 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 417, May 13, 2007 "Hi Mom!"
Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
Editor: Mr. Perez, in his letter published 6 May 2007 states, "Regardless of what either side says, the point of the War was whether the United States would be ruled and North America be dominated by the Southern Planter class or the Northern factory owners." Unfortunately, Mr. Perez, like so many others in this country, do not understand the aims of the Confederacy. The Confederacy was no more trying to rule the United States, than the original 13 colonies were trying to rule Great Britain. Yes there were differences between the regions. One of those differences was who got hit more with "tariffs" (import duties). The South often found it cheaper to purchase manufactured items from abroad, rather than purchasing from the North. The congress, then being dominated by representatives from the northern industrial states, passed a protectionist tariff on imported goods that hit the south much harder than the north. The funds realized from this tariff were then disproportionately used for improvements in the northern, rather than southern states. This, among other perceived practices and policies, led the southern states to feel they no longer had an equal place in the Union, and wanted to go their own way. Indeed, in both his farewell to Congress as a Senator from Mississippi, and his Inaugural Address, Jefferson Davis stated he hoped war could be avoided, and the southern states left in peace. Hardly the words of someone whose class wanted to rule the United States and dominate North America. Dennis Kabaczy
To which Albert Perez replied: One of these days track what percentage of Presidents, Cabinet members, committee chairmen in Congress, senior military officers and so on came from the Southern Planter class before the War of Yankee Aggression. Most Southerners may have believed they were fighting for the right to to control their fate, and I like Booby Lee better as a human being and a soldier than most, if not all, of the Generals he faced. However, Johnny Reb was played for a mug (For that matter so was his Yankee counterpart.). The Planters believed that Yankee dependence on their cotton would have given them dominance even after a successful Secession. On the international level the US has dominated Latin Americas since the damned gachupines were run out, and good riddance I might add. If the Planters controlled the US that would have made them the dominant force in all the Americas. The original excessive tariff in the late 1820's/early 1830's was passed to provoke a fight with Andrew Jackson. Old Hickory should have shot Calhoun over it. Tariffs, States Rights, and Abolition were important issues to common Americans, but who ruled was the issue. I am not a Marxist in the sense of supporting state control of the means of production, involutary collectivism, and similar insults to evolution. That said, taken with a grain of salt his ideas on class struggle are useful for studying history, and the fight between Planters and Factory Owners is a classic example. Albert Perez
And later on Albert Perez also said: Dear Editor, Responding to people who called me on my last letter requires me to confess my sins and clarify my thoughts. I suck as a typist. I'm working on this. My email address is on this letter if you want to berate me on this. The Bill of Rights and other parts of the Constitution enumerates rights (including an admission that rights exist the goverment is required to respect even if they forgot to list them)of person under the jurisdiction of American law, both rights that are natural/God given/inherent in human nature (e.g. freedom of the press and RKBA) and rights granted under the Constitution (The right to vote at 18). The 14th Amendment requires that the several states respect both types of rights. If I seemed to give the impression that I am not aware of the inherent rights I apologize. I shall go forth to recite the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence and firmly resolve to sin no more. I realize that the 26th Amendment applies to the states as written and does not require the 14th Amendment to bind the states. However saying that people can vote at 18 instead of 19 or 21 is an example of the government giving a right (the franchise at a particular age) as opposed to promising to protect/respect an inherent right (for example, freedom to petition for redress of grievances.) I stick to my main point. Libertarians and other lovers of liberty must get more in the habit of invoking the 14th Amendment to help insure that people enjoy equal protection under the law. Re: my take on the War of Yankee Aggression, I stand by my semiMarxist take on its ultimate cause: a conflict between Southern Planters and Yankee Factory Owners to rule the US and use the Republic's growing power and influence to dominate North and South America. I want to point out that proving or refuting this thesis is good for a Master's or Doctorate. You might even get a best seller out of it, My creditors will be pleased if anyone who runs with this idea acknowledges my giving it to them with coin of the realm. Albert Perez
I'll believe in global warming when:
THEN I will believe there really IS a global warming! sincerely, Marc V. Ridenour
TLE AFFILIATE Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates. We cheerfully accept donations!
|
|
|
|
