have a huge “I
told you so.”
After reading Empire of Cotton by Sven Beckert, I
began to wonder about the American Civil War and the propensity progressives
have for distorting history. Americans
have been indoctrinated into thinking this war was all about slavery and the preservation
of the Union. We know that a majority of
northerners wouldn’t have fought to free the slaves. The New York City riots were a testament to
that. The real reasons should be more
obvious: money and power.
We can start with the Tariff of Abominations that
passed in 1828. The intent was to
protect northern industrial interest at Southerners expense by imposing
outrageous duties on British imports, mainly textiles. The South almost seceded from the Union which
forced a compromise in 1832.
By 1860, the South was responsible for 3/5ths of
all U.S. exports and ¾’s of the world’s cotton crop. Raw Cotton alone constituted 61% of the value
of all U.S. exports. Indeed, the supply
of raw cotton to European and U.S. manufactures had “become a question of life
or death for tens of thousands of workers, a question of prosperity or misery
for all the developed industrial countries.”
This led to one planter to brag:
“Our Cotton is the most wonderful talisman in the
world. By its power we are transmuting whatever we choose into whatever we want.” James
Hammond, speaking in the U.S. Senate five years later, was even more trenchant: “The slaveholding South is now the controlling power of the
world. Cotton, rice, tobacco, and naval stores command the world.... No -power
on earth dares . . . to make war on cotton. Cotton is king.”
The northeastern United States was heavily dependent
on Southern cotton. By the time of the
Civil War 41% of the American labor force worked outside of agriculture. Massachusetts had only 13.8% working on farms
due to industrialization. As you can
see, Southern secession could have caused a huge cotton shortage and a possible
loss of a market for northern finished goods, not to mention a substantial loss
of revenue for the U.S. treasury. Compound that with punitive duties to pay off
Confederate war debt, the Northern government would have lost a substantial amount of wealth had the South
succeeded in its endeavor for independence.
So we must ask ourselves, did the North invade the
South for Union and altruism, or did they come to conquer for pure greed, power
and self-interest?
We must keep in mind judges use precedent to advance progressive policies and historians source their fellow travelers to advance a leftist ideology. And the distorted world turns around and around.
We must keep in mind judges use precedent to advance progressive policies and historians source their fellow travelers to advance a leftist ideology. And the distorted world turns around and around.
Source:
